Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

[#TopTier] [#NutWorthy] #Question - when did the term #Gays & #Blacks become acceptable in OUR community? #GAYPORN #GAYSEX #SEX #RAWPORN #RAWSEX #RAWISLAW #PORN #BLACKPORN #BLACKSEX #BLACKLOVE #GAYBLACKPORN #BLACKGAYPORN #GAY #BOYFRIENDS #SEX #RAWDICK #BIGBLACKDICK #GNX

GPChannel166515's profile picture

Black Porn Clips

41,086 subscribers

64,330 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#TopTier#NutWorthy#Question#Gays#Blacks#GAYPORN#GAYSEX#SEX#RAWPORN#RAWSEX#RAWISLAW#PORN#BLACKPORN#BLACKSEX#BLACKLOVE#GAYBLACKPORN#BLACKGAYPORN#GAY#BOYFRIENDS#SEX#RAWDICK#BIGBLACKDICK#GNX
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

When did “career politician” become an acceptable job in America? The longer politicians stay in Washington, the worse they get. Complacency replaces conviction. Comfort replaces courage. And voters pay the price. When John Cornyn entered politics, I was 11 months old. Now he’s asking Texans for a fifth term while refusing to defend a record that’s indefensible for a Republican from Texas. Public service was never meant to be a lifetime appointment. You serve. You make hard decisions. You go home. You live with the laws you passed. That’s what the Founders intended. Our institutions are broken because too many politicians treat office like a retirement plan. I’m running to give the best years of my life to Texas, to codify the Trump agenda Texans voted for, and to make sure our state never becomes the California of the South. I’ve term-limited myself already. Two terms. Twelve years. Then I pass the torch. The U.S. Senate isn’t a retirement community. And it’s not owned by the establishment.
2:59

When did “career politician” become an acceptable job in America? The longer politicians stay in Washington, the worse they get. Complacency replaces conviction. Comfort replaces courage. And voters pay the price. When John Cornyn entered politics, I was 11 months old. Now he’s asking Texans for a fifth term while refusing to defend a record that’s indefensible for a Republican from Texas. Public service was never meant to be a lifetime appointment. You serve. You make hard decisions. You go home. You live with the laws you passed. That’s what the Founders intended. Our institutions are broken because too many politicians treat office like a retirement plan. I’m running to give the best years of my life to Texas, to codify the Trump agenda Texans voted for, and to make sure our state never becomes the California of the South. I’ve term-limited myself already. Two terms. Twelve years. Then I pass the torch. The U.S. Senate isn’t a retirement community. And it’s not owned by the establishment.

Wesley Hunt

16,785 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

I just watched a shocking video of young kids completely tearing apart a fast-food restaurant—throwing heavy chairs, swinging sticks, and violently attacking each other right in the middle of the dining room. It begs a serious, heartbreaking question: Is this how we are raising our youth today? This isn't just "kids being kids." This is reckless, destructive behavior that puts innocent employees, bystanders, and families in immediate danger just for trying to get a meal. When did it become acceptable to resolve conflicts by destroying public property and turning a local restaurant into a warzone? The black community needs to take hard look in the mirror and ask—is this the future mothers and fathers want for their children? Because this kind of out-of-control violence only leads down one of two paths: a jail cell or a hospital bed. They need parents, mentors, and communities to step up, hold these kids accountable, and guide them before they completely throw their futures away.
0:41

I just watched a shocking video of young kids completely tearing apart a fast-food restaurant—throwing heavy chairs, swinging sticks, and violently attacking each other right in the middle of the dining room. It begs a serious, heartbreaking question: Is this how we are raising our youth today? This isn't just "kids being kids." This is reckless, destructive behavior that puts innocent employees, bystanders, and families in immediate danger just for trying to get a meal. When did it become acceptable to resolve conflicts by destroying public property and turning a local restaurant into a warzone? The black community needs to take hard look in the mirror and ask—is this the future mothers and fathers want for their children? Because this kind of out-of-control violence only leads down one of two paths: a jail cell or a hospital bed. They need parents, mentors, and communities to step up, hold these kids accountable, and guide them before they completely throw their futures away.

just me 🇺🇸 🇮🇱

34,030 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

When politicians tell you they’re Christians, it makes you wonder if Jesus endorses greed, violence and arrogance. Russell Brand answers that question in his new book, How to Become a Christian in 7 Days. 0:00 Image, Ego, and How the Word Changes You 13:38 The Forces of Good and Evil at Work 19:44 What Is Prayer? 28:02 Our Duty Amid a Global Totalitarian Nightmare 37:30 The Issue With Putting Sex at the Center of Life 42:22 A Church Without Judgment and Being Made With Purpose 49:50 Did Russell Become a Christian in 7 Days? 57:00 Facing Allegations and Who Controls the Narrative 1:02:59 Russell's Plan to Run for Mayor of London 1:17:07 Russell’s Baptism and Facing Criticism 1:23:45 Ritual Killing and the Dark Side of Power 1:30:57 Moving to Humility and Righteousness 1:38:01 Russell’s Campaign and the End of Elitist Rule
1:48:09

When politicians tell you they’re Christians, it makes you wonder if Jesus endorses greed, violence and arrogance. Russell Brand answers that question in his new book, How to Become a Christian in 7 Days. 0:00 Image, Ego, and How the Word Changes You 13:38 The Forces of Good and Evil at Work 19:44 What Is Prayer? 28:02 Our Duty Amid a Global Totalitarian Nightmare 37:30 The Issue With Putting Sex at the Center of Life 42:22 A Church Without Judgment and Being Made With Purpose 49:50 Did Russell Become a Christian in 7 Days? 57:00 Facing Allegations and Who Controls the Narrative 1:02:59 Russell's Plan to Run for Mayor of London 1:17:07 Russell’s Baptism and Facing Criticism 1:23:45 Ritual Killing and the Dark Side of Power 1:30:57 Moving to Humility and Righteousness 1:38:01 Russell’s Campaign and the End of Elitist Rule

Tucker Carlson

860,356 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

“Bill Maher exposes the chilling stat about British Muslims that leftist activists are completely ignoring.” Bill Maher: Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote an op-ed in the New York Times and said when it comes to the pay gap, abortion access, and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we're still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery, or female genital mutilation. She was calling out the four Democratic women senators who would not even bring her issue to the floor. Maajid Nawaz: This is a real problem. We have surveys that look at British Muslim attitudes to homosexuality. One in The Guardian reported that 0% of British Muslims said homosexuality is morally acceptable. A later ICM poll said 52% of British Muslims said that they would ban homosexuality. Yet at the same time, you've got leftist activists who are very concerned about gay rights within white communities. There are gay Muslims who need our help, feminist Muslims, liberal Muslims, ex-Muslims. Bill Maher: I'm always so confused about this. These are liberal principles. In Chechnya, a spokesman for their leader said, “If such people existed in Chechnya” meaning gay people “law enforcement would not have to worry about them as their own relatives would have sent them to where they could never return.” Maajid Nawaz: The link between these attitudes and ISIS throwing gays off the top of buildings must be recognized. If you have these attitudes towards gays, women, or ex-Muslims and you see what ISIS is doing to them, that's the link we need to be making. Bill Maher: Most Muslims are not ISIS, of course. But size matters. How big is the number of those who are jihadists people who are actually violent versus islamists, versus conservatives? Maajid Nawaz: After three jihadist attacks in the UK, the security services said we only have the capacity to monitor 3,000 suspected jihadists at any one time. Then they said, however, we really need to be monitoring 23,000, because that's how many there are out there in the United Kingdom. 23,000 jihadists ready to attack. Around those 23,000, imagine how many more are ideological bedfellows.
4:53

“Bill Maher exposes the chilling stat about British Muslims that leftist activists are completely ignoring.” Bill Maher: Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote an op-ed in the New York Times and said when it comes to the pay gap, abortion access, and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we're still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery, or female genital mutilation. She was calling out the four Democratic women senators who would not even bring her issue to the floor. Maajid Nawaz: This is a real problem. We have surveys that look at British Muslim attitudes to homosexuality. One in The Guardian reported that 0% of British Muslims said homosexuality is morally acceptable. A later ICM poll said 52% of British Muslims said that they would ban homosexuality. Yet at the same time, you've got leftist activists who are very concerned about gay rights within white communities. There are gay Muslims who need our help, feminist Muslims, liberal Muslims, ex-Muslims. Bill Maher: I'm always so confused about this. These are liberal principles. In Chechnya, a spokesman for their leader said, “If such people existed in Chechnya” meaning gay people “law enforcement would not have to worry about them as their own relatives would have sent them to where they could never return.” Maajid Nawaz: The link between these attitudes and ISIS throwing gays off the top of buildings must be recognized. If you have these attitudes towards gays, women, or ex-Muslims and you see what ISIS is doing to them, that's the link we need to be making. Bill Maher: Most Muslims are not ISIS, of course. But size matters. How big is the number of those who are jihadists people who are actually violent versus islamists, versus conservatives? Maajid Nawaz: After three jihadist attacks in the UK, the security services said we only have the capacity to monitor 3,000 suspected jihadists at any one time. Then they said, however, we really need to be monitoring 23,000, because that's how many there are out there in the United Kingdom. 23,000 jihadists ready to attack. Around those 23,000, imagine how many more are ideological bedfellows.

Jeff

146,508 görüntüleme • 26 gün önce

“Our 15-year-old is having sex… and my husband is furious.” Caller: “A couple of weeks ago, my husband and I discovered that our 15 year old daughter had been sneaking her boyfriend into her bedroom through the window. Then we found out this wasn’t the first time. They had been sexually active in her bedroom across the hall from ours on multiple occasions. We took her cell phone. Took her bedroom door off. No driving privileges. And she can’t participate in any after-school activities for the rest of the year.” Dr. John Delony: “You took away her phone, her door, her privacy, and her connection to her friends. A 15 year old girl who is sneaking a boy into her room and is sexually active is a body screaming for connection. The solution can’t be less connection. It sounds like two adults got really embarrassed that they missed something happening right across the hallway and then used all of their power.” And that’s where this gets uncomfortable. The hard truth: The parents weren’t wrong to be alarmed. But punishment can become a way for embarrassed parents to regain control instead of actually solving the problem. Their daughter broke a serious boundary. That requires consequences. But consequences and isolation aren’t the same thing. If you remove every source of privacy, friendship, transportation, activities, and communication, you might stop the behavior temporarily. But you haven’t necessarily addressed why she was willing to risk getting caught in the first place. And there’s another uncomfortable question: How did two parents discover that their 15-year-old had been sexually active multiple times only after the fact? That question hurts because it turns the spotlight back on the adults. The goal isn’t to make her afraid of her parents. It’s to make her know that when something goes wrong, her parents are the people she can run toward not the people she has to hide from. You can hold a hard boundary and still keep the relationship open. Because parenting isn’t about proving who has the most power. It’s about using your power to build a child who eventually knows how to make good decisions when you aren’t standing in the room.
4:12

Sensitive content

“Our 15-year-old is having sex… and my husband is furious.” Caller: “A couple of weeks ago, my husband and I discovered that our 15 year old daughter had been sneaking her boyfriend into her bedroom through the window. Then we found out this wasn’t the first time. They had been sexually active in her bedroom across the hall from ours on multiple occasions. We took her cell phone. Took her bedroom door off. No driving privileges. And she can’t participate in any after-school activities for the rest of the year.” Dr. John Delony: “You took away her phone, her door, her privacy, and her connection to her friends. A 15 year old girl who is sneaking a boy into her room and is sexually active is a body screaming for connection. The solution can’t be less connection. It sounds like two adults got really embarrassed that they missed something happening right across the hallway and then used all of their power.” And that’s where this gets uncomfortable. The hard truth: The parents weren’t wrong to be alarmed. But punishment can become a way for embarrassed parents to regain control instead of actually solving the problem. Their daughter broke a serious boundary. That requires consequences. But consequences and isolation aren’t the same thing. If you remove every source of privacy, friendship, transportation, activities, and communication, you might stop the behavior temporarily. But you haven’t necessarily addressed why she was willing to risk getting caught in the first place. And there’s another uncomfortable question: How did two parents discover that their 15-year-old had been sexually active multiple times only after the fact? That question hurts because it turns the spotlight back on the adults. The goal isn’t to make her afraid of her parents. It’s to make her know that when something goes wrong, her parents are the people she can run toward not the people she has to hide from. You can hold a hard boundary and still keep the relationship open. Because parenting isn’t about proving who has the most power. It’s about using your power to build a child who eventually knows how to make good decisions when you aren’t standing in the room.

Davecryps

410,090 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

President Xi’s New Year Address On New Year's Eve, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered his 2026 New Year message through China Media Group and the internet. The following is the full text of the message: Greetings to all! Year after year, life opens a fresh chapter. As the new year begins, I extend my best wishes to you from Beijing! The year 2025 marks the completion of China's 14th Five-Year Plan for economic and social development. Over the past five years, we have pressed ahead with enterprise and fortitude, and overcome many difficulties and challenges. We met the targets in the Plan and made solid advances on the new journey of Chinese modernization. Our economic output has crossed thresholds one after another, and it is expected to reach RMB 140 trillion yuan this year. Our economic strength, scientific and technological abilities, defense capabilities, and composite national strength all reached new heights. Clear waters and lush mountains have become a salient feature of our landscape. Our people enjoy a growing sense of gain, happiness and security. The past five years have been a truly remarkable journey, and our accomplishments have not come easily. Your unwavering hard work has made our nation thrive and prosper. I salute you all for your exceptional diligence and invaluable contributions. This year is full of indelible memories. We solemnly commemorated the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, and established the Taiwan Recovery Day. These grand national events were majestic and powerful, and the glory of victory will shine through the pages of history. They are inspiring all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation to remember history, honor fallen heroes, cherish peace, and create a better future. They are rallying a mighty force for the great rejuvenation of our nation. We sought to energize high-quality development through innovation. We integrated science and technology deeply with industries, and made a stream of new innovations. Many large AI models have been competing in a race to the top, and breakthroughs have been achieved in the research and development of our own chips. All this has turned China into one of the economies with the fastest growing innovation capabilities. The Tianwen-2 probe began its star-chasing journey to explore asteroids and comets. Construction of the hydropower project at the lower reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River started. China's first aircraft carrier equipped with an electromagnetic catapult system was officially commissioned. Humanoid robots did kung fu kicks, and drones performed spectacular light shows. Inventions and innovations have boosted new quality productive forces and added colorful dimensions to our lives. We endeavored to nurture our spiritual home with cultural development. There was a surging public interest in cultural relics, museums, and intangible cultural heritage. A new Chinese cultural site was added to the World Heritage List. Cultural IPs such as Wukong and Nezha became global hits. The younger generation came to deem classic Chinese culture as the finest form of aesthetic expression. The cultural and tourism sectors thrived. The "super league" football games in our cities and villages attracted numerous fans. Ice and snow sports ignited people's passion for the winter season. Tradition is now embracing modernity, and the Chinese culture is shining in even greater splendor. We joined hands to build a better life and enjoyed it together. I attended celebrations in Xizang and Xinjiang. From the snow-covered plateau to both sides of the Tianshan Mountains, people of various ethnic groups are united as one, like seeds of a pomegranate sticking together. With white khatas and passionate singing and dancing, they expressed their love of the motherland and the happiness they enjoy. No issue of the people is too small; we care for every leaf and tend every branch in the garden of people's well-being. Over the past year, the rights and interests of the workforce in new forms of employment have been better protected, facilities have been upgraded to bring more convenience to the elderly, and each family with childcare needs has received a subsidy of RMB 300 yuan per month. When the happy hum of daily life fills every home, the big family of our nation will go from strength to strength. We continued to embrace the world with open arms. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Tianjin and the Global Leaders' Meeting on Women were very successful; and island-wide special customs operations were launched in the Hainan Free Trade Port. To better address climate change, China announced new Nationally Determined Contributions. After announcing the three global initiatives on development, security, and civilization, I put forward the Global Governance Initiative to promote a more just and equitable global governance system. The world today is undergoing both changes and turbulence, and some regions are still engulfed in war. China always stands on the right side of history, and is ready to work with all countries to advance world peace and development and build a community with a shared future for humanity. Not long ago, I attended the opening ceremony of the National Games, and I was glad to see Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao coming together in unity and acting in unison. We should unswervingly implement the policy of One Country, Two Systems, and support Hong Kong and Macao in better integrating into the overall development of our country and maintaining long-term prosperity and stability. We Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait share a bond of blood and kinship. The reunification of our motherland, a trend of the times, is unstoppable! Only a strong Communist Party of China can make our country strong. We launched the study and education program on fully implementing the central Party leadership's eight-point decision on improving Party and government conduct. We exercised strict governance of the Party through credible measures, and promoted the Party's self-revolution to fight corruption and advance healthy governance. As a result, the conduct of our Party and government steadily improved. We must stay true to our original aspiration and founding mission, and pursue our goal with perseverance and dedication. We should continue to give a good answer to the question on how to maintain long-term governance put forth in a cave dwelling in Yan'an and prove ourselves worthy of the people's expectation in the new era. The year 2026 marks the beginning of the 15th Five-Year Plan. A successful venture should start with a good plan and with clear goals set. We should focus on our goals and tasks, boost confidence, and build momentum to press ahead. We should take solid steps to promote high-quality development, further deepen reform and opening up across the board, deliver prosperity for all, and write a new chapter in the story of China's miracle. The dream lofty, the journey long-bold strides will get us there. Let us charge ahead like horses with courage, vitality, and energy, fight for our dreams and our happiness, and turn our great vision into beautiful realities. The sun of the new year will soon rise. May our great motherland stand in magnificence! May the fields across the country deliver good harvest! May our nation bathe in the glory of the morning! May you all enjoy life to the fullest, and achieve every success! May all your dreams come true!
9:04

President Xi’s New Year Address On New Year's Eve, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered his 2026 New Year message through China Media Group and the internet. The following is the full text of the message: Greetings to all! Year after year, life opens a fresh chapter. As the new year begins, I extend my best wishes to you from Beijing! The year 2025 marks the completion of China's 14th Five-Year Plan for economic and social development. Over the past five years, we have pressed ahead with enterprise and fortitude, and overcome many difficulties and challenges. We met the targets in the Plan and made solid advances on the new journey of Chinese modernization. Our economic output has crossed thresholds one after another, and it is expected to reach RMB 140 trillion yuan this year. Our economic strength, scientific and technological abilities, defense capabilities, and composite national strength all reached new heights. Clear waters and lush mountains have become a salient feature of our landscape. Our people enjoy a growing sense of gain, happiness and security. The past five years have been a truly remarkable journey, and our accomplishments have not come easily. Your unwavering hard work has made our nation thrive and prosper. I salute you all for your exceptional diligence and invaluable contributions. This year is full of indelible memories. We solemnly commemorated the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, and established the Taiwan Recovery Day. These grand national events were majestic and powerful, and the glory of victory will shine through the pages of history. They are inspiring all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation to remember history, honor fallen heroes, cherish peace, and create a better future. They are rallying a mighty force for the great rejuvenation of our nation. We sought to energize high-quality development through innovation. We integrated science and technology deeply with industries, and made a stream of new innovations. Many large AI models have been competing in a race to the top, and breakthroughs have been achieved in the research and development of our own chips. All this has turned China into one of the economies with the fastest growing innovation capabilities. The Tianwen-2 probe began its star-chasing journey to explore asteroids and comets. Construction of the hydropower project at the lower reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River started. China's first aircraft carrier equipped with an electromagnetic catapult system was officially commissioned. Humanoid robots did kung fu kicks, and drones performed spectacular light shows. Inventions and innovations have boosted new quality productive forces and added colorful dimensions to our lives. We endeavored to nurture our spiritual home with cultural development. There was a surging public interest in cultural relics, museums, and intangible cultural heritage. A new Chinese cultural site was added to the World Heritage List. Cultural IPs such as Wukong and Nezha became global hits. The younger generation came to deem classic Chinese culture as the finest form of aesthetic expression. The cultural and tourism sectors thrived. The "super league" football games in our cities and villages attracted numerous fans. Ice and snow sports ignited people's passion for the winter season. Tradition is now embracing modernity, and the Chinese culture is shining in even greater splendor. We joined hands to build a better life and enjoyed it together. I attended celebrations in Xizang and Xinjiang. From the snow-covered plateau to both sides of the Tianshan Mountains, people of various ethnic groups are united as one, like seeds of a pomegranate sticking together. With white khatas and passionate singing and dancing, they expressed their love of the motherland and the happiness they enjoy. No issue of the people is too small; we care for every leaf and tend every branch in the garden of people's well-being. Over the past year, the rights and interests of the workforce in new forms of employment have been better protected, facilities have been upgraded to bring more convenience to the elderly, and each family with childcare needs has received a subsidy of RMB 300 yuan per month. When the happy hum of daily life fills every home, the big family of our nation will go from strength to strength. We continued to embrace the world with open arms. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Tianjin and the Global Leaders' Meeting on Women were very successful; and island-wide special customs operations were launched in the Hainan Free Trade Port. To better address climate change, China announced new Nationally Determined Contributions. After announcing the three global initiatives on development, security, and civilization, I put forward the Global Governance Initiative to promote a more just and equitable global governance system. The world today is undergoing both changes and turbulence, and some regions are still engulfed in war. China always stands on the right side of history, and is ready to work with all countries to advance world peace and development and build a community with a shared future for humanity. Not long ago, I attended the opening ceremony of the National Games, and I was glad to see Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao coming together in unity and acting in unison. We should unswervingly implement the policy of One Country, Two Systems, and support Hong Kong and Macao in better integrating into the overall development of our country and maintaining long-term prosperity and stability. We Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait share a bond of blood and kinship. The reunification of our motherland, a trend of the times, is unstoppable! Only a strong Communist Party of China can make our country strong. We launched the study and education program on fully implementing the central Party leadership's eight-point decision on improving Party and government conduct. We exercised strict governance of the Party through credible measures, and promoted the Party's self-revolution to fight corruption and advance healthy governance. As a result, the conduct of our Party and government steadily improved. We must stay true to our original aspiration and founding mission, and pursue our goal with perseverance and dedication. We should continue to give a good answer to the question on how to maintain long-term governance put forth in a cave dwelling in Yan'an and prove ourselves worthy of the people's expectation in the new era. The year 2026 marks the beginning of the 15th Five-Year Plan. A successful venture should start with a good plan and with clear goals set. We should focus on our goals and tasks, boost confidence, and build momentum to press ahead. We should take solid steps to promote high-quality development, further deepen reform and opening up across the board, deliver prosperity for all, and write a new chapter in the story of China's miracle. The dream lofty, the journey long-bold strides will get us there. Let us charge ahead like horses with courage, vitality, and energy, fight for our dreams and our happiness, and turn our great vision into beautiful realities. The sun of the new year will soon rise. May our great motherland stand in magnificence! May the fields across the country deliver good harvest! May our nation bathe in the glory of the morning! May you all enjoy life to the fullest, and achieve every success! May all your dreams come true!

China Perspective

27,604 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

I predicted it. Today’s verdict in the Diddy case is nothing less than a complete and total failure by the prosecution in what I previously described as the most expensive prostitution trial in American history. The jury didn’t believe any of the victims. Cassie was discredited because of her emails and text messages saying she enjoyed the freak-offs. Mia didn’t tell law enforcement or prosecutors that she was sexually assaulted, and she posted on social media that she loved Diddy. Jane accepted money and gifts from Diddy, and he continues to pay her rent, so the jurors concluded that she knew what she was getting herself into and that it was a transactional relationship. The sex trafficking charges were weak because of the overwhelming evidence of consent. The prosecution’s only real chance of a victory was racketeering and proving a non-sex-related predicate acts like kidnapping, arson, extortion, or bribery. The fact that the jury even rejected that argument shows the many flaws in the prosecution’s case. The government made a number of fatal self-induced errors. They included Gina in the indictment as victim 3 when they didn’t have assurances that she would show up, and she went missing days before the trial. They failed to lean on and flip key members of Diddy’s inner circle like KK and D-ROC. They didn’t anticipate that the victims’ messages and social media posts would be used against them and failed to elicit the bad testimony during their direct examination to take the sting out of cross. The prosecution didn’t call any of the sexual assault victims who filed civil lawsuits, who did not have a romantic or professional relationship with Diddy. Victims who were minors couldn’t consent, so that avoids the defense’s best argument. And victims who don’t have a relationship with Diddy wouldn’t have messages expressing admiration for him. The big question in the case was why the victims stayed if they were abused? The prosecution failed to answer that question. Expert witness Dawn Hughes is now 0-2 in high profile trials, having failed to convince jurors in the Amber Heard case. By the way, the prosecution in the Harvey Weinstein retrial also failed to answer that question, and it was a setback for the #MeToo movement. Let me be clear. I believe the victims. But if you come for the king, you best not miss. And today was a huge miss by the DOJ. This case will have a chilling effect on other victims coming forward. Imagine telling jurors you were urinated on, forced to take drugs until you threw up, and to have sex on your period and UTI, and they don’t believe you? They had to relive their trauma in a very public and embarrassing way, and you better believe other victims will hesitate to do the same if they won’t be believed. I was surprised Judge Subramanian denied Diddy bail today. Diddy should be a free man, and he is not a risk of flight or a danger to the community. I expect the defense to appeal the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rather than wait for the October 3 sentencing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if an appellate panel reverses the detention order. We’re talking about prostitution here. It is not a serious crime and is rarely prosecuted by the Feds. I put more than a thousand people in federal prison, I never charged the Mann Act. And in theory, if Diddy is guilty of prostitution, so are Cassie and Jane. They communicated with the sex workers directly, set up the freak-offs and hotel nights, and paid them cash or through Zelle or CashApp. I’m not suggesting that Cassie or Jane be prosecuted, but to just show how absurd it is to hold Diddy in custody on prostitution convictions alone. Ex ante, no prosecutor would have charged Diddy with just prostitution, and even if they had, no judge would have denied bail for such a minor offense. Even though the Mann Act carries a potential 10 year maximum sentence on each count, Diddy should get time served or close to it. His sentencing guideline range on the prostitution charges alone is at worst 21-27 months. The government is trying to backdoor the uncharged and even acquitted conduct to get to a much higher range of 51-63 months because of our purported coercion and violence. 4-5 years in federal prison is unjust, and is sour grapes by prosecutors who are unwilling to accept the jury verdict. This is why people think Diddy is being railroaded and treated unfairly. Being a prosecutor is not about wins and losses; it’s about pursuing justice. The jury has spoken, and prosecutors in the prestigious Southern District of New York should take this very embarrassing loss and move on.
6:07

I predicted it. Today’s verdict in the Diddy case is nothing less than a complete and total failure by the prosecution in what I previously described as the most expensive prostitution trial in American history. The jury didn’t believe any of the victims. Cassie was discredited because of her emails and text messages saying she enjoyed the freak-offs. Mia didn’t tell law enforcement or prosecutors that she was sexually assaulted, and she posted on social media that she loved Diddy. Jane accepted money and gifts from Diddy, and he continues to pay her rent, so the jurors concluded that she knew what she was getting herself into and that it was a transactional relationship. The sex trafficking charges were weak because of the overwhelming evidence of consent. The prosecution’s only real chance of a victory was racketeering and proving a non-sex-related predicate acts like kidnapping, arson, extortion, or bribery. The fact that the jury even rejected that argument shows the many flaws in the prosecution’s case. The government made a number of fatal self-induced errors. They included Gina in the indictment as victim 3 when they didn’t have assurances that she would show up, and she went missing days before the trial. They failed to lean on and flip key members of Diddy’s inner circle like KK and D-ROC. They didn’t anticipate that the victims’ messages and social media posts would be used against them and failed to elicit the bad testimony during their direct examination to take the sting out of cross. The prosecution didn’t call any of the sexual assault victims who filed civil lawsuits, who did not have a romantic or professional relationship with Diddy. Victims who were minors couldn’t consent, so that avoids the defense’s best argument. And victims who don’t have a relationship with Diddy wouldn’t have messages expressing admiration for him. The big question in the case was why the victims stayed if they were abused? The prosecution failed to answer that question. Expert witness Dawn Hughes is now 0-2 in high profile trials, having failed to convince jurors in the Amber Heard case. By the way, the prosecution in the Harvey Weinstein retrial also failed to answer that question, and it was a setback for the #MeToo movement. Let me be clear. I believe the victims. But if you come for the king, you best not miss. And today was a huge miss by the DOJ. This case will have a chilling effect on other victims coming forward. Imagine telling jurors you were urinated on, forced to take drugs until you threw up, and to have sex on your period and UTI, and they don’t believe you? They had to relive their trauma in a very public and embarrassing way, and you better believe other victims will hesitate to do the same if they won’t be believed. I was surprised Judge Subramanian denied Diddy bail today. Diddy should be a free man, and he is not a risk of flight or a danger to the community. I expect the defense to appeal the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rather than wait for the October 3 sentencing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if an appellate panel reverses the detention order. We’re talking about prostitution here. It is not a serious crime and is rarely prosecuted by the Feds. I put more than a thousand people in federal prison, I never charged the Mann Act. And in theory, if Diddy is guilty of prostitution, so are Cassie and Jane. They communicated with the sex workers directly, set up the freak-offs and hotel nights, and paid them cash or through Zelle or CashApp. I’m not suggesting that Cassie or Jane be prosecuted, but to just show how absurd it is to hold Diddy in custody on prostitution convictions alone. Ex ante, no prosecutor would have charged Diddy with just prostitution, and even if they had, no judge would have denied bail for such a minor offense. Even though the Mann Act carries a potential 10 year maximum sentence on each count, Diddy should get time served or close to it. His sentencing guideline range on the prostitution charges alone is at worst 21-27 months. The government is trying to backdoor the uncharged and even acquitted conduct to get to a much higher range of 51-63 months because of our purported coercion and violence. 4-5 years in federal prison is unjust, and is sour grapes by prosecutors who are unwilling to accept the jury verdict. This is why people think Diddy is being railroaded and treated unfairly. Being a prosecutor is not about wins and losses; it’s about pursuing justice. The jury has spoken, and prosecutors in the prestigious Southern District of New York should take this very embarrassing loss and move on.

Neama Rahmani

34,699 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

In WPATH's Own Videos, Doctors Describe Billing Gender-Transition Care Under Alternative Diagnoses A psychiatrist called switching to "unspecified endocrine disorder" a way to "work around" the system. A Utah OB-GYN said she billed that way for 14 years. The Trump administration calls such coding fraud. When New York City’s Mt. Sinai Health System reached a settlement with the Justice Department last week to keep its pediatric gender clinic closed, much of the public debate over why the hospital had capitulated focused on the Trump administration’s efforts to obtain patient records via subpoena. This overlooked the mounting efforts by Republican lawmakers more broadly and the Trump administration in particular to leverage accusations of fraudulent medical billing to target doctors in this field and drum them out of providing gender-transition interventions to minors. A spokesperson for Mt. Sinai said last week: “The settlement is complex, but at its core reflects Mount Sinai’s commitment to safeguarding our patients’ confidential information and protecting our clinicians.” Those last few words, protecting our clinicians, at least theoretically could refer to protecting clinicians from prosecution or civil lawsuits for the use of non-gender-identity-related diagnosis and procedure codes when seeking reimbursement for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or gender-transition surgeries to treat gender dysphoria in minors. Last year, I obtained several hundred videos from conferences held by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and its US affiliate, USPATH, between 2021 and 2023. These videos were subject to a subpoena by the Alabama attorney general, Steve Marshall, as part of his defense in a lawsuit against the state’s ban on gender-transition interventions for minors. I covered how these videos portrayed the besieged field of pediatric gender medicine in a report for Compact magazine earlier this year and have been serially publishing key videos on my Substack since then. I have newly scoured these videos for conference speakers addressing the use of alternative procedure or diagnosis coding in transgender care. I found a number of examples, video clips of which I have published and analyzed below. None of them included speakers specifically referring to minors in the moments when they made such references to coding choices, mind you. But in at least some cases, the wider context of their presentations or their response to audience questions did not rule out that minors could be included in what they were suggesting or recalling about coding practices. In American medicine, physicians use diagnosis codes from the ICD system, which specify the condition being treated, and procedure codes known as CPT codes, which indicate the actions the physician took to treat the condition. These codes are integral to obtaining reimbursement for services. Insurers require diagnosis codes to serve as an appropriate justification for the corresponding procedure. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Aug. 13 published a scathing report bearing the incendiary title “Wolves In White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of ‘Gender Medicine.’” Much of the report is devoted to examining how leaders in pediatric gender medicine advocate the use of alternate codes when seeking insurance reimbursement for gender-transition interventions. These practices, the report asserts, have become widespread in this field. The report serves as an ominous warning to health care providers still practicing in what remains of a field that the Trump administration has seen considerable success in destroying outright. “When healthcare providers use fraudulent medical coding to obtain payment from the federal government,” the HHS report asserts, “they may be liable under the federal False Claims Act, which carries fines and imposes damages of ‘3 times the amount of damages which the government sustains.’” To follow federal regulations, the report asserts, physicians treating patients for transgender-related purposes are meant to use a number of ICD diagnosis codes related to gender identity, sex reassignment or “dual role transvestism.” But it has become common for medical providers to use alternate diagnosis codes, according to the report—in particular those related to endocrine disorders. This includes, the report states: “Endocrine disorder, unspecified,” coded as E34.9. Using this code in place of a gender-related diagnosis (e.g., gender identity disorder, F64.0) violates CMS guidelines for the simple reason that gender dysphoria is not an endocrine disorder, since it exhibits no hormonal abnormalities. In fact, the only endocrine disorders these patients have are the ones created by their doctors through the use of sex-rejecting interventions. Yet it appears that healthcare providers are misusing this code. In a 2016 studytitled “Identifying the Transgender Population in the Medicare Program,” CMS’s Office of Minority Health acknowledged that proxy diagnosis codes are being substituted for gender dysphoria. In the methods section, the authors explain that they included the ICD-9 diagnosis code for Unspecified Endocrine Disorder in their analysis because it is “frequently used by the transgender community to combat the perceived stigma of a GID diagnosis.” The report goes on to note that a 2023 study also finds such use of alternative billing codes. The report further notes an analysis of medical-claims data by Leor Sapir, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who studies pediatric gender medicine, that found an almost 30 percent increase in endocrine disorder, unspecified diagnoses in minors between 2020 and 2022. Dr. Sapir asserted in 2025 that this was likely the product of a “greater willingness” by medical providers to use endocrine disorder codes over gender identity disorder codes in pediatric care of patients with gender dysphoria. The authors of the HHS report analyzed health insurance databases covering 2015 to 2025 and found that insurers were billed nearly $50 million for puberty blockers for patients age nine to 17 under endocrine disorder codes, excluding precocious puberty. There was nearly $11 million in billing for 13- to 17-year-olds using a precocious puberty diagnosis code. The report asserts that “this data strongly suggests a pattern of potentially fraudulent billing that relies on miscoding for endocrine disorders to justify the prescription of puberty blockers.” WPATH, the report goes on to state, has promoted “the misleading use of several ICD-10 codes” in its training presentations. Teddy Goetz Dr. Teddy Goetz is a psychiatrist who currently works at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group. Dr. Goetz, who identifies as nonbinary, was a coeditor of a controversial text put out by the American Psychiatric Association’s publishing arm in 2023 outlining how to apply the gender-affirming method to the care of what these days are known as gender-expansive patients. Dr. Goetz spoke at USPATH’s 2021 conference. The moderator, taking an audience question, asked about how to move away from a distress-based model of care for transgender patients, in which it is required that they harbor distress related to their gender identity to qualify for a diagnosis that will justify gender-transition treatment. “We can think about it in the terms of billing codes,” Dr. Goetz replied. When a patient first presents, Dr. Goetz said, a doctor could use a gender dysphoria-related billing code to process a prescription for gender-transition treatment such as testosterone. But if this treatment ultimately attenuates the patient’s dysphoria, Dr. Goetz said, “Then you could switch your billing code to ‘unspecified endocrine disorder,’ for example, saying that their body produces less testosterone than it should for them to feel their best. So there are different ways that you can work around that. And thinking about moving towards euphoria and away from dysphoria.” Addressing a common conundrum that expands well beyond transgender medicine, Dr. Goetz continued: “But our current health care system in the United States is really set up against a preventive health care model and towards more of a responding-to-active-problems model.” It remained unclear whether Dr. Goetz was referring to treating pediatric patients when describing these billing practices. What is evident, however, is that Dr. Goetz, who at the time was a medical resident at the University of Pennsylvania, was then working at least part of the time at a children’s hospital. At one point during the conference session, Dr. Goetz made a specific reference to “the children’s hospital where I do work in addition to the adult hospital.” A spokesperson for Kaiser Permanente provided me a statement indicating that “We understand” that Dr. Goetz “was speaking hypothetically” at the conference. “Dr. Goetz is an adult psychiatrist and does not provide care to, nor prescribe puberty blockers or hormone therapy to Kaiser Permanente pediatric patients,” the statement continued.
1:27

In WPATH's Own Videos, Doctors Describe Billing Gender-Transition Care Under Alternative Diagnoses A psychiatrist called switching to "unspecified endocrine disorder" a way to "work around" the system. A Utah OB-GYN said she billed that way for 14 years. The Trump administration calls such coding fraud. When New York City’s Mt. Sinai Health System reached a settlement with the Justice Department last week to keep its pediatric gender clinic closed, much of the public debate over why the hospital had capitulated focused on the Trump administration’s efforts to obtain patient records via subpoena. This overlooked the mounting efforts by Republican lawmakers more broadly and the Trump administration in particular to leverage accusations of fraudulent medical billing to target doctors in this field and drum them out of providing gender-transition interventions to minors. A spokesperson for Mt. Sinai said last week: “The settlement is complex, but at its core reflects Mount Sinai’s commitment to safeguarding our patients’ confidential information and protecting our clinicians.” Those last few words, protecting our clinicians, at least theoretically could refer to protecting clinicians from prosecution or civil lawsuits for the use of non-gender-identity-related diagnosis and procedure codes when seeking reimbursement for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or gender-transition surgeries to treat gender dysphoria in minors. Last year, I obtained several hundred videos from conferences held by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and its US affiliate, USPATH, between 2021 and 2023. These videos were subject to a subpoena by the Alabama attorney general, Steve Marshall, as part of his defense in a lawsuit against the state’s ban on gender-transition interventions for minors. I covered how these videos portrayed the besieged field of pediatric gender medicine in a report for Compact magazine earlier this year and have been serially publishing key videos on my Substack since then. I have newly scoured these videos for conference speakers addressing the use of alternative procedure or diagnosis coding in transgender care. I found a number of examples, video clips of which I have published and analyzed below. None of them included speakers specifically referring to minors in the moments when they made such references to coding choices, mind you. But in at least some cases, the wider context of their presentations or their response to audience questions did not rule out that minors could be included in what they were suggesting or recalling about coding practices. In American medicine, physicians use diagnosis codes from the ICD system, which specify the condition being treated, and procedure codes known as CPT codes, which indicate the actions the physician took to treat the condition. These codes are integral to obtaining reimbursement for services. Insurers require diagnosis codes to serve as an appropriate justification for the corresponding procedure. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Aug. 13 published a scathing report bearing the incendiary title “Wolves In White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of ‘Gender Medicine.’” Much of the report is devoted to examining how leaders in pediatric gender medicine advocate the use of alternate codes when seeking insurance reimbursement for gender-transition interventions. These practices, the report asserts, have become widespread in this field. The report serves as an ominous warning to health care providers still practicing in what remains of a field that the Trump administration has seen considerable success in destroying outright. “When healthcare providers use fraudulent medical coding to obtain payment from the federal government,” the HHS report asserts, “they may be liable under the federal False Claims Act, which carries fines and imposes damages of ‘3 times the amount of damages which the government sustains.’” To follow federal regulations, the report asserts, physicians treating patients for transgender-related purposes are meant to use a number of ICD diagnosis codes related to gender identity, sex reassignment or “dual role transvestism.” But it has become common for medical providers to use alternate diagnosis codes, according to the report—in particular those related to endocrine disorders. This includes, the report states: “Endocrine disorder, unspecified,” coded as E34.9. Using this code in place of a gender-related diagnosis (e.g., gender identity disorder, F64.0) violates CMS guidelines for the simple reason that gender dysphoria is not an endocrine disorder, since it exhibits no hormonal abnormalities. In fact, the only endocrine disorders these patients have are the ones created by their doctors through the use of sex-rejecting interventions. Yet it appears that healthcare providers are misusing this code. In a 2016 studytitled “Identifying the Transgender Population in the Medicare Program,” CMS’s Office of Minority Health acknowledged that proxy diagnosis codes are being substituted for gender dysphoria. In the methods section, the authors explain that they included the ICD-9 diagnosis code for Unspecified Endocrine Disorder in their analysis because it is “frequently used by the transgender community to combat the perceived stigma of a GID diagnosis.” The report goes on to note that a 2023 study also finds such use of alternative billing codes. The report further notes an analysis of medical-claims data by Leor Sapir, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who studies pediatric gender medicine, that found an almost 30 percent increase in endocrine disorder, unspecified diagnoses in minors between 2020 and 2022. Dr. Sapir asserted in 2025 that this was likely the product of a “greater willingness” by medical providers to use endocrine disorder codes over gender identity disorder codes in pediatric care of patients with gender dysphoria. The authors of the HHS report analyzed health insurance databases covering 2015 to 2025 and found that insurers were billed nearly $50 million for puberty blockers for patients age nine to 17 under endocrine disorder codes, excluding precocious puberty. There was nearly $11 million in billing for 13- to 17-year-olds using a precocious puberty diagnosis code. The report asserts that “this data strongly suggests a pattern of potentially fraudulent billing that relies on miscoding for endocrine disorders to justify the prescription of puberty blockers.” WPATH, the report goes on to state, has promoted “the misleading use of several ICD-10 codes” in its training presentations. Teddy Goetz Dr. Teddy Goetz is a psychiatrist who currently works at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group. Dr. Goetz, who identifies as nonbinary, was a coeditor of a controversial text put out by the American Psychiatric Association’s publishing arm in 2023 outlining how to apply the gender-affirming method to the care of what these days are known as gender-expansive patients. Dr. Goetz spoke at USPATH’s 2021 conference. The moderator, taking an audience question, asked about how to move away from a distress-based model of care for transgender patients, in which it is required that they harbor distress related to their gender identity to qualify for a diagnosis that will justify gender-transition treatment. “We can think about it in the terms of billing codes,” Dr. Goetz replied. When a patient first presents, Dr. Goetz said, a doctor could use a gender dysphoria-related billing code to process a prescription for gender-transition treatment such as testosterone. But if this treatment ultimately attenuates the patient’s dysphoria, Dr. Goetz said, “Then you could switch your billing code to ‘unspecified endocrine disorder,’ for example, saying that their body produces less testosterone than it should for them to feel their best. So there are different ways that you can work around that. And thinking about moving towards euphoria and away from dysphoria.” Addressing a common conundrum that expands well beyond transgender medicine, Dr. Goetz continued: “But our current health care system in the United States is really set up against a preventive health care model and towards more of a responding-to-active-problems model.” It remained unclear whether Dr. Goetz was referring to treating pediatric patients when describing these billing practices. What is evident, however, is that Dr. Goetz, who at the time was a medical resident at the University of Pennsylvania, was then working at least part of the time at a children’s hospital. At one point during the conference session, Dr. Goetz made a specific reference to “the children’s hospital where I do work in addition to the adult hospital.” A spokesperson for Kaiser Permanente provided me a statement indicating that “We understand” that Dr. Goetz “was speaking hypothetically” at the conference. “Dr. Goetz is an adult psychiatrist and does not provide care to, nor prescribe puberty blockers or hormone therapy to Kaiser Permanente pediatric patients,” the statement continued.

Benjamin Ryan

28,911 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce

Getting clobbered by the economy? Identify as an illegal alien and the feds will treat you like royalty Millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are being used to rent hotels to house asylum claimants. In Mark Carney-led Canada, by every economic metric, life is in decline. The cost of living, unemployment, homelessness, and food bank usage have all soared this past decade. Indeed, the war on poverty has never seemed so grim as we all breathlessly await the “elbows up” strategy to kick in. So, riddle us this: how is it that given the overwhelming debt and deficit in Ottawa, somehow there are apparently millions of taxpayer dollars available to put up illegal aliens in nice motels and hotels? The latest example: the Comfort Inn on Kingston Road in Pickering, Ont., is now owned by Durham Region. It was recently “repurposed” to provide temporary housing for asylum claimants. Translation: members of the taxpaying public are persona non grata at the so-called “Durham Reception Centre” but non-citizens are warmly welcomed. Yet, the question arises: in these tough times, is this a prudent use of taxpayer dollars? We went to the former Comfort Inn to interview City of Pickering Councillor Lisa Robinson. She is the lone voice on council who is highly critical of this program and laments that there was zero public input into this initiative as the meetings about the property were held in secret. But while on site, we learned about an astounding piece of information that has received no publicity whatsoever. Namely, “guests” at the reception centre are only allowed to stay there for a maximum of 90 days. So, what happens when that three-month term expires? Do these people seek accommodation at city shelters? Do they join the rank and file of the local tent city? But no. It appears they get upgraded, not downgraded! Case in point: we approached an African man in the parking lot in a late-model SUV. He told us he used to stay at the former Comfort Inn, but he now lives in a house. He also told us that he remains unemployed. So, who is paying the rent for that house? You guessed it: the ever-beleaguered taxpayer. Note: the average rent for a house in Pickering is $2,650. Then, things got weird. Staff and security at the former motel called the police. Why? Good question. Two police SUVs soon arrived. The officers were very cordial. We explained our purpose for being there and they passed on to us that a representative from Durham Region was en route to answer our queries. In the meantime, we were welcome to stay on the property. And then things got weirder: after about an hour passed, one of the police officers informed us that the person we were waiting to interview from Durham Region had changed his mind. Apparently, he would not be leaving his office at Durham Region – a headquarters that features a $1 million revolving door, by the way. Bottom line: it would appear those bureaucrats gainfully employed at Durham Region are not only good at wasting taxpayer money but they also excel at wasting everyone’s time. That’s unfortunate. There are so many questions about this “reception centre”. But there remains a dearth of tangible answers – which is egregious given that the taxpayer is funding this program. Prior to our visit, we did reach out previously via email to Durham Region. Here were our queries: 1⃣ If this is a federal government initiative, why is Durham Region involved? 2⃣ What are the capital costs and operating costs pertaining to this facility? 3⃣ Homelessness and food bank usage have rapidly increased this past decade. How do we win the war on poverty if we keep importing the world’s impoverished? 4⃣ Is this facility exclusively for illegal aliens or can domestic homeless people access it? If not, why not? 5⃣ From which countries to the illegal aliens originate from? Alas, none of our questions were directly answered. Instead, we were provided with the following statement: “The Government of Canada provided funding, to the Region of Durham, to purchase a former hotel in Pickering. It will become the Durham Reception Centre. Located at 533 Kingston Road, in Pickering, the centre will provide temporary accommodation and supports for asylum claimants through the Durham Humanitarian Response Program (DHRP). Ukrainian nationals began staying here in 2022. By 2023, all asylum claimants were welcome at this site. And as of March 31, 2026, the program had assisted 1,957 people, with 1,244 putting down roots in this region. The location was purchased with funding from the federal Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP), which will also help to support some future operating costs. Securing a dedicated interim housing facility was a core requirement of the IHAP funding. It also aligns with several priorities outlined in the Durham Region 2025–2035 Strategic Plan. Although owned by the Region, the Community Development Council Durham (CDCD) will operate the site. The team will provide temporary accommodations and settlement services for up to 250 asylum claimants who will stay for no more than 90 days. An asylum claimant is someone who arrives here then asks for help to stay safe. There is no federal income support while their claim is being decided. Municipalities and community organizations step in to help. Asylum claimants are different from government‑assisted refugees. The Durham Reception Centre strengthens this work by providing a dedicated, federally funded facility where individuals and families can safely and efficiently transition into long‑term, independent housing and begin building their lives in Durham Region." Alas, no dollar figures were provided. And the wording seemed to imply that Ukrainian asylum seekers were being accommodated here, although on the day we visited, all the illegal aliens we encountered hailed from Africa and the Middle East. And we can only imagine the full price of this program if these people all get a house to live in after their motel stay expires. Again: must be nice. David Menzies
18:42

Getting clobbered by the economy? Identify as an illegal alien and the feds will treat you like royalty Millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are being used to rent hotels to house asylum claimants. In Mark Carney-led Canada, by every economic metric, life is in decline. The cost of living, unemployment, homelessness, and food bank usage have all soared this past decade. Indeed, the war on poverty has never seemed so grim as we all breathlessly await the “elbows up” strategy to kick in. So, riddle us this: how is it that given the overwhelming debt and deficit in Ottawa, somehow there are apparently millions of taxpayer dollars available to put up illegal aliens in nice motels and hotels? The latest example: the Comfort Inn on Kingston Road in Pickering, Ont., is now owned by Durham Region. It was recently “repurposed” to provide temporary housing for asylum claimants. Translation: members of the taxpaying public are persona non grata at the so-called “Durham Reception Centre” but non-citizens are warmly welcomed. Yet, the question arises: in these tough times, is this a prudent use of taxpayer dollars? We went to the former Comfort Inn to interview City of Pickering Councillor Lisa Robinson. She is the lone voice on council who is highly critical of this program and laments that there was zero public input into this initiative as the meetings about the property were held in secret. But while on site, we learned about an astounding piece of information that has received no publicity whatsoever. Namely, “guests” at the reception centre are only allowed to stay there for a maximum of 90 days. So, what happens when that three-month term expires? Do these people seek accommodation at city shelters? Do they join the rank and file of the local tent city? But no. It appears they get upgraded, not downgraded! Case in point: we approached an African man in the parking lot in a late-model SUV. He told us he used to stay at the former Comfort Inn, but he now lives in a house. He also told us that he remains unemployed. So, who is paying the rent for that house? You guessed it: the ever-beleaguered taxpayer. Note: the average rent for a house in Pickering is $2,650. Then, things got weird. Staff and security at the former motel called the police. Why? Good question. Two police SUVs soon arrived. The officers were very cordial. We explained our purpose for being there and they passed on to us that a representative from Durham Region was en route to answer our queries. In the meantime, we were welcome to stay on the property. And then things got weirder: after about an hour passed, one of the police officers informed us that the person we were waiting to interview from Durham Region had changed his mind. Apparently, he would not be leaving his office at Durham Region – a headquarters that features a $1 million revolving door, by the way. Bottom line: it would appear those bureaucrats gainfully employed at Durham Region are not only good at wasting taxpayer money but they also excel at wasting everyone’s time. That’s unfortunate. There are so many questions about this “reception centre”. But there remains a dearth of tangible answers – which is egregious given that the taxpayer is funding this program. Prior to our visit, we did reach out previously via email to Durham Region. Here were our queries: 1⃣ If this is a federal government initiative, why is Durham Region involved? 2⃣ What are the capital costs and operating costs pertaining to this facility? 3⃣ Homelessness and food bank usage have rapidly increased this past decade. How do we win the war on poverty if we keep importing the world’s impoverished? 4⃣ Is this facility exclusively for illegal aliens or can domestic homeless people access it? If not, why not? 5⃣ From which countries to the illegal aliens originate from? Alas, none of our questions were directly answered. Instead, we were provided with the following statement: “The Government of Canada provided funding, to the Region of Durham, to purchase a former hotel in Pickering. It will become the Durham Reception Centre. Located at 533 Kingston Road, in Pickering, the centre will provide temporary accommodation and supports for asylum claimants through the Durham Humanitarian Response Program (DHRP). Ukrainian nationals began staying here in 2022. By 2023, all asylum claimants were welcome at this site. And as of March 31, 2026, the program had assisted 1,957 people, with 1,244 putting down roots in this region. The location was purchased with funding from the federal Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP), which will also help to support some future operating costs. Securing a dedicated interim housing facility was a core requirement of the IHAP funding. It also aligns with several priorities outlined in the Durham Region 2025–2035 Strategic Plan. Although owned by the Region, the Community Development Council Durham (CDCD) will operate the site. The team will provide temporary accommodations and settlement services for up to 250 asylum claimants who will stay for no more than 90 days. An asylum claimant is someone who arrives here then asks for help to stay safe. There is no federal income support while their claim is being decided. Municipalities and community organizations step in to help. Asylum claimants are different from government‑assisted refugees. The Durham Reception Centre strengthens this work by providing a dedicated, federally funded facility where individuals and families can safely and efficiently transition into long‑term, independent housing and begin building their lives in Durham Region." Alas, no dollar figures were provided. And the wording seemed to imply that Ukrainian asylum seekers were being accommodated here, although on the day we visited, all the illegal aliens we encountered hailed from Africa and the Middle East. And we can only imagine the full price of this program if these people all get a house to live in after their motel stay expires. Again: must be nice. David Menzies

Rebel News

11,248 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

The British State Is Now The Enemy Of The British People Andrew Bridgen sat down, looked into the camera, Restore lion on the frame, and said what half the country mutters in the pub and is too frightened to put on a form: “The British state has now definitively become the enemy of the British people.” Not a critic. Not a rival. The enemy. An out-of-touch elite, addicted to central planning, treating natives like guinea pigs in a perverse experiment. An all-out war on our freedoms, escalated by an incompetent Labour government and a bloated civil service. Businesses still “private” on paper, then chained with regulation, price controls, wage diktats, employment laws, and a swarm of rapacious lawyers feeding on productive Britain like parasites. The caption on the clip says it without apology: UK version of the USSR. He is not wrong. He is late. And so are we. Not the Red Flag. The Same Machine. Nobody serious claims Britain has a Politburo and a five-year plan for tractor quotas. That is not the point. The Soviet disease was never only the hammer and sickle. It was the idea that the state owns the truth, owns the future, and owns you — and that dissent is not disagreement but pathology. Look at Britain in 2026 and stop pretending. Speech is policed harder than the Channel. Post the wrong flag, the wrong joke, the wrong grief about a stabbed girl, and the knock comes. Meanwhile the boats keep landing, the coaches keep waiting, and the Home Office still sells “smash the gangs” while running the reception desk. Two-tier is not a slogan invented by YouTubers. It is the lived experience of English people who get batons for a protest and soft hands for the fashionable cause. In the USSR, the Party decided who was a good citizen. In Britain, the blob decides who is “far right.” Same function. Different lanyard. Central planning did not die in 1991. It put on a diversity badge and a net-zero spreadsheet. It tells farmers what they may grow, drivers what they may drive, parents what their children are, employers whom they must hire, and churches what they may believe. It does not need to nationalise your shop if it can regulate you into obedience and sue you into silence. Bridgen’s “rapacious lawyers” line is not poetry. It is the business model of a country that produces process instead of prosperity. Guinea Pigs In The Experiment They treated us like lab animals and called it science. Lockdowns. Mask theatre. Mandates. The jab as morality. “Follow the science” meant follow the press release. Question it and you were dangerous. The same class that danced in empty hospitals now wants you to forget. Bridgen’s word was exact: guinea pigs. An elite that never shared the risk ran the trial on the nation, then promoted itself. The experiment did not stop at COVID. It continues in the schools — sex as a feeling, boys in girls’ spaces, parents as bigots for noticing biology. It continues in the councils — English flags ripped down as “hate,” foreign flags flown as “culture.” It continues in the hotels — military-age men from failed states housed while veterans and young couples cannot find a flat. It continues in the courts — English law for thee, parallel pressure and “community sensitivity” for the protected. The USSR had the plan. We have the framework. Different paperwork. Same contempt for the people who pay. Labour, The Blob, And The Lie Of Private Life Bridgen named Labour and the civil service. Good. Name them again. Labour did not invent the betrayal. It professionalised it. Open borders as virtue. Speech law as kindness. DEI as justice. Tax as love. Every native instinct — family, border, sex reality, Christian inheritance — is treated as a hate incident waiting to happen. The Tories managed the decline and called it competence. Reform splits the right and still will not say remigration without choking. The palace stays soft where it should be steel. Traitors in suits, traitors in robes, traitors in red. And the civil service — the permanent government — outlasts every manifesto. Bloated, insulated, addicted to process. They do not serve the British people. They serve the project: managed demographic change, managed decline of the native working class, managed guilt so you apologise for existing in your own country. Businesses “allowed” to stay private while the state strangles them is pure late-Soviet farce. Own the means of production on the land registry; own the rules in Whitehall. Price controls here, employment law there, net-zero costs everywhere, HR departments as political commissars. Productive Britain works. Parasitic Britain litigates. Guess which one the elite prefers. Immigration Is The Soft Occupation You cannot talk about a British USSR and ignore the demographic weapon. The Party imported loyalty. Our elite imports clients. Boats. Hotels. Asylum that never ends. Cities where English is optional and Sharia pressure is “community.” Knife crime. Grooming. Parallel lives. Then they arrest the grandfather who says what everyone sees. That is not diversity. That is replacement with a human-rights leaflet. Trump told Europe from Dublin that immigration is killing us. Bridgen told Britain the state is the enemy. Put the two together and you get the full picture: a ruling class that will not defend the border because the border is where their project dies. Remigration is not cruelty. It is the minimum act of a country that still wants to exist. One law. English law. No sacred carve-outs for face coverings, foreign adjudication, or identity hiring. Merit over DEI. Faces on show when order demands it. Deportation that happens, not a press release after twenty years. Freedom Was Not Lost In One Night The war on freedom Bridgen describes was a long siege. First they took the language — “illegal migrant” became “asylum seeker,” “invasion” became “compassion,” “woman” became a costume. Then they took the street — who may protest, who may film, who may gather. Then they took the child — what must be taught, what must not be questioned. Then they took the livelihood — bank, job, licence, reputation. The gulag is not always barbed wire. Sometimes it is a visit from Prevent and a ruined name. A UK version of the USSR does not need a Berlin Wall. It needs a fearful middle class, a bought media, a weaponised police, and a public that still believes voting Labour or Tory will save them. It will not. The Only Way Out Bridgen is right about the diagnosis. The cure is not another Tory reboot or another Farage triangulation. The British state must be broken of its addiction to planning our extinction. Strip the blob. End the speech police. Close the Channel as policy, not as theatre. Remigrate those who will not live as English under English law. Restore merit. Restore the family. Restore the Christian country that built the place these people are busy dismantling. That means Restore Britain. Rupert Lowe. Not the old parties. Not the King who will not defend his own. Not Labour’s traitors. Not the parasites in wigs feasting on the productive. The British state has become the enemy of the British people. Say it. Mean it. Vote like it is true. Because if Bridgen is right — and he is — then pretending otherwise is not moderation. It is surrender.
0:45

The British State Is Now The Enemy Of The British People Andrew Bridgen sat down, looked into the camera, Restore lion on the frame, and said what half the country mutters in the pub and is too frightened to put on a form: “The British state has now definitively become the enemy of the British people.” Not a critic. Not a rival. The enemy. An out-of-touch elite, addicted to central planning, treating natives like guinea pigs in a perverse experiment. An all-out war on our freedoms, escalated by an incompetent Labour government and a bloated civil service. Businesses still “private” on paper, then chained with regulation, price controls, wage diktats, employment laws, and a swarm of rapacious lawyers feeding on productive Britain like parasites. The caption on the clip says it without apology: UK version of the USSR. He is not wrong. He is late. And so are we. Not the Red Flag. The Same Machine. Nobody serious claims Britain has a Politburo and a five-year plan for tractor quotas. That is not the point. The Soviet disease was never only the hammer and sickle. It was the idea that the state owns the truth, owns the future, and owns you — and that dissent is not disagreement but pathology. Look at Britain in 2026 and stop pretending. Speech is policed harder than the Channel. Post the wrong flag, the wrong joke, the wrong grief about a stabbed girl, and the knock comes. Meanwhile the boats keep landing, the coaches keep waiting, and the Home Office still sells “smash the gangs” while running the reception desk. Two-tier is not a slogan invented by YouTubers. It is the lived experience of English people who get batons for a protest and soft hands for the fashionable cause. In the USSR, the Party decided who was a good citizen. In Britain, the blob decides who is “far right.” Same function. Different lanyard. Central planning did not die in 1991. It put on a diversity badge and a net-zero spreadsheet. It tells farmers what they may grow, drivers what they may drive, parents what their children are, employers whom they must hire, and churches what they may believe. It does not need to nationalise your shop if it can regulate you into obedience and sue you into silence. Bridgen’s “rapacious lawyers” line is not poetry. It is the business model of a country that produces process instead of prosperity. Guinea Pigs In The Experiment They treated us like lab animals and called it science. Lockdowns. Mask theatre. Mandates. The jab as morality. “Follow the science” meant follow the press release. Question it and you were dangerous. The same class that danced in empty hospitals now wants you to forget. Bridgen’s word was exact: guinea pigs. An elite that never shared the risk ran the trial on the nation, then promoted itself. The experiment did not stop at COVID. It continues in the schools — sex as a feeling, boys in girls’ spaces, parents as bigots for noticing biology. It continues in the councils — English flags ripped down as “hate,” foreign flags flown as “culture.” It continues in the hotels — military-age men from failed states housed while veterans and young couples cannot find a flat. It continues in the courts — English law for thee, parallel pressure and “community sensitivity” for the protected. The USSR had the plan. We have the framework. Different paperwork. Same contempt for the people who pay. Labour, The Blob, And The Lie Of Private Life Bridgen named Labour and the civil service. Good. Name them again. Labour did not invent the betrayal. It professionalised it. Open borders as virtue. Speech law as kindness. DEI as justice. Tax as love. Every native instinct — family, border, sex reality, Christian inheritance — is treated as a hate incident waiting to happen. The Tories managed the decline and called it competence. Reform splits the right and still will not say remigration without choking. The palace stays soft where it should be steel. Traitors in suits, traitors in robes, traitors in red. And the civil service — the permanent government — outlasts every manifesto. Bloated, insulated, addicted to process. They do not serve the British people. They serve the project: managed demographic change, managed decline of the native working class, managed guilt so you apologise for existing in your own country. Businesses “allowed” to stay private while the state strangles them is pure late-Soviet farce. Own the means of production on the land registry; own the rules in Whitehall. Price controls here, employment law there, net-zero costs everywhere, HR departments as political commissars. Productive Britain works. Parasitic Britain litigates. Guess which one the elite prefers. Immigration Is The Soft Occupation You cannot talk about a British USSR and ignore the demographic weapon. The Party imported loyalty. Our elite imports clients. Boats. Hotels. Asylum that never ends. Cities where English is optional and Sharia pressure is “community.” Knife crime. Grooming. Parallel lives. Then they arrest the grandfather who says what everyone sees. That is not diversity. That is replacement with a human-rights leaflet. Trump told Europe from Dublin that immigration is killing us. Bridgen told Britain the state is the enemy. Put the two together and you get the full picture: a ruling class that will not defend the border because the border is where their project dies. Remigration is not cruelty. It is the minimum act of a country that still wants to exist. One law. English law. No sacred carve-outs for face coverings, foreign adjudication, or identity hiring. Merit over DEI. Faces on show when order demands it. Deportation that happens, not a press release after twenty years. Freedom Was Not Lost In One Night The war on freedom Bridgen describes was a long siege. First they took the language — “illegal migrant” became “asylum seeker,” “invasion” became “compassion,” “woman” became a costume. Then they took the street — who may protest, who may film, who may gather. Then they took the child — what must be taught, what must not be questioned. Then they took the livelihood — bank, job, licence, reputation. The gulag is not always barbed wire. Sometimes it is a visit from Prevent and a ruined name. A UK version of the USSR does not need a Berlin Wall. It needs a fearful middle class, a bought media, a weaponised police, and a public that still believes voting Labour or Tory will save them. It will not. The Only Way Out Bridgen is right about the diagnosis. The cure is not another Tory reboot or another Farage triangulation. The British state must be broken of its addiction to planning our extinction. Strip the blob. End the speech police. Close the Channel as policy, not as theatre. Remigrate those who will not live as English under English law. Restore merit. Restore the family. Restore the Christian country that built the place these people are busy dismantling. That means Restore Britain. Rupert Lowe. Not the old parties. Not the King who will not defend his own. Not Labour’s traitors. Not the parasites in wigs feasting on the productive. The British state has become the enemy of the British people. Say it. Mean it. Vote like it is true. Because if Bridgen is right — and he is — then pretending otherwise is not moderation. It is surrender.

make the uk great again

222,949 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce

For the last decade, the media has called the idea that America is ruled by a secret government of deep state intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Journalists at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have portrayed claims about a “deep state” as paranoid fabrications pushed by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit legitimate government institutions. They insisted that accusations of political bias or covert influence by agencies like the CIA or FBI had no basis in fact and served only to inflame public distrust. And yet over the same period, investigative reporting, including by the two of us, and official disclosures revealed that these agencies interfered in domestic politics in ways that aligned with that very narrative. The FBI launched a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign based on unverified opposition research. Dozens of former intelligence officials falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, just weeks before the 2020 election. The Department of Homeland Security, along with the FBI and other agencies, coordinated with social media platforms to suppress speech under the banner of combating “misinformation.” These actions, taken together, suggest not a shadowy cabal, but a real and expanding infrastructure of state-aligned influence aimed at shaping public perception and countering populist dissent, just as the so-called conspiracy theorists claimed. The strongest argument against the existence of a secret government run by the deep state was the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security truly exercised covert and unchecked control over American politics, it is difficult to explain how their most outspoken critic, and avowed enemy, returned to power. Trump did not merely criticize the intelligence community; he ran on a platform promising its reform. He vowed to purge partisan operatives, dismantle what he called politically weaponized agencies, and hold officials accountable for a pattern of lawless interference. And despite his direct confrontation with the national security establishment, Trump defeated Kamala Harris decisively, winning 312 electoral votes and a narrow popular vote majority. But now the Trump administration is attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug, with the Justice Department claiming that there is no client list and that no further disclosure is warranted, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi explicitly stated publicly that there were “tens of thousands of videos” which means the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors, and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has “no legal basis to do so.” On April 28, 2025, in a candid off-the-record exchange caught on video, Bondi told a bystander, “There are tens of thousands of videos… and it’s all with little kids.” She later reiterated on May 7 that these were “videos of Epstein with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments directly contradicted the official stance of the administration, which has dismissed calls for a client list and slowed efforts to release the full contents of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the deep state and hold elites accountable, his administration now appears to be protecting the same intelligence and law enforcement networks it once condemned. Strong evidence suggests that Epstein was part of a sex blackmail operation tied to intelligence agencies. Visitor logs show that William Burns, who served as CIA Director under President Biden, visited Epstein’s New York townhouse multiple times. The Wall Street Journal reported those visits in 2023 based on Epstein’s private calendar. In 2017, Alex Acosta, the Justice Department official who gave Epstein his 2008 plea deal, told Trump transition officials that he was told to back off Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence.” The Justice Department later admitted that all eleven months of Acosta’s emails from that period had disappeared. This failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump’s explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state. This is not just about Epstein. The Trump administration has not been particularly transparent about much else. The CIA, to its credit, released an internal evaluation last week admitting it had erred in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment by claiming that Russia “aspired to” help elect Trump. But it stood by the overall assessment, signaling the agency’s reluctance to admit fault, its continued defensiveness in the face of mounting evidence, and its impunity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has disclosed a limited amount of information about intelligence community abuses during the pandemic, including the targeting of COVID vaccine dissenters as potential violent extremists. But beyond that, the Trump administration has released very little, even on issues where transparency would appear to be in its political interest. The administration has kept classified large volumes of material related to COVID origins, the FBI’s role in Russiagate, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. It is thus hard not to conclude that the intelligence community continues to operate in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances by evading meaningful congressional oversight. The Constitution grants Congress the power and responsibility to oversee the executive branch, including intelligence agencies, through budgetary control, public hearings, and access to classified information. And yet the intelligence community is withholding and heavily redacting documents, delaying responses to lawful inquiries, and using national security classifications to avoid scrutiny. This persistent obstruction undermines the legislative branch’s ability to hold agencies accountable and distorts the balance of power the framers designed. When unelected intelligence officials can withhold information not only from the public but from elected representatives, constitutional oversight becomes a formality rather than a functioning safeguard. Few independent journalists have done more than we have to defend Donald Trump and the MAGA movement against the weaponization of the intelligence community and deep state agencies. Over the past two and a half years, we have published hundreds of investigative articles and testified before Congress about unconstitutional abuses of power by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and their proxies. We exposed efforts to censor Trump and his supporters through a sprawling Censorship Industrial Complex, documented the manipulation of the justice system to prosecute Trump on politicized grounds, and revealed how U.S. and foreign agencies coordinated mass surveillance of speech. We defended Trump from false and malicious claims, showed that his administration obeyed court orders, and disproved the narrative that he violated democratic norms more than Democrats. We were the first to report new evidence that President Obama’s CIA Director ordered spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance and interfere in the 2016 election. After Trump’s reelection, we published investigations revealing abuses of power by USAID and the Department of Education. We editorialized in support of his lawful executive orders ending DEI and gender-affirming procedures for minors. We exposed the CIA and USAID’s role in supporting the 2019 impeachment effort and their connection to the Russia collusion hoax. In all this, we have consistently made the case that Trump’s victory was not just political, it was moral. Given all we have done to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and intelligence community abuses of power, Public’s readers rightly expect us to follow through on these concerns, no matter who holds office. We did not spend years documenting unconstitutional secrecy, surveillance, and coercion only to remain silent when the administration we defended begins to mirror the behavior we condemned. Our commitment is not to any one leader or party, but to the Constitution, to civil liberties, and to the principle that no government, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to rule through secrecy, coercion, or fear. To prove it is not simply the latest custodian of the deep state, the Trump administration must release the Epstein videos and related evidence, fully expose the scope of the sex trafficking and apparent IC blackmail operation, and ensure that every perpetrator, regardless of power or position, is held accountable under the law. It must also release the long-withheld files on COVID origins, Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, January 6, unidentified aerial phenomena, and other topics. Even if these files do not reveal any “smoking guns,” the public has a right to full transparency. Only through this transparency can the credibility of the intelligence community be restored. Congress must step up as well. Legislative leaders must hold public hearings on each of these issues, issue subpoenas if necessary, and demand full executive branch compliance with oversight. The Constitution grants Congress, not the intelligence agencies, the power to check secrecy, correct abuse, and uphold the rule of law. These are not matters of political convenience but constitutional obligation. The American people have the right to know what their government has done in their name and against their rights. If the Trump administration fails to act, it will confirm the fear that even the most populist and combative president can be captured or neutralized by the very system he vowed to dismantle. And it will lose much of the legitimacy it gained by surviving and overcoming the lawfare, censorship, and weaponization of the deep state against it. Many within the Trump administration acknowledge this and note that this is hardly the end of the Epstein affair. “This is a total fucking disaster,” someone within the Intelligence Community told us this afternoon, as we were going to press with this editorial. After we pointed out that the Attorney General said one thing and now the Justice Department, FBI Director, and Deputy FBI Director are all saying the opposite, the person said, “I hope you ask these questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. We’re in a time when information flows more freely. If people think that this is going to go away — I don’t see how it can.” Nor, we would add, should it.
10:41

For the last decade, the media has called the idea that America is ruled by a secret government of deep state intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Journalists at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have portrayed claims about a “deep state” as paranoid fabrications pushed by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit legitimate government institutions. They insisted that accusations of political bias or covert influence by agencies like the CIA or FBI had no basis in fact and served only to inflame public distrust. And yet over the same period, investigative reporting, including by the two of us, and official disclosures revealed that these agencies interfered in domestic politics in ways that aligned with that very narrative. The FBI launched a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign based on unverified opposition research. Dozens of former intelligence officials falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, just weeks before the 2020 election. The Department of Homeland Security, along with the FBI and other agencies, coordinated with social media platforms to suppress speech under the banner of combating “misinformation.” These actions, taken together, suggest not a shadowy cabal, but a real and expanding infrastructure of state-aligned influence aimed at shaping public perception and countering populist dissent, just as the so-called conspiracy theorists claimed. The strongest argument against the existence of a secret government run by the deep state was the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security truly exercised covert and unchecked control over American politics, it is difficult to explain how their most outspoken critic, and avowed enemy, returned to power. Trump did not merely criticize the intelligence community; he ran on a platform promising its reform. He vowed to purge partisan operatives, dismantle what he called politically weaponized agencies, and hold officials accountable for a pattern of lawless interference. And despite his direct confrontation with the national security establishment, Trump defeated Kamala Harris decisively, winning 312 electoral votes and a narrow popular vote majority. But now the Trump administration is attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug, with the Justice Department claiming that there is no client list and that no further disclosure is warranted, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi explicitly stated publicly that there were “tens of thousands of videos” which means the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors, and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has “no legal basis to do so.” On April 28, 2025, in a candid off-the-record exchange caught on video, Bondi told a bystander, “There are tens of thousands of videos… and it’s all with little kids.” She later reiterated on May 7 that these were “videos of Epstein with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments directly contradicted the official stance of the administration, which has dismissed calls for a client list and slowed efforts to release the full contents of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the deep state and hold elites accountable, his administration now appears to be protecting the same intelligence and law enforcement networks it once condemned. Strong evidence suggests that Epstein was part of a sex blackmail operation tied to intelligence agencies. Visitor logs show that William Burns, who served as CIA Director under President Biden, visited Epstein’s New York townhouse multiple times. The Wall Street Journal reported those visits in 2023 based on Epstein’s private calendar. In 2017, Alex Acosta, the Justice Department official who gave Epstein his 2008 plea deal, told Trump transition officials that he was told to back off Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence.” The Justice Department later admitted that all eleven months of Acosta’s emails from that period had disappeared. This failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump’s explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state. This is not just about Epstein. The Trump administration has not been particularly transparent about much else. The CIA, to its credit, released an internal evaluation last week admitting it had erred in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment by claiming that Russia “aspired to” help elect Trump. But it stood by the overall assessment, signaling the agency’s reluctance to admit fault, its continued defensiveness in the face of mounting evidence, and its impunity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has disclosed a limited amount of information about intelligence community abuses during the pandemic, including the targeting of COVID vaccine dissenters as potential violent extremists. But beyond that, the Trump administration has released very little, even on issues where transparency would appear to be in its political interest. The administration has kept classified large volumes of material related to COVID origins, the FBI’s role in Russiagate, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. It is thus hard not to conclude that the intelligence community continues to operate in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances by evading meaningful congressional oversight. The Constitution grants Congress the power and responsibility to oversee the executive branch, including intelligence agencies, through budgetary control, public hearings, and access to classified information. And yet the intelligence community is withholding and heavily redacting documents, delaying responses to lawful inquiries, and using national security classifications to avoid scrutiny. This persistent obstruction undermines the legislative branch’s ability to hold agencies accountable and distorts the balance of power the framers designed. When unelected intelligence officials can withhold information not only from the public but from elected representatives, constitutional oversight becomes a formality rather than a functioning safeguard. Few independent journalists have done more than we have to defend Donald Trump and the MAGA movement against the weaponization of the intelligence community and deep state agencies. Over the past two and a half years, we have published hundreds of investigative articles and testified before Congress about unconstitutional abuses of power by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and their proxies. We exposed efforts to censor Trump and his supporters through a sprawling Censorship Industrial Complex, documented the manipulation of the justice system to prosecute Trump on politicized grounds, and revealed how U.S. and foreign agencies coordinated mass surveillance of speech. We defended Trump from false and malicious claims, showed that his administration obeyed court orders, and disproved the narrative that he violated democratic norms more than Democrats. We were the first to report new evidence that President Obama’s CIA Director ordered spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance and interfere in the 2016 election. After Trump’s reelection, we published investigations revealing abuses of power by USAID and the Department of Education. We editorialized in support of his lawful executive orders ending DEI and gender-affirming procedures for minors. We exposed the CIA and USAID’s role in supporting the 2019 impeachment effort and their connection to the Russia collusion hoax. In all this, we have consistently made the case that Trump’s victory was not just political, it was moral. Given all we have done to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and intelligence community abuses of power, Public’s readers rightly expect us to follow through on these concerns, no matter who holds office. We did not spend years documenting unconstitutional secrecy, surveillance, and coercion only to remain silent when the administration we defended begins to mirror the behavior we condemned. Our commitment is not to any one leader or party, but to the Constitution, to civil liberties, and to the principle that no government, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to rule through secrecy, coercion, or fear. To prove it is not simply the latest custodian of the deep state, the Trump administration must release the Epstein videos and related evidence, fully expose the scope of the sex trafficking and apparent IC blackmail operation, and ensure that every perpetrator, regardless of power or position, is held accountable under the law. It must also release the long-withheld files on COVID origins, Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, January 6, unidentified aerial phenomena, and other topics. Even if these files do not reveal any “smoking guns,” the public has a right to full transparency. Only through this transparency can the credibility of the intelligence community be restored. Congress must step up as well. Legislative leaders must hold public hearings on each of these issues, issue subpoenas if necessary, and demand full executive branch compliance with oversight. The Constitution grants Congress, not the intelligence agencies, the power to check secrecy, correct abuse, and uphold the rule of law. These are not matters of political convenience but constitutional obligation. The American people have the right to know what their government has done in their name and against their rights. If the Trump administration fails to act, it will confirm the fear that even the most populist and combative president can be captured or neutralized by the very system he vowed to dismantle. And it will lose much of the legitimacy it gained by surviving and overcoming the lawfare, censorship, and weaponization of the deep state against it. Many within the Trump administration acknowledge this and note that this is hardly the end of the Epstein affair. “This is a total fucking disaster,” someone within the Intelligence Community told us this afternoon, as we were going to press with this editorial. After we pointed out that the Attorney General said one thing and now the Justice Department, FBI Director, and Deputy FBI Director are all saying the opposite, the person said, “I hope you ask these questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. We’re in a time when information flows more freely. If people think that this is going to go away — I don’t see how it can.” Nor, we would add, should it.

Michael Shellenberger

2,055,076 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

When legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge retorted, during his constitutional debate with political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo, that Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has never practised law, what is in the attached Herald article is what he was referring to. A Justice Minister devoid of the ability to understand the Constitution he is supposed to guard and uphold. Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has gone ahistorical, insulting Zimbabweans, including the country’s freedom fighters, by claiming that the liberation war was not about one man, one vote, but merely about land restoration rights. Such a claim distorts the historical record and reduces a broad liberation struggle for political rights and majority rule to a single issue. He advances this intellectual propaganda drivel to defend taking away the direct vote to elect a president from citizens, as espoused in his Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. It shows that he has never read liberation war literature, which consistently emphasised one man one vote as a central pillar of the liberation struggle. Zimbabweans did not go to war merely for land in isolation, they went to war for majority rule, for universal adult suffrage, for one man, one vote. That principle was entrenched in liberation literature, which articulated the clarion call for equal voting rights to justify the struggle that eventually ended minority. Land without political power would have been meaningless. The liberation struggle was about giving black Zimbabweans the authority to choose who governs them, and through that democratic power to determine land policy and every other national question. For the avoidance of doubt, I attach a video below of Robert Mugabe explicitly stating that the liberation struggle was about one man, one vote. This was in 1962. Ziyambia also argues, ridiculously, that you do not need a referendum to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure of office. Ziyambi confirms Mavedzenge’s assertion that he has never practised law, because one cannot separate the length of an election cycle from Presidential term limits as if they exist in different constitutional universes. They are inseparable, and only a bush lawyer would argue otherwise. The moment you extend an election cycle from five to seven years, you are automatically extending the tenure of the sitting President. This is first-year law degree material, and any serious student of constitutional law would understand that altering the duration of a term inevitably affects the term limit framework itself. That is not a neutral administrative adjustment, it is a substantive alteration to how long executive power is held. Section 91(2) of Zimbabwe’s constitution does not operate in a vacuum. It defines how many terms a President may serve, but the Constitution also defines how long each term is. If you stretch the duration of a term, you are materially affecting the term limit framework. You are extending the time a President holds office beyond what voters originally authorised under the existing constitutional order when they cast their vote. This is precisely why Section 328 was crafted with safeguards. It was meant to prevent incumbents from manipulating constitutional provisions, directly or indirectly, to prolong their stay in power. Whether you change the number of terms or the length of each term, the democratic effect is identical, you extend Presidential tenure. How a Minister of Justice fails to grasp that is astonishing. To argue that extending an election cycle does not touch term limits is like arguing that increasing the length of a school year does not affect how long pupils stay in school. It is a distinction without a difference. The 2007 harmonisation argument, which Ziyambi uses in a feeble attempt to defend an illegal constitutional mutilation, is also wildly misplaced. The 2007 adjustment aligned electoral calendars within an already existing constitutional framework. It did not extend the tenure of an incumbent President beyond the mandate voters had already given. There is a qualitative constitutional difference between administrative alignment and tenure extension. It is plain common sense, even before one applies constitutional law analysis. The claim that Ziyambi makes that even extending term limits to three terms would not require a referendum is equally alarming and legally outrageous. Section 328 was specifically designed to stop incumbency advantage and self-serving amendments. Any change that affects how long a President can remain in office, whether by number of terms or by their duration, triggers constitutional safeguards, including a referendum, especially where it benefits a sitting office holder like in this instance. Ziyambi’s attempt to anchor this in the so-called Vision 2030 or Covid-19 disruptions is empty political rhetoric, not constitutional law. Development agendas do not override constitutional protections. If anything, constitutionalism exists precisely to restrain power during moments when governments claim necessity to do so. The whole world knows that this minister, and other deeply corrupt and politically opportunistic elements working with him attempting to push these amendments illegally, are relying on a captured judiciary to pronounce on these issues through the same ridiculous lenses they are using to wrongly interpret the Constitution. That may well happen, but it renders the entire exercise illegitimate and unlawful, and it will ultimately be reversed, if they are able to force it through and attempt to implement it. The whole world is watching, and this may well become someone’s Waterloo if they are not careful. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I place below a video of former ZANUPF Legal Secretary Patrick Chinamasa explicitly stating that the proposed changes require two referendums. He said this in front of President Emmerson Mnangagwa at a ZANUPF Annual Conference, and there was no objection to what he said. He was speaking in his capacity as ZANUPF Legal Secretary. ZANUPF and its leadership continue to be a laughing stock as they try to navigate a factional fight by attempting to strip and mutilate the Constitution to resolve internal power struggles. Unfortunately, it is not only ZANUPF that is becoming a laughing stock. Our country itself is becoming one, as the rest of the continent and the world watch a Justice Minister and a group of leaders publicly contradict their own Constitution. This simply exposes the depth of incompetence. Even where the intention is manipulative and corrupt, dictators elsewhere attempt such manoeuvres with a degree of legal sophistication. But here, we are being led by a regime full of people who do not even understand the Constitution upon which their authority is supposed to rest. They do not grasp the implications of what they are attempting to do. What serious investor would commit capital to a country where the judiciary pronounces itself in ways that are contrary to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land? It is absolutely ridiculous. We have people who are supposed to be educated publicly ridiculing themselves by articulating positions that are plainly inconsistent with the Constitution, yet insisting that this is what the Constitution provides. It is astonishing to witness how money and power can erode individuals to the point where they are prepared to destroy anything associated with their professional standing, whether intellectually, as scholars, or as lawyers. It is deeply embarrassing to watch this kind of constitutional drama unfolding in 2026. Imagine the level of shamelessness required for the Justice Minister of a republic born out of a war of independence to come out and claim that the republic was born out of a fight that had nothing to do with one man, one vote, that it was merely about land. In other words, he is suggesting that Zimbabweans who do not have land are not yet independent? Is he also implying that those of us without land are not independent? What, then, was the struggle for if it was only about land, which many citizens still do not possess? It would mean that only those who received land are the ones enjoying independence. He does not seem to realise the Pandora’s box he is opening with such shameless and anti-intellectual statements as Justice Minister of a country whose independence came through a protracted liberation struggle in which blood was spilled and thousands of Zimbabweans were killed fighting for one man, one vote. That position was articulated repeatedly, and it exists on record and on video. Now, in an attempt to resolve a factional fight, ZANUPF appears willing to walk back the very historical foundations of the liberation struggle. I never imagined I would live to see the day when a ZANUPF minister would shame not only himself, his party, and his President, but also embarrass the broader Pan-African community by claiming that Zimbabwe’s independence struggle had nothing to do with one man, one vote. By that logic, if Ian Smith had simply given Africans access to land, the war would have ended there. That is the dangerous and ignominious implication of what this minister is now advancing.
2:21

When legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge retorted, during his constitutional debate with political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo, that Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has never practised law, what is in the attached Herald article is what he was referring to. A Justice Minister devoid of the ability to understand the Constitution he is supposed to guard and uphold. Zimbabwe’s Justice Minister, Ziyambi Ziyambi, has gone ahistorical, insulting Zimbabweans, including the country’s freedom fighters, by claiming that the liberation war was not about one man, one vote, but merely about land restoration rights. Such a claim distorts the historical record and reduces a broad liberation struggle for political rights and majority rule to a single issue. He advances this intellectual propaganda drivel to defend taking away the direct vote to elect a president from citizens, as espoused in his Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3. It shows that he has never read liberation war literature, which consistently emphasised one man one vote as a central pillar of the liberation struggle. Zimbabweans did not go to war merely for land in isolation, they went to war for majority rule, for universal adult suffrage, for one man, one vote. That principle was entrenched in liberation literature, which articulated the clarion call for equal voting rights to justify the struggle that eventually ended minority. Land without political power would have been meaningless. The liberation struggle was about giving black Zimbabweans the authority to choose who governs them, and through that democratic power to determine land policy and every other national question. For the avoidance of doubt, I attach a video below of Robert Mugabe explicitly stating that the liberation struggle was about one man, one vote. This was in 1962. Ziyambia also argues, ridiculously, that you do not need a referendum to extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s tenure of office. Ziyambi confirms Mavedzenge’s assertion that he has never practised law, because one cannot separate the length of an election cycle from Presidential term limits as if they exist in different constitutional universes. They are inseparable, and only a bush lawyer would argue otherwise. The moment you extend an election cycle from five to seven years, you are automatically extending the tenure of the sitting President. This is first-year law degree material, and any serious student of constitutional law would understand that altering the duration of a term inevitably affects the term limit framework itself. That is not a neutral administrative adjustment, it is a substantive alteration to how long executive power is held. Section 91(2) of Zimbabwe’s constitution does not operate in a vacuum. It defines how many terms a President may serve, but the Constitution also defines how long each term is. If you stretch the duration of a term, you are materially affecting the term limit framework. You are extending the time a President holds office beyond what voters originally authorised under the existing constitutional order when they cast their vote. This is precisely why Section 328 was crafted with safeguards. It was meant to prevent incumbents from manipulating constitutional provisions, directly or indirectly, to prolong their stay in power. Whether you change the number of terms or the length of each term, the democratic effect is identical, you extend Presidential tenure. How a Minister of Justice fails to grasp that is astonishing. To argue that extending an election cycle does not touch term limits is like arguing that increasing the length of a school year does not affect how long pupils stay in school. It is a distinction without a difference. The 2007 harmonisation argument, which Ziyambi uses in a feeble attempt to defend an illegal constitutional mutilation, is also wildly misplaced. The 2007 adjustment aligned electoral calendars within an already existing constitutional framework. It did not extend the tenure of an incumbent President beyond the mandate voters had already given. There is a qualitative constitutional difference between administrative alignment and tenure extension. It is plain common sense, even before one applies constitutional law analysis. The claim that Ziyambi makes that even extending term limits to three terms would not require a referendum is equally alarming and legally outrageous. Section 328 was specifically designed to stop incumbency advantage and self-serving amendments. Any change that affects how long a President can remain in office, whether by number of terms or by their duration, triggers constitutional safeguards, including a referendum, especially where it benefits a sitting office holder like in this instance. Ziyambi’s attempt to anchor this in the so-called Vision 2030 or Covid-19 disruptions is empty political rhetoric, not constitutional law. Development agendas do not override constitutional protections. If anything, constitutionalism exists precisely to restrain power during moments when governments claim necessity to do so. The whole world knows that this minister, and other deeply corrupt and politically opportunistic elements working with him attempting to push these amendments illegally, are relying on a captured judiciary to pronounce on these issues through the same ridiculous lenses they are using to wrongly interpret the Constitution. That may well happen, but it renders the entire exercise illegitimate and unlawful, and it will ultimately be reversed, if they are able to force it through and attempt to implement it. The whole world is watching, and this may well become someone’s Waterloo if they are not careful. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I place below a video of former ZANUPF Legal Secretary Patrick Chinamasa explicitly stating that the proposed changes require two referendums. He said this in front of President Emmerson Mnangagwa at a ZANUPF Annual Conference, and there was no objection to what he said. He was speaking in his capacity as ZANUPF Legal Secretary. ZANUPF and its leadership continue to be a laughing stock as they try to navigate a factional fight by attempting to strip and mutilate the Constitution to resolve internal power struggles. Unfortunately, it is not only ZANUPF that is becoming a laughing stock. Our country itself is becoming one, as the rest of the continent and the world watch a Justice Minister and a group of leaders publicly contradict their own Constitution. This simply exposes the depth of incompetence. Even where the intention is manipulative and corrupt, dictators elsewhere attempt such manoeuvres with a degree of legal sophistication. But here, we are being led by a regime full of people who do not even understand the Constitution upon which their authority is supposed to rest. They do not grasp the implications of what they are attempting to do. What serious investor would commit capital to a country where the judiciary pronounces itself in ways that are contrary to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land? It is absolutely ridiculous. We have people who are supposed to be educated publicly ridiculing themselves by articulating positions that are plainly inconsistent with the Constitution, yet insisting that this is what the Constitution provides. It is astonishing to witness how money and power can erode individuals to the point where they are prepared to destroy anything associated with their professional standing, whether intellectually, as scholars, or as lawyers. It is deeply embarrassing to watch this kind of constitutional drama unfolding in 2026. Imagine the level of shamelessness required for the Justice Minister of a republic born out of a war of independence to come out and claim that the republic was born out of a fight that had nothing to do with one man, one vote, that it was merely about land. In other words, he is suggesting that Zimbabweans who do not have land are not yet independent? Is he also implying that those of us without land are not independent? What, then, was the struggle for if it was only about land, which many citizens still do not possess? It would mean that only those who received land are the ones enjoying independence. He does not seem to realise the Pandora’s box he is opening with such shameless and anti-intellectual statements as Justice Minister of a country whose independence came through a protracted liberation struggle in which blood was spilled and thousands of Zimbabweans were killed fighting for one man, one vote. That position was articulated repeatedly, and it exists on record and on video. Now, in an attempt to resolve a factional fight, ZANUPF appears willing to walk back the very historical foundations of the liberation struggle. I never imagined I would live to see the day when a ZANUPF minister would shame not only himself, his party, and his President, but also embarrass the broader Pan-African community by claiming that Zimbabwe’s independence struggle had nothing to do with one man, one vote. By that logic, if Ian Smith had simply given Africans access to land, the war would have ended there. That is the dangerous and ignominious implication of what this minister is now advancing.

Hopewell Chin’ono

54,195 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

𝗦𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗦𝗜'𝗦 𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗘𝗖𝗛: "𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗖𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗔, 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗔, 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗢𝗡𝗟𝗬 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗬 𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗗." Some supporters of Pakatan Harapan have criticised me for supposedly remaining silent over the recent speech by Kedah Menteri Besar Dato' Seri Sanusi Md Nor, which has sparked widespread controversy and is now under police investigation. This is not the first time that the Kedah Menteri Besar's speeches, many of which have carried strong racial undertones, have generated public outrage and attracted police scrutiny. His latest speech, delivered during the Negeri Sembilan state election campaign, has also created friction between Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional. In fact, UMNO President Dato' Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi openly signalled that Sanusi was no longer welcome to campaign in Negeri Sembilan. As the backlash intensified, Sanusi and his supporters began offering various explanations. One of the familiar defences often used by politicians was that his words had supposedly been taken out of context or distorted by the media. He has also threatened legal action against numerous individuals and organisations. At the same time, he published a lengthy statement in English, citing historical British politicians whom he claimed shared similar views in an attempt to justify his position. I will be discussing this issue in much greater depth in YBM Podcast Episode 57, airing this Friday, 31 July, at 9:00 p.m. For now, however, I would like to introduce one important perspective regarding the doctrine that lies beneath speeches like these. But before we go any further, what exactly did Sanusi say? This is the relevant excerpt from his speech in Jempol, beginning at around the 14-minute mark: "The Malays no longer have any land. The Malays only have this Malay land. The Indians have India. The Chinese have China..." Those defending Sanusi argue that he was merely stating a historical or factual reality, that this is the homeland of the Malays. Those offended by his remarks argue that the real message goes far beyond the literal words. They believe the underlying implication is that non-Malays are merely immigrants who will always have another homeland besides Malaysia. Whether one agrees with either interpretation often depends on one's own political instincts and emotional inclinations. My analysis, however, takes a somewhat different direction. I am less interested in debating the literal or implied meaning of the speech itself. Instead, I am interested in examining the much deeper question that is rarely discussed openly, the underlying doctrine that continues to produce politicians like Sanusi Md Nor, and speeches like these, generation after generation. At its core, this is a question about the kind of society we have chosen to build, and the kind of Malaysian society we want to become in the future. Many of the political campaigns we have witnessed over the years, whether under slogans such as Penyatuan Ummah, Muafakat Nasional, or claims that "the Malays only have this land", ultimately stem from the very same political doctrine. That doctrine can be summarised quite simply. It says that the Malays are the rightful masters of this country. If you are a Malaysian citizen who is not Malay, you are welcome to live here, but ultimately you should accept whatever decisions the Malays make. Those decisions are to be determined by Malay political leaders, acting on behalf of the Malay community. Under this doctrine, non-Malay political leaders who choose to cooperate with these Malay-led parties are viewed as acceptable because they are seen as respecting and submitting to this framework. On the other hand, non-Malay leaders who contest elections against them are portrayed as being disrespectful, challenging Malay authority, and threatening Malay political dominance. When a majority of non-Malay voters support parties outside this political coalition, the contest is no longer framed as one political party competing against another. Instead, it is portrayed as non-Malays confronting Malays. Surprisingly few people have examined the long-term political consequences of organising an entire nation around such a doctrine. Several important questions naturally arise. First, has this doctrine succeeded in creating genuine harmony within Malaysian society? So far, the answer appears to be no. As long as this doctrine exists, there will always be those who believe that the Federal Constitution guarantees equal rights to every Malaysian regardless of race, while simultaneously protecting the special position and legitimate rights of the Bumiputera community. This means the doctrine can only deliver temporary political victories. Over time, the political pendulum will continue swinging from one extreme to the other. The greatest beneficiaries of this cycle are political leaders, both Malay and non-Malay, who obtain positions of power, salaries, and influence. Meanwhile, the everyday lives of ordinary Malaysians, regardless of race, remain largely unchanged. Second, has this doctrine succeeded in elevating the economic standing of the Malays? Again, the evidence suggests otherwise. The statistics tell a remarkably consistent story. Even when governments were overwhelmingly Malay, such as during the long years of UMNO rule, when roughly 80 percent of the Cabinet was Malay and the government commanded a two-thirds parliamentary majority, Bumiputera equity ownership remained stubbornly around 17 to 18 percent. Governments have changed. Political coalitions have changed. Prime ministers have come and gone. Yet Bumiputera equity ownership has barely moved. Whenever a new generation of leaders embracing this doctrine comes to power, they publicly champion Malay political supremacy. But behind closed doors, they shake hands with many of the very same Chinese and Indian business tycoons whom they criticised while they were in opposition. That is why governments may change, yet the underlying structure of the economy rarely does. The only thing that changes is which group of politically connected elites, Malay, Chinese, or Indian gets to share in the nation's wealth. Third, has this doctrine succeeded in eliminating corruption? In reality, it has often contributed to the very problem it claims to oppose. A political doctrine built upon ethnic dominance inevitably concentrates enormous discretionary power in the hands of those controlling the government. They decide who receives licences. They decide who wins government contracts. They decide who enjoys monopolies. Governments may change, but those licences, contracts, and monopolies continue to circulate within a relatively small circle of well-connected individuals. Within that circle are Malays, Chinese, and Indians alike, many of whom eventually become close allies of those who previously campaigned most aggressively under this doctrine. As long as this doctrine remains unchallenged, insufficiently examined, and poorly understood, Malaysia's political pendulum will continue swinging back and forth. At one point, this doctrine dominates public discourse, and the parties promoting it win power. Once in government, many of them repeat the same old practices while hiding behind the rhetoric of protecting Malay rights. Over time, however, the public begins to witness corruption, administrative failures, abuse of power, and growing displays of wealth among the political elite. The pendulum then swings in the opposite direction, and they lose power. But if the new government fails to challenge this doctrine by governing better and delivering meaningful reform, it unintentionally breathes new life into the very doctrine it defeated. Before long, the political pendulum begins swinging back once again. That, in my view, is precisely where Malaysian politics stands today. What I have shared here is only the beginning of a much broader discussion. I hope you will join me for YBM Podcast Episode 57 this Friday, 31 July, where I will explore these ideas in much greater depth.
11:36

𝗦𝗔𝗡𝗨𝗦𝗜'𝗦 𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗘𝗖𝗛: "𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗖𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗔, 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗔, 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗢𝗡𝗟𝗬 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗬 𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗗." Some supporters of Pakatan Harapan have criticised me for supposedly remaining silent over the recent speech by Kedah Menteri Besar Dato' Seri Sanusi Md Nor, which has sparked widespread controversy and is now under police investigation. This is not the first time that the Kedah Menteri Besar's speeches, many of which have carried strong racial undertones, have generated public outrage and attracted police scrutiny. His latest speech, delivered during the Negeri Sembilan state election campaign, has also created friction between Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional. In fact, UMNO President Dato' Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi openly signalled that Sanusi was no longer welcome to campaign in Negeri Sembilan. As the backlash intensified, Sanusi and his supporters began offering various explanations. One of the familiar defences often used by politicians was that his words had supposedly been taken out of context or distorted by the media. He has also threatened legal action against numerous individuals and organisations. At the same time, he published a lengthy statement in English, citing historical British politicians whom he claimed shared similar views in an attempt to justify his position. I will be discussing this issue in much greater depth in YBM Podcast Episode 57, airing this Friday, 31 July, at 9:00 p.m. For now, however, I would like to introduce one important perspective regarding the doctrine that lies beneath speeches like these. But before we go any further, what exactly did Sanusi say? This is the relevant excerpt from his speech in Jempol, beginning at around the 14-minute mark: "The Malays no longer have any land. The Malays only have this Malay land. The Indians have India. The Chinese have China..." Those defending Sanusi argue that he was merely stating a historical or factual reality, that this is the homeland of the Malays. Those offended by his remarks argue that the real message goes far beyond the literal words. They believe the underlying implication is that non-Malays are merely immigrants who will always have another homeland besides Malaysia. Whether one agrees with either interpretation often depends on one's own political instincts and emotional inclinations. My analysis, however, takes a somewhat different direction. I am less interested in debating the literal or implied meaning of the speech itself. Instead, I am interested in examining the much deeper question that is rarely discussed openly, the underlying doctrine that continues to produce politicians like Sanusi Md Nor, and speeches like these, generation after generation. At its core, this is a question about the kind of society we have chosen to build, and the kind of Malaysian society we want to become in the future. Many of the political campaigns we have witnessed over the years, whether under slogans such as Penyatuan Ummah, Muafakat Nasional, or claims that "the Malays only have this land", ultimately stem from the very same political doctrine. That doctrine can be summarised quite simply. It says that the Malays are the rightful masters of this country. If you are a Malaysian citizen who is not Malay, you are welcome to live here, but ultimately you should accept whatever decisions the Malays make. Those decisions are to be determined by Malay political leaders, acting on behalf of the Malay community. Under this doctrine, non-Malay political leaders who choose to cooperate with these Malay-led parties are viewed as acceptable because they are seen as respecting and submitting to this framework. On the other hand, non-Malay leaders who contest elections against them are portrayed as being disrespectful, challenging Malay authority, and threatening Malay political dominance. When a majority of non-Malay voters support parties outside this political coalition, the contest is no longer framed as one political party competing against another. Instead, it is portrayed as non-Malays confronting Malays. Surprisingly few people have examined the long-term political consequences of organising an entire nation around such a doctrine. Several important questions naturally arise. First, has this doctrine succeeded in creating genuine harmony within Malaysian society? So far, the answer appears to be no. As long as this doctrine exists, there will always be those who believe that the Federal Constitution guarantees equal rights to every Malaysian regardless of race, while simultaneously protecting the special position and legitimate rights of the Bumiputera community. This means the doctrine can only deliver temporary political victories. Over time, the political pendulum will continue swinging from one extreme to the other. The greatest beneficiaries of this cycle are political leaders, both Malay and non-Malay, who obtain positions of power, salaries, and influence. Meanwhile, the everyday lives of ordinary Malaysians, regardless of race, remain largely unchanged. Second, has this doctrine succeeded in elevating the economic standing of the Malays? Again, the evidence suggests otherwise. The statistics tell a remarkably consistent story. Even when governments were overwhelmingly Malay, such as during the long years of UMNO rule, when roughly 80 percent of the Cabinet was Malay and the government commanded a two-thirds parliamentary majority, Bumiputera equity ownership remained stubbornly around 17 to 18 percent. Governments have changed. Political coalitions have changed. Prime ministers have come and gone. Yet Bumiputera equity ownership has barely moved. Whenever a new generation of leaders embracing this doctrine comes to power, they publicly champion Malay political supremacy. But behind closed doors, they shake hands with many of the very same Chinese and Indian business tycoons whom they criticised while they were in opposition. That is why governments may change, yet the underlying structure of the economy rarely does. The only thing that changes is which group of politically connected elites, Malay, Chinese, or Indian gets to share in the nation's wealth. Third, has this doctrine succeeded in eliminating corruption? In reality, it has often contributed to the very problem it claims to oppose. A political doctrine built upon ethnic dominance inevitably concentrates enormous discretionary power in the hands of those controlling the government. They decide who receives licences. They decide who wins government contracts. They decide who enjoys monopolies. Governments may change, but those licences, contracts, and monopolies continue to circulate within a relatively small circle of well-connected individuals. Within that circle are Malays, Chinese, and Indians alike, many of whom eventually become close allies of those who previously campaigned most aggressively under this doctrine. As long as this doctrine remains unchallenged, insufficiently examined, and poorly understood, Malaysia's political pendulum will continue swinging back and forth. At one point, this doctrine dominates public discourse, and the parties promoting it win power. Once in government, many of them repeat the same old practices while hiding behind the rhetoric of protecting Malay rights. Over time, however, the public begins to witness corruption, administrative failures, abuse of power, and growing displays of wealth among the political elite. The pendulum then swings in the opposite direction, and they lose power. But if the new government fails to challenge this doctrine by governing better and delivering meaningful reform, it unintentionally breathes new life into the very doctrine it defeated. Before long, the political pendulum begins swinging back once again. That, in my view, is precisely where Malaysian politics stands today. What I have shared here is only the beginning of a much broader discussion. I hope you will join me for YBM Podcast Episode 57 this Friday, 31 July, where I will explore these ideas in much greater depth.

Rafizi Ramli

19,405 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

We’re often told Western societies are experiencing conditions reminiscent of the German Weimar Republic. But what exactly was the German Weimar Republic? I’d like to explain the republic…and its incredible levels of debauchery, meaninglessness, sex, drugs, and—of course—Jews. “The decay of moral values in all areas of life—the period of deepest German degradation—coincided exactly with the height of Jewish power in Germany.” -Karl Wiehe Background The Weimar Republic is the unofficial name—that was popularized by Adolf Hitler—of the German nation-state that existed from November of 1918 to March of 1933. It was named for the city of Weimar, Germany where the constitutional assembly that established the new German republic met. The official name of the republic was the German Reich. The Weimar Republic was established after Germany’s loss in WWI. Germany was forced under the Treaty of Versailles to accept “full responsibility” for the war and pay the debts of all the allied countries. Being forced to pay these massive debts devastated the German economy and skyrocketed inflation, unemployment, and suicide within Germany. At one point 40% of Germans were unemployed and many were homeless. In 1932, the German suicide rate was more than three times that of Great Britain and in one two-year period, Germany had more suicides than there had been deaths of American soldiers in all of WWI. The German currency became the most worthless currency in Europe. A loaf of bread in Berlin that cost around 160 German Marks at the end of 1922, cost 200,000,000,000 German Marks by late 1923. The German peoples’ life savings and purchasing power had melted away over the course of a few months. With a single US dollar being worth 4,210,500,000,000 German Marks by November of 1923, foreign currencies had much greater buying power in Germany. So naturally, foreigners flocked to Germany to take advantage of the cheap prices. With these foreigners arriving en masse, Germans desperate for work turned to one of primary industries the foreigners flocked to Germany for: the sex industry. Sex and Drugs Germans began flocking to urban hubs in search of work, and no urban hub was more popular than Berlin. Prostitution in Berlin wasn’t explicitly legal but existed in a kind of legal gray area where certain aspects of the sex trade were regulated while others remained unregulated. However, enforcement of any laws restricting prostitution was lax to non-existent. On any given night up to 100,000 prostitutes would line the streets of Berlin. Every type of prostitute was available: midgets, pregnant prostitutes who lined up on the street according to how pregnant they were, prostitutes that purposefully tried to be ugly, prostitutes with acid-scarred faces, prostitutes with missing limbs, mother and daughter prostitute pairs, dominatrixes, even hunchback prostitutes. Interracial, inter-generational, forced or abusive sex acts were all available for the right price. There was also a large male prostitution industry and homosexual men from across Europe came to Germany to pay for homosexual sex. And unlike most cities, Berlin boasted having not a single red-light district—but multiple. Child prostitutes were bought and sold in Weimar Berlin in a booming industry. Advertisements for child prostitutes were even placed in German magazines and newspapers. A person could order a child, or any other type of prostitute for that matter, over the phone and have them a few short minutes later. British historian Sir Arthur Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. Bryant adds, “most of them—the night clubs and vice resorts—were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.” There were homosexual, lesbian, and even transsexual bars where, occasionally, public masturbation and orgies took place. These homosexual bars weren’t isolated or rare one-off outliers either, there were over 50 lesbian bars in Berlin and around 100 homosexual bars total. Drag shows and cross dressing were commonplace in these bars. Sexual acts involving torture or acts bringing a victim close to death, or even—in some instances—to death were performed in Weimar Germany (called Lustmord). As often happens when violent sexual perversions arise, so too do serial killers playing out their fetishes in reality. I refuse to name serial killers in my writings because I think it glorifies them, but you can look them up yourself. German Newspapers devoted entire sections to the violent sexual crimes of these serial killers and fictional accounts of murders sold very well on German book stands. Serial Killers had a romanticized lore around them, similar to what we see in western society today. Alongside prostitution and homosexual clubs, porn also enjoyed a golden age during the Weimar Republic. Like prostitution, porn existed in a kind of legal gray area where enforcement of any regulations on it were lax to non-existent. Images could be purchased under-the-counter at most street media kiosks. According to one report there were as many as 30 homosexual publications on any given Berlin media kiosk. Above all, pornography featuring models who bore a resemblance to the biggest movie stars of the day, such as Marlene Dietrich or Greta Garbo, were in the highest demand. Fashion began to blur the lines between masculine and feminine. The female image began to experiment with a more strong-willed independent tone and some women began to dress in masculine clothing. Similarly, male fashion began to experiment with feminization and cross-dressing amongst men began to rise. Berlin’s women began to question the need for a man in their lives at all and many Berlin women had no desire to start or raise a family. Drug use in the Weimar Republic also ran rampant and Berlin gained a reputation as a drug dealing hub around Germany and Europe. Cocaine was the most popular drug in the Weimar Republic and only required a simple prescription from a doctor. That said, opium (a predecessor to heroin), morphine and amphetamines were all readily available and extensively used as well. The drug usage was so pervasive there was even experimentation with using drugs for “scientific” sexual purposes. One of the chief “scientists” behind this experimentation with sex was a man named Magnus Hirshfeld. Magnus Hirschfeld was a homosexual Jew and one of the thought leaders behind the sexual debauchery overtaking Berlin. Hirschfeld had founded political organizations that fought for the rights of homosexuals in Germany well before the Weimar era and as far back as 1896. He led the campaign to overturn a statue of German Law called Paragraph 175 which forbid homosexuality in Germany. Hirschfeld would later go on to write a 1914 book called The Homosexuality of Men and Women in which he attempted to prove homosexuality occurred in every society around the world. Hirschfeld’s crowning achievement of debauchery, however, occurred in July of 1919 when he opened The Institute of Sexual Research (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft) in Berlin. The institute’s stated purpose was to establish the sexual sciences…and establish the sexual sciences the institute did. It was at the Institute of Sexual Research where the initial rubric for the innumerable genders we see in leftism today originated. At the institute, Hirschfeld developed a system which categorized 64 possible types of sexual intermediary (aka genders) and it was Hirschfeld who coined the term transvestite in 1910 and the term transsexual in 1923. The institute even performed sex re-assignment surgery. The Institute of Sexual Research also housed a large library for any and all homosexual, transsexual, and erotic literature. The institute had places for homosexuals to stay overnight as well as some of the first counseling services specifically tailored to homosexuals. Homosexual-specific medical services were provided in the institute as well. The institute also housed the Museum of Sex, an educational resource for the public, which was reported to have been visited by school classes. I think the writer Luigi Barzini most succinctly summarized the rampant debauchery that was Weimar Berlin when he said: “I saw pimps offering anything to anybody: little boys, little girls, robust young men, libidinous women, animals. The story went the rounds that a male goose whose neck you cut at just the right ecstatic moment would give you the most delicious frisson of all—as it allowed you to enjoy sod*my, bestiality, homosexuality, necrophilia, and sadism at one stroke.” A debaucherous infestation had overtaken Berlin and nowhere was that more evident than in the arts. Art, Music, and Film Art, music, and film in Berlin were overtaken by the sexual revolution and a move toward a Jewish-influenced anti-authoritarianism as well. The Berlin film industry started releasing risqué and homosexual films. The world’s first known homosexual film—Anders als die Andern (1919)—came out in Berlin during the Weimar era and is the story a man falling in love with one of his male violin students. This film was written by and featured none other than Magnus Hirschfeld himself. Another film called Mädchen in Uniform (1931) is about a schoolgirl who falls in love with her female teacher. The two commence a forbidden love and eventually even share an on-screen lesbian kiss on the mouth. The film ends when this lesbian love is exposed and the protagonist attempts suicide. German expressionist cinema also came to prominence in the Weimar Republic. This form of cinema emphasized depicting the artist's inner emotions (no matter how crude those emotions may be) rather than attempting to replicate reality. Two of the three key figures for the German expressionist movement were the Jews Fritz Lang and Robert Wiene. The expressionist film Metropolis was one of the biggest films of the Weimar era. Metropolis’ content is emblematic of the anti-authoritarian and communist messages of German expressionist cinema. The film takes place in a futuristic city where a beautiful and cultured utopia exists above a bleak underworld populated by mistreated workers. When a privileged young man discovers the grim scene under the city, he becomes intent on helping the workers. He befriends a rebellious teacher which puts him at odds with his authoritative father. The film was directed the Jew Fritz Lang and produced by the Jew Erich Pommer. The credits of the films of the Berlin movie industry were also littered with Jews. In fact, in 1931, over 60 percent of German films were produced by Jews and 82 percent of film scripts were written by Jews. In the art scene, a thoroughly anti-authoritarian and communist movement called Dada arose. The Dadaist movement was comprised of artists who rejected the logic, reason, and aestheticism of modern capitalist society, instead expressing nonsense, irrationality, and anti-bourgeois protest in their works. Dadaist works opposed any type of authority and made fun of far-right figures, including Hitler himself. According to Wikipedia, some sources claim the Dadaist movement was founded by a group of Jewish modernist artists. In music, one of the most popular singers of the day was a woman who was largely regarded as “the first official lesbian of Berlin” named Claire Waldoff. Waldoff dressed masculine and made no secret of her sexuality while actively trying to convert other culturally important women to become lesbian. One culturally important woman Waldoff succeeded in converting to bisexuality was one of the biggest movie stars in the world, Marlene Dietrich. Marlene was famous for pushing social norms and sometimes wore a tuxedo, helping to erode the image of traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine roles. Marlene credits Clarie Waldoff as “introducing her to lesbian love”. Marlene Deitrich was openly bisexual and an icon for homosexual women around the world when no other homosexual icons existed. One newspaper dubbed Dietrich “perhaps the busiest and most passionate bisexual in theatrical Berlin.” Anita Berber was one of the most popular nude dancers of the Weimar Republic and danced to songs with titles like, suicide, morphiem, and mad house. One of her husbands was also openly homosexual. In one famous story about Anita, she was being ignored by one of the tables she was dancing for, so she went over to the table, stood on top of it, and started peeing on the table while drinking their champagne. What a gal… Architecture One aesthetic element that I think tends to be overlooked in most writings on social decay is architecture. It should come as no surprise that the principal architecture movement of the Weimar Republic—called expressionist architecture—also took a turn from an aesthetic focused on beauty and perfection toward an aesthetic that focused on “distortion of form to create an emotional effect”. This is architecture that’s generally perceived as hideous or repulsive. I’d also argue there’s a larger psychological component to this expressionist architecture. This ugly architecture contributes to social decay by glorifying the more disgusting elements of society and humanity. It subconsciously undermines the idea that society should strive for perfection and instead is a call to accept society’s more heinous elements. This repulsive architecture is, in my view, anti-authoritarian and destructive to social norms. Two of the key architects of the expressionist architecture movement were the Jews Bruno Taut and Erich Mendelsohn. Jews One of the key factors in Hitler’s rise to power was his opposition of the Jewish influence inside Berlin. As such, this article would be incomplete without looking at the Jewish influence that existed inside Berlin or—possibly more importantly—the German public’s perception of the Jewish influence inside Berlin. Here are some of the figures I think best illustrate the Jewish over-representation in the Weimar Republic. All these figures should be viewed in consideration of this fact: Jews made up less than 1% (.09%) of the German population in the years of the Weimar Republic. In my opinion, these figures are staggering primarily because of the Jews’ immense over-representation in major positions of power within German society. Politics • The author of the 1919 German constitution was the Jew Hugo Preuss. • One quarter of the members of the 8-person Council of the People's Deputies that established the Weimar Republic were Jews (Otto Landesberg and Hugo Haase). • The main competing faction against the official Weimar government was headed by the Jew Kurt Eisner. • The SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) was the political party that primarily ran the Weimar Republic. 22% of the entirety of the SPD were Jews. • The SPD’s main political theorist was a Jew: Eduard Bernstein • Two of the political thinkers most respected by the SPD were Jews: Ferdinand Lassalle, Leopold Sonnemann. • SPD's “foremost theoretician of this century” was the Jew Rudolf Hilferding. • SPD Key Figure, industrialist, and political thinker Walther Rathenau was a Jew. • The Vice President of the Berlin Police was the jew Bernhard Weiss. • In the first Weimar administration Vice Chancellor Eugen Schiffer was Jewish as was Weimar Interior Minister Erich Koch-Weser. • 15% of the members of the Reichstag (German Parliament) were Jewish. • A large number of the members of the political elite of the Weimar Republic were Jews: Rosa Luxemburg, Paul Levi, Ernst Toller, Erich Muhsam, Gustav Landauer, Eugen Levine, and Karl Radek. The Press • The Ullstein Press was the publisher of many of the largest German newspapers and was owned by the Jew Leopold Ullstein. • The Berliner Iliustrirte Zeitung was one of the largest German newspapers. It was Published by the Ullstein Press and its chief editor was the Jew Kurt Korff. • The Vossische Zeitung was another of the largest German newspapers and was published by the Ullstein Press. Its chief editor was the Jew Georg Bernhard. • Another of the othe r largest newspaper publishers was the Jew Rudolf Mosse. • The Berliner Tageblatt was the largest of Rudolf Mosse’s newspapers and its chief editor was the Jew Theodor Wolff • Editor-in-chief of the SPD’s party paper Vorwärts was the Jew Friedrich Stampfer The Arts • The Jew Erich Pommer was a German-born film producer and executive. According to Wikipedia, “Pommer was perhaps the most powerful person in the German and European film industries in the 1920s and early 1930s.” • In 1931, over 60 percent of German films were produced by Jews and 82 percent of film scripts were written by Jewish writers. • Two of the three key figures for the largest film movement of the Weimar era—the German expressionist movement—were the Jews Fritz Lang and Robert Wiene. • Two of the key Architects of the expressionist architecture movement were the Jews Bruno Taut and Erich Mendelsohn. • Some of the most influential producers, directors, & actors in Weimar cinema were Jews as well to name a few: Paul Davidson, Joseph Mandel, Jules Greenbaum, Max Reinhardt, Josef Von Sternberg, Fritz Kohn, Otto Wallburg, Peter Lowenstein. • To conclude the arts, some claim the anti-authoritarian and thoroughly communist Dadaist movement was founded by a group of Jewish modernist artists. Sex • Magnus Hirschfeld was Jewish. He was dubbed "the Einstein of Sex". He was president of World League of Sexual Reform and of course, founder of the Institute for Sexual Research. • Ivan Bloch was Jewish and is often called the "first Sexologist". • As quoted by Sir Arthur Bryant earlier, “most of them—the night clubs and vice resorts—were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.” Other notable Jewish over-representations: (**Please Note** these next five bullet points are not official numbers and are from a NSDAP piece that was distributed in Weimar Germany. I'm including them because although I can't be completely sure of their accuracy, I think they most likely do generally represent the amalgamations of Jewish power in Weimar society. And, at the very least, these numbers represent the German public’s perception of Jewish amalgamations of power in Weimar society): • 56% of notaries were Jews. • 52% of doctors were Jews. • 45% of Hospital Directors were Jews. • 48% of lawyers were Jews. • 35% of dentists were Jews. One last note on the Jews of the Weimar Republic. I included a link with more detail below, but many Weimar Jews actively tried to conceal their Jewish identity and even went so far as bragging to other Jews when gentiles were unable to identify them. This is one of the reasons that, to this day, it’s somewhat difficult to identify who the Jews of the Weimar Republic were. What this means is that, although the identity of every Jew I list is verified, there are undoubtedly other prominent and non-prominent Jews I was unable to identify. The provided list should not be viewed as wholly representative of the Jewish influence within Weimar Germany. But even just considering the provided list, you can see the Jewish influence was substantial for a race of people comprising less than 1% of the total German population. This Jewish over-representation is even more substantial when you consider that many of these Jewish amalgamations of over-representation occurred within many of Germany’s most important social, political, and economic institutions. The Weimar Republic was often referred to as the "Juden Republic" (Jew's Republic) by Germans. I think it's easy to see why... Enter the National Socialists After Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, Goebbels and the Brownshirts began shutting down the homosexual dive bars that had risen to prominence during the Weimar Republic. They made one of the most popular homosexual bars in Berlin their headquarters after shutting it down. They pillaged Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Research and Hirschfeld’s books on transsexual ideology were some of the first books the National Socialists burned. From Wikipedia itself, the books the National Socialists burned were: • Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, destroy the principles of race and Volk. • Pornography and explicit literature. • Pacifist literature. • All books degrading German purity. • Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field. • Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life's goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life. • The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new Germany. • The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism. • Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writings supporting the Weimar Republic. • Books that advocate "art" which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist. • The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of "Asphalt and Civilization" literati • Patriotic kitsch in literature. • All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud. Very quickly after Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the chief purveyors of the degeneracy that had overtaken Berlin would leave the city and National Socialist Germany would rise from its ashes. The rest—as they say—is history. (Sources and further reading in the comments below)
28:45

We’re often told Western societies are experiencing conditions reminiscent of the German Weimar Republic. But what exactly was the German Weimar Republic? I’d like to explain the republic…and its incredible levels of debauchery, meaninglessness, sex, drugs, and—of course—Jews. “The decay of moral values in all areas of life—the period of deepest German degradation—coincided exactly with the height of Jewish power in Germany.” -Karl Wiehe Background The Weimar Republic is the unofficial name—that was popularized by Adolf Hitler—of the German nation-state that existed from November of 1918 to March of 1933. It was named for the city of Weimar, Germany where the constitutional assembly that established the new German republic met. The official name of the republic was the German Reich. The Weimar Republic was established after Germany’s loss in WWI. Germany was forced under the Treaty of Versailles to accept “full responsibility” for the war and pay the debts of all the allied countries. Being forced to pay these massive debts devastated the German economy and skyrocketed inflation, unemployment, and suicide within Germany. At one point 40% of Germans were unemployed and many were homeless. In 1932, the German suicide rate was more than three times that of Great Britain and in one two-year period, Germany had more suicides than there had been deaths of American soldiers in all of WWI. The German currency became the most worthless currency in Europe. A loaf of bread in Berlin that cost around 160 German Marks at the end of 1922, cost 200,000,000,000 German Marks by late 1923. The German peoples’ life savings and purchasing power had melted away over the course of a few months. With a single US dollar being worth 4,210,500,000,000 German Marks by November of 1923, foreign currencies had much greater buying power in Germany. So naturally, foreigners flocked to Germany to take advantage of the cheap prices. With these foreigners arriving en masse, Germans desperate for work turned to one of primary industries the foreigners flocked to Germany for: the sex industry. Sex and Drugs Germans began flocking to urban hubs in search of work, and no urban hub was more popular than Berlin. Prostitution in Berlin wasn’t explicitly legal but existed in a kind of legal gray area where certain aspects of the sex trade were regulated while others remained unregulated. However, enforcement of any laws restricting prostitution was lax to non-existent. On any given night up to 100,000 prostitutes would line the streets of Berlin. Every type of prostitute was available: midgets, pregnant prostitutes who lined up on the street according to how pregnant they were, prostitutes that purposefully tried to be ugly, prostitutes with acid-scarred faces, prostitutes with missing limbs, mother and daughter prostitute pairs, dominatrixes, even hunchback prostitutes. Interracial, inter-generational, forced or abusive sex acts were all available for the right price. There was also a large male prostitution industry and homosexual men from across Europe came to Germany to pay for homosexual sex. And unlike most cities, Berlin boasted having not a single red-light district—but multiple. Child prostitutes were bought and sold in Weimar Berlin in a booming industry. Advertisements for child prostitutes were even placed in German magazines and newspapers. A person could order a child, or any other type of prostitute for that matter, over the phone and have them a few short minutes later. British historian Sir Arthur Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. Bryant adds, “most of them—the night clubs and vice resorts—were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.” There were homosexual, lesbian, and even transsexual bars where, occasionally, public masturbation and orgies took place. These homosexual bars weren’t isolated or rare one-off outliers either, there were over 50 lesbian bars in Berlin and around 100 homosexual bars total. Drag shows and cross dressing were commonplace in these bars. Sexual acts involving torture or acts bringing a victim close to death, or even—in some instances—to death were performed in Weimar Germany (called Lustmord). As often happens when violent sexual perversions arise, so too do serial killers playing out their fetishes in reality. I refuse to name serial killers in my writings because I think it glorifies them, but you can look them up yourself. German Newspapers devoted entire sections to the violent sexual crimes of these serial killers and fictional accounts of murders sold very well on German book stands. Serial Killers had a romanticized lore around them, similar to what we see in western society today. Alongside prostitution and homosexual clubs, porn also enjoyed a golden age during the Weimar Republic. Like prostitution, porn existed in a kind of legal gray area where enforcement of any regulations on it were lax to non-existent. Images could be purchased under-the-counter at most street media kiosks. According to one report there were as many as 30 homosexual publications on any given Berlin media kiosk. Above all, pornography featuring models who bore a resemblance to the biggest movie stars of the day, such as Marlene Dietrich or Greta Garbo, were in the highest demand. Fashion began to blur the lines between masculine and feminine. The female image began to experiment with a more strong-willed independent tone and some women began to dress in masculine clothing. Similarly, male fashion began to experiment with feminization and cross-dressing amongst men began to rise. Berlin’s women began to question the need for a man in their lives at all and many Berlin women had no desire to start or raise a family. Drug use in the Weimar Republic also ran rampant and Berlin gained a reputation as a drug dealing hub around Germany and Europe. Cocaine was the most popular drug in the Weimar Republic and only required a simple prescription from a doctor. That said, opium (a predecessor to heroin), morphine and amphetamines were all readily available and extensively used as well. The drug usage was so pervasive there was even experimentation with using drugs for “scientific” sexual purposes. One of the chief “scientists” behind this experimentation with sex was a man named Magnus Hirshfeld. Magnus Hirschfeld was a homosexual Jew and one of the thought leaders behind the sexual debauchery overtaking Berlin. Hirschfeld had founded political organizations that fought for the rights of homosexuals in Germany well before the Weimar era and as far back as 1896. He led the campaign to overturn a statue of German Law called Paragraph 175 which forbid homosexuality in Germany. Hirschfeld would later go on to write a 1914 book called The Homosexuality of Men and Women in which he attempted to prove homosexuality occurred in every society around the world. Hirschfeld’s crowning achievement of debauchery, however, occurred in July of 1919 when he opened The Institute of Sexual Research (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft) in Berlin. The institute’s stated purpose was to establish the sexual sciences…and establish the sexual sciences the institute did. It was at the Institute of Sexual Research where the initial rubric for the innumerable genders we see in leftism today originated. At the institute, Hirschfeld developed a system which categorized 64 possible types of sexual intermediary (aka genders) and it was Hirschfeld who coined the term transvestite in 1910 and the term transsexual in 1923. The institute even performed sex re-assignment surgery. The Institute of Sexual Research also housed a large library for any and all homosexual, transsexual, and erotic literature. The institute had places for homosexuals to stay overnight as well as some of the first counseling services specifically tailored to homosexuals. Homosexual-specific medical services were provided in the institute as well. The institute also housed the Museum of Sex, an educational resource for the public, which was reported to have been visited by school classes. I think the writer Luigi Barzini most succinctly summarized the rampant debauchery that was Weimar Berlin when he said: “I saw pimps offering anything to anybody: little boys, little girls, robust young men, libidinous women, animals. The story went the rounds that a male goose whose neck you cut at just the right ecstatic moment would give you the most delicious frisson of all—as it allowed you to enjoy sod*my, bestiality, homosexuality, necrophilia, and sadism at one stroke.” A debaucherous infestation had overtaken Berlin and nowhere was that more evident than in the arts. Art, Music, and Film Art, music, and film in Berlin were overtaken by the sexual revolution and a move toward a Jewish-influenced anti-authoritarianism as well. The Berlin film industry started releasing risqué and homosexual films. The world’s first known homosexual film—Anders als die Andern (1919)—came out in Berlin during the Weimar era and is the story a man falling in love with one of his male violin students. This film was written by and featured none other than Magnus Hirschfeld himself. Another film called Mädchen in Uniform (1931) is about a schoolgirl who falls in love with her female teacher. The two commence a forbidden love and eventually even share an on-screen lesbian kiss on the mouth. The film ends when this lesbian love is exposed and the protagonist attempts suicide. German expressionist cinema also came to prominence in the Weimar Republic. This form of cinema emphasized depicting the artist's inner emotions (no matter how crude those emotions may be) rather than attempting to replicate reality. Two of the three key figures for the German expressionist movement were the Jews Fritz Lang and Robert Wiene. The expressionist film Metropolis was one of the biggest films of the Weimar era. Metropolis’ content is emblematic of the anti-authoritarian and communist messages of German expressionist cinema. The film takes place in a futuristic city where a beautiful and cultured utopia exists above a bleak underworld populated by mistreated workers. When a privileged young man discovers the grim scene under the city, he becomes intent on helping the workers. He befriends a rebellious teacher which puts him at odds with his authoritative father. The film was directed the Jew Fritz Lang and produced by the Jew Erich Pommer. The credits of the films of the Berlin movie industry were also littered with Jews. In fact, in 1931, over 60 percent of German films were produced by Jews and 82 percent of film scripts were written by Jews. In the art scene, a thoroughly anti-authoritarian and communist movement called Dada arose. The Dadaist movement was comprised of artists who rejected the logic, reason, and aestheticism of modern capitalist society, instead expressing nonsense, irrationality, and anti-bourgeois protest in their works. Dadaist works opposed any type of authority and made fun of far-right figures, including Hitler himself. According to Wikipedia, some sources claim the Dadaist movement was founded by a group of Jewish modernist artists. In music, one of the most popular singers of the day was a woman who was largely regarded as “the first official lesbian of Berlin” named Claire Waldoff. Waldoff dressed masculine and made no secret of her sexuality while actively trying to convert other culturally important women to become lesbian. One culturally important woman Waldoff succeeded in converting to bisexuality was one of the biggest movie stars in the world, Marlene Dietrich. Marlene was famous for pushing social norms and sometimes wore a tuxedo, helping to erode the image of traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine roles. Marlene credits Clarie Waldoff as “introducing her to lesbian love”. Marlene Deitrich was openly bisexual and an icon for homosexual women around the world when no other homosexual icons existed. One newspaper dubbed Dietrich “perhaps the busiest and most passionate bisexual in theatrical Berlin.” Anita Berber was one of the most popular nude dancers of the Weimar Republic and danced to songs with titles like, suicide, morphiem, and mad house. One of her husbands was also openly homosexual. In one famous story about Anita, she was being ignored by one of the tables she was dancing for, so she went over to the table, stood on top of it, and started peeing on the table while drinking their champagne. What a gal… Architecture One aesthetic element that I think tends to be overlooked in most writings on social decay is architecture. It should come as no surprise that the principal architecture movement of the Weimar Republic—called expressionist architecture—also took a turn from an aesthetic focused on beauty and perfection toward an aesthetic that focused on “distortion of form to create an emotional effect”. This is architecture that’s generally perceived as hideous or repulsive. I’d also argue there’s a larger psychological component to this expressionist architecture. This ugly architecture contributes to social decay by glorifying the more disgusting elements of society and humanity. It subconsciously undermines the idea that society should strive for perfection and instead is a call to accept society’s more heinous elements. This repulsive architecture is, in my view, anti-authoritarian and destructive to social norms. Two of the key architects of the expressionist architecture movement were the Jews Bruno Taut and Erich Mendelsohn. Jews One of the key factors in Hitler’s rise to power was his opposition of the Jewish influence inside Berlin. As such, this article would be incomplete without looking at the Jewish influence that existed inside Berlin or—possibly more importantly—the German public’s perception of the Jewish influence inside Berlin. Here are some of the figures I think best illustrate the Jewish over-representation in the Weimar Republic. All these figures should be viewed in consideration of this fact: Jews made up less than 1% (.09%) of the German population in the years of the Weimar Republic. In my opinion, these figures are staggering primarily because of the Jews’ immense over-representation in major positions of power within German society. Politics • The author of the 1919 German constitution was the Jew Hugo Preuss. • One quarter of the members of the 8-person Council of the People's Deputies that established the Weimar Republic were Jews (Otto Landesberg and Hugo Haase). • The main competing faction against the official Weimar government was headed by the Jew Kurt Eisner. • The SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) was the political party that primarily ran the Weimar Republic. 22% of the entirety of the SPD were Jews. • The SPD’s main political theorist was a Jew: Eduard Bernstein • Two of the political thinkers most respected by the SPD were Jews: Ferdinand Lassalle, Leopold Sonnemann. • SPD's “foremost theoretician of this century” was the Jew Rudolf Hilferding. • SPD Key Figure, industrialist, and political thinker Walther Rathenau was a Jew. • The Vice President of the Berlin Police was the jew Bernhard Weiss. • In the first Weimar administration Vice Chancellor Eugen Schiffer was Jewish as was Weimar Interior Minister Erich Koch-Weser. • 15% of the members of the Reichstag (German Parliament) were Jewish. • A large number of the members of the political elite of the Weimar Republic were Jews: Rosa Luxemburg, Paul Levi, Ernst Toller, Erich Muhsam, Gustav Landauer, Eugen Levine, and Karl Radek. The Press • The Ullstein Press was the publisher of many of the largest German newspapers and was owned by the Jew Leopold Ullstein. • The Berliner Iliustrirte Zeitung was one of the largest German newspapers. It was Published by the Ullstein Press and its chief editor was the Jew Kurt Korff. • The Vossische Zeitung was another of the largest German newspapers and was published by the Ullstein Press. Its chief editor was the Jew Georg Bernhard. • Another of the othe r largest newspaper publishers was the Jew Rudolf Mosse. • The Berliner Tageblatt was the largest of Rudolf Mosse’s newspapers and its chief editor was the Jew Theodor Wolff • Editor-in-chief of the SPD’s party paper Vorwärts was the Jew Friedrich Stampfer The Arts • The Jew Erich Pommer was a German-born film producer and executive. According to Wikipedia, “Pommer was perhaps the most powerful person in the German and European film industries in the 1920s and early 1930s.” • In 1931, over 60 percent of German films were produced by Jews and 82 percent of film scripts were written by Jewish writers. • Two of the three key figures for the largest film movement of the Weimar era—the German expressionist movement—were the Jews Fritz Lang and Robert Wiene. • Two of the key Architects of the expressionist architecture movement were the Jews Bruno Taut and Erich Mendelsohn. • Some of the most influential producers, directors, & actors in Weimar cinema were Jews as well to name a few: Paul Davidson, Joseph Mandel, Jules Greenbaum, Max Reinhardt, Josef Von Sternberg, Fritz Kohn, Otto Wallburg, Peter Lowenstein. • To conclude the arts, some claim the anti-authoritarian and thoroughly communist Dadaist movement was founded by a group of Jewish modernist artists. Sex • Magnus Hirschfeld was Jewish. He was dubbed "the Einstein of Sex". He was president of World League of Sexual Reform and of course, founder of the Institute for Sexual Research. • Ivan Bloch was Jewish and is often called the "first Sexologist". • As quoted by Sir Arthur Bryant earlier, “most of them—the night clubs and vice resorts—were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.” Other notable Jewish over-representations: (**Please Note** these next five bullet points are not official numbers and are from a NSDAP piece that was distributed in Weimar Germany. I'm including them because although I can't be completely sure of their accuracy, I think they most likely do generally represent the amalgamations of Jewish power in Weimar society. And, at the very least, these numbers represent the German public’s perception of Jewish amalgamations of power in Weimar society): • 56% of notaries were Jews. • 52% of doctors were Jews. • 45% of Hospital Directors were Jews. • 48% of lawyers were Jews. • 35% of dentists were Jews. One last note on the Jews of the Weimar Republic. I included a link with more detail below, but many Weimar Jews actively tried to conceal their Jewish identity and even went so far as bragging to other Jews when gentiles were unable to identify them. This is one of the reasons that, to this day, it’s somewhat difficult to identify who the Jews of the Weimar Republic were. What this means is that, although the identity of every Jew I list is verified, there are undoubtedly other prominent and non-prominent Jews I was unable to identify. The provided list should not be viewed as wholly representative of the Jewish influence within Weimar Germany. But even just considering the provided list, you can see the Jewish influence was substantial for a race of people comprising less than 1% of the total German population. This Jewish over-representation is even more substantial when you consider that many of these Jewish amalgamations of over-representation occurred within many of Germany’s most important social, political, and economic institutions. The Weimar Republic was often referred to as the "Juden Republic" (Jew's Republic) by Germans. I think it's easy to see why... Enter the National Socialists After Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, Goebbels and the Brownshirts began shutting down the homosexual dive bars that had risen to prominence during the Weimar Republic. They made one of the most popular homosexual bars in Berlin their headquarters after shutting it down. They pillaged Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Research and Hirschfeld’s books on transsexual ideology were some of the first books the National Socialists burned. From Wikipedia itself, the books the National Socialists burned were: • Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, destroy the principles of race and Volk. • Pornography and explicit literature. • Pacifist literature. • All books degrading German purity. • Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field. • Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life's goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life. • The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new Germany. • The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism. • Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writings supporting the Weimar Republic. • Books that advocate "art" which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist. • The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of "Asphalt and Civilization" literati • Patriotic kitsch in literature. • All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud. Very quickly after Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the chief purveyors of the degeneracy that had overtaken Berlin would leave the city and National Socialist Germany would rise from its ashes. The rest—as they say—is history. (Sources and further reading in the comments below)

Bobby Thorne

67,770 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce