Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

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

Ana Sayfaya Dön

الدولة مب مثل قبل. 🇦🇪 القرار ما عاد مستقل بالكامل، وفي توجهات اليوم ما تعكس الروح اللي انبنت عليها البلاد من الأساس. لو الشيخ زايد كان موجود وشاف اللي قاعد يصير، جان تضايق وايد على إرثه. هو كان يبا سيادة حقيقية، كرامة، وتوازن في العلاقات، مب تبعية ولا اصطفاف... أعمى. بدل ما يواجهون معاداة السامية بعدل وشفافية حقيقية، ويدعمون كشف الحقائق كاملة في قضايا مثل إبستين، كان المفروض يحافظون على استقلالهم ويبتعدون تماماً عن أي تأثير أمريكي أو إسرائيلي يمس السيادة. لكن اللي صار هو العكس، تم دعم هذا الاصطفاف وتعزيزه. هالشي ما يعكس نهج القائد اللي بنى دولة على الاستقلال والتوازن. 💔 The country is not what it once was. Its decisions no longer appear fully independent, and today’s direction does not reflect the original spirit upon which the nation was built. If Sheikh Zayed were alive and witnessed what is happening, he would be deeply unsettled by what is being done to his legacy. He stood for real sovereignty, dignity, and strategic balance, not dependency or blind alignment. Instead of confronting antisemitism through genuine justice and transparency, and fully supporting truth and accountability in cases like Epstein, the leadership should have preserved strategic independence and withdrawn completely from American or Israeli influence where it compromises sovereignty. Instead, that alignment has been reinforced and supported. That is not the legacy of a founder who built his nation on autonomy and balance.show more

kian

345,047 subscribers

43,602 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

#رصد نتائج الزيارة الإيرانية تظهر يوماً بعد يوم، وهذا يؤكد ما نردده دائماً: أن النظام السياسي الحالي في بغداد لا يمتلك زمام الأمور، وأن قرار نزع سلاح الفصائل وحصره بيد الدولة لا يُتخذ في بغداد، بل يُبحث ويُحسم في إيران. والأهم من ذلك أن هذا التصريح صدر عن المتحدث الرسمي باسم الحكومة العراقية، وليس عن صحفي أو إعلامي، ما يجعله تعبيرًا عن موقف النظام السياسي في بغداد، وليس مجرد رأي إعلامي. ولا يمكن إخراج العراق من دائرة الهيمنة السياسية ما لم توضع خطة حقيقية لإعادة تشكيل النظام السياسي، بعد أن أصبحت إيران مهيمنة على مفاصل أساسية فيه، وتمتلك نفوذاً واسعاً على قراراته. The consequences of the Iranian visit are becoming increasingly evident day by day, confirming what we have consistently argued: that the current political system in Baghdad does not have control over its own affairs, and that the decision to disarm the armed factions and place their weapons under state control is not being made in Baghdad, but is instead being discussed and decided in Iran. More importantly, this statement was made by the official spokesperson of the Iraqi government, not by a journalist or media commentator, which makes it an expression of the position of the political system in Baghdad rather than merely a media opinion. Iraq cannot be freed from the grip of political influence unless a genuine plan is developed to restructure the political system, after Iran has established influence over key institutions and become capable of controlling a significant part of its political decisions. So, is it time to replace Iran’s political arm in Baghdad? The armed wing will not change as long as political leaders loyal to Iran continue to control the key levers of political decision-making in Iraq. While the United States, along with Syria and other concerned parties, continues to watch the Iraqi scene without decisive action, Iranian leaders continue to shape Iraq’s future through bloodshed, forcing us, as Iraqis, to pay the price for their conflicts and influence. The alternative exists, and the tools are available to the United States. All that is missing is the political decision. So, is it time to make that decision and help Iraq reclaim its sovereignty and its own political decision-making, rather than simply watching what is happening? Ambassador Tom Barrack Department of State Secretary Marco Rubio

#رصد نتائج الزيارة الإيرانية تظهر يوماً بعد يوم، وهذا يؤكد ما نردده دائماً: أن النظام السياسي الحالي في بغداد لا يمتلك زمام الأمور، وأن قرار نزع سلاح الفصائل وحصره بيد الدولة لا يُتخذ في بغداد، بل يُبحث ويُحسم في إيران. والأهم من ذلك أن هذا التصريح صدر عن المتحدث الرسمي باسم الحكومة العراقية، وليس عن صحفي أو إعلامي، ما يجعله تعبيرًا عن موقف النظام السياسي في بغداد، وليس مجرد رأي إعلامي. ولا يمكن إخراج العراق من دائرة الهيمنة السياسية ما لم توضع خطة حقيقية لإعادة تشكيل النظام السياسي، بعد أن أصبحت إيران مهيمنة على مفاصل أساسية فيه، وتمتلك نفوذاً واسعاً على قراراته. The consequences of the Iranian visit are becoming increasingly evident day by day, confirming what we have consistently argued: that the current political system in Baghdad does not have control over its own affairs, and that the decision to disarm the armed factions and place their weapons under state control is not being made in Baghdad, but is instead being discussed and decided in Iran. More importantly, this statement was made by the official spokesperson of the Iraqi government, not by a journalist or media commentator, which makes it an expression of the position of the political system in Baghdad rather than merely a media opinion. Iraq cannot be freed from the grip of political influence unless a genuine plan is developed to restructure the political system, after Iran has established influence over key institutions and become capable of controlling a significant part of its political decisions. So, is it time to replace Iran’s political arm in Baghdad? The armed wing will not change as long as political leaders loyal to Iran continue to control the key levers of political decision-making in Iraq. While the United States, along with Syria and other concerned parties, continues to watch the Iraqi scene without decisive action, Iranian leaders continue to shape Iraq’s future through bloodshed, forcing us, as Iraqis, to pay the price for their conflicts and influence. The alternative exists, and the tools are available to the United States. All that is missing is the political decision. So, is it time to make that decision and help Iraq reclaim its sovereignty and its own political decision-making, rather than simply watching what is happening? Ambassador Tom Barrack Department of State Secretary Marco Rubio

أحمد العلواني

24,060 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce

It is a pleasure to be with you this evening to celebrate the memory and contribution of our first Prime Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru. He was the prime architect of the modern Indian nation-state. His was a life anchored firmly in parliamentary democracy. He had a steadfast belief in planned economic growth and a profound commitment to the development of scientific temper alongside the development of scientific and technological capabilities. To him, secularism — in which he firmly believed — meant the celebration of India’s many diversities while strengthening its fundamental unity. His legacy continues to shape our everyday lives. Decades have gone by since his time, but he continues to serve as a beacon of light to millions of our countrymen and women. It is inevitable that such a monumental figure will have his life and work analysed and critiqued — and that is indeed as it should be. Although the temptation to divorce him from his times and the challenges that he had to face and to look at him, devoid of the historical context in which he functioned has become quite widespread. Yet, while we welcome ongoing analysis of his contributions, what is not acceptable is the systematic attempt being made to denigrate, distort, demean and defame him. The sole objective of this is to not only diminish him as a personality but also his universally recognised role in India's independence struggle and his early decades as a leader of an independent nation challenged by unprecedented problems, but it is also to demolish his multifaceted legacy in a crude and self-serving attempt to rewrite history. Analysis is one thing, but deliberate mischief with what he said, what he wrote and what he did is another thing and totally unacceptable. And who are the forces that have launched this project? We all know that they have worked for years and years—for decades—and finally, here they are. They belong to an ideology that had no role whatsoever in our freedom movement, that had no role whatsoever in the making of our Constitution. In fact, they even burnt it and were totally against it. It is an ideology that long ago fanned an atmosphere of hate that ultimately led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi ji. His killers today continue to be glorified by its adherents. It is an ideology that has consistently rejected the ideals of our founding fathers. It is an ideology with a bigoted and viciously communal outlook. Its approach to nationhood is based on stoking prejudices of all kinds. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that the project to vilify Jawaharlal Nehru ji is the main objective of the ruling establishment today. Their goal is not just to erase him; it is actually to destroy the social, political, and economic foundations on which our nation has been founded and built. The road ahead is not easy. But there is simply no option but for each one of us, individually and collectively, to stand up and confront this project. We not only owe it to the memory of Jawaharlal Nehru ji and his comrades—we owe it to ourselves, and even more to the coming generations. The unapologetic and fierce defence of the Nehruvian legacy is not an act of nostalgia. It is a commitment to restoring India's constitutional promise, to safeguarding reason in the face of propaganda, and to ensuring that our republic remains modern and forward-looking. If we succeed, it will not only honour Jawaharlal Nehru ji's memory; it will ensure that the India he envisioned remains a reality. At a time when tolerance in public life is shrinking, when dissent is painted as disloyalty, and history is reduced to partisan combat, Nehru ji's example becomes even more vital. He taught us that disagreement is not a threat but a democratic necessity—that unity does not demand uniformity; that a confident nation need not fear the truth about its past. Friends, there is some reason for hope. Last month, the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund also launched an archive which can be accessed at The archive is an easily searchable and freely downloadable digital archive—also, by the way, accessible on your smartphone. At present, it covers the hundred published volumes of his selected works, covering the period from 1903 till the day before he died. The archive will continue to expand. So, there it will be for you all to access any time you want to know something about what he said, what he wrote, or what he did. Sandeep Dixit's initiative, which has brought all of us here this evening, is another sincere attempt to take on this challenge of rescuing Nehru ji from the web of deception. And we need many, many more such initiatives across the length and breadth of our country. I will end by congratulating Sandeep and his team and wishing him and his colleagues the very best in their endeavours. Jai Hind! : CPP Chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi ji at the launch of The Nehru Centre India

It is a pleasure to be with you this evening to celebrate the memory and contribution of our first Prime Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru. He was the prime architect of the modern Indian nation-state. His was a life anchored firmly in parliamentary democracy. He had a steadfast belief in planned economic growth and a profound commitment to the development of scientific temper alongside the development of scientific and technological capabilities. To him, secularism — in which he firmly believed — meant the celebration of India’s many diversities while strengthening its fundamental unity. His legacy continues to shape our everyday lives. Decades have gone by since his time, but he continues to serve as a beacon of light to millions of our countrymen and women. It is inevitable that such a monumental figure will have his life and work analysed and critiqued — and that is indeed as it should be. Although the temptation to divorce him from his times and the challenges that he had to face and to look at him, devoid of the historical context in which he functioned has become quite widespread. Yet, while we welcome ongoing analysis of his contributions, what is not acceptable is the systematic attempt being made to denigrate, distort, demean and defame him. The sole objective of this is to not only diminish him as a personality but also his universally recognised role in India's independence struggle and his early decades as a leader of an independent nation challenged by unprecedented problems, but it is also to demolish his multifaceted legacy in a crude and self-serving attempt to rewrite history. Analysis is one thing, but deliberate mischief with what he said, what he wrote and what he did is another thing and totally unacceptable. And who are the forces that have launched this project? We all know that they have worked for years and years—for decades—and finally, here they are. They belong to an ideology that had no role whatsoever in our freedom movement, that had no role whatsoever in the making of our Constitution. In fact, they even burnt it and were totally against it. It is an ideology that long ago fanned an atmosphere of hate that ultimately led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi ji. His killers today continue to be glorified by its adherents. It is an ideology that has consistently rejected the ideals of our founding fathers. It is an ideology with a bigoted and viciously communal outlook. Its approach to nationhood is based on stoking prejudices of all kinds. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that the project to vilify Jawaharlal Nehru ji is the main objective of the ruling establishment today. Their goal is not just to erase him; it is actually to destroy the social, political, and economic foundations on which our nation has been founded and built. The road ahead is not easy. But there is simply no option but for each one of us, individually and collectively, to stand up and confront this project. We not only owe it to the memory of Jawaharlal Nehru ji and his comrades—we owe it to ourselves, and even more to the coming generations. The unapologetic and fierce defence of the Nehruvian legacy is not an act of nostalgia. It is a commitment to restoring India's constitutional promise, to safeguarding reason in the face of propaganda, and to ensuring that our republic remains modern and forward-looking. If we succeed, it will not only honour Jawaharlal Nehru ji's memory; it will ensure that the India he envisioned remains a reality. At a time when tolerance in public life is shrinking, when dissent is painted as disloyalty, and history is reduced to partisan combat, Nehru ji's example becomes even more vital. He taught us that disagreement is not a threat but a democratic necessity—that unity does not demand uniformity; that a confident nation need not fear the truth about its past. Friends, there is some reason for hope. Last month, the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund also launched an archive which can be accessed at The archive is an easily searchable and freely downloadable digital archive—also, by the way, accessible on your smartphone. At present, it covers the hundred published volumes of his selected works, covering the period from 1903 till the day before he died. The archive will continue to expand. So, there it will be for you all to access any time you want to know something about what he said, what he wrote, or what he did. Sandeep Dixit's initiative, which has brought all of us here this evening, is another sincere attempt to take on this challenge of rescuing Nehru ji from the web of deception. And we need many, many more such initiatives across the length and breadth of our country. I will end by congratulating Sandeep and his team and wishing him and his colleagues the very best in their endeavours. Jai Hind! : CPP Chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi ji at the launch of The Nehru Centre India

Congress

45,430 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

I would like to wish all my compatriots a happy Independence Day, happy Independence Zimbabwe. The independence of our country, unlike many other African countries, came through blood that was shed. There are so many Zimbabweans who lie in unmarked graves from Tanzania to Zambia to Botswana to Mozambique, and they put their lives on the line so that you and I could have the independence that we did not have under colonial rule. There is a distinct difference between those who fought for the independence of our country and died, never seeing an independent Zimbabwe, and those who took over from colonial rule and then destroyed our country through incompetence, corruption, and many other afflictions that should never have been there. I am in no doubt at all that had our country not become independent, I and many Black citizens would probably not be where we are today, thanks to the early gains of independence. Sadly, I now find myself as a journalist and a Zimbabwean with NO freedom to speak, to write, and to exist as a full citizen in my country post independence after the derailment of the independence dream. Many of our people did not have the opportunities that I personally got, and many others got, to advance our lives. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves where we are today, not because independence is bad, but because we ended up with selfish, corrupt, and incompetent individuals who abandoned the principles and aspirations that inspired many Zimbabweans to go out there and fight so that their country could be free. So on this day, when we celebrate 46 years of independence, the same zeal and drive that defined those who died fighting for our country must be carried forward by those who are alive today, to make sure that the country is restored to where it is supposed to be. Zimbabwe is one of the richest countries under the sun. It has almost every mineral that you can think of, and it has some of the best soils in the world. There is no reason for any Zimbabwean to be unemployed, to fail to earn an income, or to go to bed on an empty stomach. There is absolutely no reason for any Zimbabwean to struggle if the country is led by people who know what they are doing and who put the country first, the national interest first, ahead of their own selfish needs. Whilst colonialism was a terrible stain on the history of our country, there are lessons that can be drawn from that period. Rhodesia was run like a business, not like a fiefdom. The fact that most of the central hospitals that exist today were built during the colonial period, with the exception of Chitungwiza, tells us that infrastructure was prioritised, even if it was designed to serve a minority. That reality does not excuse colonial injustice, but it exposes the scale of failure after independence. Forty-six years later, the government has built only one central hospital. Around 2,500 women die every year during childbirth due to a lack of adequate maternity facilities. The largest hospital in Zimbabwe still relies on a maternity theatre built in 1977, and even then only one of its two theatres is functional, with the working one having been refurbished by a South African bank. That is a damning indictment on the current leadership. The fact that millions of Zimbabweans have been forced to leave the country to take up menial jobs in South Africa, as waiters or farm workers, is an indictment on the current leadership. The fact that people like myself and many others have had to leave home out of fear for our lives is an indictment on the current leadership. Whilst the leadership has failed, we as citizens of Zimbabwe also carry a responsibility towards our country, in whatever space we occupy. We must stop following personalities and start following ideas, whether in the ruling party or in the opposition. Our country has been destroyed because we follow personalities, many of whom are vacuous and empty, and when they fail, they drag the nation down with them as our leaders have done. We must not wait for a Messiah to come and save us from the afflictions we face today. We have a responsibility to do what is right for our country. During the liberation struggle, leaders were changed at different points because the struggle was never about personalities, it was about an idea, an independent Zimbabwe where every Zimbabwean, black, white, green, or yellow, has the same rights and opportunities to pursue a better life. So as we celebrate, and we should celebrate, we must also reflect on our responsibilities going forward. We celebrate because independence itself was a noble idea and remains a noble idea. When things are bad, you do not burn down the house, you fix what is broken. We must honour and remember those who lost their lives so that people like myself could go to college, become journalists, and be recognised internationally, as many Zimbabwean professionals have been, some even advising presidents across the continent and beyond. Zimbabwe has some of the most accomplished people anywhere in the world, and it should not be where it is today. It is therefore up to us, as Zimbabweans, to make sure that we do what is right for our country. Once again, happy Independence to my compatriots, and thank you to all the stalwarts who laid down their lives for us to be independent and to the countries that supported our struggle. We could not have achieved independence in 1980 without Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana, and many others who stood with us. They did well for us and we thank them. It is those who destroyed the country who should hang their heads in shame today. My heart bleeds when I see so many young Zimbabweans with university degrees, yet ending up as victims of drug abuse because there is no work to go to. There are no opportunities available that are aligned with what they went to university to study. It is a tragic indictment of the situation we find ourselves in today. Today we have become a nation where boreholes are being drilled in the middle of cities because the rulers have failed to do something as basic as delivering water into people’s homes. Today we have become a nation where the rest of the region laughs at us because our roads are riddled with potholes, yet the leadership drives Ferraris on those same roads. Today we have become a nation where even our O-level pass rate has not gone beyond 34% because of the failure of leadership to do what needs to be done. Today we cannot even feed ourselves. We have to rely on food aid, and yet we were once colloquially referred to as the breadbasket of the region. These are some of the realities we should reflect on. I could go on and on, but at this point, it is not necessary. To our leaders, I say, how does it feel when you hear the very people you lead saying Ian Smith was better, when they say colonialism was better? How do you feel? Or do you even feel anything at all when those words are spoken? Of course, colonialism was brutal. Of course, Ian Smith was a racist leader who upheld a minority regime built on exclusion and oppression. But it is a damning indictment of your failed leadership that some of our own people now feel pushed to the point of romanticising that dark past. Independence was meant to usher in dignity, opportunity, and shared prosperity for every Zimbabwean, regardless of colour or creed. It was meant to restore ownership of our future to the people. Yet today, you cannot deny that a small, privileged few are the primary beneficiaries of that independence, while the overwhelming majority are trapped in poverty, penury, and relentless suffering. That is not what liberation was fought for. However, nothing can justify a failure to be grateful to those who fought and died for the independence of our country. They did their part. It is now up to us to do our part and ensure that our country becomes what it is meant to be. Happy Independence Zimbabwe.

I would like to wish all my compatriots a happy Independence Day, happy Independence Zimbabwe. The independence of our country, unlike many other African countries, came through blood that was shed. There are so many Zimbabweans who lie in unmarked graves from Tanzania to Zambia to Botswana to Mozambique, and they put their lives on the line so that you and I could have the independence that we did not have under colonial rule. There is a distinct difference between those who fought for the independence of our country and died, never seeing an independent Zimbabwe, and those who took over from colonial rule and then destroyed our country through incompetence, corruption, and many other afflictions that should never have been there. I am in no doubt at all that had our country not become independent, I and many Black citizens would probably not be where we are today, thanks to the early gains of independence. Sadly, I now find myself as a journalist and a Zimbabwean with NO freedom to speak, to write, and to exist as a full citizen in my country post independence after the derailment of the independence dream. Many of our people did not have the opportunities that I personally got, and many others got, to advance our lives. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves where we are today, not because independence is bad, but because we ended up with selfish, corrupt, and incompetent individuals who abandoned the principles and aspirations that inspired many Zimbabweans to go out there and fight so that their country could be free. So on this day, when we celebrate 46 years of independence, the same zeal and drive that defined those who died fighting for our country must be carried forward by those who are alive today, to make sure that the country is restored to where it is supposed to be. Zimbabwe is one of the richest countries under the sun. It has almost every mineral that you can think of, and it has some of the best soils in the world. There is no reason for any Zimbabwean to be unemployed, to fail to earn an income, or to go to bed on an empty stomach. There is absolutely no reason for any Zimbabwean to struggle if the country is led by people who know what they are doing and who put the country first, the national interest first, ahead of their own selfish needs. Whilst colonialism was a terrible stain on the history of our country, there are lessons that can be drawn from that period. Rhodesia was run like a business, not like a fiefdom. The fact that most of the central hospitals that exist today were built during the colonial period, with the exception of Chitungwiza, tells us that infrastructure was prioritised, even if it was designed to serve a minority. That reality does not excuse colonial injustice, but it exposes the scale of failure after independence. Forty-six years later, the government has built only one central hospital. Around 2,500 women die every year during childbirth due to a lack of adequate maternity facilities. The largest hospital in Zimbabwe still relies on a maternity theatre built in 1977, and even then only one of its two theatres is functional, with the working one having been refurbished by a South African bank. That is a damning indictment on the current leadership. The fact that millions of Zimbabweans have been forced to leave the country to take up menial jobs in South Africa, as waiters or farm workers, is an indictment on the current leadership. The fact that people like myself and many others have had to leave home out of fear for our lives is an indictment on the current leadership. Whilst the leadership has failed, we as citizens of Zimbabwe also carry a responsibility towards our country, in whatever space we occupy. We must stop following personalities and start following ideas, whether in the ruling party or in the opposition. Our country has been destroyed because we follow personalities, many of whom are vacuous and empty, and when they fail, they drag the nation down with them as our leaders have done. We must not wait for a Messiah to come and save us from the afflictions we face today. We have a responsibility to do what is right for our country. During the liberation struggle, leaders were changed at different points because the struggle was never about personalities, it was about an idea, an independent Zimbabwe where every Zimbabwean, black, white, green, or yellow, has the same rights and opportunities to pursue a better life. So as we celebrate, and we should celebrate, we must also reflect on our responsibilities going forward. We celebrate because independence itself was a noble idea and remains a noble idea. When things are bad, you do not burn down the house, you fix what is broken. We must honour and remember those who lost their lives so that people like myself could go to college, become journalists, and be recognised internationally, as many Zimbabwean professionals have been, some even advising presidents across the continent and beyond. Zimbabwe has some of the most accomplished people anywhere in the world, and it should not be where it is today. It is therefore up to us, as Zimbabweans, to make sure that we do what is right for our country. Once again, happy Independence to my compatriots, and thank you to all the stalwarts who laid down their lives for us to be independent and to the countries that supported our struggle. We could not have achieved independence in 1980 without Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana, and many others who stood with us. They did well for us and we thank them. It is those who destroyed the country who should hang their heads in shame today. My heart bleeds when I see so many young Zimbabweans with university degrees, yet ending up as victims of drug abuse because there is no work to go to. There are no opportunities available that are aligned with what they went to university to study. It is a tragic indictment of the situation we find ourselves in today. Today we have become a nation where boreholes are being drilled in the middle of cities because the rulers have failed to do something as basic as delivering water into people’s homes. Today we have become a nation where the rest of the region laughs at us because our roads are riddled with potholes, yet the leadership drives Ferraris on those same roads. Today we have become a nation where even our O-level pass rate has not gone beyond 34% because of the failure of leadership to do what needs to be done. Today we cannot even feed ourselves. We have to rely on food aid, and yet we were once colloquially referred to as the breadbasket of the region. These are some of the realities we should reflect on. I could go on and on, but at this point, it is not necessary. To our leaders, I say, how does it feel when you hear the very people you lead saying Ian Smith was better, when they say colonialism was better? How do you feel? Or do you even feel anything at all when those words are spoken? Of course, colonialism was brutal. Of course, Ian Smith was a racist leader who upheld a minority regime built on exclusion and oppression. But it is a damning indictment of your failed leadership that some of our own people now feel pushed to the point of romanticising that dark past. Independence was meant to usher in dignity, opportunity, and shared prosperity for every Zimbabwean, regardless of colour or creed. It was meant to restore ownership of our future to the people. Yet today, you cannot deny that a small, privileged few are the primary beneficiaries of that independence, while the overwhelming majority are trapped in poverty, penury, and relentless suffering. That is not what liberation was fought for. However, nothing can justify a failure to be grateful to those who fought and died for the independence of our country. They did their part. It is now up to us to do our part and ensure that our country becomes what it is meant to be. Happy Independence Zimbabwe.

Hopewell Chin’ono

12,473 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Reza Pahlavi, for all intents and purposes, does not owe us anything. His family built Iran from zero. When I say zero, I mean zero. A weak, fragmented Qajar state, one in which women could not leave the house without a man. One in which Iran’s internal affairs were completely controlled by outsiders. One in which foreign armies seized our lands to feed their troops while half our population died of famine. A country without an army, without national infrastructure, without sovereignty over its own resources. And I can go on, and on, and on. In return, we Iranians repaid their blood, sweat, and tears with one of the greatest treacheries imaginable in modern history. His grandfather, arguably one of the greatest men in Iran’s history, his tomb was levelled to the ground. His father was forced to leave the country he loved more than anything in the world. One could say it was not his illness that killed him, but the knife we put in his back, the betrayal of a nation he had dedicated his life to. Reza Pahlavi’s friends and family who remained in Iran were murdered, one by one, at the hands of the regime WE enabled. An entire generation around him was hunted, imprisoned, executed, or driven into exile. His sister and brother, unable to bear the weight of exile and the destruction of everything they had known, took their own lives. Reza Pahlavi has the money. He could have chosen a quiet life, a life of comfort and distance, far from the insults, the threats, the endless character assassination. Instead of spending more than four decades on this path, he could have lived for himself and his family, free of this burden. Instead, he chose responsibility. He chose to stand for the very people who betrayed his family and became the cause of so much suffering in his life. What does he ask in return? Nothing. No throne has been demanded. No position imposed. He has asked only for a national process in which the Iranian people themselves decide their future. He has anchored that path in clear principles, precisely to prevent Iran from falling once again into chaos, fragmentation, and revenge. Yet even for that, he is criticised by so-called “Iran expert” podcasters who have never carried the weight of a nation on their shoulders, who say, “He does not want to lead,” “He is not your guy.” All while he and his family live under constant attacks, threats, and scrutiny on a daily basis. Despite all of that, his love for his people and his land overrides everything. He continues to fight for us. I want to say we have done nothing to deserve it, but the people of Iran have proven otherwise in these past weeks. They are no longer blinded by decades of propaganda. They are revisiting their history. They are correcting the lies they were raised with. They are openly calling his name in the streets, knowing the price that must be paid for it. They are awake to the mistakes of past generations, and they have reached out their hand to him. And he, despite everything, has taken that hand.

Reza Pahlavi, for all intents and purposes, does not owe us anything. His family built Iran from zero. When I say zero, I mean zero. A weak, fragmented Qajar state, one in which women could not leave the house without a man. One in which Iran’s internal affairs were completely controlled by outsiders. One in which foreign armies seized our lands to feed their troops while half our population died of famine. A country without an army, without national infrastructure, without sovereignty over its own resources. And I can go on, and on, and on. In return, we Iranians repaid their blood, sweat, and tears with one of the greatest treacheries imaginable in modern history. His grandfather, arguably one of the greatest men in Iran’s history, his tomb was levelled to the ground. His father was forced to leave the country he loved more than anything in the world. One could say it was not his illness that killed him, but the knife we put in his back, the betrayal of a nation he had dedicated his life to. Reza Pahlavi’s friends and family who remained in Iran were murdered, one by one, at the hands of the regime WE enabled. An entire generation around him was hunted, imprisoned, executed, or driven into exile. His sister and brother, unable to bear the weight of exile and the destruction of everything they had known, took their own lives. Reza Pahlavi has the money. He could have chosen a quiet life, a life of comfort and distance, far from the insults, the threats, the endless character assassination. Instead of spending more than four decades on this path, he could have lived for himself and his family, free of this burden. Instead, he chose responsibility. He chose to stand for the very people who betrayed his family and became the cause of so much suffering in his life. What does he ask in return? Nothing. No throne has been demanded. No position imposed. He has asked only for a national process in which the Iranian people themselves decide their future. He has anchored that path in clear principles, precisely to prevent Iran from falling once again into chaos, fragmentation, and revenge. Yet even for that, he is criticised by so-called “Iran expert” podcasters who have never carried the weight of a nation on their shoulders, who say, “He does not want to lead,” “He is not your guy.” All while he and his family live under constant attacks, threats, and scrutiny on a daily basis. Despite all of that, his love for his people and his land overrides everything. He continues to fight for us. I want to say we have done nothing to deserve it, but the people of Iran have proven otherwise in these past weeks. They are no longer blinded by decades of propaganda. They are revisiting their history. They are correcting the lies they were raised with. They are openly calling his name in the streets, knowing the price that must be paid for it. They are awake to the mistakes of past generations, and they have reached out their hand to him. And he, despite everything, has taken that hand.

Arsalan Naamdar

24,647 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

The wrath of God was poured out on Jesus. It was a free gift in the sense that we did nothing to deserve it, "yet while we were still sinners Christ died for us." But it was not free in that it came at great cost to Jesus, for He suffered and gave up His life to fulfill God's righteousness and wrath, so God would be just in having mercy on us. And following Christ it NOT free for us afterwards either, and this is another area I feel like the Western church never disciples people in: what it means to be a genuine Christian after converting. Paul says that "if Christ has not risen from the dead, we are of all people most to be pitied." There is great cost in this life to following Christ when Christianity isn't fake and used as a means to better pursue the idols of the American dream. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26-30, 33 Jesus says a very similar thing in John, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him." John 12:23-26 Jesus literally says, "I'm going to go die. Now come follow me!" I genuinely do want to die as a martyr instead of growing old. Growing old, being in my sinful body decades longer and dying in a diaper sounds far worse than dying for the name of my Lord and Savior on the battlefield, which surely would please my King and store up much fruit for my eternity with Jesus. Genuine Christianity has no idols. It counts everything else as worthless compared to the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus our Lord. And genuine Christians abhor sin. Having to walk in this world with our sinful body attached to us, like a putrid corpse of a rotting dead man tied to our backs, makes the life of the Christian a violent war zone within. Fighting my flesh brings me to tears almost daily before my Lord and I cry, "Oh wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?" Not to mention fighting the powers and principalities that rule this present darkness. Surely Satan torments Christians and not objects of wrath because Satan is afraid that he only has this life to torment Christians, whereas he has eternity to torment the rest. The only hope we have is the Holy Spirit and the fact that we have living within us "all the fullness of Christ" and "The same power that raised Christ from the dead" A real fear of the Lord must be an ingredient to obedience and part of the power to overcome sin. Proverbs 14:27 The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, that one may turn away from the snares of death. Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. Psalm 25:12-14 Who is the man who fears the Lord? Him will he instruct in the way that he should choose. His soul shall abide in well-being, and his offspring shall inherit the land. The friendship of the Lord is for those who fear him, and he makes known to them his covenant. Psalm 103:11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; Fear of the Lord is taught in the New Testament as well, but not much in the modern Church to our own peril. "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied." Acts 9:31 "So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Acts 10:34-35 There will be no revival in the church until we start preaching the full character of God and the fear of the Lord returns. Yes God is good. Yes God is merciful. Yes God is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, but to teach that that is all that God is, is to lie about Him. For He is also righteous, just, holy, fearful, and full of wrath towards all who walk in sin. And there is no doubt in my mind teaching only the attributes of God that we think our congregations will like encourages Christians to walk in sin. The balance must return.

The wrath of God was poured out on Jesus. It was a free gift in the sense that we did nothing to deserve it, "yet while we were still sinners Christ died for us." But it was not free in that it came at great cost to Jesus, for He suffered and gave up His life to fulfill God's righteousness and wrath, so God would be just in having mercy on us. And following Christ it NOT free for us afterwards either, and this is another area I feel like the Western church never disciples people in: what it means to be a genuine Christian after converting. Paul says that "if Christ has not risen from the dead, we are of all people most to be pitied." There is great cost in this life to following Christ when Christianity isn't fake and used as a means to better pursue the idols of the American dream. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26-30, 33 Jesus says a very similar thing in John, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him." John 12:23-26 Jesus literally says, "I'm going to go die. Now come follow me!" I genuinely do want to die as a martyr instead of growing old. Growing old, being in my sinful body decades longer and dying in a diaper sounds far worse than dying for the name of my Lord and Savior on the battlefield, which surely would please my King and store up much fruit for my eternity with Jesus. Genuine Christianity has no idols. It counts everything else as worthless compared to the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus our Lord. And genuine Christians abhor sin. Having to walk in this world with our sinful body attached to us, like a putrid corpse of a rotting dead man tied to our backs, makes the life of the Christian a violent war zone within. Fighting my flesh brings me to tears almost daily before my Lord and I cry, "Oh wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?" Not to mention fighting the powers and principalities that rule this present darkness. Surely Satan torments Christians and not objects of wrath because Satan is afraid that he only has this life to torment Christians, whereas he has eternity to torment the rest. The only hope we have is the Holy Spirit and the fact that we have living within us "all the fullness of Christ" and "The same power that raised Christ from the dead" A real fear of the Lord must be an ingredient to obedience and part of the power to overcome sin. Proverbs 14:27 The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, that one may turn away from the snares of death. Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. Psalm 25:12-14 Who is the man who fears the Lord? Him will he instruct in the way that he should choose. His soul shall abide in well-being, and his offspring shall inherit the land. The friendship of the Lord is for those who fear him, and he makes known to them his covenant. Psalm 103:11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; Fear of the Lord is taught in the New Testament as well, but not much in the modern Church to our own peril. "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied." Acts 9:31 "So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Acts 10:34-35 There will be no revival in the church until we start preaching the full character of God and the fear of the Lord returns. Yes God is good. Yes God is merciful. Yes God is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, but to teach that that is all that God is, is to lie about Him. For He is also righteous, just, holy, fearful, and full of wrath towards all who walk in sin. And there is no doubt in my mind teaching only the attributes of God that we think our congregations will like encourages Christians to walk in sin. The balance must return.

Jacob Browatzke ✝️

14,196 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the Unfinished Pashtun Question To understand the present condition of Pashtuns in Pakistan, one must return to the life and marginalization of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a man whose vision for his people was systematically sidelined, and whose absence still echoes in their political and social reality. Bacha Khan did not imagine Pashtuns as a peripheral community defined by conflict. He imagined them as a self-aware, educated, ethically grounded society, capable of shaping its own destiny through discipline rather than violence. At a time when the Pashtun belt was caricatured as irredeemably tribal, he founded schools, mobilized communities, and redefined courage as restraint. His Khudai Khidmatgar movement was not merely anti-colonial; it was civilizational in ambition, aiming to transform Pashtun society from within. Yet, after 1947, the trajectory of Pashtun history diverged sharply from Bacha Khan’s ideals. The new Pakistani state, anxious about cohesion and legitimacy, viewed Bacha Khan less as a national asset and more as a political inconvenience. His insistence on provincial autonomy, cultural dignity, and democratic participation clashed with a state structure that increasingly centralized power and privileged security over citizenship. As a result, he spent much of Pakistan’s early decades imprisoned, surveilled, or politically isolated. In sidelining him, the state also sidelined the vision he represented. The consequences of that exclusion are visible today. Modern Pashtuns, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, inhabit a paradox. They have contributed disproportionately to Pakistan’s defense, labor force, and regional stability, yet remain underrepresented in decision-making, underinvested in development, and overexposed to conflict. Decades of militarization, proxy wars, and counterterror operations have reshaped their homeland into a strategic frontier rather than a social landscape. Schools were replaced by checkpoints; civic leadership by security administration. Bacha Khan foresaw this danger. He warned that a people denied education and political agency would eventually be reduced to instruments rather than citizens. His emphasis on non-violence was not moral naïveté but strategic foresight: he understood that violence, once normalized, would consume both the state and society. Had his ideas been embraced rather than suppressed, Pashtun life today might look markedly different. An education-first approach could have produced a generation of professionals instead of refugees. A politics of dignity could have nurtured trust between the state and its peripheries. Most importantly, Pashtuns might have been seen not as a problem to be managed, but as partners in nation-building. Instead, the vacuum left by Bacha Khan’s exclusion was filled by forces he explicitly opposed: extremism, authoritarianism, and the erosion of civic culture. Where he sought to dismantle the myth that Pashtuns understand only force, the state inadvertently reinforced it by engaging the region almost exclusively through coercive frameworks. This is why Bacha Khan’s relevance today is not symbolic but urgent. For a generation of Pashtuns growing up amid economic precarity and political disillusionment, he offers an alternative lineage — one rooted in self-respect without separatism, resistance without nihilism, and identity without hostility. He demonstrates that Pashtun honor is compatible with pluralism, and that strength need not be measured in weapons or wars endured. The tragedy is not merely that Bacha Khan was marginalized. It is that Pakistan marginalized a future it could have had — one where Pashtuns were uplifted through schools rather than sacrificed to strategy, where dissent was engaged rather than imprisoned, and where unity was built through consent rather than control. In revisiting Bacha Khan today, we are not indulging in nostalgia. We are confronting a historical fork in the road — and recognizing that many of the crises faced by Pashtuns now are the direct outcome of paths not taken. His life asks a difficult question of the present: What does a state lose when it silences its most ethical voices — and what does a people lose when their most visionary leader is denied the chance to shape their future? For Pashtuns, that loss is not abstract. It is lived, daily, in the distance between what they are — and what they were once promised they could become.

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the Unfinished Pashtun Question To understand the present condition of Pashtuns in Pakistan, one must return to the life and marginalization of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a man whose vision for his people was systematically sidelined, and whose absence still echoes in their political and social reality. Bacha Khan did not imagine Pashtuns as a peripheral community defined by conflict. He imagined them as a self-aware, educated, ethically grounded society, capable of shaping its own destiny through discipline rather than violence. At a time when the Pashtun belt was caricatured as irredeemably tribal, he founded schools, mobilized communities, and redefined courage as restraint. His Khudai Khidmatgar movement was not merely anti-colonial; it was civilizational in ambition, aiming to transform Pashtun society from within. Yet, after 1947, the trajectory of Pashtun history diverged sharply from Bacha Khan’s ideals. The new Pakistani state, anxious about cohesion and legitimacy, viewed Bacha Khan less as a national asset and more as a political inconvenience. His insistence on provincial autonomy, cultural dignity, and democratic participation clashed with a state structure that increasingly centralized power and privileged security over citizenship. As a result, he spent much of Pakistan’s early decades imprisoned, surveilled, or politically isolated. In sidelining him, the state also sidelined the vision he represented. The consequences of that exclusion are visible today. Modern Pashtuns, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, inhabit a paradox. They have contributed disproportionately to Pakistan’s defense, labor force, and regional stability, yet remain underrepresented in decision-making, underinvested in development, and overexposed to conflict. Decades of militarization, proxy wars, and counterterror operations have reshaped their homeland into a strategic frontier rather than a social landscape. Schools were replaced by checkpoints; civic leadership by security administration. Bacha Khan foresaw this danger. He warned that a people denied education and political agency would eventually be reduced to instruments rather than citizens. His emphasis on non-violence was not moral naïveté but strategic foresight: he understood that violence, once normalized, would consume both the state and society. Had his ideas been embraced rather than suppressed, Pashtun life today might look markedly different. An education-first approach could have produced a generation of professionals instead of refugees. A politics of dignity could have nurtured trust between the state and its peripheries. Most importantly, Pashtuns might have been seen not as a problem to be managed, but as partners in nation-building. Instead, the vacuum left by Bacha Khan’s exclusion was filled by forces he explicitly opposed: extremism, authoritarianism, and the erosion of civic culture. Where he sought to dismantle the myth that Pashtuns understand only force, the state inadvertently reinforced it by engaging the region almost exclusively through coercive frameworks. This is why Bacha Khan’s relevance today is not symbolic but urgent. For a generation of Pashtuns growing up amid economic precarity and political disillusionment, he offers an alternative lineage — one rooted in self-respect without separatism, resistance without nihilism, and identity without hostility. He demonstrates that Pashtun honor is compatible with pluralism, and that strength need not be measured in weapons or wars endured. The tragedy is not merely that Bacha Khan was marginalized. It is that Pakistan marginalized a future it could have had — one where Pashtuns were uplifted through schools rather than sacrificed to strategy, where dissent was engaged rather than imprisoned, and where unity was built through consent rather than control. In revisiting Bacha Khan today, we are not indulging in nostalgia. We are confronting a historical fork in the road — and recognizing that many of the crises faced by Pashtuns now are the direct outcome of paths not taken. His life asks a difficult question of the present: What does a state lose when it silences its most ethical voices — and what does a people lose when their most visionary leader is denied the chance to shape their future? For Pashtuns, that loss is not abstract. It is lived, daily, in the distance between what they are — and what they were once promised they could become.

Major Sammer Pal Toorr (Infantry Combat Veteran)

23,644 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Corruption has been at the heart of Zimbabwe’s collapse for decades, and every member of the ZANUPF leadership is entangled in it. Operation Restore Legacy, the name given to the 2017 coup, was merely a deceptive ploy to remove Robert Mugabe under the guise of fighting corruption. I once told Morgan Tsvangirai that his greatest mistake was failing to demand written concessions during his negotiations that led to the opposition supporting the coup, which is how I came to know that he was in talks with Mnangagwa/Chiwenga’s teams, with Chamisa serving as the emissary. Today, Zimbabwe has come full circle, back to the same conditions of 2017 — only this time there is no real opposition to speak of, just remnants of civil society trying to hold the line. The key question now is, what do the people of Zimbabwe stand to gain from this renewed factional fight within ZANUPF? If corruption remains the central issue, then we must ask, is one faction of ZANUPF genuinely clean, or are both sides simply battling for control over the same corrupt system of looting and patronage? Is this not the right time to have an honest and open national conversation that leads to genuine and lasting reforms — reforms that would finally benefit the ordinary citizens who have suffered for decades and not just elite configurations? I hear no talk of reform, no mention of the people’s will, no vision for change from either faction. All that seems to matter is whose turn it is to rule, or the continued entrenchment of the current president’s power. It is a tragic repetition of history, where political power remains the prize, and the people remain the victims. The current factional fighting was not triggered by any desire for change, but by Mnangagwa’s determination to cling to power, and Chiwenga’s desire to take over. Once again, corruption is being used as a political weapon in that struggle to maintain control rather than as a genuine call for accountability. Einstein once said, “Observe nature and you will understand human behaviour.” In this case, how does an old lion lose its right to rule — and is that process democratic? Does the army truly seek meaningful change, and does it even have the capacity to deliver it? Zimbabwean society has become deeply militarised, and the military is firmly embedded in our politics. The critical question is, what kind of change does it claim to offer, and is it itself united or riddled with the same factionalism that afflicts the ruling party? More importantly, does it have any genuine desire to build a democratic society? In my view, instead of passively responding to political rhetoric, Zimbabweans should be boldly demanding the kind of change they want — not merely acting as catalysts for other people’s ambitions. Dr Nkosana Moyo was right when he said that Zimbabweans are not truly fighting for change, but for inclusion at the feeding trough. So what do citizens actually gain from being catalysts in someone’s rise to power or fall from it? Zimbabwe has never been a democracy. From the days of Joshua Nkomo to the present, violence has consistently been used as a weapon to crush the people’s will. Both Mnangagwa and Chiwenga were at the centre of that betrayal — the abrogation of a liberation struggle that was founded on the simple promise of one man, one vote. That ideal was never realised, not even from the very first day of independence. Therefore, the question we must now confront is this; what truly separates Mnangagwa from Chiwenga, when both men used violence, corruption, and fear to subvert the people’s will and betray the very ideals of the liberation struggle? Instead of being drum majorettes for either man in their quest for power, without asking or demanding the people’s will, we should allow history to pose the critical questions. Zimbabwe’s tragedy is that we keep changing the actors, but never the script — the faces shift, yet the system of fear, corruption and betrayal remains the same.

Corruption has been at the heart of Zimbabwe’s collapse for decades, and every member of the ZANUPF leadership is entangled in it. Operation Restore Legacy, the name given to the 2017 coup, was merely a deceptive ploy to remove Robert Mugabe under the guise of fighting corruption. I once told Morgan Tsvangirai that his greatest mistake was failing to demand written concessions during his negotiations that led to the opposition supporting the coup, which is how I came to know that he was in talks with Mnangagwa/Chiwenga’s teams, with Chamisa serving as the emissary. Today, Zimbabwe has come full circle, back to the same conditions of 2017 — only this time there is no real opposition to speak of, just remnants of civil society trying to hold the line. The key question now is, what do the people of Zimbabwe stand to gain from this renewed factional fight within ZANUPF? If corruption remains the central issue, then we must ask, is one faction of ZANUPF genuinely clean, or are both sides simply battling for control over the same corrupt system of looting and patronage? Is this not the right time to have an honest and open national conversation that leads to genuine and lasting reforms — reforms that would finally benefit the ordinary citizens who have suffered for decades and not just elite configurations? I hear no talk of reform, no mention of the people’s will, no vision for change from either faction. All that seems to matter is whose turn it is to rule, or the continued entrenchment of the current president’s power. It is a tragic repetition of history, where political power remains the prize, and the people remain the victims. The current factional fighting was not triggered by any desire for change, but by Mnangagwa’s determination to cling to power, and Chiwenga’s desire to take over. Once again, corruption is being used as a political weapon in that struggle to maintain control rather than as a genuine call for accountability. Einstein once said, “Observe nature and you will understand human behaviour.” In this case, how does an old lion lose its right to rule — and is that process democratic? Does the army truly seek meaningful change, and does it even have the capacity to deliver it? Zimbabwean society has become deeply militarised, and the military is firmly embedded in our politics. The critical question is, what kind of change does it claim to offer, and is it itself united or riddled with the same factionalism that afflicts the ruling party? More importantly, does it have any genuine desire to build a democratic society? In my view, instead of passively responding to political rhetoric, Zimbabweans should be boldly demanding the kind of change they want — not merely acting as catalysts for other people’s ambitions. Dr Nkosana Moyo was right when he said that Zimbabweans are not truly fighting for change, but for inclusion at the feeding trough. So what do citizens actually gain from being catalysts in someone’s rise to power or fall from it? Zimbabwe has never been a democracy. From the days of Joshua Nkomo to the present, violence has consistently been used as a weapon to crush the people’s will. Both Mnangagwa and Chiwenga were at the centre of that betrayal — the abrogation of a liberation struggle that was founded on the simple promise of one man, one vote. That ideal was never realised, not even from the very first day of independence. Therefore, the question we must now confront is this; what truly separates Mnangagwa from Chiwenga, when both men used violence, corruption, and fear to subvert the people’s will and betray the very ideals of the liberation struggle? Instead of being drum majorettes for either man in their quest for power, without asking or demanding the people’s will, we should allow history to pose the critical questions. Zimbabwe’s tragedy is that we keep changing the actors, but never the script — the faces shift, yet the system of fear, corruption and betrayal remains the same.

Hopewell Chin’ono

46,164 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Another masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. Again I believe that his words are so important and so rare among Western leaders today, that I decided to translate it in full (the bold parts are emphasis Villepin himself made when speaking): "The Israeli government, Benjamin Netanyahu, failed on October 7th and failed doubly. Firstly, in its ability to ensure the protection of the Israeli people by allowing massacres that are an abomination to occur. He bears direct responsibility for what happened. And his second failure is having encouraged a policy of occupation and colonization, which continues at this moment in the West Bank and constitutes another threat to Israel if a second front in the West Bank were to open. Force does not ensure the security of a people! This is what all Israelis must understand today. And what is important is that since October 7th, the Israeli government's choice has been to escalate the use of force. You know, neither force nor vengeance ensures peace and security. What ensures peace and security is justice! And justice is not being served today. The rationale of the Israeli government for the bombings happening today is flawed, and the whole international community can see it. The principle is: "we target terrorists, and unfortunately, there are also civilian populations," what is euphemistically called in military language "collateral damage." It must be understood that this collateral damage is not accidental. That is to say, it is perfectly predictable and fully accepted. [Host: "But once again, the responsibility is not solely Israeli."] But once more, let's stop asking about responsibility; let's look at the reality of what's happening on the ground! Assigning fault, allow me to tell you, we will leave to historians. What we want is to stop this violence, to stop these massacres. Israel is putting itself in danger, even more today, with this type of warfare and these types of strikes. We are essentially dealing with a policy of vengeance from the Netanyahu government. Israel has the right to self-defense, but self-defense does not give an indiscriminate right to kill civilian populations. When you target an ambulance, you can always imagine that there was a terrorist in one of the ambulances, or not. But the result is that there are children, women who die. Every child, every woman killed, that's more terrorists. Therefore, Israel's objective, what Israel achieves, is exactly the opposite of what they wish. So, it is essential today to change this logic and return to a strategy that is sound. Hostages, everything must be done to secure their release. But let's not forget: the Palestinian people are also taken hostage, by Hamas and by Israel. And Hamas, we all know, cares little for the Palestinian people. So telling Hamas: "we will not lift the siege, we will not have a humanitarian truce until the hostages are released," is a dialogue of the deaf. Benjamin Netanyahu is waging a war to do everything so that the political solution does not come to the table. And this is where the international community, Europe, the United States, must tell Benjamin Netanyahu that this war is not acceptable. It is not acceptable because it leads us directly [to escalation] - because we can see it well, from Hamas we will move to Iran, from Iran we will move to other targets, and we then enter into the logic of a clash of civilizations. When Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu says that on one side there is the people of light and on the other the people of darkness, we can see the kind of spiral we are getting into. All the wars that have been going on for the past twenty years are wars that begin and do not end. These are frozen conflicts. We know how to start a war; we do not know how to end it. And Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu could control Gaza, it would change nothing. There will continue to be terrorist attacks, Israelis will continue to live in fear. We must get out of this. The second reason why this is yesterday's war is that the war against terrorism has never been won anywhere. Force is not the answer, once again. Vengeance is not the answer. The answer is justice, and that is what all the peoples of the world, all those who today watch what is happening, call for justice. Today the direction we must follow is to prevent Benjamin Netanyahu from continuing his suicidal logic that will make Israel a besieged state. They can besiege Gaza, but they will be besieged. And do not think that tomorrow we will again have a pacified discourse with Saudi Arabia, with the Arab states that will normalize the situation: no! The wounds of history are awakening. Israel's interest is to have a responsible state at its side. And this responsible state, let's stop splitting hairs, must clearly be the West Bank, all of the West Bank. It must be Gaza, with access between the two territories, and East Jerusalem. The problem, and this is the whole point of Benjamin Netanyahu's escalation, is that Benjamin Netanyahu does not want it. And the policy of separation must be dignified. That is, it must confer to the Palestinians a state where they can live, a viable state, a true state, which can build itself and which will be all the more at peace... [Host: "Does that mean that the settlements in the West Bank have to be removed?"] Well, when we left Algeria, there were a million French who left Algeria. Today there are 500,000 Israelis colonizing the West Bank, and there are 200,000 in East Jerusalem. [Host: "They must leave the West Bank?"] Yes. Yes, that is history, that is responsibility, that is the price! I tell you solemnly, it is the price of security for Israel! And all those who today consider that it will never be enough are pursuing the worst policy." Credit to Caisses de grève (Gauche Gaza / Antifasciste) who took these extracts from the original interview which can be found here:

Another masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades. Again I believe that his words are so important and so rare among Western leaders today, that I decided to translate it in full (the bold parts are emphasis Villepin himself made when speaking): "The Israeli government, Benjamin Netanyahu, failed on October 7th and failed doubly. Firstly, in its ability to ensure the protection of the Israeli people by allowing massacres that are an abomination to occur. He bears direct responsibility for what happened. And his second failure is having encouraged a policy of occupation and colonization, which continues at this moment in the West Bank and constitutes another threat to Israel if a second front in the West Bank were to open. Force does not ensure the security of a people! This is what all Israelis must understand today. And what is important is that since October 7th, the Israeli government's choice has been to escalate the use of force. You know, neither force nor vengeance ensures peace and security. What ensures peace and security is justice! And justice is not being served today. The rationale of the Israeli government for the bombings happening today is flawed, and the whole international community can see it. The principle is: "we target terrorists, and unfortunately, there are also civilian populations," what is euphemistically called in military language "collateral damage." It must be understood that this collateral damage is not accidental. That is to say, it is perfectly predictable and fully accepted. [Host: "But once again, the responsibility is not solely Israeli."] But once more, let's stop asking about responsibility; let's look at the reality of what's happening on the ground! Assigning fault, allow me to tell you, we will leave to historians. What we want is to stop this violence, to stop these massacres. Israel is putting itself in danger, even more today, with this type of warfare and these types of strikes. We are essentially dealing with a policy of vengeance from the Netanyahu government. Israel has the right to self-defense, but self-defense does not give an indiscriminate right to kill civilian populations. When you target an ambulance, you can always imagine that there was a terrorist in one of the ambulances, or not. But the result is that there are children, women who die. Every child, every woman killed, that's more terrorists. Therefore, Israel's objective, what Israel achieves, is exactly the opposite of what they wish. So, it is essential today to change this logic and return to a strategy that is sound. Hostages, everything must be done to secure their release. But let's not forget: the Palestinian people are also taken hostage, by Hamas and by Israel. And Hamas, we all know, cares little for the Palestinian people. So telling Hamas: "we will not lift the siege, we will not have a humanitarian truce until the hostages are released," is a dialogue of the deaf. Benjamin Netanyahu is waging a war to do everything so that the political solution does not come to the table. And this is where the international community, Europe, the United States, must tell Benjamin Netanyahu that this war is not acceptable. It is not acceptable because it leads us directly [to escalation] - because we can see it well, from Hamas we will move to Iran, from Iran we will move to other targets, and we then enter into the logic of a clash of civilizations. When Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu says that on one side there is the people of light and on the other the people of darkness, we can see the kind of spiral we are getting into. All the wars that have been going on for the past twenty years are wars that begin and do not end. These are frozen conflicts. We know how to start a war; we do not know how to end it. And Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu could control Gaza, it would change nothing. There will continue to be terrorist attacks, Israelis will continue to live in fear. We must get out of this. The second reason why this is yesterday's war is that the war against terrorism has never been won anywhere. Force is not the answer, once again. Vengeance is not the answer. The answer is justice, and that is what all the peoples of the world, all those who today watch what is happening, call for justice. Today the direction we must follow is to prevent Benjamin Netanyahu from continuing his suicidal logic that will make Israel a besieged state. They can besiege Gaza, but they will be besieged. And do not think that tomorrow we will again have a pacified discourse with Saudi Arabia, with the Arab states that will normalize the situation: no! The wounds of history are awakening. Israel's interest is to have a responsible state at its side. And this responsible state, let's stop splitting hairs, must clearly be the West Bank, all of the West Bank. It must be Gaza, with access between the two territories, and East Jerusalem. The problem, and this is the whole point of Benjamin Netanyahu's escalation, is that Benjamin Netanyahu does not want it. And the policy of separation must be dignified. That is, it must confer to the Palestinians a state where they can live, a viable state, a true state, which can build itself and which will be all the more at peace... [Host: "Does that mean that the settlements in the West Bank have to be removed?"] Well, when we left Algeria, there were a million French who left Algeria. Today there are 500,000 Israelis colonizing the West Bank, and there are 200,000 in East Jerusalem. [Host: "They must leave the West Bank?"] Yes. Yes, that is history, that is responsibility, that is the price! I tell you solemnly, it is the price of security for Israel! And all those who today consider that it will never be enough are pursuing the worst policy." Credit to Caisses de grève (Gauche Gaza / Antifasciste) who took these extracts from the original interview which can be found here:

Arnaud Bertrand

2,839,040 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Trump has done a complete 180 on everything he claimed to stand for. It doesn’t matter whether he’s scared, manipulated, acting on his own, or all of the above the outcome is the same. He has betrayed every principle and every single person who helped put him in power. The very people who carried him to where he is. He turned on them. Not just domestically, but internationally, look at the way he treated Orban. He forgets that Viktor Orban was a lone voice in Europe supporting him when everyone else was laughing at him and calling him a crazy orange man. Europeans hated him. Orban was his main supporter in Europe and the way he has treated Orban is just ugly, nothing more. Now he’s cozy with people like Lindsey Graham to the point where Graham is arranging meetings between him and people like the President of Finland. Let that sink in. He can scream ''I’m MAGA they are not,'' like a five-year old, but the truth is MAGA was never built by him, it was built around him. And now he’s completely betrayed what it was supposed to stand for. He’s insulted allies, betrayed partners and escalated tensions with adversaries burning bridges in every direction. And now, here we are again, he’s starting to echo the same tired neocon narrative we've heard for years ''Russia, Russia, Russia.'' It may not be as blatant yet, but give it a few weeks and we’ll be right back to blaming Russia for everything. What makes it even more crazy is that he himself was once the target of the entire Russiagate saga. I’ve seen stupidity before but this is on another level. This isn’t just more of the same, it’s something entirely new. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the government is a reflection of the people. And right now, we have a narcissism problem in this country. We rank at the top when it comes to that disorder. What’s the core trait of a narcissist? Look at Donald Trump a textbook case. No empathy. Someone dies, and there’s no weight to it. His comment after Charles' death was disgusting. He talks about bombing people with this disturbing sense of excitement ‘we bomb the hell out of them’ like it’s a performance. The worst part is how easily this situation could have been handled. Ayatollah was old and sick he only had a few years left. There was a real opportunity for a deal. Trump blew it when he started bombing Iran in the middle of the negotiations. Twice! We keep ignoring reality. Israel is one of the most cunning and deceptive countries in the world. This is a state that secretly developed nuclear weapons and hid them from its own so-called ‘closest ally,’ the United States. This is a country that has spied on U.S. offices, blamed others for its actions and has has killed American soldiers and journalists. If we were honest and actually calculated which country has caused more harm to U.S. interests Iran or Israel, Israel would likely be far ahead. That’s not opinion, that’s a fact. Iran didn’t just become an enemy out of nowhere. We played a major role in creating that hostility from overthrowing Mossadegh to installing the Shah, whose regime imprisoned and brutalized its own people and we supported and backed him knowing he was a dictator. Now we have the audacity to tell Iranian people that they should get rid of their dictator and we can help by bombing them. You can't make this shit up! Are you kidding me? And there are still idiots who actually buy this. Iran has largely operated from a defensive position ever since. We label them terrorists, but from their perspective, they’ve been preparing for survival building regional influence and proxy networks because they fear exactly what history suggests, that they could be targeted next with bombs or even a nuke! In 2007, Wesley Clark said that the Pentagon had a plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. We ended up doing much of that, one by one. Well, guess what, if I’m Iran, watching this and hearing a high-ranking Pentagon official say my country is on that list, and then I see each country on that list get taken down one by one, who here wouldn’t at least think about building a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes? When you know one of the biggest and strongest militaries in the world is planning to invade you someday, and they’re openly talking about it, what would you do? All of you geniuses who think Iran is the problem, honestly, which one of you wouldn’t consider building a bomb in that situation? And that’s without even getting into the role of countries like Israel and the influence they may have on pushing the United States toward these actions. If your argument is that Iran has a dictatorial regime, then you are a hypocritl. The United States installed a dictator in Iran themselves and overthrew a democratic leader and even after that the CIA said they had no problem with Ayatollah, in fact they said it would be 'good for us'.Then they got caught selling weapons to Iran. If the argument is - 'they’re building a nuclear weapon,' then the obvious question is: why? Why would they feel the need to? Maybe it has something to do with Wesley Clark, Iraq and many more?!.. So let’s be real, anyone who says Iran has no right to want a nuclear weapon is either being dishonest or just flat out stupid. Do I want them to have a nuke? No. But do they feel justified in wanting one? Absolutely! Put yourself in their position. You know the history you know what the CIA did to your country. Then you hear a high-level figure like Wesley Clark talk about a plan to take out seven countries in five years, including yours. You watch those countries get hit one after another and you are no position to stand against the US and actually win that war without taking great amount of casualties. What conclusion are you supposed to draw from that? At that point, it’s not crazy it's strategic! Any country in that situation would start thinking exactly about that, I know I would have if I was in that situation. Wouldn’t you? It’s not hard to understand why a country might see nuclear capability as a deterrent when it feels threatened by stronger military powers and some absolutely psychotic states like Israel. And let’s be realistic, Iran would never use a nuke against the United States, any use of nuclear weapons against us would mean their complete annihilation. Iran is many things but it’s not that suicidal, they don’t want to end their existence, they want their country to endure. The question is which country then would they use the nukes if they are ever put in that position? There’s only one country and that’s Israel not the US and Honestly I do not see how is that my problem at all? Do you? I mean it maybe Miriam Adelson's problem but it's not my problem. Most of Iran’s hostile actions came after the U.S. helped overthrow its government and backed a dictator for decades! So this narrative that Iran has been hostile to the us needs seriously clarification to why? Any regime would be hostile to you when you overthrow their democratic leader and instal a dictator that makes people miserable. After the revolution, Iran became openly hostile to the U.S for A REASON! The reason is the CIA and the corporate America nothing else.

Trump has done a complete 180 on everything he claimed to stand for. It doesn’t matter whether he’s scared, manipulated, acting on his own, or all of the above the outcome is the same. He has betrayed every principle and every single person who helped put him in power. The very people who carried him to where he is. He turned on them. Not just domestically, but internationally, look at the way he treated Orban. He forgets that Viktor Orban was a lone voice in Europe supporting him when everyone else was laughing at him and calling him a crazy orange man. Europeans hated him. Orban was his main supporter in Europe and the way he has treated Orban is just ugly, nothing more. Now he’s cozy with people like Lindsey Graham to the point where Graham is arranging meetings between him and people like the President of Finland. Let that sink in. He can scream ''I’m MAGA they are not,'' like a five-year old, but the truth is MAGA was never built by him, it was built around him. And now he’s completely betrayed what it was supposed to stand for. He’s insulted allies, betrayed partners and escalated tensions with adversaries burning bridges in every direction. And now, here we are again, he’s starting to echo the same tired neocon narrative we've heard for years ''Russia, Russia, Russia.'' It may not be as blatant yet, but give it a few weeks and we’ll be right back to blaming Russia for everything. What makes it even more crazy is that he himself was once the target of the entire Russiagate saga. I’ve seen stupidity before but this is on another level. This isn’t just more of the same, it’s something entirely new. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the government is a reflection of the people. And right now, we have a narcissism problem in this country. We rank at the top when it comes to that disorder. What’s the core trait of a narcissist? Look at Donald Trump a textbook case. No empathy. Someone dies, and there’s no weight to it. His comment after Charles' death was disgusting. He talks about bombing people with this disturbing sense of excitement ‘we bomb the hell out of them’ like it’s a performance. The worst part is how easily this situation could have been handled. Ayatollah was old and sick he only had a few years left. There was a real opportunity for a deal. Trump blew it when he started bombing Iran in the middle of the negotiations. Twice! We keep ignoring reality. Israel is one of the most cunning and deceptive countries in the world. This is a state that secretly developed nuclear weapons and hid them from its own so-called ‘closest ally,’ the United States. This is a country that has spied on U.S. offices, blamed others for its actions and has has killed American soldiers and journalists. If we were honest and actually calculated which country has caused more harm to U.S. interests Iran or Israel, Israel would likely be far ahead. That’s not opinion, that’s a fact. Iran didn’t just become an enemy out of nowhere. We played a major role in creating that hostility from overthrowing Mossadegh to installing the Shah, whose regime imprisoned and brutalized its own people and we supported and backed him knowing he was a dictator. Now we have the audacity to tell Iranian people that they should get rid of their dictator and we can help by bombing them. You can't make this shit up! Are you kidding me? And there are still idiots who actually buy this. Iran has largely operated from a defensive position ever since. We label them terrorists, but from their perspective, they’ve been preparing for survival building regional influence and proxy networks because they fear exactly what history suggests, that they could be targeted next with bombs or even a nuke! In 2007, Wesley Clark said that the Pentagon had a plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. We ended up doing much of that, one by one. Well, guess what, if I’m Iran, watching this and hearing a high-ranking Pentagon official say my country is on that list, and then I see each country on that list get taken down one by one, who here wouldn’t at least think about building a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes? When you know one of the biggest and strongest militaries in the world is planning to invade you someday, and they’re openly talking about it, what would you do? All of you geniuses who think Iran is the problem, honestly, which one of you wouldn’t consider building a bomb in that situation? And that’s without even getting into the role of countries like Israel and the influence they may have on pushing the United States toward these actions. If your argument is that Iran has a dictatorial regime, then you are a hypocritl. The United States installed a dictator in Iran themselves and overthrew a democratic leader and even after that the CIA said they had no problem with Ayatollah, in fact they said it would be 'good for us'.Then they got caught selling weapons to Iran. If the argument is - 'they’re building a nuclear weapon,' then the obvious question is: why? Why would they feel the need to? Maybe it has something to do with Wesley Clark, Iraq and many more?!.. So let’s be real, anyone who says Iran has no right to want a nuclear weapon is either being dishonest or just flat out stupid. Do I want them to have a nuke? No. But do they feel justified in wanting one? Absolutely! Put yourself in their position. You know the history you know what the CIA did to your country. Then you hear a high-level figure like Wesley Clark talk about a plan to take out seven countries in five years, including yours. You watch those countries get hit one after another and you are no position to stand against the US and actually win that war without taking great amount of casualties. What conclusion are you supposed to draw from that? At that point, it’s not crazy it's strategic! Any country in that situation would start thinking exactly about that, I know I would have if I was in that situation. Wouldn’t you? It’s not hard to understand why a country might see nuclear capability as a deterrent when it feels threatened by stronger military powers and some absolutely psychotic states like Israel. And let’s be realistic, Iran would never use a nuke against the United States, any use of nuclear weapons against us would mean their complete annihilation. Iran is many things but it’s not that suicidal, they don’t want to end their existence, they want their country to endure. The question is which country then would they use the nukes if they are ever put in that position? There’s only one country and that’s Israel not the US and Honestly I do not see how is that my problem at all? Do you? I mean it maybe Miriam Adelson's problem but it's not my problem. Most of Iran’s hostile actions came after the U.S. helped overthrow its government and backed a dictator for decades! So this narrative that Iran has been hostile to the us needs seriously clarification to why? Any regime would be hostile to you when you overthrow their democratic leader and instal a dictator that makes people miserable. After the revolution, Iran became openly hostile to the U.S for A REASON! The reason is the CIA and the corporate America nothing else.

ELIZABETH LANE

34,350 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

What are people missing about this war? The ones in charge aren’t idiots. Trump might blunder, but the elites? Every move they make is calculated, they know exactly what they’re doing. This was not the result of Netanyahu hoodwinking a room full of confused officials into an accidental war. Nope, I’m sure he got what he wanted but what he wanted is what the elites wanted for the longest time. What happened in Iran was a calculated, pre-planned operation one that has been in the making for years actually. Let’s break this down, a months before the operation, Vice President JD Vance made a quiet diplomatic visit to both Azerbaijan and Armenia. The visit went largely unreported and under-analyzed. Why would a sitting VP tour that particular region while skipping some interesting places like Turkey and Georgia, one of America's longest-standing and strategically important partners. Back then I really did not understand that visit. But the answer becomes clearer in hindsight. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia have, for years, operated as Western-aligned states susceptible to geopolitical direction. Vance's visit, I would argue, was not ceremonial, it was a preparatory move. The message was when the moment comes, fall in line and I am willing to bet Iran was the main concern. They said it was to reinforce the Armenia Azerbaijan peace agreement, bullshit, they made that agreement more than six months ago. Another reason they said was to promote the regional trade and transport corridor connecting Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, and Europe. Well, the problem is, if this were a real reason, then he would have visited Turkey and Georgia, or at least Turkey, it’s right there! You can’t do this route without Turkey. The current main route from Azerbaijan to Turkey goes through Georgia. So why not visit at least Turkey. Oh, because all of this was a bullshit. In reality, JD was there to make sure that, in case of war with Iran, which they were already planning, these ducks would fall in line. One of the clearest indicators that the stated rationale for the Iran operation was fabricated is how rapidly it kept changing. First, we were told it was about regime change. Then, once the regime had effectively been dismantled and its leaders killed, the goalposts shifted to 'there was an imminent threat.' When that too fell apart under scrutiny with experts confirming no credible direct threat to the United States existed, a new narrative emerged, this was actually a proxy war against China. Each explanation contradicts the last. That is not the behavior of a government acting in self-defense. but we already know this, this is about America’s forever love - War, Power and Money! The real goal is dominance and total control, nothing else. This is a war over regional and global supremacy. Iran was cooperating, yet war was forced upon them anyway. The United States doesn’t have allies, it has doormats, used and discarded when convenient. Time and again, Washington imposes its will, Emerging as the world’s self‑appointed narcissist through wars and coups, and like every true narcissist, the blame always lies somewhere else. It’s never us it's always them. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, China, China, China, China, Iran, Iran, Iran. Prove me wrong if you can, I can debate anybody anytime anywhere. Try prove me wrong! Iran was not attacked because it posed a threat to American citizens, the US gov. says this, not me. Iran was attacked because it was one of the last major powers in the Middle East that refused to submit to the established financial and geopolitical order. That is it! The Gulf states present no such problem. They are pussies with skyscrapers, they are transactional, wealthy and invested in their economic partnerships with the West. Also now that they saw how well the US ‘defended them’ you can see they started to reconsider certain things, as I said Pussies with skyscrapers! But make no mistake they are not going to rock the boat. Iran, by contrast, was defiant, and if you have not figured it out yet Americans - we need defiant countries out there. why? Because the deep state owns us and without outside help we are done. What does that mean exactly: During the American revolutionary war, several countries helped the United States gain independence from Great Britain. The most important supporter was France, which provided money, weapons, troops, and naval power, French forces played a decisive role in the victory at the siege of Yorktown in 1781, effectively ending the war. Spain, ruled by Charles III of Spain, also supported the American cause indirectly by supplying funds and military aid and by attacking British positions in North America. Russia under Catherine the Great refused Britain’s request to send troops to fight the American colonies and instead formed the league of armed neutrality in 1780 aiding Americans in victory, Russian coalition defended neutral shipping against British interference and weakened Britain’s naval pressure on American trade! Together, the military, financial, and diplomatic support of European powers played a decisive role in the American colonies' victory. Our independence, dear Americans, was not achieved by our efforts alone. It was made possible through alliances and cooperation. The lesson is simple: power comes from unity. Today, while the challenges look different and we may not need ships and troops, the principle still holds. When powerful institutions concentrate influence and operate without accountability, division only weakens the public. Unity, both within the country and with independent actors abroad, becomes essential. Many Americans can no longer afford a home, and economic pressure is rising across the middle and working classes. In times like these, competition and independent players in the global system are absolutely necessary. When alternative financial systems, banks, and economic partners exist, they limit the power of entrenched corporate monopolies and give ordinary people options. It gives you a chance to fight back! The tools of struggle have changed since the eighteenth century. We no longer need foreign fleets or armies to secure independence, but we do need competition in the financial and political systems that shape everyday life. A healthy society also protects those who expose wrongdoing. Whistleblowers such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden revealed how dangerous modern surveillance and state secrecy can become. Without protections or safe havens for whistleblowers, the public loses a critical line of defense against unchecked authority. When those who reveal misconduct are silenced, imprisoned, or threatened, society risks becoming less informed and less capable and enslaved. The only reason Assange is alive is because of Rafael Correa, Ecuador, not because Americans were brave enough to stand up for him. No! it was another independent player who saved him. Correa who was never - Epstein class and they removed him from power. Snowden is only free because of Putin and they are fighting Putin with everything they have. Iran was one of free players and Americans whether you know it or not you needed Iran exactly the way it was - a free player! So yes, having independent states out there is absolutely a must, and yet there are idiots cheering for the destruction of Iran today. There is so little thinking done around all this, and only a few people truly understand the severe consequences of what is happening here. Iran was the first domino in the endgame. The logic runs as follows, with Russia tied down in Ukraine and China still consolidating its position, now was the optimal window to remove the most unpredictable obstacle in the Middle East before turning attention further east. Tucker Carlson and others have suggested this is fundamentally Israel’s war, a campaign to neutralize Iran and fulfill certain ideological goals, including the rebuilding of the Temple. That narrative is real and true, but it is only a small part of it. It is the story told to the lower levels and lower ranks, religious people, some fanatics in Israel, generals, and the true believers, the patriotic and religious framing that gives the operation moral weight at the ground level and guarantees support and undying loyalty by the morons. Do you really think Bibi cares about any religious war, or God, or any temple? The man is fully evil, he has no real interest in religion or the temple, but he knows how to manipulate people who do. So the plan is real in the sense that it is presented to the religious fanatics in Israel who truly believe they are fighting for their messiah and their destiny. In reality, the goal for Bibi and the elites is, again, power and control of the world. Idiots will die for their cause while Bibi will live to dominate and make no mistake he will spend your money to rebuilt it all for him and his bosses. The financial and banking elite, the same network that bankrolled Epstein's social operations and has quietly owned Latin American political infrastructure for decades, have a different, longer game in mind. They need a fully controlled Middle East as a staging ground before they can seriously pressure Russia and China. The regional picture is already largely secured, Venezuela has been weakened, and with it Cuba loses much of the backbone that sustained it for years, it was already crippled. Latin America, for the most part, has already been brought into the fold. Europe, meanwhile, has effectively neutralized itself through leadership groomed within elite circles and institutions, with political alignment shaped by networks like the Bilderberg and the World Economic Forum. Figures such as Ursula von der Leyen and Mark Rutte did not simply rise to power by accident.They were put their for a reason. What remains on the board? Russia and China. In the meantime, Iran is being relentlessly bombed, and many Americans are cheering it on. It would almost be funny if it weren’t so tragic. People who can’t even afford a home in the US because of the same financial forces that hollowed out our own economy are now applauding the destruction of another country whose independence would have aided them in their fight against global power structures. In doing so, they are cheering for a system that ultimately works against their own interests. The US’s game plan will be committing ground troops with air support. I’m almost sure of it. They will arm not just the Kurds (terrible people) and also the Baloch. The goal is to replicate what was done to the Soviet Union from within, inflame nationalist sentiment inside Iran, stoke ethnic grievances, and fracture the country along demographic fault lines. That will result in perpetual conflict and divide Iran into pieces. Divide and conquer. Controlling a diverse Iran is easier. That is the goal. They have done it before to Russia and many others.That is the plan. What does Israel get in this? Israel will be a tool through which all of this is controlled and done. That is a great deal for Israel at least for Bibi. You know, there’s a hierarchy in everything, even in evil. Evil has its own hierarchy. Manuel Noriega was an evil man, capable of many terrible things. Yet even he once said that the real devil sits in Washington! You should take that seriously, because he was a man who worked with that devil, he knew the system from the inside. And when someone like Noriega, points to a greater devil above him, that’s when you know you’re dealing with a much bigger problem and that should concern you. Now Russia started talking about moving towards more authoritarian regime too, that post is coming soon.

What are people missing about this war? The ones in charge aren’t idiots. Trump might blunder, but the elites? Every move they make is calculated, they know exactly what they’re doing. This was not the result of Netanyahu hoodwinking a room full of confused officials into an accidental war. Nope, I’m sure he got what he wanted but what he wanted is what the elites wanted for the longest time. What happened in Iran was a calculated, pre-planned operation one that has been in the making for years actually. Let’s break this down, a months before the operation, Vice President JD Vance made a quiet diplomatic visit to both Azerbaijan and Armenia. The visit went largely unreported and under-analyzed. Why would a sitting VP tour that particular region while skipping some interesting places like Turkey and Georgia, one of America's longest-standing and strategically important partners. Back then I really did not understand that visit. But the answer becomes clearer in hindsight. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia have, for years, operated as Western-aligned states susceptible to geopolitical direction. Vance's visit, I would argue, was not ceremonial, it was a preparatory move. The message was when the moment comes, fall in line and I am willing to bet Iran was the main concern. They said it was to reinforce the Armenia Azerbaijan peace agreement, bullshit, they made that agreement more than six months ago. Another reason they said was to promote the regional trade and transport corridor connecting Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, and Europe. Well, the problem is, if this were a real reason, then he would have visited Turkey and Georgia, or at least Turkey, it’s right there! You can’t do this route without Turkey. The current main route from Azerbaijan to Turkey goes through Georgia. So why not visit at least Turkey. Oh, because all of this was a bullshit. In reality, JD was there to make sure that, in case of war with Iran, which they were already planning, these ducks would fall in line. One of the clearest indicators that the stated rationale for the Iran operation was fabricated is how rapidly it kept changing. First, we were told it was about regime change. Then, once the regime had effectively been dismantled and its leaders killed, the goalposts shifted to 'there was an imminent threat.' When that too fell apart under scrutiny with experts confirming no credible direct threat to the United States existed, a new narrative emerged, this was actually a proxy war against China. Each explanation contradicts the last. That is not the behavior of a government acting in self-defense. but we already know this, this is about America’s forever love - War, Power and Money! The real goal is dominance and total control, nothing else. This is a war over regional and global supremacy. Iran was cooperating, yet war was forced upon them anyway. The United States doesn’t have allies, it has doormats, used and discarded when convenient. Time and again, Washington imposes its will, Emerging as the world’s self‑appointed narcissist through wars and coups, and like every true narcissist, the blame always lies somewhere else. It’s never us it's always them. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, China, China, China, China, Iran, Iran, Iran. Prove me wrong if you can, I can debate anybody anytime anywhere. Try prove me wrong! Iran was not attacked because it posed a threat to American citizens, the US gov. says this, not me. Iran was attacked because it was one of the last major powers in the Middle East that refused to submit to the established financial and geopolitical order. That is it! The Gulf states present no such problem. They are pussies with skyscrapers, they are transactional, wealthy and invested in their economic partnerships with the West. Also now that they saw how well the US ‘defended them’ you can see they started to reconsider certain things, as I said Pussies with skyscrapers! But make no mistake they are not going to rock the boat. Iran, by contrast, was defiant, and if you have not figured it out yet Americans - we need defiant countries out there. why? Because the deep state owns us and without outside help we are done. What does that mean exactly: During the American revolutionary war, several countries helped the United States gain independence from Great Britain. The most important supporter was France, which provided money, weapons, troops, and naval power, French forces played a decisive role in the victory at the siege of Yorktown in 1781, effectively ending the war. Spain, ruled by Charles III of Spain, also supported the American cause indirectly by supplying funds and military aid and by attacking British positions in North America. Russia under Catherine the Great refused Britain’s request to send troops to fight the American colonies and instead formed the league of armed neutrality in 1780 aiding Americans in victory, Russian coalition defended neutral shipping against British interference and weakened Britain’s naval pressure on American trade! Together, the military, financial, and diplomatic support of European powers played a decisive role in the American colonies' victory. Our independence, dear Americans, was not achieved by our efforts alone. It was made possible through alliances and cooperation. The lesson is simple: power comes from unity. Today, while the challenges look different and we may not need ships and troops, the principle still holds. When powerful institutions concentrate influence and operate without accountability, division only weakens the public. Unity, both within the country and with independent actors abroad, becomes essential. Many Americans can no longer afford a home, and economic pressure is rising across the middle and working classes. In times like these, competition and independent players in the global system are absolutely necessary. When alternative financial systems, banks, and economic partners exist, they limit the power of entrenched corporate monopolies and give ordinary people options. It gives you a chance to fight back! The tools of struggle have changed since the eighteenth century. We no longer need foreign fleets or armies to secure independence, but we do need competition in the financial and political systems that shape everyday life. A healthy society also protects those who expose wrongdoing. Whistleblowers such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden revealed how dangerous modern surveillance and state secrecy can become. Without protections or safe havens for whistleblowers, the public loses a critical line of defense against unchecked authority. When those who reveal misconduct are silenced, imprisoned, or threatened, society risks becoming less informed and less capable and enslaved. The only reason Assange is alive is because of Rafael Correa, Ecuador, not because Americans were brave enough to stand up for him. No! it was another independent player who saved him. Correa who was never - Epstein class and they removed him from power. Snowden is only free because of Putin and they are fighting Putin with everything they have. Iran was one of free players and Americans whether you know it or not you needed Iran exactly the way it was - a free player! So yes, having independent states out there is absolutely a must, and yet there are idiots cheering for the destruction of Iran today. There is so little thinking done around all this, and only a few people truly understand the severe consequences of what is happening here. Iran was the first domino in the endgame. The logic runs as follows, with Russia tied down in Ukraine and China still consolidating its position, now was the optimal window to remove the most unpredictable obstacle in the Middle East before turning attention further east. Tucker Carlson and others have suggested this is fundamentally Israel’s war, a campaign to neutralize Iran and fulfill certain ideological goals, including the rebuilding of the Temple. That narrative is real and true, but it is only a small part of it. It is the story told to the lower levels and lower ranks, religious people, some fanatics in Israel, generals, and the true believers, the patriotic and religious framing that gives the operation moral weight at the ground level and guarantees support and undying loyalty by the morons. Do you really think Bibi cares about any religious war, or God, or any temple? The man is fully evil, he has no real interest in religion or the temple, but he knows how to manipulate people who do. So the plan is real in the sense that it is presented to the religious fanatics in Israel who truly believe they are fighting for their messiah and their destiny. In reality, the goal for Bibi and the elites is, again, power and control of the world. Idiots will die for their cause while Bibi will live to dominate and make no mistake he will spend your money to rebuilt it all for him and his bosses. The financial and banking elite, the same network that bankrolled Epstein's social operations and has quietly owned Latin American political infrastructure for decades, have a different, longer game in mind. They need a fully controlled Middle East as a staging ground before they can seriously pressure Russia and China. The regional picture is already largely secured, Venezuela has been weakened, and with it Cuba loses much of the backbone that sustained it for years, it was already crippled. Latin America, for the most part, has already been brought into the fold. Europe, meanwhile, has effectively neutralized itself through leadership groomed within elite circles and institutions, with political alignment shaped by networks like the Bilderberg and the World Economic Forum. Figures such as Ursula von der Leyen and Mark Rutte did not simply rise to power by accident.They were put their for a reason. What remains on the board? Russia and China. In the meantime, Iran is being relentlessly bombed, and many Americans are cheering it on. It would almost be funny if it weren’t so tragic. People who can’t even afford a home in the US because of the same financial forces that hollowed out our own economy are now applauding the destruction of another country whose independence would have aided them in their fight against global power structures. In doing so, they are cheering for a system that ultimately works against their own interests. The US’s game plan will be committing ground troops with air support. I’m almost sure of it. They will arm not just the Kurds (terrible people) and also the Baloch. The goal is to replicate what was done to the Soviet Union from within, inflame nationalist sentiment inside Iran, stoke ethnic grievances, and fracture the country along demographic fault lines. That will result in perpetual conflict and divide Iran into pieces. Divide and conquer. Controlling a diverse Iran is easier. That is the goal. They have done it before to Russia and many others.That is the plan. What does Israel get in this? Israel will be a tool through which all of this is controlled and done. That is a great deal for Israel at least for Bibi. You know, there’s a hierarchy in everything, even in evil. Evil has its own hierarchy. Manuel Noriega was an evil man, capable of many terrible things. Yet even he once said that the real devil sits in Washington! You should take that seriously, because he was a man who worked with that devil, he knew the system from the inside. And when someone like Noriega, points to a greater devil above him, that’s when you know you’re dealing with a much bigger problem and that should concern you. Now Russia started talking about moving towards more authoritarian regime too, that post is coming soon.

ELIZABETH LANE

45,233 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

A Love Letter to Ferdinand Martin Romualdez | by Franco Mabanta Martin Romualdez, this episode is for you. And for every Filipino who believes that accountability should never depend on wealth, influence or power. For years, the powerful have operated under the assumption that the truth can be bullied, that free speech can be intimidated, that justice can be bought, and that public attention eventually fades. PGMN rejects that idea entirely. Today, PGMN CEO and founder Franco Cruz Mabanta makes his debut appearance on the Anchor Chair, in front of the camera owned by the company he built, for the most consequential statement of his life. In this deeply personal address, he touches the illegal extortion plot against him, the legal battle surrounding PGMN, the principles upon which the network was built, the multitude of untrue accusations, and the corruption issue that PGMN believes remains the single defining challenge facing the Philippines today. More than a response to recent events, it is a reflection on power, abuse, honesty, free speech, faith, and the future of a country still searching for justice from he who plundered what was not his. But before you watch, understand one thing. Do not judge this episode by the reactions of the bots. Do not judge it by the comment section swarmed by accounts created last week. Do not judge it by the trolls, the propaganda, the coordinated attacks, or the noise that inevitably surrounds any serious discussion about plunder, or the kind of greed that directly affects an entire generation, or WHY the Philippines cannot seem to rise above so many of its problems. Judge it by the facts. Judge it by the histories of those involved. Judge it by the actual recorded sequence of events. Judge it by the most logical motives presented. Judge by who you think are the more honest persons speaking. Judge it by the evidence. Judge it by your own investigation. Because when the stakes are this high, we all know that the wealthiest voices are not always the most truthful ones. What follows is far bigger than PGMN. It is bigger than politics. It is bigger than any one person. At its core, this is about whether public officials—especially those instinctively capable of real evil—can still be held accountable when the questions become difficult, the scrutiny becomes dangerous, and the consequences become life-or-death. It is about whether facts still matter in an environment flooded with false and malicious narratives, and whether ordinary Filipinos like us still have the right to demand answers from those we entrusted with power. To Martin Romualdez, we are making PGMN's position crystal clear. We are not backing down. We are not looking away. We are not changing course. You can hope all you want, Martin, for the collective national attention to somehow focus entirely on the senate wars or the energy crisis or the impeachment proceedings—praying to your daily demons that the people of this country turn our heads away from your superabundance of heinous crimes—but the facts remain clear: The Office of the Ombudsman has already referenced you as the “Master Plunderer”; the Sandiganbayan has already said on record that you are the “Purported Mastermind” of Philippine corruption; Boying Remulla has already denied any and all desperate requests from you to flee the country; the government of US President Donald J. Trump has already eviscerated your diplomatic and tourist visas; Mayor Leni Robredo and the Pinks are adamantly insisting on TRUE accountability; Vice President Sara Duterte and the DDS will never EVER forgive you for what you did to her and to them; and President Bongbong Marcos’ powerful/moral decision—not just to cut all ties with you—but to strictly forbid anyone at the Palace from speaking to you anymore, and in any capacity, has completed the metaphorical corruption kill-shot that the entire nation has long, long, long been waiting for. And now 120 million-strong demand to know, with the full weight of everything we are, what you did with OUR MONEY. Distract us all you want, but the questions remain clear. The public interest remains loud. And our commitment to pursuing justice remains explicit. PGMN was founded on the belief that no politician, no billionaire, no dynasty, and no public official should ever become so powerful that they are beyond scrutiny. That belief did not disappear when the pressure arrived. It did not disappear when the controversy intensified. And it will not disappear simply because the stakes are now at their highest. If anything, moments like these are the reason PGMN exists. It is the reason why the Peanut Gallery was built on the backs of real fighters. What follows is a story about accountability, government drama, insider secrets, censorship of the media, prison time, a renewed faith in Christ, resilience that became necessary, sincerity that hopefully cuts through the noise, and what it actually means to go to war for a beautiful idea called freedom of speech—all rolled up into one of the wildest David vs Goliath stories in modern Philippine politics, viewed from the lens of the most radical young media company that exists today. Above all, it is about the critical belief that the Filipino people deserve real justice—regardless of where the truth leads, regardless of who it makes uncomfortable, and regardless of whether or not the subject of that truth is a deeply powerful, historically treacherous man that goes by the name of Ferdinand Martin Romualdez. Watch until the end. Because not only is the conversation not over… The war between PGMN and the single most corrupt Flipino politician of the 21st century has only just begun.

A Love Letter to Ferdinand Martin Romualdez | by Franco Mabanta Martin Romualdez, this episode is for you. And for every Filipino who believes that accountability should never depend on wealth, influence or power. For years, the powerful have operated under the assumption that the truth can be bullied, that free speech can be intimidated, that justice can be bought, and that public attention eventually fades. PGMN rejects that idea entirely. Today, PGMN CEO and founder Franco Cruz Mabanta makes his debut appearance on the Anchor Chair, in front of the camera owned by the company he built, for the most consequential statement of his life. In this deeply personal address, he touches the illegal extortion plot against him, the legal battle surrounding PGMN, the principles upon which the network was built, the multitude of untrue accusations, and the corruption issue that PGMN believes remains the single defining challenge facing the Philippines today. More than a response to recent events, it is a reflection on power, abuse, honesty, free speech, faith, and the future of a country still searching for justice from he who plundered what was not his. But before you watch, understand one thing. Do not judge this episode by the reactions of the bots. Do not judge it by the comment section swarmed by accounts created last week. Do not judge it by the trolls, the propaganda, the coordinated attacks, or the noise that inevitably surrounds any serious discussion about plunder, or the kind of greed that directly affects an entire generation, or WHY the Philippines cannot seem to rise above so many of its problems. Judge it by the facts. Judge it by the histories of those involved. Judge it by the actual recorded sequence of events. Judge it by the most logical motives presented. Judge by who you think are the more honest persons speaking. Judge it by the evidence. Judge it by your own investigation. Because when the stakes are this high, we all know that the wealthiest voices are not always the most truthful ones. What follows is far bigger than PGMN. It is bigger than politics. It is bigger than any one person. At its core, this is about whether public officials—especially those instinctively capable of real evil—can still be held accountable when the questions become difficult, the scrutiny becomes dangerous, and the consequences become life-or-death. It is about whether facts still matter in an environment flooded with false and malicious narratives, and whether ordinary Filipinos like us still have the right to demand answers from those we entrusted with power. To Martin Romualdez, we are making PGMN's position crystal clear. We are not backing down. We are not looking away. We are not changing course. You can hope all you want, Martin, for the collective national attention to somehow focus entirely on the senate wars or the energy crisis or the impeachment proceedings—praying to your daily demons that the people of this country turn our heads away from your superabundance of heinous crimes—but the facts remain clear: The Office of the Ombudsman has already referenced you as the “Master Plunderer”; the Sandiganbayan has already said on record that you are the “Purported Mastermind” of Philippine corruption; Boying Remulla has already denied any and all desperate requests from you to flee the country; the government of US President Donald J. Trump has already eviscerated your diplomatic and tourist visas; Mayor Leni Robredo and the Pinks are adamantly insisting on TRUE accountability; Vice President Sara Duterte and the DDS will never EVER forgive you for what you did to her and to them; and President Bongbong Marcos’ powerful/moral decision—not just to cut all ties with you—but to strictly forbid anyone at the Palace from speaking to you anymore, and in any capacity, has completed the metaphorical corruption kill-shot that the entire nation has long, long, long been waiting for. And now 120 million-strong demand to know, with the full weight of everything we are, what you did with OUR MONEY. Distract us all you want, but the questions remain clear. The public interest remains loud. And our commitment to pursuing justice remains explicit. PGMN was founded on the belief that no politician, no billionaire, no dynasty, and no public official should ever become so powerful that they are beyond scrutiny. That belief did not disappear when the pressure arrived. It did not disappear when the controversy intensified. And it will not disappear simply because the stakes are now at their highest. If anything, moments like these are the reason PGMN exists. It is the reason why the Peanut Gallery was built on the backs of real fighters. What follows is a story about accountability, government drama, insider secrets, censorship of the media, prison time, a renewed faith in Christ, resilience that became necessary, sincerity that hopefully cuts through the noise, and what it actually means to go to war for a beautiful idea called freedom of speech—all rolled up into one of the wildest David vs Goliath stories in modern Philippine politics, viewed from the lens of the most radical young media company that exists today. Above all, it is about the critical belief that the Filipino people deserve real justice—regardless of where the truth leads, regardless of who it makes uncomfortable, and regardless of whether or not the subject of that truth is a deeply powerful, historically treacherous man that goes by the name of Ferdinand Martin Romualdez. Watch until the end. Because not only is the conversation not over… The war between PGMN and the single most corrupt Flipino politician of the 21st century has only just begun.

Peanut Gallery Media Network

17,673 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT JP LEDWABA MAY HAVE MISLEAD THE JSC YESTERDAY. The conduct of the judiciary is increasingly coming under intense public scrutiny, and not without reason. When judges appear on live platforms and present narratives that are misleading, it does not merely raise eyebrows it strikes at the very heart of public trust in the justice system. What is even more concerning is the perception that, instead of confronting serious allegations with transparency and decisiveness, elements within the judiciary appear to close ranks and protect one another, even under a cloud of suspicion. This concern is amplified by the apparent posture of the current leadership of the judiciary. There is a growing sentiment that the office of the Chief Justice is being used, not as a beacon of accountability, but as a shield to defend colleagues irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations they face. The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) interview involving Deputy Judge President JP Ledwaba has only deepened these concerns. During the proceedings, he asserted that the allocation of the IPHC succession matter to Judge Dipuo Phahlane was based on an agreement between the parties. This claim has been categorically denied by the legal representatives of the affected parties, who maintain that no such consent oral or written was ever given. This contradiction is not a minor procedural dispute; it goes to the core of judicial integrity and case allocation protocols. By his own admission, a case management judge may not preside over a trial without the consent of all parties. If such consent did not exist, as alleged by the lawyers, then the basis upon which the matter was allocated becomes highly questionable. The critical question is, on what authority or understanding did JP Ledwaba rely when making that allocation and why did he mislead the JSC yesterday. The seriousness of this issue was underscored during the interview itself, where Advocate Ngcukatobi repeatedly pressed for clarity. His line of questioning made it clear that this was not a peripheral matter it was a decisive issue that speaks directly to the credibility and suitability of a candidate for higher judicial office. An honest and forthright answer was required; anything less risks being interpreted as evasive or misleading. The situation becomes even more troubling when viewed alongside the timeline of the bribery allegations involving Judge Phahlane. Both she and JP Ledwaba acknowledge that her involvement in the matter began in 2022. However, it is known that an anonymous tip detailing serious allegations and explicitly naming relevant individuals, including Judge Phahlane was submitted to the judiciary in late 2021. Notably and of serious concern, this correspondence was also directed to the Deputy Judge President himself. This raises a fundamental and unavoidable question: why would JP Ledwaba proceed to allocate a matter to a judge who had already been implicated in serious allegations brought to his attention months earlier? Was due diligence conducted? Were the allegations assessed or verified before such a decision was made? Or were they simply disregarded? Further compounding the issue are claims made by Phahlane to Sandlana when she suggested personal proximity to the Judge President or influence in judicial allocations. If there is any truth to assertions that relationships played a role in the assignment of cases, then the implications are profound and deeply damaging to the credibility of the judicial system and more specifically JP Ledwaba himself. It is therefore imperative that the President, the Minister of Justice, the Chief Justice, and members of the Judicial Service Commission engage seriously with these issues. A full and transparent examination of the facts including all related communications is essential.

DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT JP LEDWABA MAY HAVE MISLEAD THE JSC YESTERDAY. The conduct of the judiciary is increasingly coming under intense public scrutiny, and not without reason. When judges appear on live platforms and present narratives that are misleading, it does not merely raise eyebrows it strikes at the very heart of public trust in the justice system. What is even more concerning is the perception that, instead of confronting serious allegations with transparency and decisiveness, elements within the judiciary appear to close ranks and protect one another, even under a cloud of suspicion. This concern is amplified by the apparent posture of the current leadership of the judiciary. There is a growing sentiment that the office of the Chief Justice is being used, not as a beacon of accountability, but as a shield to defend colleagues irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations they face. The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) interview involving Deputy Judge President JP Ledwaba has only deepened these concerns. During the proceedings, he asserted that the allocation of the IPHC succession matter to Judge Dipuo Phahlane was based on an agreement between the parties. This claim has been categorically denied by the legal representatives of the affected parties, who maintain that no such consent oral or written was ever given. This contradiction is not a minor procedural dispute; it goes to the core of judicial integrity and case allocation protocols. By his own admission, a case management judge may not preside over a trial without the consent of all parties. If such consent did not exist, as alleged by the lawyers, then the basis upon which the matter was allocated becomes highly questionable. The critical question is, on what authority or understanding did JP Ledwaba rely when making that allocation and why did he mislead the JSC yesterday. The seriousness of this issue was underscored during the interview itself, where Advocate Ngcukatobi repeatedly pressed for clarity. His line of questioning made it clear that this was not a peripheral matter it was a decisive issue that speaks directly to the credibility and suitability of a candidate for higher judicial office. An honest and forthright answer was required; anything less risks being interpreted as evasive or misleading. The situation becomes even more troubling when viewed alongside the timeline of the bribery allegations involving Judge Phahlane. Both she and JP Ledwaba acknowledge that her involvement in the matter began in 2022. However, it is known that an anonymous tip detailing serious allegations and explicitly naming relevant individuals, including Judge Phahlane was submitted to the judiciary in late 2021. Notably and of serious concern, this correspondence was also directed to the Deputy Judge President himself. This raises a fundamental and unavoidable question: why would JP Ledwaba proceed to allocate a matter to a judge who had already been implicated in serious allegations brought to his attention months earlier? Was due diligence conducted? Were the allegations assessed or verified before such a decision was made? Or were they simply disregarded? Further compounding the issue are claims made by Phahlane to Sandlana when she suggested personal proximity to the Judge President or influence in judicial allocations. If there is any truth to assertions that relationships played a role in the assignment of cases, then the implications are profound and deeply damaging to the credibility of the judicial system and more specifically JP Ledwaba himself. It is therefore imperative that the President, the Minister of Justice, the Chief Justice, and members of the Judicial Service Commission engage seriously with these issues. A full and transparent examination of the facts including all related communications is essential.

Modibe Vladimir Modiba

43,921 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

#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

#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 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

During my month in Europe, I made it a point to talk to everyone, from financial professionals to priests and ordinary people in cafes. I would sit at a cafe, order a coffee and start random political conversations with strangers. Europeans actually love this. They are curious, open and engaged in political life. You can’t do that in America. Most Americans will avoid the topic, change the subject, know nothing about it, or walk away. What I noticed is this: Europeans are misinformed. Americans are indoctrinated. Europeans are generally more sophisticated and educated, but their problem is a lack of independent media and misplaced trust in mainstream sources. Americans, on the other hand, are deeply indoctrinated. In the U.S. you’re expected to be something - ist, capitalist, socialist, communist, Trump-ist, Democrat, republican etc. Ideology becomes an identity. People identify with it instead of just pursuing it and leaving the room for critical thinking. This comes from a society of lonely, medicated individuals searching for meaning and finding it in the wrong places. As a result, they cling to ideas or leaders even when those leaders directly contradict their values and betray them. Take Trump supporters as a clear example. Who were Trump supporters before he got into the office? Many were originally anti-war, anti-regime change, religious and ‘America First’ people. Yet now they support a man who started wars, raised the military budget, supported regime change, killed people for it and flirted with economic collapse and even made genocidal threats on social media during eastern. Before he even reversed his actions/statements from today, these Trump-ists defended his genocide statements viemently. That is what indoctrination looks like. Facts do not matter at all. On the other side, Biden-aligned Democrats are just as indoctrinated, only in the opposite direction. The U.S. is not a misinformed nation, there is plenty of independent media around, it is a fully indoctrinated and uneducated nation. That’s the real problem. Europe, by contrast, is misinformed but educated, not indoctrinated (leaders maybe, but not the people). Let me give you an example. In Germany, I struck up a conversation with a young couple at a cafe about Russia and Ukraine. They supported Ukraine but understood Russia’s grievances. They said they understand Russian position but Russia should not have invaded. I asked: 'What would you do if you were Putin after repeated failed negotiations and lies from the West? What would you have done to help your people in Donbas?' At first he shrugged. He knew about the Minsk agreements, failed deals and lies. He knew about the coup and Victoria Nuland. Then surprisingly, Max admitted he might have conducted a military operation. Which took me by surprise. So I said: You would have started a conflict? He replayed- No, I would have conducted an operation. I said that is exactly what Russia did. So why are you criticizing them? He insisted Russia started a war. So I challenged him: “Do you really think Putin would attack with only 70- 80k troops? No-one starts a war with these numbers not even the dumbest guy on earth. Hitler invaded Poland with 1.25 million. Putin isn’t stupid to start a war with just 70k and hope for the best. It's idiotic. Max paused. Thought about it checked the numbers and said: Ok, well that still does mean that he will stop, he wants to recreate the soviet union. I asked why he believed Russia wanted to recreate the Soviet Union. Where did he hear that from? His answer? - He heard it in the news! I dared him to find an actual quote from Putin stating this. I told him I had all the time in the world and he was welcome to search wherever he wanted. After 20-25 minutes of research and testing multiple sources including ChatGPT, he discovered no such quote exists, that Putin never said anything like that. It was pure propaganda. He was shocked. “How is this possible? This was everywhere in the news,” he said. After clearing up that piece of misinformation, I asked Max whether he still had an issue with Russia and if so, what specifically bothered him. He said it wasn’t anything personal, but rather Russia’s history with the Soviet Union that troubled him, and he wouldn’t feel comfortable having Russia as a partner. I looked at him and reminded him that we were literally sitting in a country that had been fully Nazi just two generations ago and if that’s the logic we were going to use, then Germany his own country, should be completely isolated and never trusted again. He burst out laughing, realizing his mistake and his own stupidity. By the time we finished our breakfast and coffee, he was already following all the independent YouTube channels I suggested and the X profiles I recommended. This is the difference between being misinformed and being indoctrinated. Misinformed people are flexible, they can think, indoctrinated people are not. Europe suffers from misinformation, which can be corrected. The U.S. on the other hand, suffers from indoctrination, which is much harder perhaps impossible to fix. Every morning in cafes across Greece, Germany and elsewhere, I would sit down and start conversations about politics. Europeans are comfortable with this, they seem to enjoy it. I learned a lot myself, even some interesting details about Hitler that I never knew. Americans, by contrast, often seem unable to escape indoctrination, regardless of the facts. The same pattern appears in American religion. Europe, by comparison is largely atheist now. The only religion left there is a kind of cultural Christianity, people may believe and maybe pray at home, but they rarely go to church. Most churches are empty. Which is not good, the US is way more religious but that faith has problem. In my opinion, most American Christians today, not all, but most are fanatics. They aren’t truly religious they just like the idea of being religious and it turns into a strange, performative fanaticism. It's like a circus of fanatics who had turned the church into a theater or a political tool. Things like dancing, misplaced behavior and sermons that use the Bible to indoctrinate people into one political belief or another, nothing about actually teaching Jesus Christ or his message. Bible verses are twisted to support political ideology and this is what most American Christians seem to follow today. It’s very sad. Priests themselves go viral for completely out-of-control, ridiculous behavior like weird dance etc. These are people who call themselves Christians. There is nothing Christian about that. Faith is supposed to be about quiet selfless good, humility and genuine belief, not a clown show in the church. It’s disgusting! If you want to escape indoctrination, follow Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Glenn Greenwald Megyn Kelly George Galloway Russell Brand Glenn Diesen Clayton Morris Natali Morris

ELIZABETH LANE

11,781 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

"If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)

"If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)

Joe Murgia

18,951 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

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

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

Hillel Neuer

68,720 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

I have never seen the American president, Donald Trump, bootlick someone like this, literally kissing ass, as he himself likes to say. This was Trump today with Chinese President Xi Jinping, and boy oh boy, Trump was praising him like crazy. What I found interesting is what I did with this video. I first inserted a clip of Trump during his campaign days attacking and mocking China, then followed it with this latest clip of him praising and flattering the Chinese president in a way we have rarely seen before, today. It perfectly shows how power and economic strength change global power relationships. This should be a lesson for Africa and African leaders who embarrass themselves grovelling for recognition to Western leaders. In 1975, China’s economy was nowhere near where it is today. Back then, China was still a relatively poor developing country and nowhere close to being a global superpower. Today, depending on which economic measurement is used, China is either the largest economy in the world or the second largest after the United States. What did the Chinese do? They did not spend decades begging the West for validation or recognition. They rolled up their sleeves and went to work. They industrialised. They built infrastructure. They invested in manufacturing, education, technology, and long-term planning. And because they built something powerful, the world had no choice but to take them seriously. That is why today you can see an American president publicly flattering a Chinese leader. China now has something the world wants and needs. African leaders waste too much time begging for approval, validation, and symbolic recognition from the West instead of fixing their countries and building functional economies. You even hear leaders like Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe demanding a permanent seat or influence at the United Nations Security Council, yet he presides over a country that struggles to provide electricity for even 10 hours a day. Zimbabwe has massive unemployment, collapsing public services, hospitals without medication, broken roads, a currency that cannot be freely exchanged internationally, and widespread corruption. The list is long. The country’s biggest hospital has operated for long periods with severe shortages of equipment and functioning theatres. Citizens are heavily taxed while public services continue collapsing. How do you expect the world to place you at the top table when your own country is struggling to provide the basics for its citizens? Serious nations do not hand out respect because of liberation war slogans or revolutionary rhetoric from 50 years ago. Respect is earned through performance, stability, production, innovation, and competence. You cannot talk about sovereignty and greatness while importing maize because you failed to properly utilise some of the best agricultural land in Africa. You cannot demand global influence while your citizens depend on food aid and medical support and donations from the same international system you constantly criticise. What we are seeing with Trump and Xi Jinping is a lesson in how the world works. Hard work, economic strength, production, and strategic planning force the world to respect you. Even the most powerful country in the world cannot ignore you once you become economically indispensable. Zimbabwe has enormous potential. We have vast mineral wealth, fertile land, talented people, and strategic opportunities. We have over 80 different minerals and some of the best farming land in the region. Yet millions of Zimbabweans live in poverty and struggle to survive because of corruption, poor governance, and misplaced priorities. We even import toilet paper and tooth picks from South Africa. No serious global institution will fully respect leaders who cannot first build functioning societies at home. The world respects results, not empty slogans, rhetoric and childish propaganda. What we have also learned from this video is that Trump has a domestic audience in America that he clearly does not fully respect intellectually. He says whatever he believes will win him votes, even if it means making exaggerated or hostile statements about countries like China during campaign periods. He understands the emotions and intellectual emptiness of his audience and plays to them politically. And it does not end with his domestic audience only. Trump also has loyal but ignorant supporters and bootlickers across the world, including in Africa, people who treat him almost like a god. But politicians do not necessarily respect people simply because they worship them blindly. They respect power, leverage, influence, and results. During his campaign, Trump spoke about China in derogatory and confrontational terms because it suited his political objectives at the time. But when he came face to face with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the tone changed completely. There was respect, praise, and careful language. In Trump’s own language, he practically “kissed ass”. And that is the reality of how global politics works. You do not get respect simply because you shout loudly, insult others, or demand recognition. You get respect when you build something powerful enough that the world cannot ignore you. China earned that respect through decades of hard work, industrialisation, discipline, economic expansion, infrastructure development, and strategic planning. They built an economy and a system that the world now depends on. That is the lesson Africans and African leaders must take from this video. Stop wasting time begging for validation and recognition from the West. Stop thinking respect is something that can be demanded through slogans, liberation war rhetoric, or political noise. Respect is earned through competence, production, economic strength, innovation, and delivery to your own people. When you build a strong country, the world respects you automatically because you have something valuable to offer. When you have more than 80 minerals in your country and yet your citizens are walking on top of sewage, nobody will respect you. You become a laughing stock. The world looks at that contradiction and sees failure of leadership, not potential. You can steal as much money as you want from your people, build mansions, drive convoys, and surround yourself with praise singers, but when a clown enters a State House, it does not become a palace. It becomes a circus. Real leadership is not measured by slogans, propaganda, or how long you stay in power. It is measured by whether ordinary citizens have clean water, functioning hospitals, decent roads, electricity, jobs, dignity, and hope for the future. A country rich in minerals but poor in governance will never command real respect internationally. Respect comes when national wealth is converted into prosperity for the people, not luxury for the political elite.

I have never seen the American president, Donald Trump, bootlick someone like this, literally kissing ass, as he himself likes to say. This was Trump today with Chinese President Xi Jinping, and boy oh boy, Trump was praising him like crazy. What I found interesting is what I did with this video. I first inserted a clip of Trump during his campaign days attacking and mocking China, then followed it with this latest clip of him praising and flattering the Chinese president in a way we have rarely seen before, today. It perfectly shows how power and economic strength change global power relationships. This should be a lesson for Africa and African leaders who embarrass themselves grovelling for recognition to Western leaders. In 1975, China’s economy was nowhere near where it is today. Back then, China was still a relatively poor developing country and nowhere close to being a global superpower. Today, depending on which economic measurement is used, China is either the largest economy in the world or the second largest after the United States. What did the Chinese do? They did not spend decades begging the West for validation or recognition. They rolled up their sleeves and went to work. They industrialised. They built infrastructure. They invested in manufacturing, education, technology, and long-term planning. And because they built something powerful, the world had no choice but to take them seriously. That is why today you can see an American president publicly flattering a Chinese leader. China now has something the world wants and needs. African leaders waste too much time begging for approval, validation, and symbolic recognition from the West instead of fixing their countries and building functional economies. You even hear leaders like Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe demanding a permanent seat or influence at the United Nations Security Council, yet he presides over a country that struggles to provide electricity for even 10 hours a day. Zimbabwe has massive unemployment, collapsing public services, hospitals without medication, broken roads, a currency that cannot be freely exchanged internationally, and widespread corruption. The list is long. The country’s biggest hospital has operated for long periods with severe shortages of equipment and functioning theatres. Citizens are heavily taxed while public services continue collapsing. How do you expect the world to place you at the top table when your own country is struggling to provide the basics for its citizens? Serious nations do not hand out respect because of liberation war slogans or revolutionary rhetoric from 50 years ago. Respect is earned through performance, stability, production, innovation, and competence. You cannot talk about sovereignty and greatness while importing maize because you failed to properly utilise some of the best agricultural land in Africa. You cannot demand global influence while your citizens depend on food aid and medical support and donations from the same international system you constantly criticise. What we are seeing with Trump and Xi Jinping is a lesson in how the world works. Hard work, economic strength, production, and strategic planning force the world to respect you. Even the most powerful country in the world cannot ignore you once you become economically indispensable. Zimbabwe has enormous potential. We have vast mineral wealth, fertile land, talented people, and strategic opportunities. We have over 80 different minerals and some of the best farming land in the region. Yet millions of Zimbabweans live in poverty and struggle to survive because of corruption, poor governance, and misplaced priorities. We even import toilet paper and tooth picks from South Africa. No serious global institution will fully respect leaders who cannot first build functioning societies at home. The world respects results, not empty slogans, rhetoric and childish propaganda. What we have also learned from this video is that Trump has a domestic audience in America that he clearly does not fully respect intellectually. He says whatever he believes will win him votes, even if it means making exaggerated or hostile statements about countries like China during campaign periods. He understands the emotions and intellectual emptiness of his audience and plays to them politically. And it does not end with his domestic audience only. Trump also has loyal but ignorant supporters and bootlickers across the world, including in Africa, people who treat him almost like a god. But politicians do not necessarily respect people simply because they worship them blindly. They respect power, leverage, influence, and results. During his campaign, Trump spoke about China in derogatory and confrontational terms because it suited his political objectives at the time. But when he came face to face with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the tone changed completely. There was respect, praise, and careful language. In Trump’s own language, he practically “kissed ass”. And that is the reality of how global politics works. You do not get respect simply because you shout loudly, insult others, or demand recognition. You get respect when you build something powerful enough that the world cannot ignore you. China earned that respect through decades of hard work, industrialisation, discipline, economic expansion, infrastructure development, and strategic planning. They built an economy and a system that the world now depends on. That is the lesson Africans and African leaders must take from this video. Stop wasting time begging for validation and recognition from the West. Stop thinking respect is something that can be demanded through slogans, liberation war rhetoric, or political noise. Respect is earned through competence, production, economic strength, innovation, and delivery to your own people. When you build a strong country, the world respects you automatically because you have something valuable to offer. When you have more than 80 minerals in your country and yet your citizens are walking on top of sewage, nobody will respect you. You become a laughing stock. The world looks at that contradiction and sees failure of leadership, not potential. You can steal as much money as you want from your people, build mansions, drive convoys, and surround yourself with praise singers, but when a clown enters a State House, it does not become a palace. It becomes a circus. Real leadership is not measured by slogans, propaganda, or how long you stay in power. It is measured by whether ordinary citizens have clean water, functioning hospitals, decent roads, electricity, jobs, dignity, and hope for the future. A country rich in minerals but poor in governance will never command real respect internationally. Respect comes when national wealth is converted into prosperity for the people, not luxury for the political elite.

Hopewell Chin’ono

69,711 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce