正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Victim mentality se bahar kab niklenge? Other nations move forward, while we argue over past grievances. Real change tab aayega jab hum individual leaders ke bajaye system ko question karenge.

lolflix_'s profile picture

lolflix

31,637 subscribers

25,522 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

William Ruto is a very intelligent politician. He understands that when people begin talking about corruption, the economy, unemployment, collapsing businesses, failing hospitals, poor roads, and the rising cost of living, his government is on dangerous ground. That is why the conversation must be redirected. Now we are seeing Treasury CS John Mbadi being deployed to Nyanza, revisiting the wounds of 2002 and 2007, reminding people who betrayed who, who was sworn in at night, who allegedly used who. But the question is: to what end? Why are we being pushed to relive old ethnic grievances while businesses are collapsing today? Why are communities being encouraged to look backward in anger instead of forward in search of solutions? Many Luos are asking a simple question: if UDA was heavily supported by Kikuyu voters in 2022, why should ordinary citizens be turned against each other now? Why should a fisherman in Homa Bay be angry with a farmer in Nyeri when both are struggling to survive under the same economic pressure? The pattern is becoming difficult to ignore. Mbadi in Nyanza. Joho at the Coast. Duale in North Eastern. Different faces, same script. The objective appears to be turning politics into a tribal contest instead of a national conversation about leadership and performance. But ordinary Kenyans are not blind. Corruption does not ask whether you are Luo, Kikuyu, Kamba, Luhya, Kisii, Kalenjin, Somali, or Mijikenda before it steals public money. A broken healthcare system does not discriminate by tribe. Bad roads do not develop potholes selectively. Police extortion does not check your surname before demanding a bribe. Unemployment does not care what language you speak at home. As a young Kenyan, I refuse to be recruited into tribal wars every election cycle. I voted in 2022 to shape the future, and I will vote again based on issues that affect real people. I want leaders who will speak for the small businesses being strangled by taxes and extortion. I want leaders who will speak for matatu operators watching corruption turn our roads into graveyards. I want leaders who will speak for families still searching for clean water sixty years after independence. I want leaders who will fight for jobs, education, agriculture, healthcare, and dignity. The political class wants tribes talking to tribes. The people want leaders talking about solutions. We know the game. We know who is barking. And we know exactly who is holding the leash.
3:18

William Ruto is a very intelligent politician. He understands that when people begin talking about corruption, the economy, unemployment, collapsing businesses, failing hospitals, poor roads, and the rising cost of living, his government is on dangerous ground. That is why the conversation must be redirected. Now we are seeing Treasury CS John Mbadi being deployed to Nyanza, revisiting the wounds of 2002 and 2007, reminding people who betrayed who, who was sworn in at night, who allegedly used who. But the question is: to what end? Why are we being pushed to relive old ethnic grievances while businesses are collapsing today? Why are communities being encouraged to look backward in anger instead of forward in search of solutions? Many Luos are asking a simple question: if UDA was heavily supported by Kikuyu voters in 2022, why should ordinary citizens be turned against each other now? Why should a fisherman in Homa Bay be angry with a farmer in Nyeri when both are struggling to survive under the same economic pressure? The pattern is becoming difficult to ignore. Mbadi in Nyanza. Joho at the Coast. Duale in North Eastern. Different faces, same script. The objective appears to be turning politics into a tribal contest instead of a national conversation about leadership and performance. But ordinary Kenyans are not blind. Corruption does not ask whether you are Luo, Kikuyu, Kamba, Luhya, Kisii, Kalenjin, Somali, or Mijikenda before it steals public money. A broken healthcare system does not discriminate by tribe. Bad roads do not develop potholes selectively. Police extortion does not check your surname before demanding a bribe. Unemployment does not care what language you speak at home. As a young Kenyan, I refuse to be recruited into tribal wars every election cycle. I voted in 2022 to shape the future, and I will vote again based on issues that affect real people. I want leaders who will speak for the small businesses being strangled by taxes and extortion. I want leaders who will speak for matatu operators watching corruption turn our roads into graveyards. I want leaders who will speak for families still searching for clean water sixty years after independence. I want leaders who will fight for jobs, education, agriculture, healthcare, and dignity. The political class wants tribes talking to tribes. The people want leaders talking about solutions. We know the game. We know who is barking. And we know exactly who is holding the leash.

𝙋𝘼𝙐𝙇. 𝐎. 𝐍𝐄𝐊𝐎

28,543 次观看 • 3 个月前

Eric Li (a famous Chinese VC and the founder of Guancha) and Márton Ugrósdy, (Hungary's Deputy State Secretary) are absolutely correct: "In [today's geopolitical] environment countries that can maintain their neutrality will benefit the most. Countries that are being forced to take sides will lose... Neutrality will be a prized asset but it takes finesse, political will and sovereignty to do that [and achieve] strategic autonomy, political autonomy, cultural autonomy." Márton Ugrósdy adds that if "you end up in a position where you have to make 'either-or' choices between great powers then you messed up something years ago". This is the main tragedy of the EU over the past 20 years. An accumulation of bad choices over years means that it has no strategic autonomy, no sovereignty and is constantly forced to make either-or choices that work out against its interests. All with the result that it is so far THE big loser of today's geopolitical environment. We constantly talk about "freedom" and the importance of it but we somehow only ever look at individual freedom, never our collective ability as nations (or supranational entities like the EU) to be masters of our own destiny. When you think about it that's arguably even more important than individual freedom because you can individually be free all you want - be able to post whatever you want on Twitter and whatnot - but that counts little if in the grander scheme of things you're a citizen of a country that isn't free to choose its own destiny and is constantly forced to make choice that impoverish you or make you less secure... What kind of "freedom" is that? This is at heart why I have such an issue with people who put individual freedom at the pinnacle of what we ought to aim for as a society. It's akin to you being on the Titanic and saying that the most important thing to you is how comfy your cabin is... Or, more to the point, it's saying that it's ok if countries have their ships steered by outside powers - what matter most is that their passengers can tweet about it. It's downright myopic and practically destructive, ending up destroying collective AND individual freedom. This question also reveals something fascinating about the difference in vision for the world order between China and the U.S. China, throughout its history and all the more since the founding of the PRC, has always argued in favor of non-interference in other states' internal affairs, meaning in favor of not impeding on their sovereignty (and of course, in favor of no-one impeding on China's sovereignty). In that sense, Eric Li reflects China's official position here. It means that China is agnostic on individual freedom (it's your own choice internally) but takes an active stance in favor of sovereignty, i.e. collective freedom. The U.S. is almost the polar opposite: they take a very strong stance on individual freedom but make a mockery of collective freedom, as they violate countries' sovereignty as a matter of routine. Heck, they have entire agencies (like the National Endowment for Democracy) whose entire purpose is to violate countries' sovereignty. And in fact, often, they use individual freedom as an excuse to do so. Going back to my Titanic ideology, this means that China's vision is to ensure the ships remain under their captains' control, while the US focuses on the accommodations for individual passengers - even if that means drilling holes in other ships' hulls. It's almost a philosophical debate. How meaningful is individual freedom without the ability of a community to chart its own course? Europe needs to learn real fast that in today's world the answer is that if you can't steer your ship freely the whole thing will sink.
2:24

Eric Li (a famous Chinese VC and the founder of Guancha) and Márton Ugrósdy, (Hungary's Deputy State Secretary) are absolutely correct: "In [today's geopolitical] environment countries that can maintain their neutrality will benefit the most. Countries that are being forced to take sides will lose... Neutrality will be a prized asset but it takes finesse, political will and sovereignty to do that [and achieve] strategic autonomy, political autonomy, cultural autonomy." Márton Ugrósdy adds that if "you end up in a position where you have to make 'either-or' choices between great powers then you messed up something years ago". This is the main tragedy of the EU over the past 20 years. An accumulation of bad choices over years means that it has no strategic autonomy, no sovereignty and is constantly forced to make either-or choices that work out against its interests. All with the result that it is so far THE big loser of today's geopolitical environment. We constantly talk about "freedom" and the importance of it but we somehow only ever look at individual freedom, never our collective ability as nations (or supranational entities like the EU) to be masters of our own destiny. When you think about it that's arguably even more important than individual freedom because you can individually be free all you want - be able to post whatever you want on Twitter and whatnot - but that counts little if in the grander scheme of things you're a citizen of a country that isn't free to choose its own destiny and is constantly forced to make choice that impoverish you or make you less secure... What kind of "freedom" is that? This is at heart why I have such an issue with people who put individual freedom at the pinnacle of what we ought to aim for as a society. It's akin to you being on the Titanic and saying that the most important thing to you is how comfy your cabin is... Or, more to the point, it's saying that it's ok if countries have their ships steered by outside powers - what matter most is that their passengers can tweet about it. It's downright myopic and practically destructive, ending up destroying collective AND individual freedom. This question also reveals something fascinating about the difference in vision for the world order between China and the U.S. China, throughout its history and all the more since the founding of the PRC, has always argued in favor of non-interference in other states' internal affairs, meaning in favor of not impeding on their sovereignty (and of course, in favor of no-one impeding on China's sovereignty). In that sense, Eric Li reflects China's official position here. It means that China is agnostic on individual freedom (it's your own choice internally) but takes an active stance in favor of sovereignty, i.e. collective freedom. The U.S. is almost the polar opposite: they take a very strong stance on individual freedom but make a mockery of collective freedom, as they violate countries' sovereignty as a matter of routine. Heck, they have entire agencies (like the National Endowment for Democracy) whose entire purpose is to violate countries' sovereignty. And in fact, often, they use individual freedom as an excuse to do so. Going back to my Titanic ideology, this means that China's vision is to ensure the ships remain under their captains' control, while the US focuses on the accommodations for individual passengers - even if that means drilling holes in other ships' hulls. It's almost a philosophical debate. How meaningful is individual freedom without the ability of a community to chart its own course? Europe needs to learn real fast that in today's world the answer is that if you can't steer your ship freely the whole thing will sink.

Arnaud Bertrand

99,717 次观看 • 1 年前

I normally agree with De Villepin on virtually everything so I was surprised to hear him say this 👇. No, universalism isn't Europe's salvation - it's largely what destroyed it. This way of dealing with the world whereby you proclaim yourself the gatekeepers of values and principles that you deem universal, and insist the rest of the world adopt, is over. And this "great fight to be fought" between different conceptions of humanity that Villepin sees coming is precisely what we need to avoid, because it doesn't need to be fought: we should make our peace with the coexistence of different civilizations and cultures. And not only is this universalist approach over, it is now thoroughly counterproductive as it screams of hypocrisy after Europe's own performance with regards to its stated values and principles. Gaza in particular completely obliterated this, and De Villepin ought to know this given how vocal he's been on the matter. He speaks of Europeans as being "guardians of the law," but he knows all too well that no-one had done more to undermine international law than the West these past few years. The new multipolar world we're entering into is not, as De Villepin suggests, an arena for a "great fight" between competing universal visions - the fight between "American individualism, Chinese collectivism and European citizenship" as he puts it. Instead it must become the age of understanding and managing differences between civilizations and cultures. Europe's biggest challenge going forward is to learn some measure of humbleness. We need to relearn that there is no measuring scale between civilizations and, especially looking at its record these past few decades, that Europe certainly isn't the paragon of anything. And if there's a fight to be fought, Europe needs to fight to avoid the emergence of a civilizational war, a fight to promote coexistence and mutual understanding. Granted, it is undeniable there are such things as universal values and principles. For instance I think we can all agree that killing innocent civilians is bad. We can also all agree that there shouldn't be child soldiers. We can all agree there is but one Earth and that protecting it is important for our collective survival. And, as such, international law has a place. But given its record, if Europe truly believes in these principles it should support them and the institutions that underpin it - like the ICC or the ICJ - in the way an ex-convict promises to behave: with humility and a commitment to do better - not with the sort of misplaced arrogance of presenting itself as their guardian or moral custodian, which would be completely out of order given its own failures to uphold them. Lastly, perhaps more than anything, the way universalism destroyed Europe is by destroying the notion of sovereignty in Europe. Because see, if you're convinced as Europe has been that your values and principles are universal, then the world becomes borderless since any deviation from them within your own borders becomes not just a difference of perspective or a sovereign choice, but a moral failing that must be corrected. When every political or cultural difference is framed as a deviation from universal norms rather than an expression of national sovereignty, the very concept of meaningful self-determination goes away. If a policy is framed as implementing universal values - whether on migration, economic policy, or social issues - then national populations' objections can be dismissed as parochial or even morally suspect. This effectively turned universalism into a tool for circumventing genuine democratic deliberation at the national level, all while claiming to act in democracy's name. The result was a gradual hollowing out of national decision-making power through the implicit assumption that resistance to "universal" norms was itself illegitimate. The tragic irony is that this universalist approach actually always loses out when you have nations out there that actually do act in their sovereign interests, as they should. Because you end up with a deep asymmetry: a bunch of nations in Europe whose leaders are essentially denationalized, seeing themselves as vectors of an ideology often explicitly at odds with their own nations' wellbeing, versus leaders who remain grounded in the concrete reality of national interests and understand their primary duty as protecting and advancing their people's prosperity and security. This mismatch creates an almost absurd dynamic where European leaders regularly sacrifice their nations' vital interests while facing counterparts who view such behavior as nothing more than naïveté to be exploited. The United States, in particular, has masterfully taken advantage of this situation - happy to let European leaders indulge in grand universalist proclamations while systematically advancing American interests, often at Europe's expense. De Villepin correctly identifies this "system of predation and vassalization," but fails to see how Europe's own universalist pretensions enable it. And how could it be otherwise? When one side's leaders fundamentally see themselves as working to transcend and even dismantle their own nation's sovereignty, while the other's remain firmly committed to national advancement, the outcome is predetermined. That's not the way to approach universal values or international law. European nations should approach international institutions and universal principles as sovereign equals entering into mutual commitments, not as self-appointed moral arbiters. The path forward lies in first reclaiming genuine sovereignty, for only sovereign nations can make meaningful choices. From this foundation, European nations can then exemplify their values through concrete actions: by treating other nations with respect rather than condescension, by accepting that different paths of development are legitimate, and most crucially, by focusing first on doing right by their own citizens. This last point is essential - a nation that cannot or will not protect and advance the wellbeing of its own people has no business lecturing others about universal values. True universalism, if it is to exist at all, must emerge organically through the example of nations that successfully balance sovereign self-determination with voluntary participation in a world order, not through moral imperialism disguised as universal principles. The stake isn't, as De Villepin suggests, whether "universal man exists" - it's whether we can respect and coexist with those who see humanity differently.
2:53

I normally agree with De Villepin on virtually everything so I was surprised to hear him say this 👇. No, universalism isn't Europe's salvation - it's largely what destroyed it. This way of dealing with the world whereby you proclaim yourself the gatekeepers of values and principles that you deem universal, and insist the rest of the world adopt, is over. And this "great fight to be fought" between different conceptions of humanity that Villepin sees coming is precisely what we need to avoid, because it doesn't need to be fought: we should make our peace with the coexistence of different civilizations and cultures. And not only is this universalist approach over, it is now thoroughly counterproductive as it screams of hypocrisy after Europe's own performance with regards to its stated values and principles. Gaza in particular completely obliterated this, and De Villepin ought to know this given how vocal he's been on the matter. He speaks of Europeans as being "guardians of the law," but he knows all too well that no-one had done more to undermine international law than the West these past few years. The new multipolar world we're entering into is not, as De Villepin suggests, an arena for a "great fight" between competing universal visions - the fight between "American individualism, Chinese collectivism and European citizenship" as he puts it. Instead it must become the age of understanding and managing differences between civilizations and cultures. Europe's biggest challenge going forward is to learn some measure of humbleness. We need to relearn that there is no measuring scale between civilizations and, especially looking at its record these past few decades, that Europe certainly isn't the paragon of anything. And if there's a fight to be fought, Europe needs to fight to avoid the emergence of a civilizational war, a fight to promote coexistence and mutual understanding. Granted, it is undeniable there are such things as universal values and principles. For instance I think we can all agree that killing innocent civilians is bad. We can also all agree that there shouldn't be child soldiers. We can all agree there is but one Earth and that protecting it is important for our collective survival. And, as such, international law has a place. But given its record, if Europe truly believes in these principles it should support them and the institutions that underpin it - like the ICC or the ICJ - in the way an ex-convict promises to behave: with humility and a commitment to do better - not with the sort of misplaced arrogance of presenting itself as their guardian or moral custodian, which would be completely out of order given its own failures to uphold them. Lastly, perhaps more than anything, the way universalism destroyed Europe is by destroying the notion of sovereignty in Europe. Because see, if you're convinced as Europe has been that your values and principles are universal, then the world becomes borderless since any deviation from them within your own borders becomes not just a difference of perspective or a sovereign choice, but a moral failing that must be corrected. When every political or cultural difference is framed as a deviation from universal norms rather than an expression of national sovereignty, the very concept of meaningful self-determination goes away. If a policy is framed as implementing universal values - whether on migration, economic policy, or social issues - then national populations' objections can be dismissed as parochial or even morally suspect. This effectively turned universalism into a tool for circumventing genuine democratic deliberation at the national level, all while claiming to act in democracy's name. The result was a gradual hollowing out of national decision-making power through the implicit assumption that resistance to "universal" norms was itself illegitimate. The tragic irony is that this universalist approach actually always loses out when you have nations out there that actually do act in their sovereign interests, as they should. Because you end up with a deep asymmetry: a bunch of nations in Europe whose leaders are essentially denationalized, seeing themselves as vectors of an ideology often explicitly at odds with their own nations' wellbeing, versus leaders who remain grounded in the concrete reality of national interests and understand their primary duty as protecting and advancing their people's prosperity and security. This mismatch creates an almost absurd dynamic where European leaders regularly sacrifice their nations' vital interests while facing counterparts who view such behavior as nothing more than naïveté to be exploited. The United States, in particular, has masterfully taken advantage of this situation - happy to let European leaders indulge in grand universalist proclamations while systematically advancing American interests, often at Europe's expense. De Villepin correctly identifies this "system of predation and vassalization," but fails to see how Europe's own universalist pretensions enable it. And how could it be otherwise? When one side's leaders fundamentally see themselves as working to transcend and even dismantle their own nation's sovereignty, while the other's remain firmly committed to national advancement, the outcome is predetermined. That's not the way to approach universal values or international law. European nations should approach international institutions and universal principles as sovereign equals entering into mutual commitments, not as self-appointed moral arbiters. The path forward lies in first reclaiming genuine sovereignty, for only sovereign nations can make meaningful choices. From this foundation, European nations can then exemplify their values through concrete actions: by treating other nations with respect rather than condescension, by accepting that different paths of development are legitimate, and most crucially, by focusing first on doing right by their own citizens. This last point is essential - a nation that cannot or will not protect and advance the wellbeing of its own people has no business lecturing others about universal values. True universalism, if it is to exist at all, must emerge organically through the example of nations that successfully balance sovereign self-determination with voluntary participation in a world order, not through moral imperialism disguised as universal principles. The stake isn't, as De Villepin suggests, whether "universal man exists" - it's whether we can respect and coexist with those who see humanity differently.

Arnaud Bertrand

49,135 次观看 • 1 年前

Secrets of the United States according to artificial intelligence These are a little too accurate: 1) The economy is not broken. It was designed this way. Every time the economy crashes or wealth inequality gets worse. People say that the system is failing, but the truth is that it's working exactly as it's intended. The US economic system was built to funnel wealth upwards while keeping everyday people in a cycle of debt dependence and financial insecurity. The cost of living isn't skyrocketing because of a mistake. It's keeping people struggling because it makes them easier to exploit 2) Division is the oldest trick in the book. The biggest illusion in the US right now is that the real fight is left versus right when in reality it is the powerful versus the rest of us. Politicians, corporations and media outlets fuel division because the population that a population that is angry at each other is too distracted to hold those in power accountable. Racism, class warfare and political polarization aren't just unfortunate side effects of society. They're intentionally kept alive because they keep people from uniting against those truly hoarding wealth and power. 3) Censorship isn't always obvious. While many people think of censorship as governments banning books or blocking websites, modern censorship is far more subtle and it looks like flooding the internet with noise to bury real information, silencing independent journalists through demonetization or blacklisting, using misinformation labels selectively to discredit dissenting voices even when they're asking valid questions, encouraging self-censorship by making people fear, social or professional consequences for speaking out. The goal isn't to remove the information. It's often to make it so hard to find or so socially risky to discuss that people just stop looking 4) War is about power and resources. Anytime a new conflict arises, the media presents it as a moral battle, but the reality is that wars are almost always control about control over resources, economic power and strategic influence, whether it's oil, mineral trade, routes or minerals, trade routes or ideological dominance. This part is in bold. Nations don't send people to die for freedom. They do it for money and control. The US military industrial complex profits from constant conflict, which is why endless wars and foreign interventions never stop 5) If the government wanted to solve major problems it already would have, whether it's homelessness, healthcare, wealth inequality, or environmental destruction. The truth is that these problems exist. Because keeping them unsolved benefits those in power. A sick, poor, and desperate population is easier to control, manipulate and profit from the idea that change is impossible is a lie. There is simply no incentive for the people in charge to change it 6) Probably the most important, you have more power than you think. The biggest secret of all regular people in bold are the greatest threat to the system. The reason powerful people, the powerful keep people divided, struggling, and distracted is because if enough people woke up again in bold, things would change overnight. Throughout history, real change has only ever come from people refusing to accept the status quo, not from politicians or corporations suddenly growing a conscience “The question is, what will people do with this? Knowledge? Awareness is the first step, but action, especially collective action is what forces real change — I hope you know that we are more powerful united and you are more powerful than you think”
4:24

Secrets of the United States according to artificial intelligence These are a little too accurate: 1) The economy is not broken. It was designed this way. Every time the economy crashes or wealth inequality gets worse. People say that the system is failing, but the truth is that it's working exactly as it's intended. The US economic system was built to funnel wealth upwards while keeping everyday people in a cycle of debt dependence and financial insecurity. The cost of living isn't skyrocketing because of a mistake. It's keeping people struggling because it makes them easier to exploit 2) Division is the oldest trick in the book. The biggest illusion in the US right now is that the real fight is left versus right when in reality it is the powerful versus the rest of us. Politicians, corporations and media outlets fuel division because the population that a population that is angry at each other is too distracted to hold those in power accountable. Racism, class warfare and political polarization aren't just unfortunate side effects of society. They're intentionally kept alive because they keep people from uniting against those truly hoarding wealth and power. 3) Censorship isn't always obvious. While many people think of censorship as governments banning books or blocking websites, modern censorship is far more subtle and it looks like flooding the internet with noise to bury real information, silencing independent journalists through demonetization or blacklisting, using misinformation labels selectively to discredit dissenting voices even when they're asking valid questions, encouraging self-censorship by making people fear, social or professional consequences for speaking out. The goal isn't to remove the information. It's often to make it so hard to find or so socially risky to discuss that people just stop looking 4) War is about power and resources. Anytime a new conflict arises, the media presents it as a moral battle, but the reality is that wars are almost always control about control over resources, economic power and strategic influence, whether it's oil, mineral trade, routes or minerals, trade routes or ideological dominance. This part is in bold. Nations don't send people to die for freedom. They do it for money and control. The US military industrial complex profits from constant conflict, which is why endless wars and foreign interventions never stop 5) If the government wanted to solve major problems it already would have, whether it's homelessness, healthcare, wealth inequality, or environmental destruction. The truth is that these problems exist. Because keeping them unsolved benefits those in power. A sick, poor, and desperate population is easier to control, manipulate and profit from the idea that change is impossible is a lie. There is simply no incentive for the people in charge to change it 6) Probably the most important, you have more power than you think. The biggest secret of all regular people in bold are the greatest threat to the system. The reason powerful people, the powerful keep people divided, struggling, and distracted is because if enough people woke up again in bold, things would change overnight. Throughout history, real change has only ever come from people refusing to accept the status quo, not from politicians or corporations suddenly growing a conscience “The question is, what will people do with this? Knowledge? Awareness is the first step, but action, especially collective action is what forces real change — I hope you know that we are more powerful united and you are more powerful than you think”

Wall Street Apes

131,752 次观看 • 1 年前

This morning, in the South Bronx, yet another building has partially collapsed, this time at a NYC housing project called “Mitchell Houses” in the neighborhood of Mott Haven. Though no one has been injured, there will no doubt be a large displacement of families, including children and elderly people, in the poorest congressional district in the U.S., with a poverty rate of 35%. For the past 50 years, the South Bronx has consistently suffered “benign neglect” in the form of triage policies such as former New York City Housing Commissioner Roger Starr’s “planned shrinkage, ” which effectively committed poor neighborhoods to die, while critical infrastructure such as subway, bus services, fire stations, and public schools were all shut down, in order to feed a parasitical system of rentier finance and debt. Just near the over 100-year-old NYCHA buildings in the Bronx, which suffer from a lack of maintenance and disrepair, there are high rise apartments being built. The cost of just one studio apartment at these high rises is over $2600. Who exactly will be living there? Do we honestly expect that the poor residents who just had their apartment building blown up will be relocated there? No, of course not. Just like the people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, who are having their houses blown up, their healthcare system systematically destroyed, and their access to food, shelter, and water cut off by insane, genocidal madmen within the Netanyahu Government in Israel, the people of the South Bronx are being effectively told that they are useless eaters to be disposed of like cattle. This policy is being carried out by those currently representing the Bronx, especially my opponent, Ritchie Torres, the supposed young face of progressive reform within the Democratic Party, who is committed to sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to Israel, while they carry out what has been internationally denounced as a genocide in the Gaza Strip. Ritchie Torres, nearly 9 years ago while he was a member of the City Council of New York, had said that there was an operating deficit of $96 million in NYCHA funding. That amount is nearly $400 million now, yet is still a fraction of the amount Torres is committing to send to Israel, while his own constituents are neglected. Why doesn’t he bring that up now? Has Torres become so deluded in his Crusader-like zealotry for Israel, that he has forgotten about people he is supposed to represent? Perhaps he is just a genocidal maniac, and views the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip with about the same amount of empathy as the people in the Bronx, which is why the policy is the exact same. In 2018, I lived in a basement apartment in the Bronx, where my ceiling collapsed as a result of sewage water leaking from the floor above. My apartment was completely flooded, yet, when I brought this up to my representative in a meeting I scheduled, he offered me a meager payout of $15,000, to “move somewhere else, and go to college. ” I outright rejected the offer, not only because it was hardly enough to look for another place within such a short amount of time, but also since other residents in my building were suffering the exact same conditions. Although the story regarding the Bronx would be seen by many to have no relationship to what is going on in Gaza, the principle is the exact same. Human beings are not being valued by our representatives. It is up to us, as individual Americans, in both cases, to stand up for people whose humanity is being disregarded everywhere. I am calling on people from all over the world, particularly those who are from the generations that must soon become the leaders of our nations, to join me in a non-violent Crusade for justice for all of the world’s people, from Gaza to the Bronx.
2:04

This morning, in the South Bronx, yet another building has partially collapsed, this time at a NYC housing project called “Mitchell Houses” in the neighborhood of Mott Haven. Though no one has been injured, there will no doubt be a large displacement of families, including children and elderly people, in the poorest congressional district in the U.S., with a poverty rate of 35%. For the past 50 years, the South Bronx has consistently suffered “benign neglect” in the form of triage policies such as former New York City Housing Commissioner Roger Starr’s “planned shrinkage, ” which effectively committed poor neighborhoods to die, while critical infrastructure such as subway, bus services, fire stations, and public schools were all shut down, in order to feed a parasitical system of rentier finance and debt. Just near the over 100-year-old NYCHA buildings in the Bronx, which suffer from a lack of maintenance and disrepair, there are high rise apartments being built. The cost of just one studio apartment at these high rises is over $2600. Who exactly will be living there? Do we honestly expect that the poor residents who just had their apartment building blown up will be relocated there? No, of course not. Just like the people in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, who are having their houses blown up, their healthcare system systematically destroyed, and their access to food, shelter, and water cut off by insane, genocidal madmen within the Netanyahu Government in Israel, the people of the South Bronx are being effectively told that they are useless eaters to be disposed of like cattle. This policy is being carried out by those currently representing the Bronx, especially my opponent, Ritchie Torres, the supposed young face of progressive reform within the Democratic Party, who is committed to sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to Israel, while they carry out what has been internationally denounced as a genocide in the Gaza Strip. Ritchie Torres, nearly 9 years ago while he was a member of the City Council of New York, had said that there was an operating deficit of $96 million in NYCHA funding. That amount is nearly $400 million now, yet is still a fraction of the amount Torres is committing to send to Israel, while his own constituents are neglected. Why doesn’t he bring that up now? Has Torres become so deluded in his Crusader-like zealotry for Israel, that he has forgotten about people he is supposed to represent? Perhaps he is just a genocidal maniac, and views the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip with about the same amount of empathy as the people in the Bronx, which is why the policy is the exact same. In 2018, I lived in a basement apartment in the Bronx, where my ceiling collapsed as a result of sewage water leaking from the floor above. My apartment was completely flooded, yet, when I brought this up to my representative in a meeting I scheduled, he offered me a meager payout of $15,000, to “move somewhere else, and go to college. ” I outright rejected the offer, not only because it was hardly enough to look for another place within such a short amount of time, but also since other residents in my building were suffering the exact same conditions. Although the story regarding the Bronx would be seen by many to have no relationship to what is going on in Gaza, the principle is the exact same. Human beings are not being valued by our representatives. It is up to us, as individual Americans, in both cases, to stand up for people whose humanity is being disregarded everywhere. I am calling on people from all over the world, particularly those who are from the generations that must soon become the leaders of our nations, to join me in a non-violent Crusade for justice for all of the world’s people, from Gaza to the Bronx.

Jose Vega — Vote Vega!

143,341 次观看 • 11 个月前

‼️‼️ Many Germans still ignore President Putin's 2001 speech in front of the German Bundestag. They listen to the USA, which has always lied to them and even blew up their pipelines! The sanctions are NOT against Russia! They are against Germans! Wake up! In one of the most important and greatest speeches that the German Bundestag has ever experienced, President Vladimir Putin honestly and generously extended his hand to Germany and Europe for a peaceful and promising future in 2001. Unfortunately the West refused! President Putin speaks fluent German, by the way. In einer der bedeutendsten und großartigsten Reden, die der deutsche Bundestag jemals erleben durfte, reichte Wladimir Putin im Jahr 2001 Deutschland und Europa ehrlich und großzügig die Hand, für eine friedliche und erfolgversprechende Zukunft. Leider lehnte der Westen ab! President Putin: "Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I have just talked about the unity of European culture. However, in the past that unity did not prevent two horrible wars from being unleashed on the continent, two world wars within one century. Nor did it prevent the building of the Berlin Wall, the formidable symbol of the deep division of Europe. The Berlin Wall is no longer. It was destroyed. And today it would be relevant to recall why that became possible. It is my conviction that the dramatic change in the world, in Europe and on the expanses of the former Soviet Union would have been impossible without the main preconditions, namely, without the events that took place in Russia ten years ago. These events are important to understanding what precisely took place in our country and what could be expected from Russia in the future. The answer is simple, as a matter of fact. Under the impact of the laws governing the development of information society, Stalinist totalitarian ideology could no longer oppose the ideas of freedom and democracy. The spirit of these ideas was taking hold of the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens. It was the political choice of the people of Russia that enabled the then leaders of the USSR to take decisions that eventually led to the razing of the Berlin Wall. It was that choice that infinitely broadened the boundaries of European humanism and that enables us to say that no one will ever be able to return Russia back into the past. As for European integration, we not just support these processes, but we are looking to them with hope. We view them as a people who have learned the lesson of the Cold War and the peril of the ideology of occupation very well. But here, I think, it would be pertinent to add that Europe did not gain from that division either. It is my firm conviction that in today's rapidly changing world, in a world witnessing truly dramatic demographic changes and an exceptionally high economic growth in some regions, Europe also has an immediate interest in promoting relations with Russia. No one calls in question the great value of Europe's relations with the United States. I am just of the opinion that Europe will reinforce its reputation of a strong and truly independent centre of world politics soundly and for a long time if it succeeds in bringing together its own potential and that of Russia, including its human, territorial and natural resources and its economic, cultural and defence potential. Together we have already taken the first steps in that direction. The time has now come to think about what should be done to make sure that a united and secure Europe becomes the harbinger of a united and secure world. Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, We have done a great deal in the security sphere over the past few years. The security system that we have built over the previous decades has been improved. One of the achievements of the past decade is the unprecedentedly low concentration of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe and the Baltic. Russia is a friendly European nation. Stable peace on the continent is a paramount goal for our country, which lived through a century of military catastrophes. As everyone knows, we have ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Tests Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and also the START-2 Treaty. Regrettably, not all the NATO countries have followed our example. But once we, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, have started to discuss security, we should first and foremost understand from whom we are to defend ourselves, and how. In this context I cannot but mention the catastrophe in the United States on September 11. People the world over keep asking how that could have happened and who is to blame. I will give you answers to these questions. I think we all are to blame for what happened, and first and foremost we, politicians, to whom the ordinary citizens of our nations have entrusted their security. And this happens first and foremost because we have so far failed to recognize the changes that have happened in our world over the past ten years and continue to live in the old system of values: we are talking about partnership, but in reality we have not yet learned to trust each other. In spite of a plethora of sweet words, we are still surreptitiously opposed to each other. Now we demand loyalty to NATO, now argue about the rationale behind its enlargement. And we are still unable to agree on the problems of a missile defence system. Over long decades of the 20th century the world was indeed living under conditions of confrontation between the two systems, confrontation that pushed humanity to the brink of annihilation on more than one occasion. That was so fearsome and we grew so accustomed to live with that anticipation of catastrophe that we are still unable to understand and appreciate the changes taking place in today's world. We seem to be missing the fact that the world is no longer divided into two hostile camps. The world has become far more complex, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. We do not want or are unable to understand that the security structure built over the previous decades that was effective in neutralizing former threats is no longer able to cope with new threats of today. Too often we continue to argue over issues which we think are still important. They probably still are. But at the same time we do not recognize new real threats and turn out to be unable to foresee terrorist attacks – and so ruthless terrorist attacks at that! Hundreds of innocent civilians died in the bombing of residential houses in Moscow and other large Russian cities. Religious fanatics, having captured power in Chechnya and having turned ordinary citizens into their hostages, mounted a brazen large-scale armed attack against the neighboring Republic of Daghestan. International terrorists have openly – quite openly – declared their intention to establish a fundamentalist state on the territory between the Black and the Caspian Sea – the so-called khalifate, or the United States of Islam. I would like to stress right away that talking about any ”war between civilizations“ is inadmissible. It would be a mistake to put the equation mark between Moslems in general and religious fanatics. In our country, for example, the defeat of the aggressors in 1999 was predetermined by the courageous and tough rebuff of the residents of Daghestan, a Russian republic the population of which is virtually 100 percent Moslem. Shortly before my departure for Berlin I met with the religious leaders of Russia's Moslems. They came up with the initiative of convening an international conference on ”Islam Against Terrorism“ in Moscow. I think we should support this initiative. Today we are coming up against not so much the aggravation of the well-known international problems as the rise of new threats. Russia is taking practical steps to put up, together with some CIS nations, a real barrier in the way of the traffic of drugs, organized crime and fundamentalism from Afghanistan via Central Asia and the Caucasus into Europe. Terrorism, national intolerance, separatism and religious extremism everywhere have the same roots and bear the same poisonous fruit. That is why the methods of fighting these problems should be universal as well. But first agreement needs to be reached on the fundamental matter: we should not be afraid of calling a spade a spade. And it is extremely important to understand that evil deeds cannot be used to achieve political objectives, however noble such objectives may seem. Naturally, evil must be punished, and I agree with that. But we should also understand that no retaliatory strikes will replace comprehensive, purposeful and well-coordinated struggle against terrorism. I absolutely agree with the US President on that. I think our partners' readiness to joint efforts in countering real rather than illusory threats will demonstrate how serious and reliable they are as partners. These threats are quite capable of spilling over from the distant frontiers of our continent to the very heart of Europe. I talked about that on more than one occasion, but after what happened in the US there is no need to prove anything. But what are we lacking today for cooperation to be efficient? In spite of all the positive achievements of the past decades, we have not yet developed an efficient mechanism for working together. The coordinating agencies set up so far do not offer Russia real opportunities for taking part in drafting and taking decision. Today decisions are often taken, in principle, without our participation, and we are only urged afterwards to support such decisions. After that they talk again about loyalty to NATO. They even say that such decisions cannot be implemented without Russia. Let us ask ourselves: is this normal? Is this true partnership? Yes, the assertion of democratic principles in international relations, the ability to find a correct decision and readiness for compromise are a difficult thing. But then, it was the Europeans who were the first to understand how important it is to look for consensus over and above national egoism. We agree with that! All these are good ideas. However, the quality of decisions that are taken, their efficiency and, ultimately, European and international security in general depend on the extent to which we succeed today in translating these obvious principles into practical politics. It seemed just recently that a truly common home would shortly rise on the continent, a home in which the Europeans would not be divided into eastern or western, northern or southern. However, these divides will remain, primarily because we have never fully shed many of the Cold War stereotypes and cliches. Today we must say once and for all: the Cold War is done with! We have entered a new stage of development. We understand that without a modern, sound and sustainable security architecture we will never be able to create an atmosphere of trust on the continent, and without that atmosphere of trust there can be no united Greater Europe! Today we must say that we renounce our stereotypes and ambitions and from now on will jointly work for the security of the people of Europe and the world as a whole. Dear friends, Today, thank God, Russia is talked about in Europe not only in the context of oligarchs, corruption and Mafia. However, there still is a substantial lack of objective information about Russia. I can say with absolute confidence that the key goal of Russia's domestic policy is first and foremost to ensure democratic rights and freedoms, decent living standards and safety for the people of the country. However, distinguished colleagues, let us look back at some events of the recent past. Russia took the painful road of reform. The scope of the tasks we had to address is without parallel in history. Naturally, mistakes were made. Not all the problems have been resolved, but today Russia is a quite dynamic part of the European continent. Moreover, it is dynamic not only politically, but also economically, which is especially encouraging. Political stability in Russia is ensured by a number of economic factors, not the least by one of the world's most liberal taxation systems. Our income tax is 13% and profit tax 24%, and this is real. Last year our economic growth was 8%. This year we expected to get just 4%, but most likely we will have about 6% — say, 5.5–5.7%. We will wait and see. At the same time my conviction is that only large-scale and equal pan-European cooperation will make it possible to achieve qualitative progress in resolving such problems as unemployment, environmental pollution and many others. We are set on close trade and economic cooperation. In the nearest future we intend to join the World Trade Organization. We count on international and European organizations' support for our bid. I would like to draw your attention to things which you as members of parliament will undoubtedly be able to appreciate better and which cannot be dismissed as propaganda. As a matter of fact, our nation has gone through a revision of priorities and values. Spending on social needs tops the 2002 consolidated budget. And I would like to stress specifically that for the first time in Russia's history spending on education has exceeded defence expenditures. Distinguished colleagues, Permit me to say a couple words about Russian-German relations. I would like to dwell separately on this matter. Russian-German relations are as old as our nations. The first German tribes appeared on Russian territory in the late first century. In the late 19th century Germans were the ninth most numerous ethnic group in Russia. But what is important is not just the numbers, but the role played by these people in the development of the country and in Russian-German relations. They were peasants and merchants, intellectuals, military men and politicians. The German historian Michael Stuermer observed: ”Russia and America are divided by oceans, while Russia and Germany are divided by a great history.“ I would say that history, just like oceans, not only divides, but also unites. The important thing is to correctly interpret this history. As a good neighbor in the West, Germany often symbolized for the Russians Europe, European culture, technical intellect and entrepreneurial wit. Small wonder that in the past all Europeans were known as Germans in Russia, and the Europeans' settlement in Moscow was known as the German Village. Naturally, the cultural influences of the two peoples were reciprocal. Many generations of Germans and Russians studied and continue to enjoy works by Goethe, Dostoyevsky and Leo Tolstoy. Our peoples understand each other's mentality very well, as is amply evidenced by the marvelous Russian translations of German authors. They closely replicate the text and keep the pace of the narration and the mood and beauty of the original. One example is the translation of Doctor Faustus by Boris Pasternak. Ladies and gentlemen, There are different pages in our history, some of them rather painful, especially those relating to the 20th century. But in the past we often acted as allies. The relations between the two European nations were every now and then reinforced by marital unions between dynasties. Generally, women had a special role to play in our history. let us recall, for example, the daughter of the Grand Duke Ludwig IV of Hessen-Darmstadt, known in Russia as Princess Elizabeth. Following the assassination of her husband, she founded a nunnery, and during World War I she nursed wounded soldiers, both Russians and Germans. In 1918 she was executed by the Bolsheviks, but recently she was rehabilitated and sanctified for everyone to honor. A monument to her stands in the heart of Moscow today. Nor should we forget Princess Sophia Augusta Frederika of Anhalt-Zerbst, who made a unique contribution to Russian history. Ordinary Russians called her Mother, but she went down in history as Russian Empress Catherine the Great. Today's Germany is Russia's leading economic partner, our most important creditor, one of the principal investors and a key interlocutor in discussing international politics. I will give you one example: last year trade between our countries hit an all-time record of 41.5 billion marks. This compares with the Soviet Union's aggregate trade with both German states. Can we be happy with this and sit back and relax? I don't think so. Russian-German cooperation still has sufficient potentialities for development. I am convinced that today we are turning over a new page in our bilateral relations, thereby making our joint contribution to building a common European home. In conclusion I would like to say the words that were once used to characterize Germany and its capital. I would like to apply this idea to Russia and say: of course, we are at the beginning of the road to building a democratic society and a market economy. There are barriers and obstacles on that road that we are to surmount. However, if we leave aside objective problems and occasional ineptness of our own, we will see the beat of Russia's strong, live heart. And this heart is open to true cooperation and partnership."
23:54

‼️‼️ Many Germans still ignore President Putin's 2001 speech in front of the German Bundestag. They listen to the USA, which has always lied to them and even blew up their pipelines! The sanctions are NOT against Russia! They are against Germans! Wake up! In one of the most important and greatest speeches that the German Bundestag has ever experienced, President Vladimir Putin honestly and generously extended his hand to Germany and Europe for a peaceful and promising future in 2001. Unfortunately the West refused! President Putin speaks fluent German, by the way. In einer der bedeutendsten und großartigsten Reden, die der deutsche Bundestag jemals erleben durfte, reichte Wladimir Putin im Jahr 2001 Deutschland und Europa ehrlich und großzügig die Hand, für eine friedliche und erfolgversprechende Zukunft. Leider lehnte der Westen ab! President Putin: "Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I have just talked about the unity of European culture. However, in the past that unity did not prevent two horrible wars from being unleashed on the continent, two world wars within one century. Nor did it prevent the building of the Berlin Wall, the formidable symbol of the deep division of Europe. The Berlin Wall is no longer. It was destroyed. And today it would be relevant to recall why that became possible. It is my conviction that the dramatic change in the world, in Europe and on the expanses of the former Soviet Union would have been impossible without the main preconditions, namely, without the events that took place in Russia ten years ago. These events are important to understanding what precisely took place in our country and what could be expected from Russia in the future. The answer is simple, as a matter of fact. Under the impact of the laws governing the development of information society, Stalinist totalitarian ideology could no longer oppose the ideas of freedom and democracy. The spirit of these ideas was taking hold of the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens. It was the political choice of the people of Russia that enabled the then leaders of the USSR to take decisions that eventually led to the razing of the Berlin Wall. It was that choice that infinitely broadened the boundaries of European humanism and that enables us to say that no one will ever be able to return Russia back into the past. As for European integration, we not just support these processes, but we are looking to them with hope. We view them as a people who have learned the lesson of the Cold War and the peril of the ideology of occupation very well. But here, I think, it would be pertinent to add that Europe did not gain from that division either. It is my firm conviction that in today's rapidly changing world, in a world witnessing truly dramatic demographic changes and an exceptionally high economic growth in some regions, Europe also has an immediate interest in promoting relations with Russia. No one calls in question the great value of Europe's relations with the United States. I am just of the opinion that Europe will reinforce its reputation of a strong and truly independent centre of world politics soundly and for a long time if it succeeds in bringing together its own potential and that of Russia, including its human, territorial and natural resources and its economic, cultural and defence potential. Together we have already taken the first steps in that direction. The time has now come to think about what should be done to make sure that a united and secure Europe becomes the harbinger of a united and secure world. Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, We have done a great deal in the security sphere over the past few years. The security system that we have built over the previous decades has been improved. One of the achievements of the past decade is the unprecedentedly low concentration of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe and the Baltic. Russia is a friendly European nation. Stable peace on the continent is a paramount goal for our country, which lived through a century of military catastrophes. As everyone knows, we have ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Tests Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and also the START-2 Treaty. Regrettably, not all the NATO countries have followed our example. But once we, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, have started to discuss security, we should first and foremost understand from whom we are to defend ourselves, and how. In this context I cannot but mention the catastrophe in the United States on September 11. People the world over keep asking how that could have happened and who is to blame. I will give you answers to these questions. I think we all are to blame for what happened, and first and foremost we, politicians, to whom the ordinary citizens of our nations have entrusted their security. And this happens first and foremost because we have so far failed to recognize the changes that have happened in our world over the past ten years and continue to live in the old system of values: we are talking about partnership, but in reality we have not yet learned to trust each other. In spite of a plethora of sweet words, we are still surreptitiously opposed to each other. Now we demand loyalty to NATO, now argue about the rationale behind its enlargement. And we are still unable to agree on the problems of a missile defence system. Over long decades of the 20th century the world was indeed living under conditions of confrontation between the two systems, confrontation that pushed humanity to the brink of annihilation on more than one occasion. That was so fearsome and we grew so accustomed to live with that anticipation of catastrophe that we are still unable to understand and appreciate the changes taking place in today's world. We seem to be missing the fact that the world is no longer divided into two hostile camps. The world has become far more complex, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. We do not want or are unable to understand that the security structure built over the previous decades that was effective in neutralizing former threats is no longer able to cope with new threats of today. Too often we continue to argue over issues which we think are still important. They probably still are. But at the same time we do not recognize new real threats and turn out to be unable to foresee terrorist attacks – and so ruthless terrorist attacks at that! Hundreds of innocent civilians died in the bombing of residential houses in Moscow and other large Russian cities. Religious fanatics, having captured power in Chechnya and having turned ordinary citizens into their hostages, mounted a brazen large-scale armed attack against the neighboring Republic of Daghestan. International terrorists have openly – quite openly – declared their intention to establish a fundamentalist state on the territory between the Black and the Caspian Sea – the so-called khalifate, or the United States of Islam. I would like to stress right away that talking about any ”war between civilizations“ is inadmissible. It would be a mistake to put the equation mark between Moslems in general and religious fanatics. In our country, for example, the defeat of the aggressors in 1999 was predetermined by the courageous and tough rebuff of the residents of Daghestan, a Russian republic the population of which is virtually 100 percent Moslem. Shortly before my departure for Berlin I met with the religious leaders of Russia's Moslems. They came up with the initiative of convening an international conference on ”Islam Against Terrorism“ in Moscow. I think we should support this initiative. Today we are coming up against not so much the aggravation of the well-known international problems as the rise of new threats. Russia is taking practical steps to put up, together with some CIS nations, a real barrier in the way of the traffic of drugs, organized crime and fundamentalism from Afghanistan via Central Asia and the Caucasus into Europe. Terrorism, national intolerance, separatism and religious extremism everywhere have the same roots and bear the same poisonous fruit. That is why the methods of fighting these problems should be universal as well. But first agreement needs to be reached on the fundamental matter: we should not be afraid of calling a spade a spade. And it is extremely important to understand that evil deeds cannot be used to achieve political objectives, however noble such objectives may seem. Naturally, evil must be punished, and I agree with that. But we should also understand that no retaliatory strikes will replace comprehensive, purposeful and well-coordinated struggle against terrorism. I absolutely agree with the US President on that. I think our partners' readiness to joint efforts in countering real rather than illusory threats will demonstrate how serious and reliable they are as partners. These threats are quite capable of spilling over from the distant frontiers of our continent to the very heart of Europe. I talked about that on more than one occasion, but after what happened in the US there is no need to prove anything. But what are we lacking today for cooperation to be efficient? In spite of all the positive achievements of the past decades, we have not yet developed an efficient mechanism for working together. The coordinating agencies set up so far do not offer Russia real opportunities for taking part in drafting and taking decision. Today decisions are often taken, in principle, without our participation, and we are only urged afterwards to support such decisions. After that they talk again about loyalty to NATO. They even say that such decisions cannot be implemented without Russia. Let us ask ourselves: is this normal? Is this true partnership? Yes, the assertion of democratic principles in international relations, the ability to find a correct decision and readiness for compromise are a difficult thing. But then, it was the Europeans who were the first to understand how important it is to look for consensus over and above national egoism. We agree with that! All these are good ideas. However, the quality of decisions that are taken, their efficiency and, ultimately, European and international security in general depend on the extent to which we succeed today in translating these obvious principles into practical politics. It seemed just recently that a truly common home would shortly rise on the continent, a home in which the Europeans would not be divided into eastern or western, northern or southern. However, these divides will remain, primarily because we have never fully shed many of the Cold War stereotypes and cliches. Today we must say once and for all: the Cold War is done with! We have entered a new stage of development. We understand that without a modern, sound and sustainable security architecture we will never be able to create an atmosphere of trust on the continent, and without that atmosphere of trust there can be no united Greater Europe! Today we must say that we renounce our stereotypes and ambitions and from now on will jointly work for the security of the people of Europe and the world as a whole. Dear friends, Today, thank God, Russia is talked about in Europe not only in the context of oligarchs, corruption and Mafia. However, there still is a substantial lack of objective information about Russia. I can say with absolute confidence that the key goal of Russia's domestic policy is first and foremost to ensure democratic rights and freedoms, decent living standards and safety for the people of the country. However, distinguished colleagues, let us look back at some events of the recent past. Russia took the painful road of reform. The scope of the tasks we had to address is without parallel in history. Naturally, mistakes were made. Not all the problems have been resolved, but today Russia is a quite dynamic part of the European continent. Moreover, it is dynamic not only politically, but also economically, which is especially encouraging. Political stability in Russia is ensured by a number of economic factors, not the least by one of the world's most liberal taxation systems. Our income tax is 13% and profit tax 24%, and this is real. Last year our economic growth was 8%. This year we expected to get just 4%, but most likely we will have about 6% — say, 5.5–5.7%. We will wait and see. At the same time my conviction is that only large-scale and equal pan-European cooperation will make it possible to achieve qualitative progress in resolving such problems as unemployment, environmental pollution and many others. We are set on close trade and economic cooperation. In the nearest future we intend to join the World Trade Organization. We count on international and European organizations' support for our bid. I would like to draw your attention to things which you as members of parliament will undoubtedly be able to appreciate better and which cannot be dismissed as propaganda. As a matter of fact, our nation has gone through a revision of priorities and values. Spending on social needs tops the 2002 consolidated budget. And I would like to stress specifically that for the first time in Russia's history spending on education has exceeded defence expenditures. Distinguished colleagues, Permit me to say a couple words about Russian-German relations. I would like to dwell separately on this matter. Russian-German relations are as old as our nations. The first German tribes appeared on Russian territory in the late first century. In the late 19th century Germans were the ninth most numerous ethnic group in Russia. But what is important is not just the numbers, but the role played by these people in the development of the country and in Russian-German relations. They were peasants and merchants, intellectuals, military men and politicians. The German historian Michael Stuermer observed: ”Russia and America are divided by oceans, while Russia and Germany are divided by a great history.“ I would say that history, just like oceans, not only divides, but also unites. The important thing is to correctly interpret this history. As a good neighbor in the West, Germany often symbolized for the Russians Europe, European culture, technical intellect and entrepreneurial wit. Small wonder that in the past all Europeans were known as Germans in Russia, and the Europeans' settlement in Moscow was known as the German Village. Naturally, the cultural influences of the two peoples were reciprocal. Many generations of Germans and Russians studied and continue to enjoy works by Goethe, Dostoyevsky and Leo Tolstoy. Our peoples understand each other's mentality very well, as is amply evidenced by the marvelous Russian translations of German authors. They closely replicate the text and keep the pace of the narration and the mood and beauty of the original. One example is the translation of Doctor Faustus by Boris Pasternak. Ladies and gentlemen, There are different pages in our history, some of them rather painful, especially those relating to the 20th century. But in the past we often acted as allies. The relations between the two European nations were every now and then reinforced by marital unions between dynasties. Generally, women had a special role to play in our history. let us recall, for example, the daughter of the Grand Duke Ludwig IV of Hessen-Darmstadt, known in Russia as Princess Elizabeth. Following the assassination of her husband, she founded a nunnery, and during World War I she nursed wounded soldiers, both Russians and Germans. In 1918 she was executed by the Bolsheviks, but recently she was rehabilitated and sanctified for everyone to honor. A monument to her stands in the heart of Moscow today. Nor should we forget Princess Sophia Augusta Frederika of Anhalt-Zerbst, who made a unique contribution to Russian history. Ordinary Russians called her Mother, but she went down in history as Russian Empress Catherine the Great. Today's Germany is Russia's leading economic partner, our most important creditor, one of the principal investors and a key interlocutor in discussing international politics. I will give you one example: last year trade between our countries hit an all-time record of 41.5 billion marks. This compares with the Soviet Union's aggregate trade with both German states. Can we be happy with this and sit back and relax? I don't think so. Russian-German cooperation still has sufficient potentialities for development. I am convinced that today we are turning over a new page in our bilateral relations, thereby making our joint contribution to building a common European home. In conclusion I would like to say the words that were once used to characterize Germany and its capital. I would like to apply this idea to Russia and say: of course, we are at the beginning of the road to building a democratic society and a market economy. There are barriers and obstacles on that road that we are to surmount. However, if we leave aside objective problems and occasional ineptness of our own, we will see the beat of Russia's strong, live heart. And this heart is open to true cooperation and partnership."

⏳Towhee 🌏☮️

38,902 次观看 • 2 年前

Hyperspace: The Agentic OS Apple Should Have Built On December 19th, 2024, we announced the world’s first Agentic Browser. What followed was a movement — a new category was born which led to many early products in this space and recently the hundreds of people lining up outside the The Agentic Browser Summit in San Francisco underscored that. Silicon Valley instinctively gets it, from students to tech executives, people can feel a revolutionary new change in computing is in the air. Past year taught us why such a product was inevitable, a hard engineering effort, and also the last mover in the entire software world this decade if and when done right. All paths are headed in the same direction: one tool which orchestrates them all. At Hyperspace we showed that path with essays and products we launched in earlier months: from a spatial UI of orchestrating agents, to showcasing transparent activity in how the AI system operates which leads to user trust, to presenting the software end-game, which massively improves human productivity. We also built the world’s largest AI network, drawing participation from people in almost 6000 cities around the world contributing their machines as nodes in the network. Think Uber, but for AI. That is, planetary-scale. And now we are stretching this industry ambition further with our end-to-end vision of the Agentic Supercomputer, the first breakthrough new AI OS, and an effort which spans from AI research to distributed systems to inventing a new UI to inventing a new business model to complement it. All of this together helps us in serving our mission, of delivering “Everyone’s Personal Supercomputer”. While others have built AI-native browsers, no one though has built something agentic from the ground up — with AI as the foundation, not a feature. How do you fundamentally improve the lives’ of billions around the world ? We believe that requires building a native environment for agents to be viewed, created, deployed, executed, discovered and priced in. That is a world where we move on from static apps, to dynamic agents. But, as my 2 year old niece likes to ask: “but why ?” The issue is that the world of software today is fragmented, and everyone is sprinkling on AI as a feature and charging a subscription fees for it. From browser makers, to IDEs, to design and other productivity tools. This leads to a fragmented UX, where people have to learn to use AI in each app, their memory and other context is not shared between all these apps, and they also have to pay separately for compute for each such AI-enhanced app. Each app maker has to figure out basics such as compute, and leads to the issues we saw with Cursor pricing recently. This is not the future. What if AI was the foundation instead of a feature ? What if Apple had built a fundamentally new AI OS from the ground up and what would it have looked like ? At Hyperspace, that is what we did. On July 15th we introduced three breakthrough key pillars of our AI OS: 1. Agentic Browser 2. Agentic Memory 3. Agentic Payments And we didn’t stop there. We also introduced a breakthrough new user interface called the Spatial AI which is inspired both from the spreadsheet and the HyperCard - each card is an agent, with it’s own inputs and outputs, endlessly extensible and pluggable with others, just like cells of a spreadsheet. Update one cell and all the dependents update, like a spreadsheet formula. It goes beyond a static linear workflow to being able to operate in all directions. This revolutionary new interface helps manage all of the below: 1. Multiple websites being browsed in parallel 2. Multiple desktop apps being browsed in parallel 3. Multiple server tools being used in parallel 4. Multiple smartphone apps streamed to your device or opened via an emulator All the software which you need comes together in this one seamless, agent-native interface. This interface provides you access to the largest network of models, vectors, agents and compute on the planet. The Browser. The IDE. The Notepad… they are not separate products: they are all in one, the Agentic Browser. As Steve Jobs famously said at the iPhone announcement, “are you getting it ?” And beneath this UI lies a new intelligence routing layer — leveraging both swarms of specialized models to the Hyperspace Matrix model that recalls thousands of tools in real-time, not by context window hacks, but through retrieval, ranking, and reuse. To many, this will feel like AGI. Not one big system by one big company, but an intelligent network. Now lets talk about privacy… Are you comfortable with one company owning all your memory forever ? I am not. So we have invented Agentic Memory as a new open protocol which provides full power over memory to you, the user. Your memory is yours, encrypted, on your device, and portable if and how you want. Anyone can build on it without our permission, but not without your permission. This protocol, and the decentralized vector database spread out across the world, would enable apps and agents to share context and memory. Think copy-paste, but for the AI world. It doesn’t just remember — it knows what matters. VectorRank helps your AI weigh your life’s most relevant moments over time, just like the way our minds elevate memories. Now each time you use an agent, your experience with other agents will also continuously improve: you don’t have to keep repeating the same things about yourself, while fully preserving your privacy. Agentic Memory is accessible within the Agentic Browser to manage. And there is one more thing… AI as the foundation requires compute to be available at the base layer, but this base layer spans models running on your own device, to cloud APIs, to also running across the peer-to-peer distributed network. Agentic Payments provides a singular interface to all of that compute, running a spot auction clearing marketplace every second to determine the fair price of compute. This results in price transparency, and you as the user paying the lowest possible cost. If you want predictability, you can reserve compute in advance. This end-to-end system provides the most streamlined world for agents to operate in. In order to enable this world and the world of agents being able to pay each other in sub-cent increments millions of times a second, we had to also invent a fundamentally new agentic micropayments blockchain. All of this together would enable a world where you as a user, or the agent itself, can efficiently call and utilize other agents built by others and also pay for content which is unique and useful. This enables a move away from the current AI exploitative economy for bloggers and other content creators, to a web with a fundamental new business model. Earlier we didn’t have the right infrastructure to enable such a world. Now, all the dots connect. The Hyperspace AI OS would give the power of a supercomputer in everyone’s hands. This isn’t a browser, or an IDE or limited to any device or cloud. It’s an entire AI operating system — with a breakthrough new spatial UI, local and distributed compute, agentic memory, agentic payments, and orchestration built into the foundation. As a user, we move the choice back in your hands with an experience you will love and find delightful. You get to choose the level of privacy, cost, and utility you want. And while Apple should have done it, we could not wait, and we feel this just required a new level of passion and DNA which we bring here. We are just getting started. Thank you, Varun Mathur Cofounder and CEO, Hyperspace cc Naval Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Vinod Khosla Andrej Karpathy Sam Altman
2:52

Hyperspace: The Agentic OS Apple Should Have Built On December 19th, 2024, we announced the world’s first Agentic Browser. What followed was a movement — a new category was born which led to many early products in this space and recently the hundreds of people lining up outside the The Agentic Browser Summit in San Francisco underscored that. Silicon Valley instinctively gets it, from students to tech executives, people can feel a revolutionary new change in computing is in the air. Past year taught us why such a product was inevitable, a hard engineering effort, and also the last mover in the entire software world this decade if and when done right. All paths are headed in the same direction: one tool which orchestrates them all. At Hyperspace we showed that path with essays and products we launched in earlier months: from a spatial UI of orchestrating agents, to showcasing transparent activity in how the AI system operates which leads to user trust, to presenting the software end-game, which massively improves human productivity. We also built the world’s largest AI network, drawing participation from people in almost 6000 cities around the world contributing their machines as nodes in the network. Think Uber, but for AI. That is, planetary-scale. And now we are stretching this industry ambition further with our end-to-end vision of the Agentic Supercomputer, the first breakthrough new AI OS, and an effort which spans from AI research to distributed systems to inventing a new UI to inventing a new business model to complement it. All of this together helps us in serving our mission, of delivering “Everyone’s Personal Supercomputer”. While others have built AI-native browsers, no one though has built something agentic from the ground up — with AI as the foundation, not a feature. How do you fundamentally improve the lives’ of billions around the world ? We believe that requires building a native environment for agents to be viewed, created, deployed, executed, discovered and priced in. That is a world where we move on from static apps, to dynamic agents. But, as my 2 year old niece likes to ask: “but why ?” The issue is that the world of software today is fragmented, and everyone is sprinkling on AI as a feature and charging a subscription fees for it. From browser makers, to IDEs, to design and other productivity tools. This leads to a fragmented UX, where people have to learn to use AI in each app, their memory and other context is not shared between all these apps, and they also have to pay separately for compute for each such AI-enhanced app. Each app maker has to figure out basics such as compute, and leads to the issues we saw with Cursor pricing recently. This is not the future. What if AI was the foundation instead of a feature ? What if Apple had built a fundamentally new AI OS from the ground up and what would it have looked like ? At Hyperspace, that is what we did. On July 15th we introduced three breakthrough key pillars of our AI OS: 1. Agentic Browser 2. Agentic Memory 3. Agentic Payments And we didn’t stop there. We also introduced a breakthrough new user interface called the Spatial AI which is inspired both from the spreadsheet and the HyperCard - each card is an agent, with it’s own inputs and outputs, endlessly extensible and pluggable with others, just like cells of a spreadsheet. Update one cell and all the dependents update, like a spreadsheet formula. It goes beyond a static linear workflow to being able to operate in all directions. This revolutionary new interface helps manage all of the below: 1. Multiple websites being browsed in parallel 2. Multiple desktop apps being browsed in parallel 3. Multiple server tools being used in parallel 4. Multiple smartphone apps streamed to your device or opened via an emulator All the software which you need comes together in this one seamless, agent-native interface. This interface provides you access to the largest network of models, vectors, agents and compute on the planet. The Browser. The IDE. The Notepad… they are not separate products: they are all in one, the Agentic Browser. As Steve Jobs famously said at the iPhone announcement, “are you getting it ?” And beneath this UI lies a new intelligence routing layer — leveraging both swarms of specialized models to the Hyperspace Matrix model that recalls thousands of tools in real-time, not by context window hacks, but through retrieval, ranking, and reuse. To many, this will feel like AGI. Not one big system by one big company, but an intelligent network. Now lets talk about privacy… Are you comfortable with one company owning all your memory forever ? I am not. So we have invented Agentic Memory as a new open protocol which provides full power over memory to you, the user. Your memory is yours, encrypted, on your device, and portable if and how you want. Anyone can build on it without our permission, but not without your permission. This protocol, and the decentralized vector database spread out across the world, would enable apps and agents to share context and memory. Think copy-paste, but for the AI world. It doesn’t just remember — it knows what matters. VectorRank helps your AI weigh your life’s most relevant moments over time, just like the way our minds elevate memories. Now each time you use an agent, your experience with other agents will also continuously improve: you don’t have to keep repeating the same things about yourself, while fully preserving your privacy. Agentic Memory is accessible within the Agentic Browser to manage. And there is one more thing… AI as the foundation requires compute to be available at the base layer, but this base layer spans models running on your own device, to cloud APIs, to also running across the peer-to-peer distributed network. Agentic Payments provides a singular interface to all of that compute, running a spot auction clearing marketplace every second to determine the fair price of compute. This results in price transparency, and you as the user paying the lowest possible cost. If you want predictability, you can reserve compute in advance. This end-to-end system provides the most streamlined world for agents to operate in. In order to enable this world and the world of agents being able to pay each other in sub-cent increments millions of times a second, we had to also invent a fundamentally new agentic micropayments blockchain. All of this together would enable a world where you as a user, or the agent itself, can efficiently call and utilize other agents built by others and also pay for content which is unique and useful. This enables a move away from the current AI exploitative economy for bloggers and other content creators, to a web with a fundamental new business model. Earlier we didn’t have the right infrastructure to enable such a world. Now, all the dots connect. The Hyperspace AI OS would give the power of a supercomputer in everyone’s hands. This isn’t a browser, or an IDE or limited to any device or cloud. It’s an entire AI operating system — with a breakthrough new spatial UI, local and distributed compute, agentic memory, agentic payments, and orchestration built into the foundation. As a user, we move the choice back in your hands with an experience you will love and find delightful. You get to choose the level of privacy, cost, and utility you want. And while Apple should have done it, we could not wait, and we feel this just required a new level of passion and DNA which we bring here. We are just getting started. Thank you, Varun Mathur Cofounder and CEO, Hyperspace cc Naval Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Vinod Khosla Andrej Karpathy Sam Altman

Varun

169,177 次观看 • 1 年前

#459 From Boogeyman to Conversation, My Talk with Nick Griffin About this Guest - Nick Griffin is a British political figure, writer, and commentator best known for his leadership of the British National Party (BNP) from 1999 to 2014. Born in 1959 in London, he studied at the University of Cambridge, where he became politically active at a young age. Griffin first came to prominence in British politics through nationalist movements, eventually rising to lead the BNP during a period in which the party achieved its greatest electoral success. Under his leadership, the BNP secured representation in the European Parliament, where Griffin served as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for North West England from 2009 to 2014. Throughout his career, he has been a controversial and polarising figure, particularly due to his views on immigration, national identity, and multiculturalism. Supporters have described him as a critic of globalisation and mass immigration, while critics have strongly opposed his political positions and associations. Following his departure from frontline party politics, Griffin has remained active as a writer and commentator, sharing his views on geopolitics, culture, and societal change through independent media platforms, including his Substack. His work today focuses on political analysis, historical interpretation, and commentary on global power structures, often challenging mainstream narratives and encouraging debate on issues such as sovereignty, identity, and the future of Western societies. About this Episode - This was such a surreal conversation on the podcast. I had to sit back halfway through and think, how did I end up here, sitting across from Nick Griffin of all people, unpacking everything from childhood, identity and ideology, to immigration, power and the future of civilisation. We started where it all begins, our upbringing. I reflected on growing up in Glasgow, my experiences, my lens, and how the smallest things shape your worldview more than you realise. And why Nick Griffin, for me, was the boogeyman. Nick shared his early political influences, what drew him into activism, and how his thinking has evolved over time. Whether people agree with him or not, understanding how someone arrives at their beliefs is always more valuable than simply dismissing them. From there, we moved into immigration and multiculturalism, a topic that is impossible to ignore today. We explored whether mass migration strengthens or fragments societies, and the tension between cultural identity and integration. I have always believed you can hold two ideas at once, recognising both the beauty of cultural diversity and the reality that cohesion matters if a society is to function in the long run. Religion naturally came into the discussion too, not just as belief, but as a civilisational force. We talked about Christianity, Islam, and how religious frameworks have historically shaped societies, for better or worse. It is impossible to understand the present without acknowledging the spiritual and philosophical foundations of the past. We also dug into history, colonialism, land ownership, and the way narratives are constructed. One of the recurring themes, as you will not be surprised to hear, was how much of what we are taught is simplified, distorted, or simply incomplete. The shift from land based, self sufficient communities to industrialised labour was not just progress. It came at a cost, displacement, dependency, the reorganisation of power, and the erosion of family and community. And that word kept coming up, power. Who has it, how they maintain it, and whether what we see today is organic or engineered. We explored the idea that modern societies are shaped not just by visible politics, but by deeper systems, financial structures, ideological movements, and long term strategies that most people never see. The concept of a quiet war against populations is controversial, but as I have said before, I believe it is real. A quiet war against humanity, particularly in the West, fought with silent weapons, and one that has been unfolding for decades. We also spoke about disillusionment with modern politics, including Nick’s involvement with the British National Party. The idea that we are presented with genuine choice feels increasingly hollow. It looks more and more like theatre. Different faces, same direction. One thread that ran through this entire conversation was simple, the solutions are not going to come from the top down. Not from political leaders, not from parties, not from billionaires or philanthropists. They have to come from the people, from families, from local communities, and from real relationships. Strengthening those is far more powerful than arguing over which politician is slightly less bad than the next. We also touched on identity. What does it actually mean to be British? Does Britain even exist as a coherent idea anymore? And would smaller, more localised governance serve people better, whether as English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish communities? What I found most interesting was that despite all the heavy topics, there were moments of reflection, humility, and even agreement. Cultural differences are real, but so are shared human experiences. And if we are going to navigate the future, we need to understand both. I also reflected on my own journey, the mistakes, the regrets, the lessons. Because none of us arrive at our views fully formed. We evolve, often through hardship. We are living through a period of massive change, demographic, cultural, economic, technological. The question is not whether change is happening, it is whether we understand it, and whether we respond consciously or simply react. For me, it comes back to something simple. Strengthen your family. Strengthen your community. Stay curious. Question everything. I have to admit, I was very impressed by Nick. He is clearly erudite, articulate, and well informed. It was a pleasure to have him on the show, and I look forward to having him back. I would urge you to check out his Substack. There is a reason the establishment wanted him discredited and removed. I believe that had he remained in politics, he would have been a powerful force, one that is not controlled. And that is what the establishment fears most of all. Much love Doc Malik Links - If you value my podcasts, please support the show by making a one-off donation. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale
1:39:54

#459 From Boogeyman to Conversation, My Talk with Nick Griffin About this Guest - Nick Griffin is a British political figure, writer, and commentator best known for his leadership of the British National Party (BNP) from 1999 to 2014. Born in 1959 in London, he studied at the University of Cambridge, where he became politically active at a young age. Griffin first came to prominence in British politics through nationalist movements, eventually rising to lead the BNP during a period in which the party achieved its greatest electoral success. Under his leadership, the BNP secured representation in the European Parliament, where Griffin served as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for North West England from 2009 to 2014. Throughout his career, he has been a controversial and polarising figure, particularly due to his views on immigration, national identity, and multiculturalism. Supporters have described him as a critic of globalisation and mass immigration, while critics have strongly opposed his political positions and associations. Following his departure from frontline party politics, Griffin has remained active as a writer and commentator, sharing his views on geopolitics, culture, and societal change through independent media platforms, including his Substack. His work today focuses on political analysis, historical interpretation, and commentary on global power structures, often challenging mainstream narratives and encouraging debate on issues such as sovereignty, identity, and the future of Western societies. About this Episode - This was such a surreal conversation on the podcast. I had to sit back halfway through and think, how did I end up here, sitting across from Nick Griffin of all people, unpacking everything from childhood, identity and ideology, to immigration, power and the future of civilisation. We started where it all begins, our upbringing. I reflected on growing up in Glasgow, my experiences, my lens, and how the smallest things shape your worldview more than you realise. And why Nick Griffin, for me, was the boogeyman. Nick shared his early political influences, what drew him into activism, and how his thinking has evolved over time. Whether people agree with him or not, understanding how someone arrives at their beliefs is always more valuable than simply dismissing them. From there, we moved into immigration and multiculturalism, a topic that is impossible to ignore today. We explored whether mass migration strengthens or fragments societies, and the tension between cultural identity and integration. I have always believed you can hold two ideas at once, recognising both the beauty of cultural diversity and the reality that cohesion matters if a society is to function in the long run. Religion naturally came into the discussion too, not just as belief, but as a civilisational force. We talked about Christianity, Islam, and how religious frameworks have historically shaped societies, for better or worse. It is impossible to understand the present without acknowledging the spiritual and philosophical foundations of the past. We also dug into history, colonialism, land ownership, and the way narratives are constructed. One of the recurring themes, as you will not be surprised to hear, was how much of what we are taught is simplified, distorted, or simply incomplete. The shift from land based, self sufficient communities to industrialised labour was not just progress. It came at a cost, displacement, dependency, the reorganisation of power, and the erosion of family and community. And that word kept coming up, power. Who has it, how they maintain it, and whether what we see today is organic or engineered. We explored the idea that modern societies are shaped not just by visible politics, but by deeper systems, financial structures, ideological movements, and long term strategies that most people never see. The concept of a quiet war against populations is controversial, but as I have said before, I believe it is real. A quiet war against humanity, particularly in the West, fought with silent weapons, and one that has been unfolding for decades. We also spoke about disillusionment with modern politics, including Nick’s involvement with the British National Party. The idea that we are presented with genuine choice feels increasingly hollow. It looks more and more like theatre. Different faces, same direction. One thread that ran through this entire conversation was simple, the solutions are not going to come from the top down. Not from political leaders, not from parties, not from billionaires or philanthropists. They have to come from the people, from families, from local communities, and from real relationships. Strengthening those is far more powerful than arguing over which politician is slightly less bad than the next. We also touched on identity. What does it actually mean to be British? Does Britain even exist as a coherent idea anymore? And would smaller, more localised governance serve people better, whether as English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish communities? What I found most interesting was that despite all the heavy topics, there were moments of reflection, humility, and even agreement. Cultural differences are real, but so are shared human experiences. And if we are going to navigate the future, we need to understand both. I also reflected on my own journey, the mistakes, the regrets, the lessons. Because none of us arrive at our views fully formed. We evolve, often through hardship. We are living through a period of massive change, demographic, cultural, economic, technological. The question is not whether change is happening, it is whether we understand it, and whether we respond consciously or simply react. For me, it comes back to something simple. Strengthen your family. Strengthen your community. Stay curious. Question everything. I have to admit, I was very impressed by Nick. He is clearly erudite, articulate, and well informed. It was a pleasure to have him on the show, and I look forward to having him back. I would urge you to check out his Substack. There is a reason the establishment wanted him discredited and removed. I believe that had he remained in politics, he would have been a powerful force, one that is not controlled. And that is what the establishment fears most of all. Much love Doc Malik Links - If you value my podcasts, please support the show by making a one-off donation. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale

Doc Malik

11,113 次观看 • 5 个月前

A Message to the World I have something deeply important to share with you. I hope you’ll listen, and I hope you share this with others. The world has changed drastically and with every day we are rapidly moving into an unknown world that we have never experienced. We have entered an era where technology is no longer just a casual tool, it has become a force that shapes our thoughts, our actions, and our very sense of reality. Our dependence on it has grown, and with that dependence comes a silent, unseen battle for control. The very country in which you live, thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions died to protect, they stood in front of bullets and bombs to give you the life that you enjoy. They didn’t know you, but they believed in your way of life and the life they wanted for the people in your nation. Do not be kind to the people that try to take that away from you. Be anything but kind. In The past, governments fought wars with weapons, invading nations, shedding blood to claim power and control. Then came the wars of influence where no bullets were needed, only the installation of puppet regimes that served foreign interests while pretending to serve their people. Now, we face a new kind of war. A war of the mind. Disinformation and manipulation have become the weapons of choice. No longer do oppressors need to march armies across borders to control the people of nations that they cannot reach to invade. Instead, they infiltrate through screens, social media, and news outlets, slowly shaping public opinion, radicalizing individuals, and bending reality itself. It reaches you through your screens, your devices, and the media you consume. It is funded by those who do not wish to liberate, but to manipulate. Those who do not see democracy as a right, but as an obstacle and something to be weakened, controlled, and ultimately, destroyed so they can have their way with your world and use you to their benefit. It speaks to and affects you, it speaks to your children and warps their minds as they grow at their most crucial time, discuss the world with them and find out about how they feel about the world around them, it affects your family members, your friends and the people you work with. The goal is simple: to make you believe in leaders who do not serve you but serve the interests of those who wish to control and divide. To make you vote for those sympathetic to the causes of dictators and tyrants. They spread information designed to turn allies into enemies, to turn neighbors against each other, to fracture nations from within. They radicalise individuals, not with weapons, but with words and stories that twist reality, distorting truth, and feeding the chaos that ensues. We have an obligation, not just as citizens of our countries, but as human beings, to ensure that the world does not fall victim to those who seek to control and destroy it through these technologies. Right now, I will not speak about the sides in which I stand, or the governments I support and the ones which I do not. But I will say, the things that I believe in, I spend time, or should I say, I invest time into myself and to knowledge to ensure the things i believe are true. You must be aware. You must question everything. The most important battle is no longer fought on the fields, it is fought in your mind, in your choices, in the voices you choose to trust. Always seek second opinions, do not trust the sources you rely on every day, dig deeper. And when judging the ones you follow, look at the things they do, not what they say. When you see that something is not right in the world, do not turn away. We have a duty to fight with awareness and truth. Those who gave their lives for the freedoms we enjoy today fought believing they stood on the right side of history. They sacrificed for a vision of a world where truth could thrive. And they left that to you to protect now they are gone. The fight for truth begins with you. Stay aware. Me and you... We might not agree, but if we all try to seek real truth, then as humans we will eventually and naturally find ourselves on the same side. We have to find our way back to humanity. We have to fight against the right enemies. I will leave it to you to find out who they are. Find your own truths. But make sure that they are true. I will leave this with you.
4:03

A Message to the World I have something deeply important to share with you. I hope you’ll listen, and I hope you share this with others. The world has changed drastically and with every day we are rapidly moving into an unknown world that we have never experienced. We have entered an era where technology is no longer just a casual tool, it has become a force that shapes our thoughts, our actions, and our very sense of reality. Our dependence on it has grown, and with that dependence comes a silent, unseen battle for control. The very country in which you live, thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions died to protect, they stood in front of bullets and bombs to give you the life that you enjoy. They didn’t know you, but they believed in your way of life and the life they wanted for the people in your nation. Do not be kind to the people that try to take that away from you. Be anything but kind. In The past, governments fought wars with weapons, invading nations, shedding blood to claim power and control. Then came the wars of influence where no bullets were needed, only the installation of puppet regimes that served foreign interests while pretending to serve their people. Now, we face a new kind of war. A war of the mind. Disinformation and manipulation have become the weapons of choice. No longer do oppressors need to march armies across borders to control the people of nations that they cannot reach to invade. Instead, they infiltrate through screens, social media, and news outlets, slowly shaping public opinion, radicalizing individuals, and bending reality itself. It reaches you through your screens, your devices, and the media you consume. It is funded by those who do not wish to liberate, but to manipulate. Those who do not see democracy as a right, but as an obstacle and something to be weakened, controlled, and ultimately, destroyed so they can have their way with your world and use you to their benefit. It speaks to and affects you, it speaks to your children and warps their minds as they grow at their most crucial time, discuss the world with them and find out about how they feel about the world around them, it affects your family members, your friends and the people you work with. The goal is simple: to make you believe in leaders who do not serve you but serve the interests of those who wish to control and divide. To make you vote for those sympathetic to the causes of dictators and tyrants. They spread information designed to turn allies into enemies, to turn neighbors against each other, to fracture nations from within. They radicalise individuals, not with weapons, but with words and stories that twist reality, distorting truth, and feeding the chaos that ensues. We have an obligation, not just as citizens of our countries, but as human beings, to ensure that the world does not fall victim to those who seek to control and destroy it through these technologies. Right now, I will not speak about the sides in which I stand, or the governments I support and the ones which I do not. But I will say, the things that I believe in, I spend time, or should I say, I invest time into myself and to knowledge to ensure the things i believe are true. You must be aware. You must question everything. The most important battle is no longer fought on the fields, it is fought in your mind, in your choices, in the voices you choose to trust. Always seek second opinions, do not trust the sources you rely on every day, dig deeper. And when judging the ones you follow, look at the things they do, not what they say. When you see that something is not right in the world, do not turn away. We have a duty to fight with awareness and truth. Those who gave their lives for the freedoms we enjoy today fought believing they stood on the right side of history. They sacrificed for a vision of a world where truth could thrive. And they left that to you to protect now they are gone. The fight for truth begins with you. Stay aware. Me and you... We might not agree, but if we all try to seek real truth, then as humans we will eventually and naturally find ourselves on the same side. We have to find our way back to humanity. We have to fight against the right enemies. I will leave it to you to find out who they are. Find your own truths. But make sure that they are true. I will leave this with you.

Bricktop_NAFO

37,790 次观看 • 1 年前

The outgoing American ambassador to Zambia, Michael C. Gonzales, has accused President Hakainde Hichilema’s government of corruption and dishonesty, stating that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is bogus and is selectively used to arrest and persecute political opponents. He made these remarks while delivering his farewell speech. He said Zambia loses over US$4 billion annually through illicit or dirty financial flows, money leaving the country and not benefiting the Zambian people. Full speech below Remarks by Amb. Michael Gonzales Farewell Reception – April 30, 2026 Good evening. For decades, the U.S. relationship with Zambia was one centered around aid. The United States has provided billions of dollars of assistance to Zambia, helping the country reach HIV epidemic control, contributing to a 20-year increase in life expectancy, slashing malaria deaths, and truly impacting the lives of every Zambian alive today. When we paused funding to review our assistance programs last year, so much of Zambia’s health system began to crumble almost overnight. Despite over $7 billion in U.S. health assistance since 2000 and the hard work of many Zambians alongside us, that crumbling system revealed that while we thought we were building capacity, successive Zambian governments had not built systems. Too often, Zambian officials and leaders abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets. Last year I shed tears before the world when I announced a $50 million cut in US health assistance. After years of pleading, I could no longer stand by while the Zambian government refused to stop or take action to hold people accountable for the systematic and nationwide theft of U.S. provided medicines while the Zambian citizens for whom those were intended went without. One year later, not a single notable person has been arrested since last February. Not a single notable prosecution has even begun. After last year’s pause, we resumed almost all of our health assistance, over $400 million including over $75 million in medication. We continue to pay the salaries for over 23,000 healthcare workers, as we have for decades. Such is the legacy of America’s support to the Zambian people. Now, I know there have been alarmist allegations recently. But let me be clear, any suggestion that the United States would withhold critical life-saving healthcare support from those Zambians whose lives and health depend on it unless we get critical minerals is disgusting and patently false! In reality, since October, my government has offered over $2 billion in additional health and economic assistance to Zambia. But we can no longer accept empty promises. The future must look different. The Zambian government must also increase Zambian funding, staffing, and genuine ownership of its systems. This is not to impose our will, it is the only way we know for Zambia to truly own a sustainable healthcare system and to enable robust growth. It is the only way we know to ensure that system serves the people while finally breaking the cycle of foreign aid dependency. Since January, however, like with so many of our other overtures to the Zambian government, we have had effectively zero substantive engagement from Zambian officials to move these efforts forward. Our calls go ignored, questions unanswered, meetings cancelled, leaving us without even opportunities to speak, much less engage in substantive deliberations. Instead of continuing to languish without engagement, the actual funding under our Health MOU should have started this month. Instead, we have reached April 30 still cobbling together funds for mismatched projects without an implementation plan to guide us forward under Zambian leadership, much less a finalized MOU that guides our strategic approach. We know that the Zambian budget cannot even afford to pay for public services today, not to mention the increased healthcare funding or the myriad other huge budget commitments that seem to get pledged daily. So, something has to change if Zambia will ever meet its full potential or be able to sustainably provide services to its own people. At the same time, the Zambian government’s own reports reveal that every year Zambia loses over $4 billion in dirty money flows to East Asia. That is Zambian money that does not benefit the Zambian people or contribute to the budget. If taxed, that would bring an additional $1 billion for the government to fund healthcare, education, social services, and development. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars of government funds are lost to the Zambian people through corruption. Certainly, it is not just U.S. taxpayers’ support that is stolen. Every year, the country loses out on hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment and growth because they are hijacked by unmitigated petty corruption, blocked because law-abiding investors refuse to pay kickbacks to Zambian bureaucrats or leaders who are never held accountable. The narrative of the U.S.-Zambia relationship is adorned with flowery words of “partnership,” “collaboration,” “strategic,” or “mutual.” Regrettably, the reality of our unrequited relationship for decades has been starkly different. For years, the United States funded programs and sent technical advisors to help achieve Zambia’s development objectives. As we have for these past four months, we have often struggled to get successive governments to even bother answering the phone. It takes months to get a meeting that yields nothing. Officials draft policies they have no intention of implementing, invoking them only in speeches to sound like they are taking action. MOUs decay on the shelf among the others before the signing ceremony even ends, never to be implemented because the ministry will not even meet to discuss implementation. Why? Because generations of Zambian officials and leaders gain from the dysfunction. The non-responsiveness on our availed funding and efforts to truly build a Zambian-owned health system that serves the Zambian people is sadly the norm. The theatre of commissioning a report to get a scandal out of the news cycle but taking no substantive action on accountability is all too common. Of course, the systematic theft of public resources is not unique to American-provided medicines. Attacking the messenger who dares to name these dynamics out loud is not limited to targeting the U.S. ambassador and asking Washington for his removal. Today, 10% of my diplomats have family members who still have not received basic residency permits from the Zambian government. Several have received court summonses as a result. Like Zambians themselves experience, ZRA staff shake down my departing diplomats for fees that do not apply to them too. When elevated, their supervisors double down on the demand. Zambia’s institutionalised and refined corruption does not only dissuade transparent and law-abiding investors from the United States. The inaction, corruption, and intimidation of opponents also harms American citizens, it undermines American organisations, NGOs, companies, and philanthropies. Zambians and so many other global friends of Zambia are also hampered by these very same dynamics, often bearing far more of the brunt of their effects. America’s support to Zambia is long-standing. Our goodwill runs through the veins, the hearts, and the dreams of millions of Zambians. Our hands remain open, outstretched in a genuine, transparent offer of true, tangible, and meaningful collaboration for mutual benefit. But there must be change. Going forward, the benefits of our relationship must be mutual. Empty promises must be replaced with tangible action. Commitments must be honoured, laws must be implemented and enforced consistently and equally. The decades of paying for healthcare while national resources are pocketed must give way to ownership and systematic improvements that enable growth, development, and accountability. Since President Hichilema and I committed to reset the U.S.-Zambia relationship last July, America has redoubled our efforts to support robust Zambian agency. We have availed billions of dollars to support tangible investments and reforms to catalyse Zambia’s success. We have offered expert support to inform reforms that would systematically benefit both the Zambian people and their many friends from around the world, without bias or favour. Sadly, so many of our overtures and goodwill have been met with, to use the most persistent and notorious of the Zambian government’s responses, “Noted. With thanks.” But appointing a Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission who was actively under investigation by the ACC, and her admonishment to her intentionally under-resourced agency not to investigate senior government officials, only cripples hopes that clean business can be done. Last May, multiple senior government officials shared with me and have confirmed that the government has a 500-page expert report detailing the irreversible harm and risk of generations of birth defects, cancers, heart and liver disease caused by carcinogenic heavy metals unleashed into the Kafue River ecosystem by last year’s Sino Metals tailings dam disaster. But my heart broke when on July 29 last year, one of the country’s senior-most leaders vehemently denied that the government even had the report, much less would act on it until the polluter themselves provided it. I pleaded with her to take action to protect the Zambian people and I again offered U.S. assistance, which the Foreign Ministry had already formally declined. While so many American prospective investors leave, put off by bureaucratic drudgery, inaction, and corruption, the Zambian government recently approved Sino Metals to expand its operations. Did this happen in the face of Zambia’s myriad impediments, or because of them? Today, Sino Metals is scarring game management areas abutting the Kafue National Park. When that tailings dam breaks, I will not be alone shedding tears. Punctuating this, apart from the truly exceptional cases, too many American companies cannot get licences, approvals, or action on basic administrative matters without being shaken down to give brown envelopes of cash. The Zambian people suffer the consequences of these dual offences, exploitation and foregone opportunity. When Parliament ignores the Constitutional Court’s ruling that the process used to ram through a constitutional amendment was itself unconstitutional, investors rightly ask, “If they can do that to the constitution, what does that mean for the sanctity of my contract?” They rightly wonder if the next constitutional amendment which the Attorney General has already announced is really just a guise for resetting term limits. Even the Chinese government convicted AVIC’s Chairman to death for corruption. AVIC’s Chingola-Chililabombwe Road was washed out last month, its negligence disrupting Zambia’s trade with the region. AVIC’s fraud in a $320 million police housing tender in 2014 is well documented. Despite that, this government ignored the competitive bid by renowned Zambian investors only to award AVIC the $650 million Lusaka-Ndola Dual Carriageway project, subsidising this notoriously fraudulent and corrupt company with $300 million from the public pension scheme. How does this happen? Can law-abiding investors do clean business here? Will donors be asked to backfill the loss when the pension money too is wiped out? The rhetoric of “no sacred cows” is rubbish when there are not any cows except those who are deemed to be disloyal. When only opponents are arrested, but not those in office engaged in the very same practices, the hollow rhetoric of “rule of law” only further keeps investors away, preventing the creation of growth, jobs, and tax revenues to pay for public service commitments. Zambia does not need money. It needs leaders who govern for the people with integrity. It needs the political will to put Zambia first. But, of course, you do not need me to say this. Dambisa Moyo, herself a daughter of the soil, made these same arguments 17 years ago. What America is trying to do here is both bolster Zambia’s sovereignty and catalyse Zambia’s growth. We are offering a transparent and open hand to join the Zambian people for mutual progress. We know that while you pursue a Zambia First agenda and we pursue America First, we are still able together to achieve something notably better for both of our countries, and we can do so without it coming at anyone’s expense, anyone’s exclusion, fully transparently, and legally. Now, of course, the United States will absolutely continue to honour our long-standing commitment to the Zambian people to provide critical life-saving healthcare support. We will not leave Zambians without access to ARVs. We are redoubling our support to ensure that babies are not born HIV-positive. But, against the unmitigated systematic theft of U.S. assistance, against the refusal by the Zambian government to engage and to own or enable a sustainable healthcare system that serves the people, in an environment where only the most exceptional of American investors can do clean business, and where Zambian government officials often can scarcely be bothered to take meetings with American officials or companies, not to mention capture the billion dollars of its own money secreted out of the country to East Asia or hold accountable the company that unleashes generations of cancer and birth defects onto the people, without fundamental change, as the American Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia, how can I ask American taxpayers, Congress, or President Trump to continue the massive aid budgets that have been the hallmark of our relationship for decades? The United States remains intent to work with Zambia toward our mutual objectives, but how Washington responds to silence, inaction, aversion to accountability, and lack of ownership remains to be seen. That said, I am confident that it will depend on fundamental changes by the Zambian government to take action to do right by the Zambian people. It will depend on actions to foster and enable the Zambian people, and their partners who abide by the rule of law, to be able to tangibly contribute to a mutually beneficial future. Washington’s hand remains open and outreached for transparent, accountable collaboration enabling tangible action to benefit both of our countries. But we can no longer own the projects more than the Zambian government. We cannot justify continuing to prioritise funding where the Zambian government also does not deploy its own resources. No longer will we lead while Zambian officials sit back unresponsively. Quite simply, America can best support Zambia’s sovereignty, agency, and success if we finally abide by the maxim and refrain from wanting development more than the Zambian government does. That said, what happens between governments and embassies is important, but it is only a small fraction of the broader relationship between countries. The ties between Zambia and America are profound, strong, and everlasting. The connections between churches and civil society, the linkages between students, artists, and researchers, the bonds between communities, the union of our peoples, these are the essence of the U.S.-Zambia relationship, and these will never fade. Too often people hope for change. They note what others should do. But hope is not a strategy, and we cannot control the actions of others, only our own. So, as I prepare to leave this country that I love, I ask those of you whose country it is, is this the Zambia you want? Are you on course to achieve it? If not, what action will you take to contribute to making that become a reality? I first stepped foot in Zambia in 1995. My daughter took her first steps in Livingstone. As I prepare to depart, I take with me beautiful memories of Zambia and the Zambian people, but I depart with a heavy heart wondering if realisation of the Zambian dream will be deferred for yet another 64 years while even more Zambians fall into poverty instead of being able to rise into the brilliant future that is possible. But my role here is not about this little guy with a big heart for Africa. It is about America and Zambia. America will continue reaching out to the people of Zambia, offering our support, seeking as much to learn as to share, doing so openly and transparently, and eager to help enable the realisation of that Zambian dream and the creative future that benefits, and can only be discovered through, our sincere partnership. I thank you.
22:35

The outgoing American ambassador to Zambia, Michael C. Gonzales, has accused President Hakainde Hichilema’s government of corruption and dishonesty, stating that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is bogus and is selectively used to arrest and persecute political opponents. He made these remarks while delivering his farewell speech. He said Zambia loses over US$4 billion annually through illicit or dirty financial flows, money leaving the country and not benefiting the Zambian people. Full speech below Remarks by Amb. Michael Gonzales Farewell Reception – April 30, 2026 Good evening. For decades, the U.S. relationship with Zambia was one centered around aid. The United States has provided billions of dollars of assistance to Zambia, helping the country reach HIV epidemic control, contributing to a 20-year increase in life expectancy, slashing malaria deaths, and truly impacting the lives of every Zambian alive today. When we paused funding to review our assistance programs last year, so much of Zambia’s health system began to crumble almost overnight. Despite over $7 billion in U.S. health assistance since 2000 and the hard work of many Zambians alongside us, that crumbling system revealed that while we thought we were building capacity, successive Zambian governments had not built systems. Too often, Zambian officials and leaders abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets. Last year I shed tears before the world when I announced a $50 million cut in US health assistance. After years of pleading, I could no longer stand by while the Zambian government refused to stop or take action to hold people accountable for the systematic and nationwide theft of U.S. provided medicines while the Zambian citizens for whom those were intended went without. One year later, not a single notable person has been arrested since last February. Not a single notable prosecution has even begun. After last year’s pause, we resumed almost all of our health assistance, over $400 million including over $75 million in medication. We continue to pay the salaries for over 23,000 healthcare workers, as we have for decades. Such is the legacy of America’s support to the Zambian people. Now, I know there have been alarmist allegations recently. But let me be clear, any suggestion that the United States would withhold critical life-saving healthcare support from those Zambians whose lives and health depend on it unless we get critical minerals is disgusting and patently false! In reality, since October, my government has offered over $2 billion in additional health and economic assistance to Zambia. But we can no longer accept empty promises. The future must look different. The Zambian government must also increase Zambian funding, staffing, and genuine ownership of its systems. This is not to impose our will, it is the only way we know for Zambia to truly own a sustainable healthcare system and to enable robust growth. It is the only way we know to ensure that system serves the people while finally breaking the cycle of foreign aid dependency. Since January, however, like with so many of our other overtures to the Zambian government, we have had effectively zero substantive engagement from Zambian officials to move these efforts forward. Our calls go ignored, questions unanswered, meetings cancelled, leaving us without even opportunities to speak, much less engage in substantive deliberations. Instead of continuing to languish without engagement, the actual funding under our Health MOU should have started this month. Instead, we have reached April 30 still cobbling together funds for mismatched projects without an implementation plan to guide us forward under Zambian leadership, much less a finalized MOU that guides our strategic approach. We know that the Zambian budget cannot even afford to pay for public services today, not to mention the increased healthcare funding or the myriad other huge budget commitments that seem to get pledged daily. So, something has to change if Zambia will ever meet its full potential or be able to sustainably provide services to its own people. At the same time, the Zambian government’s own reports reveal that every year Zambia loses over $4 billion in dirty money flows to East Asia. That is Zambian money that does not benefit the Zambian people or contribute to the budget. If taxed, that would bring an additional $1 billion for the government to fund healthcare, education, social services, and development. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars of government funds are lost to the Zambian people through corruption. Certainly, it is not just U.S. taxpayers’ support that is stolen. Every year, the country loses out on hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment and growth because they are hijacked by unmitigated petty corruption, blocked because law-abiding investors refuse to pay kickbacks to Zambian bureaucrats or leaders who are never held accountable. The narrative of the U.S.-Zambia relationship is adorned with flowery words of “partnership,” “collaboration,” “strategic,” or “mutual.” Regrettably, the reality of our unrequited relationship for decades has been starkly different. For years, the United States funded programs and sent technical advisors to help achieve Zambia’s development objectives. As we have for these past four months, we have often struggled to get successive governments to even bother answering the phone. It takes months to get a meeting that yields nothing. Officials draft policies they have no intention of implementing, invoking them only in speeches to sound like they are taking action. MOUs decay on the shelf among the others before the signing ceremony even ends, never to be implemented because the ministry will not even meet to discuss implementation. Why? Because generations of Zambian officials and leaders gain from the dysfunction. The non-responsiveness on our availed funding and efforts to truly build a Zambian-owned health system that serves the Zambian people is sadly the norm. The theatre of commissioning a report to get a scandal out of the news cycle but taking no substantive action on accountability is all too common. Of course, the systematic theft of public resources is not unique to American-provided medicines. Attacking the messenger who dares to name these dynamics out loud is not limited to targeting the U.S. ambassador and asking Washington for his removal. Today, 10% of my diplomats have family members who still have not received basic residency permits from the Zambian government. Several have received court summonses as a result. Like Zambians themselves experience, ZRA staff shake down my departing diplomats for fees that do not apply to them too. When elevated, their supervisors double down on the demand. Zambia’s institutionalised and refined corruption does not only dissuade transparent and law-abiding investors from the United States. The inaction, corruption, and intimidation of opponents also harms American citizens, it undermines American organisations, NGOs, companies, and philanthropies. Zambians and so many other global friends of Zambia are also hampered by these very same dynamics, often bearing far more of the brunt of their effects. America’s support to Zambia is long-standing. Our goodwill runs through the veins, the hearts, and the dreams of millions of Zambians. Our hands remain open, outstretched in a genuine, transparent offer of true, tangible, and meaningful collaboration for mutual benefit. But there must be change. Going forward, the benefits of our relationship must be mutual. Empty promises must be replaced with tangible action. Commitments must be honoured, laws must be implemented and enforced consistently and equally. The decades of paying for healthcare while national resources are pocketed must give way to ownership and systematic improvements that enable growth, development, and accountability. Since President Hichilema and I committed to reset the U.S.-Zambia relationship last July, America has redoubled our efforts to support robust Zambian agency. We have availed billions of dollars to support tangible investments and reforms to catalyse Zambia’s success. We have offered expert support to inform reforms that would systematically benefit both the Zambian people and their many friends from around the world, without bias or favour. Sadly, so many of our overtures and goodwill have been met with, to use the most persistent and notorious of the Zambian government’s responses, “Noted. With thanks.” But appointing a Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission who was actively under investigation by the ACC, and her admonishment to her intentionally under-resourced agency not to investigate senior government officials, only cripples hopes that clean business can be done. Last May, multiple senior government officials shared with me and have confirmed that the government has a 500-page expert report detailing the irreversible harm and risk of generations of birth defects, cancers, heart and liver disease caused by carcinogenic heavy metals unleashed into the Kafue River ecosystem by last year’s Sino Metals tailings dam disaster. But my heart broke when on July 29 last year, one of the country’s senior-most leaders vehemently denied that the government even had the report, much less would act on it until the polluter themselves provided it. I pleaded with her to take action to protect the Zambian people and I again offered U.S. assistance, which the Foreign Ministry had already formally declined. While so many American prospective investors leave, put off by bureaucratic drudgery, inaction, and corruption, the Zambian government recently approved Sino Metals to expand its operations. Did this happen in the face of Zambia’s myriad impediments, or because of them? Today, Sino Metals is scarring game management areas abutting the Kafue National Park. When that tailings dam breaks, I will not be alone shedding tears. Punctuating this, apart from the truly exceptional cases, too many American companies cannot get licences, approvals, or action on basic administrative matters without being shaken down to give brown envelopes of cash. The Zambian people suffer the consequences of these dual offences, exploitation and foregone opportunity. When Parliament ignores the Constitutional Court’s ruling that the process used to ram through a constitutional amendment was itself unconstitutional, investors rightly ask, “If they can do that to the constitution, what does that mean for the sanctity of my contract?” They rightly wonder if the next constitutional amendment which the Attorney General has already announced is really just a guise for resetting term limits. Even the Chinese government convicted AVIC’s Chairman to death for corruption. AVIC’s Chingola-Chililabombwe Road was washed out last month, its negligence disrupting Zambia’s trade with the region. AVIC’s fraud in a $320 million police housing tender in 2014 is well documented. Despite that, this government ignored the competitive bid by renowned Zambian investors only to award AVIC the $650 million Lusaka-Ndola Dual Carriageway project, subsidising this notoriously fraudulent and corrupt company with $300 million from the public pension scheme. How does this happen? Can law-abiding investors do clean business here? Will donors be asked to backfill the loss when the pension money too is wiped out? The rhetoric of “no sacred cows” is rubbish when there are not any cows except those who are deemed to be disloyal. When only opponents are arrested, but not those in office engaged in the very same practices, the hollow rhetoric of “rule of law” only further keeps investors away, preventing the creation of growth, jobs, and tax revenues to pay for public service commitments. Zambia does not need money. It needs leaders who govern for the people with integrity. It needs the political will to put Zambia first. But, of course, you do not need me to say this. Dambisa Moyo, herself a daughter of the soil, made these same arguments 17 years ago. What America is trying to do here is both bolster Zambia’s sovereignty and catalyse Zambia’s growth. We are offering a transparent and open hand to join the Zambian people for mutual progress. We know that while you pursue a Zambia First agenda and we pursue America First, we are still able together to achieve something notably better for both of our countries, and we can do so without it coming at anyone’s expense, anyone’s exclusion, fully transparently, and legally. Now, of course, the United States will absolutely continue to honour our long-standing commitment to the Zambian people to provide critical life-saving healthcare support. We will not leave Zambians without access to ARVs. We are redoubling our support to ensure that babies are not born HIV-positive. But, against the unmitigated systematic theft of U.S. assistance, against the refusal by the Zambian government to engage and to own or enable a sustainable healthcare system that serves the people, in an environment where only the most exceptional of American investors can do clean business, and where Zambian government officials often can scarcely be bothered to take meetings with American officials or companies, not to mention capture the billion dollars of its own money secreted out of the country to East Asia or hold accountable the company that unleashes generations of cancer and birth defects onto the people, without fundamental change, as the American Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia, how can I ask American taxpayers, Congress, or President Trump to continue the massive aid budgets that have been the hallmark of our relationship for decades? The United States remains intent to work with Zambia toward our mutual objectives, but how Washington responds to silence, inaction, aversion to accountability, and lack of ownership remains to be seen. That said, I am confident that it will depend on fundamental changes by the Zambian government to take action to do right by the Zambian people. It will depend on actions to foster and enable the Zambian people, and their partners who abide by the rule of law, to be able to tangibly contribute to a mutually beneficial future. Washington’s hand remains open and outreached for transparent, accountable collaboration enabling tangible action to benefit both of our countries. But we can no longer own the projects more than the Zambian government. We cannot justify continuing to prioritise funding where the Zambian government also does not deploy its own resources. No longer will we lead while Zambian officials sit back unresponsively. Quite simply, America can best support Zambia’s sovereignty, agency, and success if we finally abide by the maxim and refrain from wanting development more than the Zambian government does. That said, what happens between governments and embassies is important, but it is only a small fraction of the broader relationship between countries. The ties between Zambia and America are profound, strong, and everlasting. The connections between churches and civil society, the linkages between students, artists, and researchers, the bonds between communities, the union of our peoples, these are the essence of the U.S.-Zambia relationship, and these will never fade. Too often people hope for change. They note what others should do. But hope is not a strategy, and we cannot control the actions of others, only our own. So, as I prepare to leave this country that I love, I ask those of you whose country it is, is this the Zambia you want? Are you on course to achieve it? If not, what action will you take to contribute to making that become a reality? I first stepped foot in Zambia in 1995. My daughter took her first steps in Livingstone. As I prepare to depart, I take with me beautiful memories of Zambia and the Zambian people, but I depart with a heavy heart wondering if realisation of the Zambian dream will be deferred for yet another 64 years while even more Zambians fall into poverty instead of being able to rise into the brilliant future that is possible. But my role here is not about this little guy with a big heart for Africa. It is about America and Zambia. America will continue reaching out to the people of Zambia, offering our support, seeking as much to learn as to share, doing so openly and transparently, and eager to help enable the realisation of that Zambian dream and the creative future that benefits, and can only be discovered through, our sincere partnership. I thank you.

Hopewell Chin’ono

99,068 次观看 • 4 个月前

Is a Toronto police lawyer dictating who should and shouldn't get arrested? Falguni Debnath serves as general counsel and chief's counsel for the Toronto Police Service, and according to Mayor Olivia Chow, she might be the reason more hate crime charges haven't been laid during weekly antisemitic protests in a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood in the city. Once upon a decade, there was a somewhat cheesy TV game show called To Tell the Truth. As the title implies, the celebrity panel and the audience at home had to figure out which lone contestant was being sincere, and which other contestants were lying through their teeth. Welcome to the 2025 version of To Tell the Truth, Toronto style. You see, our friend Joe Warmington recently had a scoop in the pages of the Toronto Sun. In fact, thanks to Joe, it looks like we have some answers regarding why the Toronto Police Service continues to turn a blind eye to antisemitism. And it’s shocking stuff. Warmington reported that Mayor Olivia Chow said that Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw told her that the police have their hands tied when it comes to charging pro-Hamas thugs with antisemitism. Now, why would that be? Well, Mayor Chow said that according to the chief, a “lawyer at headquarters” said to him “don’t bother” laying hate charges against the pro-Hamas reprobates because it will be hard to get a conviction in court. Wow. Can you imagine what policing would be like if this was standard procedure for all crimes? Imagine if cops always had to second guess themselves before laying charges? Imagine if cops had to ponder whether a criminal charge would stand up in court? We thought the cops were supposed to lay charges when they see criminal acts taking place and then let the courts figure out if the accused is guilty or not guilty. And if the system didn’t work that way, then really, what’s the use of having a police force in the first place? Ah, but here’s where things get very interesting. You see, Chief Demkiw says he never said such a thing to Mayor Chow. That means only one thing: either the chief or the mayor is lying. So, the question is: who is lying — and why? It should be noted that Warmington was able to obtain the name of this uber-powerful lawyer at police headquarters who is allegedly directing the Toronto Police Service. She is Falguni Debnath. Sources told Warmington she’s the general counsel for the Toronto Police Service and a prominent figure at headquarters. And she is allegedly not well liked. The police website states that Debnath joined the force in 2024 after working in the past with the Federal Department of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal. When introducing her to the Toronto Police Services Board on September 12, 2024, Chief Myron Demkiw said: We have confirmed the appointment of Falguni Debnath as general counsel and chief’s counsel…Falguni is a seasoned litigator with over 25 years of legal and leadership experience with governments, courts, and the United Nations… "In addition to her extensive experience litigating complex and high-profile matters, she has provided legal, strategic, and policy advice to the Chief Justice of Ontario, the Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, a Commissioner of an Inquiry, and the head of a UN War Crimes Tribunal. In her most recent role as international lead lawyer for the United Nations, she led a team of international lawyers representing over 5,000 survivors of war crimes and genocide. She has also prosecuted war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and breaches of the Vienna Convention." Here's our take: Falguni’s ties to the United Nations just might explain her motivation in terms of advising the police not go after antisemites. After all, you’d be hard pressed to find a more antisemitic organization than the United Nations. The UN is obsessed with condemning Isreal while turning a blind to the worst human rights abusers in the world. The UN exists as an anti-Israel joke. So, is this why Falguni has a soft spot in her heart for the Hamasholes? Thugs that have spent more than two years harassing Jews and pro-Israel supporters? We wouldn’t bet against it. But we always believe in getting the other side of the story. So, we reached out to Stephanie Sayer with the media relations department of the Toronto police. We also CC’d Chief Demkiw and Debnath herself. Here were our nine questions: 1⃣ Did Chief Demkiw say this to Mayor Chow or not? [By “this” we are referring to Debnath advising the chief not to lay charges against pro-Hamas demonstrators]. 2⃣ If he didn’t say this, why is Mayor Chow alleging he did? As well, why has Mayro Chow not retracted her statement if it is incorrect? 3️⃣ Why does Ms. Debnath feel that hate crime convictions are unlikely? 4️⃣ For more than two years now, we have chronicled demonstrations by masked pro-Hamas people. They have marched into predominately Jewish neighbourhoods, openly called for the genocide of the Jewish people; displayed swastikas; brandished fake hand grenades and suicide vests; and have even cosplayed as Sinwar, the terrorist mastermind of Oct. 7, 2023. How is it that Ms. Debnath allegedly believes that these egregious acts don’t meet the benchmark of a hate crime? 5️⃣ In addition to hate crimes, why are the police turning a blind eye to other laws being routinely violated? This includes harassment, trespassing, and the blocking of live intersections? 6️⃣ What role did Ms. Debnath (or other TPS lawyers) play in advising police officers not to enforce the law? 7️⃣ As you likely know, [David Menzies] was falsely arrested three times in 2024. Ezra Levant was also falsely arrested once. This was merely for practicing journalism in public. What role did Ms. Debnath have in advising police to arrest independent media? And what the real reason for these arrests? 8️⃣ How was it that Ms. Debnath came to be employed by the TPS? Did she receive a referral from former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when the then-PM met with Chief Demkiw in January 2024? 9️⃣ Would it be possible to arrange an interview with Ms. Debnath and Chief Demkiw? But at time of deadline, no response was received. Which is, alas, standard procedure when it comes to how the Toronto Police Service deals with independent media outlets. We should point out we also reached out to Mayor Chow’s office for comment. Predictably, it’s crickets… By the way, we’ve heard from sources that the Toronto police brass are furious with Warmington’s story as well as his “outing” of Debnath. Well, too bad, so sad. In the final analysis, the Chief of Police and the Mayor of Toronto must be transparent with the people of Toronto and the free press. Especially when it comes to the ongoing hatred that continues to go unchecked on the streets of Hogtown. But instead, we get this embarrassing he said/she said political kabuki theatre playing out. Oh, and by the way, while both the chief and the mayor are lying liars who can’t stop telling lies, when it comes to this file, we believe Mayor Chow is telling the truth. In any event, we can’t seem to get any answers via email or phone. So, we headed down to police headquarters to find out what’s what, and we brought our beautiful Jumbotron-equipped truck with us to demand some much needed transparency from those who enjoy swank six-figure salaries paid for by the taxpayer. Spoiler alert: nobody was available to speak with us. Shameful. David Menzies
21:24

Is a Toronto police lawyer dictating who should and shouldn't get arrested? Falguni Debnath serves as general counsel and chief's counsel for the Toronto Police Service, and according to Mayor Olivia Chow, she might be the reason more hate crime charges haven't been laid during weekly antisemitic protests in a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood in the city. Once upon a decade, there was a somewhat cheesy TV game show called To Tell the Truth. As the title implies, the celebrity panel and the audience at home had to figure out which lone contestant was being sincere, and which other contestants were lying through their teeth. Welcome to the 2025 version of To Tell the Truth, Toronto style. You see, our friend Joe Warmington recently had a scoop in the pages of the Toronto Sun. In fact, thanks to Joe, it looks like we have some answers regarding why the Toronto Police Service continues to turn a blind eye to antisemitism. And it’s shocking stuff. Warmington reported that Mayor Olivia Chow said that Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw told her that the police have their hands tied when it comes to charging pro-Hamas thugs with antisemitism. Now, why would that be? Well, Mayor Chow said that according to the chief, a “lawyer at headquarters” said to him “don’t bother” laying hate charges against the pro-Hamas reprobates because it will be hard to get a conviction in court. Wow. Can you imagine what policing would be like if this was standard procedure for all crimes? Imagine if cops always had to second guess themselves before laying charges? Imagine if cops had to ponder whether a criminal charge would stand up in court? We thought the cops were supposed to lay charges when they see criminal acts taking place and then let the courts figure out if the accused is guilty or not guilty. And if the system didn’t work that way, then really, what’s the use of having a police force in the first place? Ah, but here’s where things get very interesting. You see, Chief Demkiw says he never said such a thing to Mayor Chow. That means only one thing: either the chief or the mayor is lying. So, the question is: who is lying — and why? It should be noted that Warmington was able to obtain the name of this uber-powerful lawyer at police headquarters who is allegedly directing the Toronto Police Service. She is Falguni Debnath. Sources told Warmington she’s the general counsel for the Toronto Police Service and a prominent figure at headquarters. And she is allegedly not well liked. The police website states that Debnath joined the force in 2024 after working in the past with the Federal Department of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal. When introducing her to the Toronto Police Services Board on September 12, 2024, Chief Myron Demkiw said: We have confirmed the appointment of Falguni Debnath as general counsel and chief’s counsel…Falguni is a seasoned litigator with over 25 years of legal and leadership experience with governments, courts, and the United Nations… "In addition to her extensive experience litigating complex and high-profile matters, she has provided legal, strategic, and policy advice to the Chief Justice of Ontario, the Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, a Commissioner of an Inquiry, and the head of a UN War Crimes Tribunal. In her most recent role as international lead lawyer for the United Nations, she led a team of international lawyers representing over 5,000 survivors of war crimes and genocide. She has also prosecuted war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and breaches of the Vienna Convention." Here's our take: Falguni’s ties to the United Nations just might explain her motivation in terms of advising the police not go after antisemites. After all, you’d be hard pressed to find a more antisemitic organization than the United Nations. The UN is obsessed with condemning Isreal while turning a blind to the worst human rights abusers in the world. The UN exists as an anti-Israel joke. So, is this why Falguni has a soft spot in her heart for the Hamasholes? Thugs that have spent more than two years harassing Jews and pro-Israel supporters? We wouldn’t bet against it. But we always believe in getting the other side of the story. So, we reached out to Stephanie Sayer with the media relations department of the Toronto police. We also CC’d Chief Demkiw and Debnath herself. Here were our nine questions: 1⃣ Did Chief Demkiw say this to Mayor Chow or not? [By “this” we are referring to Debnath advising the chief not to lay charges against pro-Hamas demonstrators]. 2⃣ If he didn’t say this, why is Mayor Chow alleging he did? As well, why has Mayro Chow not retracted her statement if it is incorrect? 3️⃣ Why does Ms. Debnath feel that hate crime convictions are unlikely? 4️⃣ For more than two years now, we have chronicled demonstrations by masked pro-Hamas people. They have marched into predominately Jewish neighbourhoods, openly called for the genocide of the Jewish people; displayed swastikas; brandished fake hand grenades and suicide vests; and have even cosplayed as Sinwar, the terrorist mastermind of Oct. 7, 2023. How is it that Ms. Debnath allegedly believes that these egregious acts don’t meet the benchmark of a hate crime? 5️⃣ In addition to hate crimes, why are the police turning a blind eye to other laws being routinely violated? This includes harassment, trespassing, and the blocking of live intersections? 6️⃣ What role did Ms. Debnath (or other TPS lawyers) play in advising police officers not to enforce the law? 7️⃣ As you likely know, [David Menzies] was falsely arrested three times in 2024. Ezra Levant was also falsely arrested once. This was merely for practicing journalism in public. What role did Ms. Debnath have in advising police to arrest independent media? And what the real reason for these arrests? 8️⃣ How was it that Ms. Debnath came to be employed by the TPS? Did she receive a referral from former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when the then-PM met with Chief Demkiw in January 2024? 9️⃣ Would it be possible to arrange an interview with Ms. Debnath and Chief Demkiw? But at time of deadline, no response was received. Which is, alas, standard procedure when it comes to how the Toronto Police Service deals with independent media outlets. We should point out we also reached out to Mayor Chow’s office for comment. Predictably, it’s crickets… By the way, we’ve heard from sources that the Toronto police brass are furious with Warmington’s story as well as his “outing” of Debnath. Well, too bad, so sad. In the final analysis, the Chief of Police and the Mayor of Toronto must be transparent with the people of Toronto and the free press. Especially when it comes to the ongoing hatred that continues to go unchecked on the streets of Hogtown. But instead, we get this embarrassing he said/she said political kabuki theatre playing out. Oh, and by the way, while both the chief and the mayor are lying liars who can’t stop telling lies, when it comes to this file, we believe Mayor Chow is telling the truth. In any event, we can’t seem to get any answers via email or phone. So, we headed down to police headquarters to find out what’s what, and we brought our beautiful Jumbotron-equipped truck with us to demand some much needed transparency from those who enjoy swank six-figure salaries paid for by the taxpayer. Spoiler alert: nobody was available to speak with us. Shameful. David Menzies

Rebel News

21,016 次观看 • 9 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

Finally, Ed Davey calls for the UK to join the EU Single Market 👏 "We meet at an extraordinary moment. Vladimir Putin is still waging war on our continent. Donald Trump's chaos in the Middle East goes on. And our government, our own government is paralysed by infighting, waiting for Makerfield to release them from their agony." "And yet, despite all that, standing with you here today, I feel hope. And not just about England's chances against Croatia tonight, but hope about our country's future." "Not hope because the path ahead is easy. It isn't. Not hope because everything will magically get better. It won't." "But hope because finally, after ten long, difficult years, I believe we can move on. We can finally fix the Brexit damage, end the Brexit chaos and get our country back on track." "Because the story the media won't tell you, as they fawn over the rise of Farage, as they hang on his every empty press conference, is that the country is with us. We hear it on the doorsteps, we see it in the polls, we feel it in our communities." "People are fed up. They've had enough. Enough of the chaos in government, the queues at ports, the queues at airports, the bills that just keep on going up." "They know the hard truth that most politicians won't admit. The Brexit experiment has failed. And it's failed all of us." "£90 billion a year. That's how much it's costing us all as taxpayers" "£90 billion every year, gone" "That's £250 million every single day. Taken away from our schools, our hospitals, our armed forces. Taken out of everyone's pockets in the form of unfair tax rises." "Not because of a pandemic, not because of a war, not because of some force of nature out of our control, but because of their Brexit experiment. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the rest. An experiment that has now consumed a decade of British politics. That has tangled British businesses up in pointless red tape, that has pushed up prices for British families and that has left us all poorer." "Well, not all of us, apparently. Farage says that the five million he got from a crypto billionaire was his reward for Brexit. So when he said 'We'll be better off after Brexit,' it turns out he was using the royal we." "But friends, it's not only the economic and financial impact, as disastrous as those have been. It's the way they have poisoned our relationship with our nearest neighbours and friends, making it harder to work together on all the things we need to. Energy security and climate change, migration and refugees, AI, and above all, defence." "Britain has always been at its best when we stand tall with our European allies, not when we shut ourselves off. Now they promised us global Britain, but they have left us isolated at the worst possible time. Poorer, weaker and more insecure." "Their experiment has failed. We all know it. So it's time to move on." "But what do they say? The ones who caused all this. The people responsible. Farage and the Conservative Party. They say 'Tough.' They say you can't move on. They say you can't question Britain's relationship with Europe now. You can't dare to suggest there might be a better way. Doesn't matter how bad it gets, doesn't matter how much you're struggling. You just have to live with it, they say." "We say 'No.' We say Britain shouldn't have to live with a bad deal they've lumped us with. We say our country deserves far better than that." "Theirs is old thinking. It's 2016 thinking. The world has changed dramatically since then. It's time for us to change too. It's time for us to move on, move forward." "Just look around. Vladimir Putin is bombing schools and hospitals in Ukraine, murdering innocent civilians. He's testing NATO's resolve and setting his sights on the rest of Eastern Europe. He has shown that territorial conquest is not some relic of the distant past. It is happening now on European soil to our friends and our allies who share our values and our way of life." "And Donald Trump, he's torching the world economy for fun with his tariffs and his trade wars and now his actual war with Iran. He's ripping up the rules-based international order that generations of British leaders, American leaders, European leaders, painstakingly built after the Second World War. Trump threatening NATO, emboldening Putin and actively meddling in our democracies." "And then there's China, increasingly using trade supply chains and strategic dependencies as instruments of geopolitical competition." "And to add to all those political changes, there's the billionaire tech barons taking more and more control of our lives and our jobs with their empires of AI and social media, that no one nation can govern on its own." "The assumptions we have lived by for decades, that global trade would keep expanding, that international rules would broadly be respected, that our security would be underwritten by stable alliances. Those assumptions no longer hold. The world has changed more rapidly than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And our politics must change too." "Now we obviously can't turn to those who wrecked it. Farage and the Conservatives. They only want to make things worse. Even now, pushing for Brexit 2.0 with their plans to rip up the European Convention on Human Rights. They would just rerun all the old arguments, forcing Britain to replay the last ten years over and over in a never ending Brexit doom loop." "But nor, I'm afraid, can we look to Labour. Labour who failed to act with anything like the urgency this moment demands. Who don't seem to grasp the scale of the change we need in our relationship with Europe. Labour, who still kept us hemmed in the red lines they set more than five years ago. No single market, no customs union. Red lines they set before Putin invaded Ukraine, before Trump returned to the White House. Red lines that were wrong then and are even more wrong now." "The world has changed and it's time to move on. We cannot be trapped by that old thinking anymore. We have to look to the future. Not back to 2016 but to 2036 and beyond." "And that's why we're all here today, isn't it? Not because we are bitter about the past, but because we believe in a better future. Because we love our country and we know its brightest days still lie ahead." "We're here for our children and our grandchildren because we want them to inherit a country that is growing, that is confident, that is leading, not one that is shrinking, stagnating and standing alone." "That's what drives us. We're here because the world has changed, because the challenges we face to our economy, to our society and to our national defence are real and urgent. And because we believe Britain deserves ambition that matches the scale of this moment." "So what does that ambition look like? Well, first the government needs to drop those old red lines that stop us getting rid of the Conservatives' red tape. Those red lines are holding Britain back. They're hurting the British people and they are playing into the hands of Farage and Reform." "So my message to Andy Burnham, to Wes Streeting, to whoever the next Prime Minister may be, is drop those red lines. Drop them now." "If we do, we can move on from the torpor and timidity that has marked out Labour's approach to Europe so far. We can put an end to the endless talk of a reset that so far seems to just mean saying no more politely than the Conservatives did. And we can get on with properly fixing our relationship with Europe, for our economy, for our security, for our future." "Our party has led that debate for years. Last year, days before Trump took office, we set out plans for the UK to join a new customs union with the EU. And today I want to build on that and go further, much further." "Today we are calling for a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A bold new deal that will make Britain richer, safer and stronger, including a customs union, but also crucially taking Britain back into the single market." "Tearing down the barriers to trade. Ending the mountains of paperwork, the cost, the delays, the queues. Giving our young people the chance to study and work, live and love anywhere in the EU. Undoing the damage of the Johnson Farage Brexit deal that has held our economy back for so long." "Giving British businesses the certainty they need to invest, to hire and to grow. Giving Britain's economy the boost it needs after years of stagnation. Crucially, giving Britain's public finances a growth dividend. Tens of billions of pounds that we would use to cut the cost of living, to fix the NHS and to strengthen our armed forces." "And this new partnership must go beyond trade and growth. In the age of Putin, Xi and Trump, this must be about defence and security too. No country can be prosperous and free if it is not safe." "And Britain can help lead on defence in Europe as we have so decisively in the past. Despite the Conservatives' short-sighted cuts to our armed forces and Labour's chaos over investing in them now, Britain is still one of Europe's foremost military powers. We are a leading intelligence nation, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the third-biggest contributor to NATO." "We should be using those strengths. We should be at the table, helping to shape Europe's security future, not watching from the sidelines. And Europe wants us at the table. They know they need our leadership on defence." "So let's seize the initiative from a position of strength to form a new partnership that strengthens both Britain's economy and our collective security. That is why our new partnership would be about defence as much as it is about growth." "That means financial cooperation through a new European rearmament bank, alongside securing UK access to the one hundred and fifty billion euro safe programme. It means joint defence procurement, creating jobs in Britain while strengthening our collective capabilities. It means deeper cooperation on intelligence, on cyber security and on protecting critical infrastructure." "It means working together on energy security so that none of us can be held hostage by an authoritarian regime turning off the gas. It means political cooperation through a new European Security Council with a permanent seat for the UK, ensuring that Europe can shoulder greater responsibility for its own security within NATO." "As Trump's actions remind us every day, that we cannot afford to rely so much on the United States. Friends, this is not a choice we can afford to dodge any longer. In the face of Putin's threats and Trump's unpredictability, a new defence pact with Europe, with allies on whom we can depend, allies who share our interests and our values, is frankly the only way to keep Britain safe and defend our values in a dangerous world." "A new defence pact with Europe is not a choice, it is a necessity. So let's get on with it." "That is the ambition we need when it comes to our relationship with Europe. No more tinkering around the edges of a bad deal. No more shackling ourselves to the arguments of the last ten years, but building something new. A partnership fit for the enormous challenges we face today." "A new growth and defence partnership with a new pact for our collective security. Forming a customs union, joining the single market. A new partnership to make us richer, safer and stronger." "I think it's the best hope our country has to stop the chaos and end the crisis. And, my friends, it is the biggest step we could take now back towards membership of the EU." "And there's another big step we need to take too. Defeating Nigel Farage and Reform. We have to stop them from turning our United Kingdom into their version of Trump's America." "And here's the point. Until we do defeat them, many in Europe will not countenance Britain joining." "Let's remember why this matters, why it's so crucial for Britain to be there at the heart of Europe, at the table with our nearest neighbours." "I've been privileged to see it for myself, the power we have when Britain leads in Europe. When Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, we recognised then that the way to defeat him would be to get Europe off its dependence on Russian oil and gas, to take away the money that was funding his aggression, to bankrupt the Russian war machine." "So I led Britain's efforts to bring Europe together behind that common cause, and we succeeded. We wrote Europe's energy security strategy. Britain did that, sitting at the table, leading in Europe." "But then, instead of seeing it through, the Conservatives walked away. They gave up Britain's seat at the table. They locked us out of those discussions at the worst possible time." "Just imagine where we could be now if Britain had continued to lead on energy security. Imagine how much weaker Putin would be now. Imagine how much safer Ukraine and the rest of Europe, including Britain, would be now. What a terrible waste. What an indictment of the Conservatives." "And that is why I am so determined to get us back at the table, back at the heart of Europe. Britain leading again." "Now I want to speak for a moment about the bigger picture. Because our ambition is not limited to Europe alone. It's about Britain's place in the world." "The old assumption that trade, security and prosperity could be treated as separate issues no longer holds. Supply chains can be disrupted. Energy can be weaponised. Economic security and national security are now inseparable." "At a time when authoritarian powers are doing so much to undermine our security, democratic nations must work more closely together to enhance it. As Mark Carney said in Davos, middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. He is right." "Fixing our relationship with Europe is the essential foundation, but it's not the ceiling. The UK can be an incredible force for good when it stands tall on the world stage. Our history, our alliances and our relationships across every continent gives us a unique position for us to act as a bridge, not just between Europe and the US but between Europe and the whole wider democratic world." "We are here because we believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward looking. That is Britain at its best. Not a small inward looking island clinging to the wreckage of a failed experiment, but a leader, a convening power, a country that helps shape the international order rather than being buffeted by it." "That is the Britain we can be." "But friends, I want to be honest with you about the task ahead. What we are proposing is bold. It is ambitious. It requires courage, requires leadership. And it will not happen without all of us." "We know the obstacles we face, the arguments ahead, the opponents who would rather replay the last ten years instead of moving on from them. Who will tell us we can't even talk about a new deal with Europe, let alone make one. The politicians who will claim change isn't possible because the status quo works for them. But it doesn't work for anyone else." "So our job is to get out there and show people that change is possible, that it doesn't have to be like this, that there is a way forward. A better future for our country. Leading in Europe once again." "This isn't just because we believe in Europe. It's not just about friendship or shared history, or the fact that a divided Europe has always ended in misery. Fixing it is about us, our country, our future, our hopes and our dreams." "Britain needs a new plan. A plan for growth, for jobs, for defence. A plan to give our children the better future they deserve. A new deal with Europe. The only way to fix the cost of living crisis. The only way to get our country back on track." "So let us stand together. Let us end the chaos. Let us show the world what Britain can be. Not a small island clinging to a failed experiment, but a leader, open, outward looking. At the table, not on the menu." "A Britain that is richer, safer and stronger. That is the future we are fighting for." " Thank you. Thank you very much."
23:40

Finally, Ed Davey calls for the UK to join the EU Single Market 👏 "We meet at an extraordinary moment. Vladimir Putin is still waging war on our continent. Donald Trump's chaos in the Middle East goes on. And our government, our own government is paralysed by infighting, waiting for Makerfield to release them from their agony." "And yet, despite all that, standing with you here today, I feel hope. And not just about England's chances against Croatia tonight, but hope about our country's future." "Not hope because the path ahead is easy. It isn't. Not hope because everything will magically get better. It won't." "But hope because finally, after ten long, difficult years, I believe we can move on. We can finally fix the Brexit damage, end the Brexit chaos and get our country back on track." "Because the story the media won't tell you, as they fawn over the rise of Farage, as they hang on his every empty press conference, is that the country is with us. We hear it on the doorsteps, we see it in the polls, we feel it in our communities." "People are fed up. They've had enough. Enough of the chaos in government, the queues at ports, the queues at airports, the bills that just keep on going up." "They know the hard truth that most politicians won't admit. The Brexit experiment has failed. And it's failed all of us." "£90 billion a year. That's how much it's costing us all as taxpayers" "£90 billion every year, gone" "That's £250 million every single day. Taken away from our schools, our hospitals, our armed forces. Taken out of everyone's pockets in the form of unfair tax rises." "Not because of a pandemic, not because of a war, not because of some force of nature out of our control, but because of their Brexit experiment. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the rest. An experiment that has now consumed a decade of British politics. That has tangled British businesses up in pointless red tape, that has pushed up prices for British families and that has left us all poorer." "Well, not all of us, apparently. Farage says that the five million he got from a crypto billionaire was his reward for Brexit. So when he said 'We'll be better off after Brexit,' it turns out he was using the royal we." "But friends, it's not only the economic and financial impact, as disastrous as those have been. It's the way they have poisoned our relationship with our nearest neighbours and friends, making it harder to work together on all the things we need to. Energy security and climate change, migration and refugees, AI, and above all, defence." "Britain has always been at its best when we stand tall with our European allies, not when we shut ourselves off. Now they promised us global Britain, but they have left us isolated at the worst possible time. Poorer, weaker and more insecure." "Their experiment has failed. We all know it. So it's time to move on." "But what do they say? The ones who caused all this. The people responsible. Farage and the Conservative Party. They say 'Tough.' They say you can't move on. They say you can't question Britain's relationship with Europe now. You can't dare to suggest there might be a better way. Doesn't matter how bad it gets, doesn't matter how much you're struggling. You just have to live with it, they say." "We say 'No.' We say Britain shouldn't have to live with a bad deal they've lumped us with. We say our country deserves far better than that." "Theirs is old thinking. It's 2016 thinking. The world has changed dramatically since then. It's time for us to change too. It's time for us to move on, move forward." "Just look around. Vladimir Putin is bombing schools and hospitals in Ukraine, murdering innocent civilians. He's testing NATO's resolve and setting his sights on the rest of Eastern Europe. He has shown that territorial conquest is not some relic of the distant past. It is happening now on European soil to our friends and our allies who share our values and our way of life." "And Donald Trump, he's torching the world economy for fun with his tariffs and his trade wars and now his actual war with Iran. He's ripping up the rules-based international order that generations of British leaders, American leaders, European leaders, painstakingly built after the Second World War. Trump threatening NATO, emboldening Putin and actively meddling in our democracies." "And then there's China, increasingly using trade supply chains and strategic dependencies as instruments of geopolitical competition." "And to add to all those political changes, there's the billionaire tech barons taking more and more control of our lives and our jobs with their empires of AI and social media, that no one nation can govern on its own." "The assumptions we have lived by for decades, that global trade would keep expanding, that international rules would broadly be respected, that our security would be underwritten by stable alliances. Those assumptions no longer hold. The world has changed more rapidly than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And our politics must change too." "Now we obviously can't turn to those who wrecked it. Farage and the Conservatives. They only want to make things worse. Even now, pushing for Brexit 2.0 with their plans to rip up the European Convention on Human Rights. They would just rerun all the old arguments, forcing Britain to replay the last ten years over and over in a never ending Brexit doom loop." "But nor, I'm afraid, can we look to Labour. Labour who failed to act with anything like the urgency this moment demands. Who don't seem to grasp the scale of the change we need in our relationship with Europe. Labour, who still kept us hemmed in the red lines they set more than five years ago. No single market, no customs union. Red lines they set before Putin invaded Ukraine, before Trump returned to the White House. Red lines that were wrong then and are even more wrong now." "The world has changed and it's time to move on. We cannot be trapped by that old thinking anymore. We have to look to the future. Not back to 2016 but to 2036 and beyond." "And that's why we're all here today, isn't it? Not because we are bitter about the past, but because we believe in a better future. Because we love our country and we know its brightest days still lie ahead." "We're here for our children and our grandchildren because we want them to inherit a country that is growing, that is confident, that is leading, not one that is shrinking, stagnating and standing alone." "That's what drives us. We're here because the world has changed, because the challenges we face to our economy, to our society and to our national defence are real and urgent. And because we believe Britain deserves ambition that matches the scale of this moment." "So what does that ambition look like? Well, first the government needs to drop those old red lines that stop us getting rid of the Conservatives' red tape. Those red lines are holding Britain back. They're hurting the British people and they are playing into the hands of Farage and Reform." "So my message to Andy Burnham, to Wes Streeting, to whoever the next Prime Minister may be, is drop those red lines. Drop them now." "If we do, we can move on from the torpor and timidity that has marked out Labour's approach to Europe so far. We can put an end to the endless talk of a reset that so far seems to just mean saying no more politely than the Conservatives did. And we can get on with properly fixing our relationship with Europe, for our economy, for our security, for our future." "Our party has led that debate for years. Last year, days before Trump took office, we set out plans for the UK to join a new customs union with the EU. And today I want to build on that and go further, much further." "Today we are calling for a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A bold new deal that will make Britain richer, safer and stronger, including a customs union, but also crucially taking Britain back into the single market." "Tearing down the barriers to trade. Ending the mountains of paperwork, the cost, the delays, the queues. Giving our young people the chance to study and work, live and love anywhere in the EU. Undoing the damage of the Johnson Farage Brexit deal that has held our economy back for so long." "Giving British businesses the certainty they need to invest, to hire and to grow. Giving Britain's economy the boost it needs after years of stagnation. Crucially, giving Britain's public finances a growth dividend. Tens of billions of pounds that we would use to cut the cost of living, to fix the NHS and to strengthen our armed forces." "And this new partnership must go beyond trade and growth. In the age of Putin, Xi and Trump, this must be about defence and security too. No country can be prosperous and free if it is not safe." "And Britain can help lead on defence in Europe as we have so decisively in the past. Despite the Conservatives' short-sighted cuts to our armed forces and Labour's chaos over investing in them now, Britain is still one of Europe's foremost military powers. We are a leading intelligence nation, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the third-biggest contributor to NATO." "We should be using those strengths. We should be at the table, helping to shape Europe's security future, not watching from the sidelines. And Europe wants us at the table. They know they need our leadership on defence." "So let's seize the initiative from a position of strength to form a new partnership that strengthens both Britain's economy and our collective security. That is why our new partnership would be about defence as much as it is about growth." "That means financial cooperation through a new European rearmament bank, alongside securing UK access to the one hundred and fifty billion euro safe programme. It means joint defence procurement, creating jobs in Britain while strengthening our collective capabilities. It means deeper cooperation on intelligence, on cyber security and on protecting critical infrastructure." "It means working together on energy security so that none of us can be held hostage by an authoritarian regime turning off the gas. It means political cooperation through a new European Security Council with a permanent seat for the UK, ensuring that Europe can shoulder greater responsibility for its own security within NATO." "As Trump's actions remind us every day, that we cannot afford to rely so much on the United States. Friends, this is not a choice we can afford to dodge any longer. In the face of Putin's threats and Trump's unpredictability, a new defence pact with Europe, with allies on whom we can depend, allies who share our interests and our values, is frankly the only way to keep Britain safe and defend our values in a dangerous world." "A new defence pact with Europe is not a choice, it is a necessity. So let's get on with it." "That is the ambition we need when it comes to our relationship with Europe. No more tinkering around the edges of a bad deal. No more shackling ourselves to the arguments of the last ten years, but building something new. A partnership fit for the enormous challenges we face today." "A new growth and defence partnership with a new pact for our collective security. Forming a customs union, joining the single market. A new partnership to make us richer, safer and stronger." "I think it's the best hope our country has to stop the chaos and end the crisis. And, my friends, it is the biggest step we could take now back towards membership of the EU." "And there's another big step we need to take too. Defeating Nigel Farage and Reform. We have to stop them from turning our United Kingdom into their version of Trump's America." "And here's the point. Until we do defeat them, many in Europe will not countenance Britain joining." "Let's remember why this matters, why it's so crucial for Britain to be there at the heart of Europe, at the table with our nearest neighbours." "I've been privileged to see it for myself, the power we have when Britain leads in Europe. When Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, we recognised then that the way to defeat him would be to get Europe off its dependence on Russian oil and gas, to take away the money that was funding his aggression, to bankrupt the Russian war machine." "So I led Britain's efforts to bring Europe together behind that common cause, and we succeeded. We wrote Europe's energy security strategy. Britain did that, sitting at the table, leading in Europe." "But then, instead of seeing it through, the Conservatives walked away. They gave up Britain's seat at the table. They locked us out of those discussions at the worst possible time." "Just imagine where we could be now if Britain had continued to lead on energy security. Imagine how much weaker Putin would be now. Imagine how much safer Ukraine and the rest of Europe, including Britain, would be now. What a terrible waste. What an indictment of the Conservatives." "And that is why I am so determined to get us back at the table, back at the heart of Europe. Britain leading again." "Now I want to speak for a moment about the bigger picture. Because our ambition is not limited to Europe alone. It's about Britain's place in the world." "The old assumption that trade, security and prosperity could be treated as separate issues no longer holds. Supply chains can be disrupted. Energy can be weaponised. Economic security and national security are now inseparable." "At a time when authoritarian powers are doing so much to undermine our security, democratic nations must work more closely together to enhance it. As Mark Carney said in Davos, middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. He is right." "Fixing our relationship with Europe is the essential foundation, but it's not the ceiling. The UK can be an incredible force for good when it stands tall on the world stage. Our history, our alliances and our relationships across every continent gives us a unique position for us to act as a bridge, not just between Europe and the US but between Europe and the whole wider democratic world." "We are here because we believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward looking. That is Britain at its best. Not a small inward looking island clinging to the wreckage of a failed experiment, but a leader, a convening power, a country that helps shape the international order rather than being buffeted by it." "That is the Britain we can be." "But friends, I want to be honest with you about the task ahead. What we are proposing is bold. It is ambitious. It requires courage, requires leadership. And it will not happen without all of us." "We know the obstacles we face, the arguments ahead, the opponents who would rather replay the last ten years instead of moving on from them. Who will tell us we can't even talk about a new deal with Europe, let alone make one. The politicians who will claim change isn't possible because the status quo works for them. But it doesn't work for anyone else." "So our job is to get out there and show people that change is possible, that it doesn't have to be like this, that there is a way forward. A better future for our country. Leading in Europe once again." "This isn't just because we believe in Europe. It's not just about friendship or shared history, or the fact that a divided Europe has always ended in misery. Fixing it is about us, our country, our future, our hopes and our dreams." "Britain needs a new plan. A plan for growth, for jobs, for defence. A plan to give our children the better future they deserve. A new deal with Europe. The only way to fix the cost of living crisis. The only way to get our country back on track." "So let us stand together. Let us end the chaos. Let us show the world what Britain can be. Not a small island clinging to a failed experiment, but a leader, open, outward looking. At the table, not on the menu." "A Britain that is richer, safer and stronger. That is the future we are fighting for." " Thank you. Thank you very much."

Farrukh

10,909 次观看 • 3 个月前

TOPIC # 94: LET'S CONQUER THE "ENEMY"! Where is our enemy? Do we have an enemy? Why I always fail? Why people always against me? This is an important question we need to ask ourselves. Many people tend to see enemies only in the outside world, overlooking the internal struggles we face within ourselves. To truly improve our relationships and make a positive impact on the world, we must first conquer our own selfishness, doubts, timidity, greed, anger, ignorance, and arrogance. By addressing these internal "enemies," we can approach the outside world with greater peace and efficiency. Today in the Pi Network, we often demand OM for KYC, migration or OM or money. However, we must understand that merely demanding something will not help us achieve our goals. It’s similar to a child wanting candy; they may resort to various tactics to threaten their parents. If the parents know how to educate their children, they will not give in to the child’s cries. The same principle applies to the Pi Network. Only when we conquer our internal “enemies” can we fully understand the vision and mission of the Pi Network. When we grasp this understanding, we will firmly support all strategies and actions related to CT. If you don’t understand the meaning of CT, it is wise to follow the guidance from the Global GCV CT team, as we have over 30 experienced professionals with collective wisdom. I understand that the GCV community may be struggling to grasp our strategic change following the launch of the Open Network. The ecosystems and the exchange markets seem to be in opposition, but in reality, they are like siblings—one may be older, but both come from the same parents. Today, we emphasize that the exchange market is essential for a long-term sustainable ecosystem. When we talk about the ecosystem, we refer to two main components: the technical part and the economic part. The CT (Core Team) is focused on the technical aspects, such as coding, developing 100 Dapps, and implementing the Know Your Business (KYB) procedures. Meanwhile, the Pioneers are working on value and pricing to ensure the healthy development of the ecosystem. In this analogy, the CT is like the hardware, while the Pioneers are akin to the software. Just as you need both hardware and software to run a computer, we need both components for our ecosystem. During the enclosed mainnet, we worked hard to establish the GCV price at $314,159. This success is reflected in the source code. Now, we need all ecosystem participants to agree on a single price so that all Pioneers can use Pi to purchase products and pay for services using full Pi payments. To achieve this, we must stabilize Pi as a stablecoin. How can we gain global recognition for GCV? The answer lies in the exchange market. No matter how much GCV data we produce, the outside world cannot see it or acknowledge it. This is why our call for Pi buyback is critical for ecosystem development. I have noticed considerable resistance towards the buyback. After investigating those who oppose it, I found that many of them come from other cryptocurrency backgrounds, and some Pioneers have colluded with them to mislead others. Their goal appears to be preventing Pi from successfully reaching GCV on the exchange market. This is reflected in the choice of the song "Enemy" from the series Arcane: League of Legends for our second conference promotional video. The song brilliantly captures themes of rivalry, betrayal, and personal growth. It speaks to the conflicts we face with others and the battles we fight within ourselves. At its core, "Enemy" focuses on relationships—with others and oneself. It addresses dealing with doubters and the inner voice that sometimes breeds self-doubt, while also conveying a message of hope: overcoming these challenges is possible. Music has therapeutic effects, as modern neurophysiological research indicates that it directly impacts the nervous system, influencing the regulation of internal organs and bodily functions. Different pieces of music, each with unique rhythms, speeds, pitches, and timbres, can have calming, energizing, analgesic effects, as well as regulate heart rate and lower blood pressure. I urge all Pioneers: if you want our OM to succeed with the GCV price, please actively share our information everywhere, especially the promotional video and messages for the 2nd Global Pioneers Conference. The music has the power to awaken many pioneers from deep within their hearts.This conference is not only for GCV community but for all Pi Network community or even non-users from Pi Network. The more you disseminate our message, the closer we will get to achieving your financial freedom goals. You may not fully understand our strategy right now, but if you choose to follow our guidance, you will see results. Trusting in a visionary team is crucial, as unity leads to success! Are you ready, Global Pioneers? We are excited to announce that our 2nd Global Pioneers Conference will be held on May 25, 2025 at 7am USA EST. This time, our theme is: "Building a Sustainable Ecosystem with GCV – Merchants as the Foundation." The Four Critical Tasks are as follows: 1. Buy Back Pi By creating real demand, we can defend the value of Pi through purposeful participation. 2.Register Merchants on the Map of Pi Merchants are the heart of the Pi economy. Their visibility and acceptance are essential for growth. 3.Promote Bartering and Partial PI Payments Encouraging the real-world use of Pi, especially through flexible payment methods, demonstrates its true utility. 4.Repost with Purpose and Belief in GCV Through consistent, purpose-driven communication, we can spread awareness, inspire action, and strengthen our community. Together, these actions lay the foundation for a thriving, sustainable ecosystem where merchants play a crucial role in driving us forward. Let’s continue to act boldly and build a future that benefits us all. Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement P.S. All conference videos have been produced by my daughter, who recommends the use of earphones to attain the most impactful experience.
3:06

TOPIC # 94: LET'S CONQUER THE "ENEMY"! Where is our enemy? Do we have an enemy? Why I always fail? Why people always against me? This is an important question we need to ask ourselves. Many people tend to see enemies only in the outside world, overlooking the internal struggles we face within ourselves. To truly improve our relationships and make a positive impact on the world, we must first conquer our own selfishness, doubts, timidity, greed, anger, ignorance, and arrogance. By addressing these internal "enemies," we can approach the outside world with greater peace and efficiency. Today in the Pi Network, we often demand OM for KYC, migration or OM or money. However, we must understand that merely demanding something will not help us achieve our goals. It’s similar to a child wanting candy; they may resort to various tactics to threaten their parents. If the parents know how to educate their children, they will not give in to the child’s cries. The same principle applies to the Pi Network. Only when we conquer our internal “enemies” can we fully understand the vision and mission of the Pi Network. When we grasp this understanding, we will firmly support all strategies and actions related to CT. If you don’t understand the meaning of CT, it is wise to follow the guidance from the Global GCV CT team, as we have over 30 experienced professionals with collective wisdom. I understand that the GCV community may be struggling to grasp our strategic change following the launch of the Open Network. The ecosystems and the exchange markets seem to be in opposition, but in reality, they are like siblings—one may be older, but both come from the same parents. Today, we emphasize that the exchange market is essential for a long-term sustainable ecosystem. When we talk about the ecosystem, we refer to two main components: the technical part and the economic part. The CT (Core Team) is focused on the technical aspects, such as coding, developing 100 Dapps, and implementing the Know Your Business (KYB) procedures. Meanwhile, the Pioneers are working on value and pricing to ensure the healthy development of the ecosystem. In this analogy, the CT is like the hardware, while the Pioneers are akin to the software. Just as you need both hardware and software to run a computer, we need both components for our ecosystem. During the enclosed mainnet, we worked hard to establish the GCV price at $314,159. This success is reflected in the source code. Now, we need all ecosystem participants to agree on a single price so that all Pioneers can use Pi to purchase products and pay for services using full Pi payments. To achieve this, we must stabilize Pi as a stablecoin. How can we gain global recognition for GCV? The answer lies in the exchange market. No matter how much GCV data we produce, the outside world cannot see it or acknowledge it. This is why our call for Pi buyback is critical for ecosystem development. I have noticed considerable resistance towards the buyback. After investigating those who oppose it, I found that many of them come from other cryptocurrency backgrounds, and some Pioneers have colluded with them to mislead others. Their goal appears to be preventing Pi from successfully reaching GCV on the exchange market. This is reflected in the choice of the song "Enemy" from the series Arcane: League of Legends for our second conference promotional video. The song brilliantly captures themes of rivalry, betrayal, and personal growth. It speaks to the conflicts we face with others and the battles we fight within ourselves. At its core, "Enemy" focuses on relationships—with others and oneself. It addresses dealing with doubters and the inner voice that sometimes breeds self-doubt, while also conveying a message of hope: overcoming these challenges is possible. Music has therapeutic effects, as modern neurophysiological research indicates that it directly impacts the nervous system, influencing the regulation of internal organs and bodily functions. Different pieces of music, each with unique rhythms, speeds, pitches, and timbres, can have calming, energizing, analgesic effects, as well as regulate heart rate and lower blood pressure. I urge all Pioneers: if you want our OM to succeed with the GCV price, please actively share our information everywhere, especially the promotional video and messages for the 2nd Global Pioneers Conference. The music has the power to awaken many pioneers from deep within their hearts.This conference is not only for GCV community but for all Pi Network community or even non-users from Pi Network. The more you disseminate our message, the closer we will get to achieving your financial freedom goals. You may not fully understand our strategy right now, but if you choose to follow our guidance, you will see results. Trusting in a visionary team is crucial, as unity leads to success! Are you ready, Global Pioneers? We are excited to announce that our 2nd Global Pioneers Conference will be held on May 25, 2025 at 7am USA EST. This time, our theme is: "Building a Sustainable Ecosystem with GCV – Merchants as the Foundation." The Four Critical Tasks are as follows: 1. Buy Back Pi By creating real demand, we can defend the value of Pi through purposeful participation. 2.Register Merchants on the Map of Pi Merchants are the heart of the Pi economy. Their visibility and acceptance are essential for growth. 3.Promote Bartering and Partial PI Payments Encouraging the real-world use of Pi, especially through flexible payment methods, demonstrates its true utility. 4.Repost with Purpose and Belief in GCV Through consistent, purpose-driven communication, we can spread awareness, inspire action, and strengthen our community. Together, these actions lay the foundation for a thriving, sustainable ecosystem where merchants play a crucial role in driving us forward. Let’s continue to act boldly and build a future that benefits us all. Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement P.S. All conference videos have been produced by my daughter, who recommends the use of earphones to attain the most impactful experience.

Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷

53,343 次观看 • 1 年前