Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

𝐌𝐊 (𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲) 𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞(𝐬) 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝? Nkosi Dlamini: MK was disbanded in 1993, without informing its leaders, specifically Chris Hani. He was not informed. That never sat well with us. We stuck around, hopeful, but it turned out we were being disbanded, abandoned. You look at the branches of the ANC,... we are not recognized. We are not deployed. 𝘍𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰, 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯. [𝘈𝘯𝘥] 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘞𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯… 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘯’𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 — 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭, 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱. 𝘉𝘺 𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯… 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘒 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 (𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩) 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘰/𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦; 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 (𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰) 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘕𝘊 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 1912, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥; 𝘣𝘶𝘵… 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 (𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦) 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴; 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺, 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴/𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 — 𝘓𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… 𝘔𝘒 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘑𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘣 𝘡𝘶𝘮𝘢. 𝘈 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴. 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — 𝘶𝘴, 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦… [𝘉𝘶𝘵] 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪-𝘵𝘰𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘴, 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨… 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴/𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘜𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 🖇️show more

Mr. Tshweu

65,776 subscribers

89,644 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

Comedy News & Politics Education

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

8 Comments

Michael Katide2 years ago

One again thanks for sharing! Have you seen this interview? Long, but gets more interesting as it goes. Worth watching to the end.

Mr. Tshweu2 years ago

No probs bro. Will check it out. Hope you’re well.

Nkwenkwezi Yokusa ✨️🇿🇦🇷🇺2 years ago

Nangu lomfo didn’t went to exile on the apartheid era who was rich lapho bantu bedutshulelwa even ama t shirts 🫢🙆🏽‍♀️Eyiiii

Tsonga or Changani Music 🇱🇹🇲🇿🇿🇦🌞2 years ago

All True. Glad the real 1s are talking & the youth is hearing the Truth. DO U UNDERSTAND HOW WE RISKED OUR LIVES AS YOUNG KIDS @CyrilRamaphosa ☀ 🇱🇹🇿🇦

We will not be bullied..2 years ago

But it's current leader Zuma was a president with support from unions, Luthuli and branches . He didn't take care of them for 9 whopping years. Ramaphosa has not finished one term but points finger at him. Zuma failed them. Inganekwane he is leading them.

PistaZono2 years ago

Maybe im wrong but Mk was founded by Nelson Mandela and it was disbanded by the same Nelson Mandela. Which other leader has to notified? 🤷🏾‍♂️🤷🏾‍♂️🤷🏾‍♂️

Peace on earth2 years ago

Thank you for such valuable information

PistaZono2 years ago

The minion is talking as if we gained freedom 5 years ago and Ramaphosa has been President ever since... As if Zuma was nva in the Presidency for 18 years

Related Videos

"𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘪𝘳. 𝘞𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘑&𝘒. 𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘋𝘗 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 2015. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘚𝘜𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑&𝘒 𝘙𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘴 "𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦" 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 "𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦" 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘜𝘛. 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘧 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘞𝘢𝘬𝘧 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘰𝘚 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘐 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘑&𝘒", 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘖𝘮𝘢𝘳 𝘈𝘣𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘌𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘥𝘦-39 𝘰𝘧 "𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘪𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘥𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘈𝘭𝘪 𝘍𝘢𝘺𝘺𝘢𝘻". 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘈𝘓𝘒𝘐𝘚𝘛𝘈𝘕 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺.

"𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘪𝘳. 𝘞𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘑&𝘒. 𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘋𝘗 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 2015. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘚𝘜𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑&𝘒 𝘙𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘉𝘑𝘗 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘴 "𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦" 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 "𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦" 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘜𝘛. 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘧 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘞𝘢𝘬𝘧 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘰𝘚 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘐 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘑&𝘒", 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘖𝘮𝘢𝘳 𝘈𝘣𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘌𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘥𝘦-39 𝘰𝘧 "𝘒𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘪𝘳 𝘗𝘰𝘥𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘈𝘭𝘪 𝘍𝘢𝘺𝘺𝘢𝘻". 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘈𝘓𝘒𝘐𝘚𝘛𝘈𝘕 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺.

Ahmed Ali Fayyaz

13,521 views • 1 year ago

In the next few days of Church History: 𝐀𝐧 𝐀𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐧𝐮𝐦. Following the death of the Prophet Thomas S. Monson in 2018, the Apostle Gary E. Stevenson explained the continuity of leadership in the Lord’s Kingdom on Earth following the death of a prophet: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 “𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘯𝘶𝘮.” 𝘋𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘫𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘍. 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵, “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥.” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘯𝘶𝘮 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 2 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 12 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 14. 𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘚𝘢𝘣𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘭𝘵 𝘓𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘛𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘔. 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦. 𝘊𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭-𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 13 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵-𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦. 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘴, 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘋𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴 𝘖𝘢𝘬𝘴, 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘏𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘖𝘢𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘔𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵.

In the next few days of Church History: 𝐀𝐧 𝐀𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐧𝐮𝐦. Following the death of the Prophet Thomas S. Monson in 2018, the Apostle Gary E. Stevenson explained the continuity of leadership in the Lord’s Kingdom on Earth following the death of a prophet: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 “𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘯𝘶𝘮.” 𝘋𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘫𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘍. 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵, “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥.” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘯𝘶𝘮 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘔𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 2 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 12 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 14. 𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘚𝘢𝘣𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘭𝘵 𝘓𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘛𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳, 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘔. 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦. 𝘊𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭-𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 13 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵-𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦. 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘴, 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘋𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴 𝘖𝘢𝘬𝘴, 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘏𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘖𝘢𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘔𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴. 𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘕𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵.

On This Latter-day in History

49,737 views • 1 year ago

54 years ago this month, 𝗬𝗲𝘀 released their fourth studio album, 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗹𝗲, one of the best albums in progressive rock history. This masterpiece is the first 𝗬𝗲𝘀 album to feature 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗪𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻. - What is your favorite track from the album? * 𝘜𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘭𝘦. 𝘠𝘦𝘴’𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘮 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟤𝟨, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘥’𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘟 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘮’𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟣𝟣 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟤𝟨. 𝘞𝘪𝘬𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟤𝟥 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘮 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟣𝟤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟣𝟤. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘧. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘜𝘒-𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘮’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘥’𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺. YESofficial

54 years ago this month, 𝗬𝗲𝘀 released their fourth studio album, 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗹𝗲, one of the best albums in progressive rock history. This masterpiece is the first 𝗬𝗲𝘀 album to feature 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗪𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻. - What is your favorite track from the album? * 𝘜𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘍𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘭𝘦. 𝘠𝘦𝘴’𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘣𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘮 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟤𝟨, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘥’𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘟 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘮’𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟣𝟣 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟤𝟨. 𝘞𝘪𝘬𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟤𝟥 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘮 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟣𝟤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝟣𝟤. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘧. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘜𝘒-𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘣𝘶𝘮’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘥’𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺. YESofficial

Prog Rock Songs

25,038 views • 10 months ago

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄-𝐇𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐍𝐘𝐂 𝐆𝐔𝐘 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐍𝐎 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐒 𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐓𝐄” This guy lives in Chelsea — one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Manhattan. He has blue hair. Everyone in his building kept asking him if he went to the No Kings rally. He politely said no. Then he turned on his camera and said what he really thinks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘺𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. He went further: 𝘐 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘪𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦. On the rally itself: 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. Everyone in his neighborhood treated it like a social event — the cool thing to do in Chelsea. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘬. Then the line that says everything about where this country is heading: 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘥. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰. And then: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. He acknowledged what he supports Trump on: 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵. His closing message to his blue-haired peers: 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. And to conservatives watching: 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. Then Batya Ungar-Sargon weighed in with the analytical kill shot: 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. She pointed out the obvious: 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. And then the best observation of all: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 — 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢 “𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 — 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯’𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘪𝘵, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵. 𝐀 𝐛𝐥𝐮𝐞-𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐂𝐍𝐍 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

M.A. Rothman

187,953 views • 6 months ago

“𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐃. 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊.” A devastating takedown of the “Israel is an apartheid state” lie—explained so simply that even a college protester could understand it: “𝘈𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥.” “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣, 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮, 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘑𝘦𝘸, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦, 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯—𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴.” Then the key distinction: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘔𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘤𝘰. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” The facts back this up: 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, in the IDF, in universities, and in hospitals. Israel’s 𝟐𝟏% 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 has full voting rights, freedom of worship, and equal protection under law (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). In actual apartheid South Africa, 𝟖𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 was denied the vote, restricted to Bantustans, and barred from public facilities. Comparing Israel to that regime is not criticism—it’s blood libel. “𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘴.” 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 “𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐝” 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐞—𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧.

“𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐃. 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊.” A devastating takedown of the “Israel is an apartheid state” lie—explained so simply that even a college protester could understand it: “𝘈𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥.” “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣, 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮, 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘑𝘦𝘸, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦, 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘯—𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴.” Then the key distinction: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘥. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘔𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘤𝘰. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” The facts back this up: 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, in the IDF, in universities, and in hospitals. Israel’s 𝟐𝟏% 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 has full voting rights, freedom of worship, and equal protection under law (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). In actual apartheid South Africa, 𝟖𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 was denied the vote, restricted to Bantustans, and barred from public facilities. Comparing Israel to that regime is not criticism—it’s blood libel. “𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘴.” 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 “𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐝” 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐞—𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧.

M.A. Rothman

36,275 views • 5 months ago

𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐆 𝐆𝐔𝐓𝐅𝐄𝐋𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐎𝐍𝐄-𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓𝐒 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂: “𝐒𝐎?” Greg Gutfeld just handed Trump supporters the only word they’ll ever need. “𝘏𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍-𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘕. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵” Gutfeld laid out the fundamental disconnect: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦” Then the analogy that nailed it: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘺. 𝘔𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈.𝘊. 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵” Gutfeld also posed the question Democrats will never answer: “𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥? 𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩? 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵?” His diagnosis of Trump’s method was the most precise anyone has offered: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱’𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘵, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬, 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴” The critics see the chaos and panic. The results-oriented see the 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 — and the pattern keeps working. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅-𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝: 𝐒𝐨?

𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐆 𝐆𝐔𝐓𝐅𝐄𝐋𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐎𝐍𝐄-𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐇𝐔𝐓𝐒 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂: “𝐒𝐎?” Greg Gutfeld just handed Trump supporters the only word they’ll ever need. “𝘏𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍-𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘕. 𝘚𝘰. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵” Gutfeld laid out the fundamental disconnect: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥. 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦” Then the analogy that nailed it: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘺. 𝘔𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈.𝘊. 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵” Gutfeld also posed the question Democrats will never answer: “𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥? 𝘞𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩? 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵?” His diagnosis of Trump’s method was the most precise anyone has offered: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱’𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘵, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬, 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘰𝘴” The critics see the chaos and panic. The results-oriented see the 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 — and the pattern keeps working. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅-𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝: 𝐒𝐨?

M.A. Rothman

23,602 views • 5 months ago

𝐊𝐄𝐀𝐍𝐄: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐃 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝟐𝟓% 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐄𝐓𝐒 𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓 — 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍'𝐒 𝐑𝐄𝐆𝐈𝐌𝐄 𝐎𝐍 𝐀 “𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐖𝐀𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐏𝐒𝐄” As CENTCOM opened its ninth straight night of strikes, retired four-star General Jack Keane went on Fox News and explained why the campaign resumed — and where it ends. On why diplomacy d∗ed: 𝘥𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺. Keane says Iran signed the ceasefire deal on June 17 and violated it within days over the Strait of Hormuz — the one strategic asset the regime will not give up. The pattern, he argues, is older than the negotiators working it: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘶𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴. Then the receipt that reframes the whole campaign: 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 25% 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘵. The current operation, in his telling, is about finishing that list — 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜-𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 while sanctions and the naval blockade squeeze in parallel. Weakening the regime to the point of collapse at the hands of its own people, Keane says, is 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. His endgame: 𝘸𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘤 𝘨𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. On the regime itself: 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 47 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰’𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘳. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝟒𝟕 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬.

𝐊𝐄𝐀𝐍𝐄: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐃 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝟐𝟓% 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐄𝐓𝐒 𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓 — 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍'𝐒 𝐑𝐄𝐆𝐈𝐌𝐄 𝐎𝐍 𝐀 “𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐖𝐀𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐏𝐒𝐄” As CENTCOM opened its ninth straight night of strikes, retired four-star General Jack Keane went on Fox News and explained why the campaign resumed — and where it ends. On why diplomacy d∗ed: 𝘥𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺. Keane says Iran signed the ceasefire deal on June 17 and violated it within days over the Strait of Hormuz — the one strategic asset the regime will not give up. The pattern, he argues, is older than the negotiators working it: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘶𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴. Then the receipt that reframes the whole campaign: 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 25% 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘵. The current operation, in his telling, is about finishing that list — 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜-𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 while sanctions and the naval blockade squeeze in parallel. Weakening the regime to the point of collapse at the hands of its own people, Keane says, is 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. His endgame: 𝘸𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘤 𝘨𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. On the regime itself: 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 47 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰’𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘳. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝟒𝟕 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬.

M.A. Rothman

25,212 views • 2 months ago

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐘𝐎𝐔’𝐋𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐑 This creator explained the difference using YouTube—and it’s brilliant. 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘛𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦.” 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱.” 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵.” Then the key insight: “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘴.” He nailed how they sell it: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳.” A 2024 poll found 𝟒𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐙 viewed socialism favorably—until they were told what it actually means (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞.

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐕𝐒. 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐘𝐎𝐔’𝐋𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐑 This creator explained the difference using YouTube—and it’s brilliant. 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘛𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦.” 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱.” 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵.” Then the key insight: “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘴.” He nailed how they sell it: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯—𝘪𝘵’𝘴 ’𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦.’ 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳.” A 2024 poll found 𝟒𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧 𝐙 viewed socialism favorably—until they were told what it actually means (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation). 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

75,733 views • 5 months ago

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐁𝐁𝐂: “𝐈 𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐖 𝐁𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐊.” Douglas Murray just dismantled a BBC Newsnight presenter on live television — and the man didn’t even raise his voice. Nick Watt tried the usual trap. He quoted Murray’s own words — “𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺” — and then immediately tried to redefine them: “𝘚𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘚𝘢𝘫𝘪𝘥 𝘑𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘥. 𝘓𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘚𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘲 𝘒𝘩𝘢𝘯.” Murray didn’t take the bait. “𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘣𝘦𝘥𝘪 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘵?” Then he laid it out. The Abedi family were jihadists who’d fallen out with Colonel Gaddafi over rival jihadist factions. Britain took them in. They settled in Manchester. And 𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐛𝐞𝐝𝐢, one of the sons this country gave shelter to, walked into the Manchester Arena at 𝟐𝟐 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐥𝐝 and k!lled 𝟐𝟐 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐢𝐫𝐥𝐬 with a suicide bomb. “𝘖𝘯𝘦, 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮.” Then Murray went to the math that nobody in media wants to engage with. “𝘑𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘮, 𝘫𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 1%, 5%, 15% 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮.” The larger the population, the larger the number of extremists. “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 2024. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴.” Watt tried one more time to steer it back to stereotyping. Murray shut it down: “𝘕𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮.” Then he delivered the question the BBC will never answer: “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥∗𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵?” That’s not a rhetorical flourish. It’s a direct challenge to every journalist and politician in Britain who would rather arrest citizens for social media posts than confront what’s marching through their streets every weekend. Murray gave the BBC a chance to grapple with it. They changed the subject. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐡. 𝐔𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬. 𝐍𝐨 𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲.

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐁𝐁𝐂: “𝐈 𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐖 𝐁𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐊.” Douglas Murray just dismantled a BBC Newsnight presenter on live television — and the man didn’t even raise his voice. Nick Watt tried the usual trap. He quoted Murray’s own words — “𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺” — and then immediately tried to redefine them: “𝘚𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘚𝘢𝘫𝘪𝘥 𝘑𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘥. 𝘓𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘚𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘲 𝘒𝘩𝘢𝘯.” Murray didn’t take the bait. “𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘣𝘦𝘥𝘪 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘵?” Then he laid it out. The Abedi family were jihadists who’d fallen out with Colonel Gaddafi over rival jihadist factions. Britain took them in. They settled in Manchester. And 𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐛𝐞𝐝𝐢, one of the sons this country gave shelter to, walked into the Manchester Arena at 𝟐𝟐 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐥𝐝 and k!lled 𝟐𝟐 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐢𝐫𝐥𝐬 with a suicide bomb. “𝘖𝘯𝘦, 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘨𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮.” Then Murray went to the math that nobody in media wants to engage with. “𝘑𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘮, 𝘫𝘪𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 1%, 5%, 15% 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮.” The larger the population, the larger the number of extremists. “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 2024. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴.” Watt tried one more time to steer it back to stereotyping. Murray shut it down: “𝘕𝘰𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮.” Then he delivered the question the BBC will never answer: “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥∗𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵?” That’s not a rhetorical flourish. It’s a direct challenge to every journalist and politician in Britain who would rather arrest citizens for social media posts than confront what’s marching through their streets every weekend. Murray gave the BBC a chance to grapple with it. They changed the subject. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐡. 𝐔𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬. 𝐍𝐨 𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲.

M.A. Rothman

91,464 views • 5 months ago

𝐊𝐓 𝐌𝐜𝐅𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐑𝐔𝐍𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌: “𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐒 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍” KT McFarland has been in Situation Room briefings with Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Trump. She just explained why Trump is different from all of them. “𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘰𝘮—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳” Not Trump. “𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘺—𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 27 𝘢𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴” And the part that rattles every bureaucrat in Washington: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧” This isn’t speculation — it’s exactly what happened during the Iran operation. The final Situation Room meeting was 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 (Time). Trump asked each adviser for their view, then made the call himself: “𝐈 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐭”. The VP was kept in a separate Situation Room per 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐨𝐟-𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥 (Time). McFarland’s bottom line: “𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵, 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶” 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟒 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬.

𝐊𝐓 𝐌𝐜𝐅𝐀𝐑𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐑𝐔𝐍𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌: “𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐒 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍” KT McFarland has been in Situation Room briefings with Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Trump. She just explained why Trump is different from all of them. “𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘰𝘮—𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳” Not Trump. “𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘺—𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 27 𝘢𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘏𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮, 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴” And the part that rattles every bureaucrat in Washington: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧” This isn’t speculation — it’s exactly what happened during the Iran operation. The final Situation Room meeting was 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 (Time). Trump asked each adviser for their view, then made the call himself: “𝐈 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐭”. The VP was kept in a separate Situation Room per 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐨𝐟-𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥 (Time). McFarland’s bottom line: “𝘈𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵, 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘐’𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶” 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟒 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬.

M.A. Rothman

37,384 views • 5 months ago

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

48,897 views • 5 months ago

𝐕𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐋𝐃 𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐃𝐒 𝐀 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍” Van Jones is not a conservative. He’s a CNN commentator, a Yale Law grad, Obama’s former green jobs advisor, and the co-founder of multiple progressive organizations. He has spent his career on the political left. And he just delivered one of the clearest, most compelling cases for a free Iran that anyone on either side of the aisle has made. “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘩 90 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺.” He’s right. Persia gave the world algebra, the concept of universal human rights under Cyrus the Great, and some of the most influential poetry, architecture, and scientific advances in recorded history. The Iranian people built a civilization that predates the Roman Republic — and then a gang of theocratic thugs put 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲. Jones went further: “𝘈 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘚 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯.” Then the line that should make every interventionist skeptic pause: “𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨.” When a left-wing CNN commentator is making the same case as the Iranian diaspora, the MAGA base, and the 𝟖𝟏% of Iranians inside Iran who oppose the Islamic Republic (GAMAAN Institute) — that’s not a partisan argument anymore. That’s a consensus the media refuses to acknowledge. 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠.

𝐕𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒: “𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐋𝐃 𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐃𝐒 𝐀 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍” Van Jones is not a conservative. He’s a CNN commentator, a Yale Law grad, Obama’s former green jobs advisor, and the co-founder of multiple progressive organizations. He has spent his career on the political left. And he just delivered one of the clearest, most compelling cases for a free Iran that anyone on either side of the aisle has made. “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘩 90 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺.” He’s right. Persia gave the world algebra, the concept of universal human rights under Cyrus the Great, and some of the most influential poetry, architecture, and scientific advances in recorded history. The Iranian people built a civilization that predates the Roman Republic — and then a gang of theocratic thugs put 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲. Jones went further: “𝘈 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘚 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯.” Then the line that should make every interventionist skeptic pause: “𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨.” When a left-wing CNN commentator is making the same case as the Iranian diaspora, the MAGA base, and the 𝟖𝟏% of Iranians inside Iran who oppose the Islamic Republic (GAMAAN Institute) — that’s not a partisan argument anymore. That’s a consensus the media refuses to acknowledge. 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠.

M.A. Rothman

28,028 views • 5 months ago

𝐀 𝐁𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐕𝐄𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐎𝐏𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐃, 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐌, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐖𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐁𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐃 𝐓𝐎𝐃𝐀𝐘 𝐈𝐅 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐓 𝐎𝐍 𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐄 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓. A black American testifying at a school-board meeting against critical race theory just delivered 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 heard at any public meeting in 2026. He earned a standing ovation. “𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵-𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴. 𝘖𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢. 𝘖𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺, 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘧𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭, 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵.” “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴: 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 190-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.” “𝘙𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦, 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘺, 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰.” 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐑𝐓 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞. You don’t fight 1860 racism by teaching 2026 children they are colored-in by their ancestors’ sins. 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘒𝘊𝘗𝘢𝘺𝘛𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘐𝘵

𝐀 𝐁𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐕𝐄𝐒 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐎𝐏𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐃, 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐌, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐖𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐁𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐃 𝐓𝐎𝐃𝐀𝐘 𝐈𝐅 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐓 𝐎𝐍 𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐄 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓. A black American testifying at a school-board meeting against critical race theory just delivered 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 heard at any public meeting in 2026. He earned a standing ovation. “𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵-𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴. 𝘖𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢. 𝘖𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺, 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘧𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭, 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘴𝘵.” “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴: 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 190-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.” “𝘙𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥, 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦, 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘺, 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰.” 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐑𝐓 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞. You don’t fight 1860 racism by teaching 2026 children they are colored-in by their ancestors’ sins. 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘒𝘊𝘗𝘢𝘺𝘛𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘐𝘵

M.A. Rothman

110,144 views • 4 months ago

Rita Ora paying tribute to Liam during MTV EMAs tonight 🥺🤍 “I just want to take a moment to remember someone that was very, very dear to us. We lost him recently, and he was a big part of the MTV world and my world, and I think a lot of yours at home and everybody in here tonight. 𝘓𝘪𝘢𝘮 𝘗𝘢𝘺𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘸. There were so many ways that we were talking about honouring him, and I think sometimes just simply speaking is enough. 𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥. 𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘫𝘰𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. So let's just take a moment to remember our friend Liam.” We miss you so much Liam. Without you, nothing is the same. You will always be in our hearts. We love you and will always love you. Forever and ever 🕊️✨

Rita Ora paying tribute to Liam during MTV EMAs tonight 🥺🤍 “I just want to take a moment to remember someone that was very, very dear to us. We lost him recently, and he was a big part of the MTV world and my world, and I think a lot of yours at home and everybody in here tonight. 𝘓𝘪𝘢𝘮 𝘗𝘢𝘺𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘸. There were so many ways that we were talking about honouring him, and I think sometimes just simply speaking is enough. 𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥. 𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘫𝘰𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. So let's just take a moment to remember our friend Liam.” We miss you so much Liam. Without you, nothing is the same. You will always be in our hearts. We love you and will always love you. Forever and ever 🕊️✨

1D Daily Planet

26,366 views • 1 year ago

𝐊𝐄𝐌𝐈 𝐁𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐎𝐂𝐇 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐀𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐃𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐃𝐄. An LBC caller asked Badenoch how a Muslim could trust the Conservative Party after Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy criticized mass Ramadan public prayer in Trafalgar Square as “an act of domination.” Badenoch did not duck. Her opening: 𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 50% 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. Then the line: 𝘐𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. Then the closer: 𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘤, 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. British law over religious law. British culture over religious deference. The right to criticize ANY religion — Christianity, Islam, all of them — is a non-negotiable feature of a free society, not a privilege the majority granted to the minority. This is the Western mainstream conservative position. Badenoch — daughter of Nigerian immigrants, raised Christian, lived among Muslims her whole childhood — said it on national radio without hedging, without apologizing, and without softening it for the audience. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘓𝘉𝘊.

𝐊𝐄𝐌𝐈 𝐁𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐎𝐂𝐇 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐀𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐃𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐃𝐄. An LBC caller asked Badenoch how a Muslim could trust the Conservative Party after Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy criticized mass Ramadan public prayer in Trafalgar Square as “an act of domination.” Badenoch did not duck. Her opening: 𝘔𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 50% 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭. 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮. Then the line: 𝘐𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. Then the closer: 𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘤, 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. British law over religious law. British culture over religious deference. The right to criticize ANY religion — Christianity, Islam, all of them — is a non-negotiable feature of a free society, not a privilege the majority granted to the minority. This is the Western mainstream conservative position. Badenoch — daughter of Nigerian immigrants, raised Christian, lived among Muslims her whole childhood — said it on national radio without hedging, without apologizing, and without softening it for the audience. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘓𝘉𝘊.

M.A. Rothman

711,212 views • 5 months ago

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐎 𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄: “𝐎𝐇, 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐎 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐔𝐊𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐄𝐍𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔? 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐔𝐊𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐌. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐃𝐎𝐎𝐑𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐏. 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐎𝐄𝐒𝐍’𝐓 𝐌𝐄𝐀𝐍 𝐌𝐔𝐂𝐇 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄 — 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐀 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐘𝐎𝐔.” In about 90 seconds, Victor Davis Hanson — classicist, military historian, Hoover Institution senior fellow — walked through the end of the 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟗 𝐀𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 and the beginning of what replaces it. He did it by ventriloquizing the exact conversation American leaders are no longer willing to have with European capitals. “𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘜𝘬𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶? 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘜𝘬𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 5. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱.” “𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢? 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢, 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘥? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.” Hanson is not being flip. He is describing a real shift in the American strategic posture. For 75 years, the deal was simple: 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬. Europe spent its peace dividend on 32-hour work weeks, free college, and a carbon regime that deindustrialized its own economy. Meanwhile 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟏 𝐨𝐟 𝟑𝟐 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 currently hit the agreed 𝟐% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐃𝐏 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 floor (NATO Secretary General’s Annual Report, 2025). Germany spends 𝟏.𝟓𝟕%. Spain spends 𝟏.𝟐𝟖%. Italy spends 𝟏.𝟒𝟗%. And then European diplomats show up in Washington and ask where the American aircraft carriers are. Hanson’s prescription is not isolationism. It is the exact opposite: “𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘰𝘧-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘻𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘻𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵? 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦.” In other words: 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐳𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐠𝐚𝐥 — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 get the American security umbrella. Germany, France, and Spain get to fund their own defense or talk to Moscow directly. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐝. 𝐏𝐚𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐮𝐩 𝐚 𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐥𝐞.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐎 𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄: “𝐎𝐇, 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐎 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐔𝐊𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐄𝐍𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔? 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐔𝐊𝐑𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐄’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐎𝐖𝐄𝐑. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐌. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐃𝐎𝐎𝐑𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐏. 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐃𝐎𝐄𝐒𝐍’𝐓 𝐌𝐄𝐀𝐍 𝐌𝐔𝐂𝐇 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄 — 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐀 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐘𝐎𝐔.” In about 90 seconds, Victor Davis Hanson — classicist, military historian, Hoover Institution senior fellow — walked through the end of the 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟗 𝐀𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 and the beginning of what replaces it. He did it by ventriloquizing the exact conversation American leaders are no longer willing to have with European capitals. “𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘜𝘬𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶? 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘜𝘬𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 5. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱.” “𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢? 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢, 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘥? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. 𝘖𝘩, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.” Hanson is not being flip. He is describing a real shift in the American strategic posture. For 75 years, the deal was simple: 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬. Europe spent its peace dividend on 32-hour work weeks, free college, and a carbon regime that deindustrialized its own economy. Meanwhile 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝟏𝟏 𝐨𝐟 𝟑𝟐 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 currently hit the agreed 𝟐% 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐃𝐏 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 floor (NATO Secretary General’s Annual Report, 2025). Germany spends 𝟏.𝟓𝟕%. Spain spends 𝟏.𝟐𝟖%. Italy spends 𝟏.𝟒𝟗%. And then European diplomats show up in Washington and ask where the American aircraft carriers are. Hanson’s prescription is not isolationism. It is the exact opposite: “𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯-𝘰𝘧-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘻𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘻𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵? 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦.” In other words: 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐳𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐠𝐚𝐥 — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 get the American security umbrella. Germany, France, and Spain get to fund their own defense or talk to Moscow directly. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐝. 𝐏𝐚𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐮𝐩 𝐚 𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐥𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

84,850 views • 5 months ago

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐄𝐂𝐇 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐌 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐂 𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐄 ⁠⁠ When Mosab Hassan Yousef — the son of the H-m-s founder, a man who converted to Christianity and risked his life as an Israeli intelligence spy — took the floor in the European Parliament, they expected a polite speech. What they got was an earthquake. ⁠⁠ This is the speech the EU NEVER thought would be spoken aloud — especially by someone born into the terror movement now running Gaza. ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺. 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 — 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. ⁠⁠ EU lawmakers froze as he dismantled every myth they’ve been repeating for decades. ⁠⁠ He didn’t stop there. He went after the ideology mainstream Western leaders refuse to discuss: ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘩 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 — 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦. ⁠⁠ He accused the West of cowardice for refusing to acknowledge what radical Islam openly states: ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 — 𝘴𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭. ⁠⁠ He called the Palestinian identity what no European diplomat would dare say: ⁠⁠ 𝘈 𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. ⁠⁠ You could almost hear the translators choking on air. Because when truth comes from someone who lived inside the terror movement, the usual Western deflections collapse instantly. ⁠⁠ 𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞 — 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜. ⁠⁠ It had to come from the son of the H-m-s founder… …who rejected the ideology …saved countless Jewish lives …and now exposes the lie the West still tiptoes around. Arguably, he's trying to save the West from radical Islam. Now the EU has to confront what it’s been pretending not to hear.

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐄𝐂𝐇 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐌 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐏𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐂 𝐌𝐎𝐃𝐄 ⁠⁠ When Mosab Hassan Yousef — the son of the H-m-s founder, a man who converted to Christianity and risked his life as an Israeli intelligence spy — took the floor in the European Parliament, they expected a polite speech. What they got was an earthquake. ⁠⁠ This is the speech the EU NEVER thought would be spoken aloud — especially by someone born into the terror movement now running Gaza. ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺. 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 — 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. ⁠⁠ EU lawmakers froze as he dismantled every myth they’ve been repeating for decades. ⁠⁠ He didn’t stop there. He went after the ideology mainstream Western leaders refuse to discuss: ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘘𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘩 — 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 — 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦. ⁠⁠ He accused the West of cowardice for refusing to acknowledge what radical Islam openly states: ⁠⁠ 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘢𝘣: 𝘞𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴 — 𝘴𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭. ⁠⁠ He called the Palestinian identity what no European diplomat would dare say: ⁠⁠ 𝘈 𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. ⁠⁠ You could almost hear the translators choking on air. Because when truth comes from someone who lived inside the terror movement, the usual Western deflections collapse instantly. ⁠⁠ 𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞 — 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜. ⁠⁠ It had to come from the son of the H-m-s founder… …who rejected the ideology …saved countless Jewish lives …and now exposes the lie the West still tiptoes around. Arguably, he's trying to save the West from radical Islam. Now the EU has to confront what it’s been pretending not to hear.

M.A. Rothman

22,721 views • 9 months ago

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐊𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐀 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐀 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐃𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐓 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐍𝐎𝐁𝐎𝐃𝐘 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐈𝐓 While the media obsesses over the optics of the Iran deadline, VDH just laid out the geopolitical map that nobody else is drawing. “𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘬𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘢. 𝘝𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘻𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢, 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘉𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢.” Read that again. Under Biden, China, Russia, and Iran were 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐲𝐚𝐫𝐝 — Panama, Venezuela, the entire hemisphere. Under Trump, a conservative wave has swept Latin America and all three adversaries have been pushed out. Then Hanson turned to Russia: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯.” Russia’s military is gutted. Its Middle East proxy network is collapsing. And Iran — its last remaining partner — is about to lose its drone and weapons pipeline because 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 at will. Hanson’s broader point is the one the Fareed Zakarias of the world refuse to acknowledge: “𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳.” The Strait of Hormuz crisis, Hanson argued, has a silver lining: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴.” For decades, Europe free-rode on American security guarantees while funding adversaries through energy purchases. That era is ending. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐩 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍: 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐊𝐈𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐀 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐀 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐃𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐓 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐍𝐎𝐁𝐎𝐃𝐘 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐈𝐓 While the media obsesses over the optics of the Iran deadline, VDH just laid out the geopolitical map that nobody else is drawing. “𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘬𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘢. 𝘝𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘻𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘢, 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘉𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢.” Read that again. Under Biden, China, Russia, and Iran were 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐲𝐚𝐫𝐝 — Panama, Venezuela, the entire hemisphere. Under Trump, a conservative wave has swept Latin America and all three adversaries have been pushed out. Then Hanson turned to Russia: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯.” Russia’s military is gutted. Its Middle East proxy network is collapsing. And Iran — its last remaining partner — is about to lose its drone and weapons pipeline because 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 at will. Hanson’s broader point is the one the Fareed Zakarias of the world refuse to acknowledge: “𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳.” The Strait of Hormuz crisis, Hanson argued, has a silver lining: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴.” For decades, Europe free-rode on American security guarantees while funding adversaries through energy purchases. That era is ending. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐩 — 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚’𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

171,459 views • 5 months ago

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑: “𝐖𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊. 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐘 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐍𝐎.” This montage from Real Time is something every Democrat should have to watch. Maher lays it out plainly: the biggest names in the Democratic Party — Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris — 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞 to come on his show. “𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯? 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘬? 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰.” Then the kicker: “𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘐 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” And who does show up? “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘱.” That’s the tell. Republicans walk into adversarial interviews. Democrats won’t even walk into 𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 ones — because Maher asks follow-up questions, and follow-up questions are what the Democratic messaging apparatus cannot survive. Then the clip shifts to Maher defending Trump on foreign policy — to his own liberal audience. “𝘏𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘗𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘏𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢.” When someone accused him of “coming around,” Maher shot back: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.” Then there’s the White House ballroom segment, where Maher defended the renovation: “𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘏𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.” The liberal outrage machine is so reflexive that it attacks a private donation to improve the People’s House — and Maher called it out. This is a man who voted Democrat his entire life, told his audience he doesn’t hate the Iran bombing, showed clips of Iranians doing the Trump dance on his show (Yahoo Entertainment), and has called the Iranian government a 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲. He’s not switching parties. He’s just refusing to lie — and that alone is enough to make him radioactive to the Democratic establishment. His own show gets 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 now — not because Maher moved right, but because the left moved away from anyone who asks inconvenient questions. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲.

M.A. Rothman

20,683 views • 5 months ago