ะะฐะณััะทะบะฐ ะฒะธะดะตะพ...
ะะต ัะดะฐะปะพัั ะทะฐะณััะทะธัั ะฒะธะดะตะพ
โ๐๐๐ก๐ฎ๐ฅ ๐๐๐ง๐๐ก๐ข ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ข๐ ๐๐๐ง๐๐ก๐ข ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ค๐๐ซ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ง ๐๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ ๐ข๐ฌ *๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ญโ P Chidambaram's son, Karti, doesn't even bat an eyelid, acknowledging that only ONE FAMILY runs the CONGRESS, Mr. Kharge is just a token president.
82,771 ะฟัะพัะผะพััะพะฒ โข 7 ะผะตัััะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด โขvia X (Twitter)
ะะพะผะผะตะฝัะฐัะธะธ: 0
ะะตั ะดะพัััะฟะฝัั ะบะพะผะผะตะฝัะฐัะธะตะฒ
ะะดะตัั ะฟะพัะฒัััั ะบะพะผะผะตะฝัะฐัะธะธ ะธะท ะพัะธะณะธะฝะฐะปัะฝะพะณะพ ะฟะพััะฐ
!["It's not a congressional program. Only the president can say anything about this." ~Semivan Semivan: Congress Doesn't Have the Right or Need-To-Know About a Crash Retrieval Program Thoughts? Grusch decided Congress had a need-to-know, and Congress hadn't been told. "Which I don't think was true." ~Semivan ~~~ Semivan: "Some of the congressmen now that are being briefed (laughs) on it are not very happy because they think they have a right to know this. And I like to point out, I spoke to a couple of the committees and I told them, 'Look, it's not a congressional program. It's an executive program, and it's run by the president and only the president can say anything about this. I can't say anything about it, the president has to come out.'" (Note: Semivan was careful to cover his azz and say these were answers about a, hypothetical, crash retrieval program. Although, from his past comments, I'm pretty sure he knows (or at least believes) it exists. See here: Semivan Blockbuster I know where the legacy programs are located. You should take [Grusch] and everything he says to the bank. It's our inalienable right to know about this. ) ~ Semivan: "It's what Dave Grusch said. Dave Grusch...worked for AARO (He meant the UAPTF) and he went to various intelligence agencies and questioned the people that were actually working on these programs. And they all told them the same thing, the same story. So he takes this back, and he decides Congress has a need-to-know, and Congress hasn't been told. Which I don't think was true. He didn't know that, but he thought the public also had a right to know. And I'm perfectly fine... He did the exact right thing you're supposed to do if you're a government employee if you think there's something going on that's not legal. And he did it the right way. So, I give him a load of credit for that. And then he explains what it was, and then he's briefing some of the congressmen on this. Now the congressmen are upset, saying, 'Well, wait a minute, we're in charge of spending for the government and what have you. We should have the ability to know this.' But what Congress doesn't realize is these programs, you know, they exist at a very, very high classified level. They're Special Access Programs, and I would say, maybe the Gang of Eight, if them, have the clearances to basically know of these programs. And even if they were to be told of the programs, they could never discuss it, nor could they ever debate it, publicly. It's not theirs to do. They would be told, officially, but just, you know, as a professional courtesy that these things are going on. "Don't forget, the CIA works directly for the President of the United States, all right? So if the CIA would be running this program (AFAIK, they are. ~Joe), they just, basically, talk to the president and the president talks to them. And those conversations are not subject to congressional notification, approval or anything else. And when CIA goes to the oversight committees and briefs their programs, the committees can't tell them, 'We don't like what you're doing.' Well, they can say that. But the only thing they can do, they can't stop the programs. All they can do is stop the funding. "So, you know, the intelligence agencies that work directly for the president answer to him and him only, really. They do tell Congress, because Congress does give them money and there is...that's been going on since 1975 now, and it's a great thing to do. And they've been very, very open and honest with Congress, and Congress, I think, has been wonderful about it. As a matter of fact, you know, Congress has, basically, said in some of these programs, 'Holy cow, this is great! Give a round of applause, you need more money, because what you guys are doing [is] great.' The relationship has always been very good. I thought, you know, between them." (But the folks in the intelligence agencies who are aware of the alleged Legacy UAP-related programs, do NOT tell Congress about them. Except, as Semivan said, MAYBE some members of the Gang of Eight. Certainly NOT members of Congress like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna or Rep. Eric Burlison. I think they have zero chance of being read in right now.) Semivan: "But that doesn't mean if the president, like Truman or Eisenhower, issued a presidential executive-action document or something along those lines, where he said, 'This is an extraordinary circumstance. I'm creating this super-secret thing that nobody gets to know about, not even Congress.' That's, basically, his...he can do that. That's in the power, that's in the Constitution. He has that right to do that without acknowledging." (THAT is how these alleged Legacy UAP programs are protected.) Semivan: "Now, has he (a president) done that without telling somebody? Probably there's one or two people in Congress that know about it at any given time. Maybe one or two people in the National Security Council know about it. Most presidents probably got a very generalized briefing on it, you know, saying, 'Yeah, this is real. If you wanna know more, we can tell you more. But, if you know more then you don't have plausible deniability anymore. And/or, you can't do anything about it anyway, because we don't understand it. But if something happens [and] we discover something that's groundbreaking or earth shattering, we'll come back and tell ya.' "So, imagine if you're a President of the United States. Do you really want to know this? Do you really want to have that hanging on your shoulders? I think not. Particularly when you have somebody else doing the job for you."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1964791704948703671/amplify_video_thumb/1964765866677141504/img/Oc6iqDE9eLvsulqq.jpg)
![๐๐๐ '๐๐๐๐๐๐๐' ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐. A new working paper out of UCLA by political psychologist Samuel Pratt has just measured something American conservatives have been claiming for ten years and pretending was anecdotal. It is not anecdotal. It is now data. Pratt and his team built what they call the ๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ซ๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ โ a survey instrument asking respondents how strongly they agree with statements like "๐ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ด๐ค๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ." Three findings. ๐๐ง๐: the belief is stable over time. People who say it this week say it next week. ๐๐ฐ๐จ: the demographic profile of high-scorers is precise. They are ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ , ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐, ๐ง๐จ๐ง-๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ญ๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ. They self-rate as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and โ the key variable โ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฌ. ๐๐ก๐ซ๐๐: they report lower emotional stability, higher anxiety, higher depression, and a stronger tendency to see themselves as ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฌ in everyday conflicts. In one sentence, the psychometric profile of the modern American "empathy advocate" is: ๐๐ง๐ฑ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ, ๐๐๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐, ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ-๐๐จ๐๐๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ-๐๐๐ง๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ. ๐๐จ๐ฐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ Watch California Congresswoman Katie Porter at last week's gubernatorial debate, in real time, demonstrating how the empathy mechanism produces atrocious policy. "๐๐ง ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฎ๐บ ๐ค๐ญ๐ข๐ด๐ด [...] ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ช๐ข ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ถ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ." Empathetic. Reassuring. Compassionate. Also flatly false. Per CBS News' 2020 Los Angeles survey, only ๐๐% of homeless individuals had done any work in the calendar quarter they became homeless. A 2017 San Francisco survey found ๐๐% working part-time or full-time. The reason is no mystery โ a substantial majority of street-homeless Americans are managing untreated severe mental illness, active substance abuse, or both. The "empathetic" policy that emerges from Porter's framing is to leave them on the street. The actually humane policy involves involuntary commitment, mandated treatment, and structured housing โ every one of which the empathy-coded liberal reflexively rejects as cruel. Pratt's data and the on-the-ground reality converge on the same uncomfortable conclusion: ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ, ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฌ, because empathy at scale stops asking ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ด and starts asking ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ How does a fringe view โ communist Twitch streamers, candidates openly excusing full-scale mโrder, congressmen calling themselves democratic socialists โ capture an entire major American political party? Nassim Taleb has the cleanest explanation. He calls it ๐ซ๐๐ง๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. A family of four. One daughter โ ๐๐% of the household โ only eats organic. Mom faces a nightly choice: cook two meals or cook one all-organic meal. The all-organic meal is easier. The household renormalizes to the daughter's preference. The family then attends a barbecue with three other families. The host has the same choice: two menus, or one all-organic. The all-organic menu is easier. ๐๐% renormalizes ๐๐๐% of dinner. Now imagine the daughter's "preference" is not organic food. It is the belief that bank robbery is righteous, that Israel is a colonial regime which must be dismantled, that your health insurance executive should be eliminated by force, and that anyone who objects is a fascist. The mechanism is identical. The intransigent minority creates an asymmetric cost on resistance. The majority renormalizes for convenience. French physicist ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ has modeled the threshold formally. In his work on opinion dynamics, an extreme view captures a population at roughly ๐๐% activated support โ provided the activists do three things consistently. They activate latent prejudices already present in the population. They impose a binary choice: "๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ." And they refuse, ever, to compromise on their core position. Pseudo-moderates then join โ not because they have been persuaded by the full activist position, but because the binary has been imposed and the alternative ("siding with the oppressor") has been made socially intolerable. ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ค๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐๐๐ญ This is the most important paragraph in this post. Read it twice. Hasan Piker โ the Twitch streamer who endorses bank robberies, defends H-m-s, and lives in a $3 million Brentwood mansion โ is ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐. He represents maybe 5-7% of the country. He does not move the needle by himself. The threat is the ๐ฉ๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐๐จ-๐ฆ๐จ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ โ the ๐๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ด reporter who profiles him sympathetically, the Democratic congressman who appears on his stream, the Hollywood actor who shares his clips, the Brooklyn schoolteacher who attends his rallies, the empathetic college freshman who decides he is "๐ข ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ, ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ช๐ด ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต." That coalition โ Galam's ๐๐% โ is what flips the country. Hasan is just the visible 5%. This is also why Pratt's UCLA paper matters. The trait that creates the pseudo-moderate flank is the same trait the activists exploit: ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ, ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฌ. That is the recruitable population. That is the lever Hasan and his industry operate. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐
๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ Empathy is not a virtue. It is a ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ. Like physical sensitivity to heat, it can produce wisdom or it can produce hysteria, depending entirely on what is paired with it. What converts empathy into wisdom is ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ โ the willingness to evaluate consequences, to insist on results, to ask whether the policy that "feels compassionate" actually produces outcomes you would call humane in a year, a decade, or a lifetime. What converts empathy into tyranny is the ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ง๐๐ of judgment โ pure feeling, with no constraint, in service of a binary moral choice imposed by an activated 20%. That is the Democratic Party of 2026. The Pratt scale measures it. The Galam threshold predicts it. Katie Porter demonstrates it. Hasan Piker exploits it. ๐
๐ข๐ฑ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2050939575993069948/amplify_video_thumb/2050938608597737472/img/59L68TDVsmWi6NJz.jpg)
![๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐] ๐๐จ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ฌ๐ข ๐๐๐๐ค๐ข: ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐จ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ฌ; ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐; ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซโฆ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐งโ๐ญ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐ค๐ง๐จ๐ฐ ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ; ๐๐ก๐๐ง ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ญ ๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ ๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐ง๐ค), ๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ก๐๐ ๐.๐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌโฆ ๐ฉ๐๐ฒ๐ข๐ง๐ , ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐๐๐ค, ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง (๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฌ). ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ฌ, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐๐ก ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐๐ข๐๐จ๐จ; ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ; ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฐ๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ NtsikiMazwaiMedia delivering more ๐ for the nation. Fascinating chat! ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ โThe ANC had the power, and it still has the power, to come up with economic policy that benefits everybody but, as I pointed out, through things like Black Economic Empowerment, a lot of its leaders have been co-opted, to just leave things as they are.โ โThese guys who are in these BEE schemesโฆThatโs one of the main drivers of this corruptionโฆ these BEE schemes. [But] for big business โ as long as you donโt touch my business โ when you steal, actually, a lot of this corruption is stealing taxpayersโ money.โ โthey (big business) chose black leadersโฆ These guys set up Black Economic Empowerment. Many people naively think that Black Economic Empowerment is there to advance Black people. Actually, itโs there to do the opposite.โ โLetโs take one step Back. The wealth of S Africa was largely created by Black South Africans. First, they own the land. So it was their land. It was taken from them; and the minerals under the land were also taken from themโฆ They became the workers to build the mines. So, in real terms, the profits and the capital belongs to them as well. So, when weโre talking about capital in S Africa, itโs actually a national asset. [But] people think itโs a white man this, white man thatโฆ When you start to look at who owns these big companies in South Africaโฆ Many people naively think that the white managers own them (big companies). They donโt. Actually, a big part of some of these companies are owned by the Black people through their pension funds, their medical aid, their savingsโฆ but they donโt understandโฆ how to get the profits and have a say in how these companies are managed. They just give it to fund managersโฆ You are actually a co-owner of Anglo Americanโฆ If you donโt ask, they wonโt tellโฆ Your money, your savings are in Sanlam, in Old Mutual. You are a co-owner of this. So we have to be careful about who owns the wealth of S Africa. A lot of the wealth of South Africa is actually owned by Black peopleโฆ but they are not in insisting thatโฆโ โBlack people in South Africa have a lot of powerโฆ but they donโt quite know how to use their power and, of course, the other side is not gonna tell youโฆ They say, leave it to us, we will invest the money and, now and then, pay your pension, or whatever it is; the profits that comeโฆ Thatโs what our trade unions were supposed to do - One of the things they were supposed to do. In fact, when I was at COSATU, I suggested that they set up a bank of their own COSATU (Bank), because COSATU then had 1.8 million membersโฆ paying, every week (dues). I said letโs setup a commercial bank, which will finance black entrepreneurs, which will finance housing for our members, who were living in the shanty townsโฆ but I was overruledโฆ ๐๏ธ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1747872282997866541/amplify_video_thumb/1747870936844419072/img/lY2m-f1QviA2Exw4.jpg)
![Megyn Kelly Attacks Dave Rubin! "I hate to disappoint Tucker's critics. Mark my words, JD Vance will never condemn him because he's not a dick." ~ Megyn Kelly On today's episode of The Megyn Kelly Show, host Megyn Kelly, joined by guest Emily Jashinsky, addressed the escalating attacks on Vice President JD Vance, drawing parallels to the criticisms once leveled at former President Donald Trump. Kelly highlighted the shifting narrative from media and political opponents, noting how Vance is now being painted as "even worse than Trump." She elaborated, "Trump, you know, was he really a racist? But JD Vance is definitely a racist. He's an anti-Semite. He's associated with Tucker Carlson, who everybody knows is an anti-Semite and a Nazi. Mark Levin told me so." Kelly pointed out the efforts to tie Vance to Carlson through their friendship, emphasizing that Vance has not condemned him despite pressure. "You're a long time waiting. He's never going to condemn Tucker. I hate to disappoint Tucker's critics. Mark my words, JD Vance will never condemn him because he's not a dick. He is going to stick by his friend. And I don't think JD Vance thinks that Tucker is an anti-Semite or believes any of the things that people are saying about him. And he's not going to say something he doesn't believe." The discussion then turned to a pointed social media response from commentator Dave Rubin, who urged Vance to distance himself from Carlson's family amid broader concerns about rising antisemitism. Kelly read Rubin's post aloud: "Mr. VP, I submit this respectfully. You're totally right. Nobody should be judged for their parents' words or actions. But, and I think you know this, the very people relentlessly attacking Jews now have Indians next up on the docket. And that includes your wife, even if she eventually converts to Christianity." Rubin continued, "So yes, Tucker can interview whoever he wants. His brother can post garbage memes all day, and his son who may be just fine, can work for the vice president, but I think people are asking you to stand up when you see something evil. While I know you are trying to hold an increasingly fractured coalition together, you were elected to be a leader, not follow the whims of the trolls. And since they eventually will turn on your own family, at some point you might want to get ahead of it. Those are my two cents, and I'll continue to defend all the good things you and President Trump are doing. Something that this crew of people never do." Kelly sought Jashinsky's take, asking, "What do you make of that one?"Jashinsky called the post "unfortunate," describing it as "a kind of verging on public virtue signal" that risks "needlessly tear[ing] people apart." Kelly agreed, observing a growing divide within conservative circles. She remarked, "There's definitely a faction of the conservative right that's the more neoconi[sh] fashion, the more pro-Israel faction that is turning into BLM 2020. I mean that it's very alienating and it's very not conservative and it's not going to serve anybody well. Not the right, not them." Jashinsky echoed the sentiment, adding, "It's a pointless exercise because most conservatives will recoil when faced with the choices of like say it say it my way rather than get on board. That is just not for us. That just like it's not how we've operated. It's not like in our DNA. So yeah, I agree with you on that wholeheartedly." The conversation built on a discussion from the previous day's show with guest Glenn Greenwald, underscoring the pattern of personal attacks on Vance as a tactic to undermine the administration's coalition.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1990978596823765343/amplify_video_thumb/1990977146576138240/img/K-xpg6XW1NhzfFxM.jpg)
