正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐒𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐚𝐬? With those words, Brian Tamuka Kagoro tore open the veil. A call to abandon fantasies of rescue and confront the architecture of reliance that philanthropy has too often upheld. This dialogue challenged the room not to mourn... the withdrawal of aid, but to script new compacts rooted in sovereignty, memory, and self-authorship. 🎥𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐀𝐢𝐝 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐰𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 & 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐨𝐧: Jacqueline Asiimwe Janet Mawiyoo Irũngũ Houghton CivSource Africa Amnesty Kenyashow more

#EAPhilanthropyNetwork

7,703 subscribers

39,907 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治艺术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

3 条评论

Brian Tamuka Kagoro 的头像

Brian Tamuka Kagoro1 年前

#LetFreedomSing Cancel it O.

Raymond Majongwe 的头像

Raymond Majongwe1 年前

@TamukaKagoro77 Tell them Brian! We see how they cry because the holidays in Mauritius are now gone, how their kids no longer can go to Peterhouse or go abroad to study French in Paris or hike in New Zealand. Not a tear for the poor fellows who are actually dying-it’s for their fat stomachs

Maphosa 的头像

Maphosa1 年前

@TamukaKagoro77 This session was on fire 🔥

相关视频

𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐒 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐏𝐑𝐀𝐘𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐀𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐎 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐘 Footage out of New York City this weekend: 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐧, with counter-protesters shouting from the sidelines about the Islamic states that still execute gay people, and the call of “𝘈𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩𝘶 𝘈𝘬𝘣𝘢𝘳” closing the recording. This is not a religious-tolerance story. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥-𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. The same script that ran in Paris, in Brussels, in Cologne, in Birmingham, in Rotterdam. Every one of those cities is now part-no-go zone, part-permanent-shrine to immigration policy that nobody is allowed to question. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐭. The window in which it can stay that way is closing fast. The plan is not assimilation — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭. 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲. 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬.

𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐒 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐏𝐑𝐀𝐘𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐀𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐎 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐘 Footage out of New York City this weekend: 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐧, with counter-protesters shouting from the sidelines about the Islamic states that still execute gay people, and the call of “𝘈𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩𝘶 𝘈𝘬𝘣𝘢𝘳” closing the recording. This is not a religious-tolerance story. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥-𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. The same script that ran in Paris, in Brussels, in Cologne, in Birmingham, in Rotterdam. Every one of those cities is now part-no-go zone, part-permanent-shrine to immigration policy that nobody is allowed to question. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐭. The window in which it can stay that way is closing fast. The plan is not assimilation — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭. 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲. 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬.

M.A. Rothman

34,677 次观看 • 2 个月前

What if the informal sector 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥, just misrecognized by frameworks too narrow to see African ingenuity for what it is? What we often label as marginal, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫, is in fact sustaining families, funding education, and powering community economies without institutional scaffolding. The question, he challenged, is not how to scale these models into formal corporate replicas, but how to 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲. This is where African philanthropy must locate itself; not outside these systems offering support, but inside them, 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬, 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. That, he argued, is when we begin to truly realize 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐲, Dr. Tendai Murisa of SIVIO Institute during Day Two of the 9th East Africa Philanthropy Conference in Kigali. 🎥𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞:

What if the informal sector 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥, just misrecognized by frameworks too narrow to see African ingenuity for what it is? What we often label as marginal, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫, is in fact sustaining families, funding education, and powering community economies without institutional scaffolding. The question, he challenged, is not how to scale these models into formal corporate replicas, but how to 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲. This is where African philanthropy must locate itself; not outside these systems offering support, but inside them, 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬, 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. That, he argued, is when we begin to truly realize 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐲, Dr. Tendai Murisa of SIVIO Institute during Day Two of the 9th East Africa Philanthropy Conference in Kigali. 🎥𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞:

#EAPhilanthropyNetwork

37,430 次观看 • 1 年前

So let’s talk more about the 2017 & 2024 solar eclipses shall we 😅 🔥𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐎𝐅 𝐁𝐀𝐁𝐘𝐋𝐎𝐍? (𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀) 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐒𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨i𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐈𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐥𝐞, 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐗 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕/𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚, 𝟏𝟕𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲, 𝟏𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲. And the incision is in, as you can see, it's the same, precisely the same location. X marks the spot, and that area just happens to be the new Madrid seismic zone. I showed this map already, and I'll just show it again for context. The New Madrid seismic zone is known for three great eclipse, and it's also, I mean, three great earthquakes, and it's also known as one of the most biggest dangers to America. This is a map from USGS, and as you can see, talking about the highest hazards and lowest hazards. This is the bar. This is the meter. All right. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐗 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲, 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲, 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡. 𝐒𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧. 𝐀𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥, 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦. And it's also a prophetic sign for a people book reference. The intersection of these two fault lines, create an X at the New Madrid seismic zone located in Missouri. Just an hour and a half drive, a 30 minute flight from Carbondale known as little Egypt. What's particularly unsettling is the striking resemblance between the map of the seismic cracks and the paths of totality observe in the, in the solar eclipse, the correlation in the past and locations might invoke a sense of awe or terror, depending on one's perspective, and invites contemplation on the possible means or connection these natural phenomenon might hold. And you can see the striking resemblance in Forbes Magazine, doomsday Map, or Doomsday Crack, because this would be the precise location of X marks the spot. The unsettling parallels between the seismic crack and the path of total are not lost on those who study them. Yet the lack of public warning from scientists or authorities are baffling. It calls to mind scenes from disasters, movies like 2012, where government concealed intimate, catastrophic to avert panic. Could we be living in such scenario, have those in power, suspected illumining threat, and chosen silence over alarm? These questions linger, leaving us to pond a decrypted message that nature seems to be signaling and wonder if humanity is truly ready to face whatever may be coming. Hmm. Now we see where Forbes get their prediction from. Hmm, but trust me, it's way much more deeper than you think.

So let’s talk more about the 2017 & 2024 solar eclipses shall we 😅 🔥𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐎𝐅 𝐁𝐀𝐁𝐘𝐋𝐎𝐍? (𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀) 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐒𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨i𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐈𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐥𝐞, 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐗 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕/𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚, 𝟏𝟕𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲, 𝟏𝟔𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲. And the incision is in, as you can see, it's the same, precisely the same location. X marks the spot, and that area just happens to be the new Madrid seismic zone. I showed this map already, and I'll just show it again for context. The New Madrid seismic zone is known for three great eclipse, and it's also, I mean, three great earthquakes, and it's also known as one of the most biggest dangers to America. This is a map from USGS, and as you can see, talking about the highest hazards and lowest hazards. This is the bar. This is the meter. All right. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐗 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲, 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲, 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡. 𝐒𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧. 𝐀𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥, 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦. And it's also a prophetic sign for a people book reference. The intersection of these two fault lines, create an X at the New Madrid seismic zone located in Missouri. Just an hour and a half drive, a 30 minute flight from Carbondale known as little Egypt. What's particularly unsettling is the striking resemblance between the map of the seismic cracks and the paths of totality observe in the, in the solar eclipse, the correlation in the past and locations might invoke a sense of awe or terror, depending on one's perspective, and invites contemplation on the possible means or connection these natural phenomenon might hold. And you can see the striking resemblance in Forbes Magazine, doomsday Map, or Doomsday Crack, because this would be the precise location of X marks the spot. The unsettling parallels between the seismic crack and the path of total are not lost on those who study them. Yet the lack of public warning from scientists or authorities are baffling. It calls to mind scenes from disasters, movies like 2012, where government concealed intimate, catastrophic to avert panic. Could we be living in such scenario, have those in power, suspected illumining threat, and chosen silence over alarm? These questions linger, leaving us to pond a decrypted message that nature seems to be signaling and wonder if humanity is truly ready to face whatever may be coming. Hmm. Now we see where Forbes get their prediction from. Hmm, but trust me, it's way much more deeper than you think.

{Matt} $XRPatriot

352,663 次观看 • 2 年前

"𝐑𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐍𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭." Triangle Business Journal is reporting what everyone here in North Carolina and the rest of the baseball world is starting to realize... Nashville may not be the 'front-runner' for MLB expansion in the East after all. And that's not just opinion anymore... - 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲'𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 $𝟏.𝟐𝐁 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 to building a brand new NFL stadium for the Tennessee Titans. A stadium which will likely not have hosted a single game by the time MLB Expansion kicks off. - 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐮𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝. Nashville just approved the East Bend redevelopment rezoning, which prohibits stadium or arena use on the property. - In an interview on WKRN radio in Nashville, Mayor Freddie O'Connell said in response to landing an MLB expansion team, "𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐋𝐁 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐮𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞." - 𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐩, and they've publicly stated they are hoping MLB provides them with one. So if Nashville is not the front-runner, then who is? 𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐚𝐩 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐑𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 for East Coast MLB expansion. And here's why 👇 𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥. - A billionaire owner who just won a Stanley Cup in our market + another with pro sports ownership experience that has publicly stated interest - Multiple land options (w/ districts) ready to go - Bipartisan support in the government which has put forth the initial framework for a stadium funding plan 𝐏𝐥𝐮𝐬, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭... - 5M MORE people in our state (largest in the US without MLB) - 1.2M MORE people within 60 miles of our city center - #22 media market in the country; they are #27 - 3 Top-50 media markets in our state; they have 1 It's only a matter of time before people start digging and begin to realize that the past 8 years haven't just been a fun social media campaign... It's been a strategic, non-stop statewide collaboration to bring every single piece of the puzzle together, at the right time, to make it nearly impossible for MLB to say no to expansion in North Carolina. Great reporting from Dane Huffman and the tbj, and we're pretty sure in the coming months you'll hear a WHOLE lot more of the same from outlets all over the country. #RaleighOnDeck #MLB2NC

MLB2NC

12,409 次观看 • 15 天前

𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝: 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐭 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦: #Somaliland’s steadfast alliance with #Taiwan has drawn the wrath of #China, an authoritarian regime desperate to crush democratic nations and expand its global grip. #Somalia exploits #Beijing’s “One-China Policy” to falsely claim #Somaliland as its own. But here’s the truth: #Somaliland never legally joined #Somalia. No union was ever ratified and we restored our sovereignty in 1991 after being held under occupation by an authoritarian regime for 29 years, and no amount of revisionism will erase it. Now, #China is actively aiding terrorist militias in #Lascanood, fueling violence to destabilize #Somaliland. Why? Because they fear our imminent recognition by the United States—a moment that will strengthen democracy in the Horn of Africa. But this isn’t just about #Somaliland. Across #Africa, #China has crippled economies with its loan-shark schemes, trapping nations in debt to exploit their natural resources. #Somaliland’s self-reliance and partnerships with democracies threaten this predatory agenda. It’s time to expose #Beijing for what it is: a global bully funding terrorism and looting #Africa under the guise of “development.” The world must hold #China accountable. #Democracy #Terrorism #DebtTrap

𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚’𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝: 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐭 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦: #Somaliland’s steadfast alliance with #Taiwan has drawn the wrath of #China, an authoritarian regime desperate to crush democratic nations and expand its global grip. #Somalia exploits #Beijing’s “One-China Policy” to falsely claim #Somaliland as its own. But here’s the truth: #Somaliland never legally joined #Somalia. No union was ever ratified and we restored our sovereignty in 1991 after being held under occupation by an authoritarian regime for 29 years, and no amount of revisionism will erase it. Now, #China is actively aiding terrorist militias in #Lascanood, fueling violence to destabilize #Somaliland. Why? Because they fear our imminent recognition by the United States—a moment that will strengthen democracy in the Horn of Africa. But this isn’t just about #Somaliland. Across #Africa, #China has crippled economies with its loan-shark schemes, trapping nations in debt to exploit their natural resources. #Somaliland’s self-reliance and partnerships with democracies threaten this predatory agenda. It’s time to expose #Beijing for what it is: a global bully funding terrorism and looting #Africa under the guise of “development.” The world must hold #China accountable. #Democracy #Terrorism #DebtTrap

Caaro

17,968 次观看 • 1 年前

𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄!! 𝐈 𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐏 𝐈𝐍 𝐒𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄!! 𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐃𝐎 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐈𝐂 𝐋𝐈𝐊𝐄 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐀𝐋𝐖𝐀𝐘𝐒 𝐃𝐎!! 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟖𝐭𝐡? 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝... #Swachhagrahis On November 8, 2014, a sight on the #Assighat in #Kashi left a lasting impact on our nation’s conscience. Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji, spade in hand, began clearing a mound of hardened silt alongside sanitation workers, not from a podium or raised stage, but in the trenches, shoulder to shoulder. The scene was clear: this wasn’t symbolic. It was a real act, and it spoke volumes. He didn’t just talk about change; he exemplified it. He showed us, through action, that '𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲.' In his own words from the Red Fort, he asked each of us to “𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 ‘𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐞?’ 𝐚𝐧𝐝 ‘𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐈 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫?" His question resonates as strongly today:“Has your action safeguarded the interests of the country or not? Has it worked for the welfare of others?” PM Modi’s actions inspired a wave of change, setting off a transformation from dirt-ridden banks to bustling, clean spaces that today attract countless visitors to #Assighat. November 8th reminds us to honor the legacy of Swachhagrahis - those frontline warriors of cleanliness, who stood between us and the COVID pandemic, and continue to work tirelessly each day. Let’s make this a day where our respect for them isn’t only expressed but truly felt. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭:: 1. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 - the ones who keep your streets, public spaces, and homes clean. Learn their names, get to know them as individuals, and remember that our PM himself has shown respect by washing their feet, honoring their invaluable work. 2. 𝐕𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨. This act will spread a message of respect, inspiring communities to see their contributions with fresh, appreciative eyes. 3. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 - whether in a restaurant or their home, and treat it as you would a family gathering. This simple gesture of kindness reinforces that they are part of the larger family of our nation. 4. 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 in your community, with a heartfelt *thank you* message. Allow your neighbors to write their appreciation and recognize their efforts visibly and proudly. These are only a few ideas — but whatever you choose, 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝. These unsung heroes don’t ask for acknowledgment; they don’t demand praise. But it is "our duty" to extend it. Let’s honor their work and recognize the sacrifices they make every day. November 8th is a day to give back the dignity and pride our #Swachhagrahis deserve. Let’s make this a collective movement.

𝐃𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄!! 𝐈 𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐏 𝐈𝐍 𝐒𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄!! 𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐃𝐎 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐈𝐂 𝐋𝐈𝐊𝐄 𝐘𝐎𝐔 𝐀𝐋𝐖𝐀𝐘𝐒 𝐃𝐎!! 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟖𝐭𝐡? 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝... #Swachhagrahis On November 8, 2014, a sight on the #Assighat in #Kashi left a lasting impact on our nation’s conscience. Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji, spade in hand, began clearing a mound of hardened silt alongside sanitation workers, not from a podium or raised stage, but in the trenches, shoulder to shoulder. The scene was clear: this wasn’t symbolic. It was a real act, and it spoke volumes. He didn’t just talk about change; he exemplified it. He showed us, through action, that '𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲.' In his own words from the Red Fort, he asked each of us to “𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 ‘𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐞?’ 𝐚𝐧𝐝 ‘𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐈 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫?" His question resonates as strongly today:“Has your action safeguarded the interests of the country or not? Has it worked for the welfare of others?” PM Modi’s actions inspired a wave of change, setting off a transformation from dirt-ridden banks to bustling, clean spaces that today attract countless visitors to #Assighat. November 8th reminds us to honor the legacy of Swachhagrahis - those frontline warriors of cleanliness, who stood between us and the COVID pandemic, and continue to work tirelessly each day. Let’s make this a day where our respect for them isn’t only expressed but truly felt. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭:: 1. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 - the ones who keep your streets, public spaces, and homes clean. Learn their names, get to know them as individuals, and remember that our PM himself has shown respect by washing their feet, honoring their invaluable work. 2. 𝐕𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨. This act will spread a message of respect, inspiring communities to see their contributions with fresh, appreciative eyes. 3. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 - whether in a restaurant or their home, and treat it as you would a family gathering. This simple gesture of kindness reinforces that they are part of the larger family of our nation. 4. 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 in your community, with a heartfelt thank you message. Allow your neighbors to write their appreciation and recognize their efforts visibly and proudly. These are only a few ideas — but whatever you choose, 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝. These unsung heroes don’t ask for acknowledgment; they don’t demand praise. But it is "our duty" to extend it. Let’s honor their work and recognize the sacrifices they make every day. November 8th is a day to give back the dignity and pride our #Swachhagrahis deserve. Let’s make this a collective movement.

Temsutula Imsong #SwachhagrahiSammanDiwas #08th

51,622 次观看 • 1 年前

Stephen Miller comes out AGAINST the Dignity Act. He then delivered a masterful two-minute takedown of Washington’s focus on amnesty, saying the entire immigration debate is being framed completely wrong. MILLER: “You know this administration opposes amnesty.” “President Trump has always been clear in his opposition to amnesty and of course, you know my own views.” “But I want to reframe this whole conversation, Brian, if I could, to something that President Trump has been VERY focused for a long time.” “That’s about having the kind of immigration in this country that makes us stronger and not weaker.” “I think this conversation gets siloed too often, when we have to look at the whole picture.” “You saw the recent tragic case where an illegal alien from Haiti bludgeoned a woman to death in broad daylight with a hammer, smashing her skull and one hammer blow after another.” “That’s what happens when you have open borders, to this country from some of the most dangerous parts of the world.” “That’s one person that Biden let in, the Democrats let in to maim and murder our citizens.” “When you have open migration…Brian largely it was very bad under Biden…but largely for five decades we had open migration from the most dangerous places in the world.” “How do your schools work?!” “How do your hospitals work?!” “How do your economies work?!” “How do you win civilizational struggles against our adversaries if you have to feed, house, educate, support, give affirmative action to millions and millions of people from around the world?” “So President Trump has said we want high-value migration into this country and not low value migration.” “We have to deal with the fact that we have millions of people here who are on welfare, who are not contributing, who commit a lot of crime, who consume a lot of public resources and it’s in the best interest of this country for those people to be humanely returned home.” “That’s the big conversation.” “So this old Washington conversation about amnesty is missing the whole point.” “The real conversation is how do we have an immigration policy that makes America stronger and more unified?” “Not weaker and more divided.”

Stephen Miller comes out AGAINST the Dignity Act. He then delivered a masterful two-minute takedown of Washington’s focus on amnesty, saying the entire immigration debate is being framed completely wrong. MILLER: “You know this administration opposes amnesty.” “President Trump has always been clear in his opposition to amnesty and of course, you know my own views.” “But I want to reframe this whole conversation, Brian, if I could, to something that President Trump has been VERY focused for a long time.” “That’s about having the kind of immigration in this country that makes us stronger and not weaker.” “I think this conversation gets siloed too often, when we have to look at the whole picture.” “You saw the recent tragic case where an illegal alien from Haiti bludgeoned a woman to death in broad daylight with a hammer, smashing her skull and one hammer blow after another.” “That’s what happens when you have open borders, to this country from some of the most dangerous parts of the world.” “That’s one person that Biden let in, the Democrats let in to maim and murder our citizens.” “When you have open migration…Brian largely it was very bad under Biden…but largely for five decades we had open migration from the most dangerous places in the world.” “How do your schools work?!” “How do your hospitals work?!” “How do your economies work?!” “How do you win civilizational struggles against our adversaries if you have to feed, house, educate, support, give affirmative action to millions and millions of people from around the world?” “So President Trump has said we want high-value migration into this country and not low value migration.” “We have to deal with the fact that we have millions of people here who are on welfare, who are not contributing, who commit a lot of crime, who consume a lot of public resources and it’s in the best interest of this country for those people to be humanely returned home.” “That’s the big conversation.” “So this old Washington conversation about amnesty is missing the whole point.” “The real conversation is how do we have an immigration policy that makes America stronger and more unified?” “Not weaker and more divided.”

Overton

23,880 次观看 • 4 个月前

HAITIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY On this day in 1804, Haiti became the first modern-day Black republic in the world and the first nation to successfully abolish slavery through a revolution led predominantly by formerly enslaved Africans. This unprecedented victory over French slavery served as a beacon of hope and resilience for oppressed people, particularly those of African descent, signaling that liberation from the chains of slavery and colonial domination was not only possible but achievable. Haiti's revolution directly challenged the global systems of racial and economic oppression, inspiring movements for independence across the Caribbean and beyond. Despite this groundbreaking achievement, Haiti's path forward has been fraught with enduring challenges rooted in the legacies of Western imperialism. The newly independent nation was ostracized by global powers, with countries like the United States and France refusing to recognize its sovereignty for decades. In a deeply unjust and unprecedented act, Haiti was forced to pay a crippling indemnity to France to compensate for its “loss” of enslaved labor and land - a staggering financial burden that plunged the country into economic hardship, the consequences of which persist to this day. This sabotage was further compounded by subsequent interventions, exploitative trade policies, and political interference by foreign powers, all of which systematically undermined Haiti's ability to build a stable and prosperous future. Today, instead of addressing the roots of Haiti's crisis, foreign interventions - such as the involvement of nations like Kenya in serving U.S. interests through occupation - exacerbate existing challenges while failing to tackle the systemic inequalities and historical injustices that have shaped the country's reality. Yet, despite these obstacles, the spirit of resistance and resilience that defined Haiti's fight for independence remains a cornerstone of its identity. Haiti’s Independence Day stands as a powerful reminder of the courage and determination of African people in the face of oppression. It calls upon the world to honor this legacy by addressing the long-standing injustices that continue to weigh on the nation and by working toward a future where true sovereignty and self-determination can be realized.

HAITIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY On this day in 1804, Haiti became the first modern-day Black republic in the world and the first nation to successfully abolish slavery through a revolution led predominantly by formerly enslaved Africans. This unprecedented victory over French slavery served as a beacon of hope and resilience for oppressed people, particularly those of African descent, signaling that liberation from the chains of slavery and colonial domination was not only possible but achievable. Haiti's revolution directly challenged the global systems of racial and economic oppression, inspiring movements for independence across the Caribbean and beyond. Despite this groundbreaking achievement, Haiti's path forward has been fraught with enduring challenges rooted in the legacies of Western imperialism. The newly independent nation was ostracized by global powers, with countries like the United States and France refusing to recognize its sovereignty for decades. In a deeply unjust and unprecedented act, Haiti was forced to pay a crippling indemnity to France to compensate for its “loss” of enslaved labor and land - a staggering financial burden that plunged the country into economic hardship, the consequences of which persist to this day. This sabotage was further compounded by subsequent interventions, exploitative trade policies, and political interference by foreign powers, all of which systematically undermined Haiti's ability to build a stable and prosperous future. Today, instead of addressing the roots of Haiti's crisis, foreign interventions - such as the involvement of nations like Kenya in serving U.S. interests through occupation - exacerbate existing challenges while failing to tackle the systemic inequalities and historical injustices that have shaped the country's reality. Yet, despite these obstacles, the spirit of resistance and resilience that defined Haiti's fight for independence remains a cornerstone of its identity. Haiti’s Independence Day stands as a powerful reminder of the courage and determination of African people in the face of oppression. It calls upon the world to honor this legacy by addressing the long-standing injustices that continue to weigh on the nation and by working toward a future where true sovereignty and self-determination can be realized.

African Stream

28,430 次观看 • 1 年前

Tomiwa, you might have been jobless if not that you have a heedless crowd that listen to your lies; teach them nothing about morality and uprightness, sing and dance and collect their money to love big. As the lazy mind you are, which all your pastors are, one won't expect you to have what it takes to study and understand the religion of Islam. You need to search for God, because you're presently lost & worshipping a creature of God, that has 𝐧𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮, “𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐆𝐨𝐝, 𝐬𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐦𝐞“. Let me drop just a single verse to you, that tells you who this Noble man was: Qur’an 33, verse 40: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.” “Seal of the Prophets” (Khatam an-Nabiyyīn) means: The one who completes prophethood. The one who confirms the earlier prophets, including Jesus. The one after whom no new prophet will come. Funny enough, someone who follows a book that has 𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐎𝐑𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒 (according to a learner Christian Professor, 𝐃𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐥 𝐁 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞, 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐧𝐒𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲), should bury his head in shame and as believed by learned Jewish scholars, you are actually 𝐏𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐍𝐒.🤡 Let me leave you with these few videos. Please listen and start a journey to finding religion all over again. Because as it is, you're lost & 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠. 😁

Tomiwa, you might have been jobless if not that you have a heedless crowd that listen to your lies; teach them nothing about morality and uprightness, sing and dance and collect their money to love big. As the lazy mind you are, which all your pastors are, one won't expect you to have what it takes to study and understand the religion of Islam. You need to search for God, because you're presently lost & worshipping a creature of God, that has 𝐧𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮, “𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐆𝐨𝐝, 𝐬𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐦𝐞“. Let me drop just a single verse to you, that tells you who this Noble man was: Qur’an 33, verse 40: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.” “Seal of the Prophets” (Khatam an-Nabiyyīn) means: The one who completes prophethood. The one who confirms the earlier prophets, including Jesus. The one after whom no new prophet will come. Funny enough, someone who follows a book that has 𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐎𝐑𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒 (according to a learner Christian Professor, 𝐃𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐥 𝐁 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞, 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐧𝐒𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲), should bury his head in shame and as believed by learned Jewish scholars, you are actually 𝐏𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐍𝐒.🤡 Let me leave you with these few videos. Please listen and start a journey to finding religion all over again. Because as it is, you're lost & 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠. 😁

Dr. Hidima

84,613 次观看 • 8 个月前

What’s holding Africans back? President Kagame asked. Prof. Murigande told Kagame that the main reason is that African leaders don’t care about their people. They seek to enrich themselves — to eat, and to eat alone. The president agreed with him, but he pressed further, asking why this problem seems peculiar to Africa. Kagame doesn’t ask rhetorical questions. He has identified a problem and is involving Rwandans in finding a solution. Here’s my take: To overcome challenges like those faced by postcolonial societies, a people must rediscover a sense of collective self-worth. Usually, this comes from the memory of their past achievements— who they were as a people informs who they are and who they aspire to be. While Africa was not the only region to experience colonization, it is one of the few where colonialism either erased the memory of past greatness or created new countries with no shared memory of such greatness. Colonisation captured African minds. In that sense, although Africa was colonised last, it was colonised the worst. Colonial education deepened this alienation, distorting African aspirations, turning them from collective to individual. In the 1950s, the small group of “educated” African elites aspired to join the white world : the colonial administration. Today, with colonial education still intact and keeping African minds in chains, the elites it creates do not aspire to uplift their people; they aspire to join the global elite. They don’t seek to improve their own societies; they seek to escape from them. Accordingly, these elites measure their self-worth by: •how fluently they speak foreign languages, •which foreign schools they send their children to, •which foreign hospitals they can afford, •how many houses they build, and how much money they invest abroad. At the heart of this lies a quiet acceptance that Africans are somehow defective as a people, and that the only way to succeed is individually. Even those who once believed they could change things often abandon the quest for collective improvement once they grasp the scale of the effort it demands. The kind of heavy lifting required for real transformation breeds a sense of hopelessness, one that pushes people from collective ambition toward individual greed. So, the individual’s aspiration becomes to join the global bourgeoisie. But these are strategies of self-evacuation. They are attempts to flee backwardness by moving from the rural village to the capital, then on to the enlightened colonial metropolis, and ultimately to disappear into cosmopolitan anonymity - a form of self erasure rather than a search for self restoration. This journey became the measure of progress. Those who remain in Africa do so with one foot already out (through dual citizenship or close connections to the representatives of their desired metropoles) for themselves, and especially for their children. Although Kagame brings up this topic, it has been a theme he turns to whenever he notices that some ethic is creeping in amongst the leaders, only that this time he is more specific. For example, while he has been teaching agaciro as a form of mental decolonization, most people over the years understood agaciro merely as a material pursuit. Yet agaciro is, at its core, about retracing and reclaiming the memory of self-worth and therefore the basis for collective pursuit.

What’s holding Africans back? President Kagame asked. Prof. Murigande told Kagame that the main reason is that African leaders don’t care about their people. They seek to enrich themselves — to eat, and to eat alone. The president agreed with him, but he pressed further, asking why this problem seems peculiar to Africa. Kagame doesn’t ask rhetorical questions. He has identified a problem and is involving Rwandans in finding a solution. Here’s my take: To overcome challenges like those faced by postcolonial societies, a people must rediscover a sense of collective self-worth. Usually, this comes from the memory of their past achievements— who they were as a people informs who they are and who they aspire to be. While Africa was not the only region to experience colonization, it is one of the few where colonialism either erased the memory of past greatness or created new countries with no shared memory of such greatness. Colonisation captured African minds. In that sense, although Africa was colonised last, it was colonised the worst. Colonial education deepened this alienation, distorting African aspirations, turning them from collective to individual. In the 1950s, the small group of “educated” African elites aspired to join the white world : the colonial administration. Today, with colonial education still intact and keeping African minds in chains, the elites it creates do not aspire to uplift their people; they aspire to join the global elite. They don’t seek to improve their own societies; they seek to escape from them. Accordingly, these elites measure their self-worth by: •how fluently they speak foreign languages, •which foreign schools they send their children to, •which foreign hospitals they can afford, •how many houses they build, and how much money they invest abroad. At the heart of this lies a quiet acceptance that Africans are somehow defective as a people, and that the only way to succeed is individually. Even those who once believed they could change things often abandon the quest for collective improvement once they grasp the scale of the effort it demands. The kind of heavy lifting required for real transformation breeds a sense of hopelessness, one that pushes people from collective ambition toward individual greed. So, the individual’s aspiration becomes to join the global bourgeoisie. But these are strategies of self-evacuation. They are attempts to flee backwardness by moving from the rural village to the capital, then on to the enlightened colonial metropolis, and ultimately to disappear into cosmopolitan anonymity - a form of self erasure rather than a search for self restoration. This journey became the measure of progress. Those who remain in Africa do so with one foot already out (through dual citizenship or close connections to the representatives of their desired metropoles) for themselves, and especially for their children. Although Kagame brings up this topic, it has been a theme he turns to whenever he notices that some ethic is creeping in amongst the leaders, only that this time he is more specific. For example, while he has been teaching agaciro as a form of mental decolonization, most people over the years understood agaciro merely as a material pursuit. Yet agaciro is, at its core, about retracing and reclaiming the memory of self-worth and therefore the basis for collective pursuit.

Lonzen Rugira

314,672 次观看 • 9 个月前

🎙️ Paul Kagame took the Africa CEO Forum stage and spoke plainly about what much of the world still finds difficult to name. 🗣️ His charge was clear. The same global powers that lecture Africa on democracy and human rights are, with the other hand, stripping the continent of what it owns. Sanctions, he reminded the room, are not always the instruments of principle they claim to be; more often they reward the highest bidder, falling on whoever offers less and sparing whoever extracts more. The cynicism, he noted, is not new. In an older century, kings handed territories to their in-laws and children to administer as they pleased, and today the same logic operates under different vocabulary, with a foreign power simply telling a chosen proxy to go and take whatever it wants from a given region. 💎 The deeper point landed hardest. For too long, Africa has played the role of a continent waiting to be ripped off by anyone shrewd enough and powerful enough to arrive at its door, and that posture has to end. "We must be able to say no," the Rwandan President insisted, before urging African leaders, public and private, to begin assigning their own value to their own assets rather than accepting whatever value others choose to recognise. 🌍 It is the question this year's ACF places at the very centre of its programme. Pan-African ownership, resource sovereignty, and the refusal to mistake openness for vulnerability are no longer aspirational language. They are the operating conditions for whatever African economic future emerges from the next decade. Kagame's intervention was not a lament about the world as it is, but a call to the continent's leadership to stop negotiating from a position of permanent disadvantage. Kigali, 14–15 May 2026. ➡️ Follow our live: #ACF2026 #AfricaCEOForum

🎙️ Paul Kagame took the Africa CEO Forum stage and spoke plainly about what much of the world still finds difficult to name. 🗣️ His charge was clear. The same global powers that lecture Africa on democracy and human rights are, with the other hand, stripping the continent of what it owns. Sanctions, he reminded the room, are not always the instruments of principle they claim to be; more often they reward the highest bidder, falling on whoever offers less and sparing whoever extracts more. The cynicism, he noted, is not new. In an older century, kings handed territories to their in-laws and children to administer as they pleased, and today the same logic operates under different vocabulary, with a foreign power simply telling a chosen proxy to go and take whatever it wants from a given region. 💎 The deeper point landed hardest. For too long, Africa has played the role of a continent waiting to be ripped off by anyone shrewd enough and powerful enough to arrive at its door, and that posture has to end. "We must be able to say no," the Rwandan President insisted, before urging African leaders, public and private, to begin assigning their own value to their own assets rather than accepting whatever value others choose to recognise. 🌍 It is the question this year's ACF places at the very centre of its programme. Pan-African ownership, resource sovereignty, and the refusal to mistake openness for vulnerability are no longer aspirational language. They are the operating conditions for whatever African economic future emerges from the next decade. Kagame's intervention was not a lament about the world as it is, but a call to the continent's leadership to stop negotiating from a position of permanent disadvantage. Kigali, 14–15 May 2026. ➡️ Follow our live: #ACF2026 #AfricaCEOForum

Africa CEO Forum

39,396 次观看 • 3 个月前

You are confusing cause and effect, and in doing so, you are missing the deeper structural reality that is the central point of the argument. Migration in Africa does not happen in a vacuum. People do not wake up and casually decide to leave their homes, families, and countries for no apparent reason. Movement of people across colonial borders is driven by economic collapse, political instability, conflict, and governance failures, yes, but also by powerful historical forces that shaped those very conditions in the first place. Not everyone has the third eye to see those historical forces at play unless they read, comprehend and follow ideas and not populist demagoguery. Apartheid was not just a South African policy that ended in 1994. Its effects still live with South Africans to this very day. It was part of a wider political and more importantly economic system of racial capitalism that structured the region’s economy. What you fixed in 1994 was only the political and not the economic side of it. South Africa was designed as the industrial hub, while neighbouring countries were deliberately underdeveloped and turned into labour reserves for South Africa’s economy. Migrant labour from countries like Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Lesotho was not an accident at all, it was built into the system. It was designed that way and remains so to this very day. The owners of the means of production then remain the owners of the means of production today. Black people are largely still workers. You have a few token black individuals at the top, but the majority remain little more than exploited labour. So when people move from their countries today, they are often moving along routes that were created decades ago. The inequality between South Africa and its neighbours did not emerge overnight, and it is not simply the result of “African leaders” in isolation of other key factors. It is the continuation of a historical economic design that concentrated wealth in one place and poverty in others. That does not absolve African governments of responsibility. Many have failed their citizens through corruption, mismanagement, and repression. I write about this daily, and I have gone to prison three times in my lifetime for doing so. I have had to leave my country to save my life for doing so. But to reduce a complex, multi-layered issue to “it is African leaders” is intellectually lazy and historically dishonest. It ignores history, economics, and global power dynamics. As for Malema, whether you agree with him or not, his political skill lies in identifying how political and economic narratives are shaped and who benefits from them. He is pointing out that anger is often redirected away from the very systems of inequality and towards vulnerable people, migrants, who did not create those conditions. If you want a serious conversation, then deal with the full picture. Migration is about history, economics, governance, and global inequality. Blaming one factor while ignoring the rest is not analysis at all, it is deceitful propaganda. The economically and intellectually illiterate are often the easiest targets of political propaganda, precisely because they are fed simple, emotionally satisfying explanations for complex structural problems. They are told who to blame for their suffering, migrants, neighbouring countries, or vague notions of “outsiders”, while the real drivers, historical dispossession, entrenched economic inequality, and elite collusion, are deliberately obscured. In Southern Africa, and particularly in South Africa, this manifests in xenophobic narratives that blame Zimbabweans or Mozambicans for unemployment and poverty, when in reality those conditions are rooted in a long standing economic architecture that concentrated wealth and ownership in very few hands. It is easier to turn the poor against the poor than to confront systems that benefit those in power. What is often forgotten in this debate is that the political elites of colonial South Africa and Rhodesia worked in concert to sustain a repressive regional system that enriched a minority while extracting labour and resources from the rest. Your former apartheid Prime Minister John Vorster says it in this video in a very tactful manner. That logic has not disappeared at all, it has merely changed form. Today, segments of the political elite in both South Africa and Zimbabwe continue to operate in ways that protect entrenched economic interests while the majority remain economically marginalised. South Africa was the only true white settler “home”, where wealth, infrastructure, and industry were concentrated, while territories like Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Nyasaland (Malawi) functioned largely as economic outposts, feeding capital, labour, and raw materials into that system. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was presented as a project of regional integration, but in practice it reinforced patterns of extraction, with mining in Zambia, agriculture in Zimbabwe, and labour flows from Malawi all tied into a broader economic network dominated by South African capital. The same remains to this very day. The tragedy of focusing on Julius as the messenger rather than the message is something I speak about regularly, the need to focus on ideas and not personalities. You do not have to like Julius Malema. You do not have to agree with everything he says. All you need to do is focus on his message and interrogate it critically. I am not enslaved to Julius Malema’s ideas. I pick and choose what I agree with, and I am able to articulate a reasoned argument for both what I support and what I reject. You should do the same. One of the most powerful weapons of colonialism was the deliberate fragmentation of black people into small Bantustans, into isolated villages where communities were conditioned to view the next village with suspicion. In Rhodesia we had “reserves” and “keeps.” People from other Bantustans were treated as outsiders. That mentality was never dismantled, it still exists today. The idea of seeing others with suspicion simply because of an arbitrary line, a colonial border, remains deeply entrenched. Many do not fully appreciate how powerful and enduring that mentality and conditioning is. Yet when you look at the descendants of colonialists, they do not view each other through those same lenses. White Zimbabweans move into South Africa without attracting the same hostility because of the economic architecture that allows them to stay away from the so called lumpen. White people from across the world come and settle with ease in South Africa. In fact, one of the most visible figures advocating for the secession of the Western Cape is a British citizen, yet there is no comparable outrage from black South Africans. The same energy of protests and marches that is directed at fellow Africans is rarely directed there. That is not accidental at all, it is well designed that way. It speaks to the protection afforded by entrenched economic power and privilege, but also to a deeper psychological conditioning in how black people are taught to see each other and to see whiteness. This will not disappear overnight. It may not even disappear in my lifetime. But the task is to keep planting the seeds of awareness and unity. As Bob Marley said, you give your more to get your little. What you do today may seem small, but in time it contributes to something much larger, especially if there is collective effort to confront and resolve these divisions. One of the most important things colonialists understood was that education is the key to discernment, to the ability to interrogate and understand issues such as those I raised in this essay. That is precisely why they restricted access to it. Only a few black people were allowed meaningful education, and the consequences of that exclusion remain with us today, not only in South Africa but across much of the continent. We did not dismantle the systems that underpinned colonialism. We largely inherited them, changed the faces at the top, and continued to operate within the same structures. So I will end by saying this, if anyone truly wants change on the issues being debated, you must fix the foundation. You cannot repair window panes when the foundation itself is cracking. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, will always exist, but it is sustained not by foreigners alone, but by the system itself. When Zimbabweans cross the border without passports, they are often enabled by South Africans within a broken system. When documents are obtained illegally, it is again the system that enables it. When Zimbabwe’s political crisis persists without free and fair elections, regional dynamics, including South Africa’s political and economic interests, often play a role in sustaining that status quo. There is a web of political and economic interests that mirrors, in some respects, the relationships that existed during the colonial and apartheid eras. As long as those interests remain, there is little incentive for those in power to confront injustice decisively. The corruption and governance failures in Zimbabwe are real and significant, but they are part of a broader structural problem. The real issue is the foundation. If black South Africans were living well, with access to quality education, meaningful employment, and economic security, they would not be marching in the streets. The anger you see today is not simply about immigration. It is a reflection of an economic structure that has remained fundamentally unchanged, even after 1994. Repression underpinned by racism in Rhodesia effectively came to an end when South Africa shifted its position and recognised that the system was no longer sustainable. The same principle applies today. Repression underpinned by political corruption in Zimbabwe will begin to end the day South Africa, the regional power whether one accepts it or not, decides that the current situation is no longer acceptable. Zimbabwe’s crisis has, over time, been treated as a largely domestic issue rather than a regional one, yet the political and economic realities of Southern Africa make that distinction artificial. What happens in Zimbabwe does not exist in isolation, it is shaped, sustained, and, at times, enabled by regional dynamics, particularly South Africa’s stance. This may be an uncomfortable truth, but history consistently shows that regional power centres play a decisive role in determining outcomes. Ignoring that reality does not change it, it only delays the moment when it must be confronted. It was convenient then for John Vorster and successive apartheid regimes to continue using illegal migrants as a source of cheap labour in South Africa for menial jobs. It remains the same today. As I have said, the political and economic architecture of the apartheid era largely remains in place. What has changed are the political faces, the white faces that held power then and the black faces that hold office today, often operating within and alongside the same entrenched economic structures. Whether one accepts it or not, that is the reality of our politics in the region and of the economic architecture that continues to shape it. There is a reason why certain political actors avoid critically engaging with the structural drivers of immigration, particularly those that sustain flows of cheap labour. There is also a reason why figures like Helen Zille often emphasise the need to document illegal immigrants in South Africa, that position can be understood within the broader context of preserving an economic order that has long depended on controlling and managing labour rather than fundamentally transforming the conditions that produce it. That economic order is rooted in historical structures of concentrated power that shaped not only South Africa, but the wider region more than a century ago. How black Africans view themselves is often reflected in how they respond to political messages. It is why some are quick to criticise Julius Malema for positions that are, in substance, not fundamentally different from those expressed by Helen Zille. On immigration, there is significant overlap in what has been said across the political spectrum, including by the DA and the EFF. Yet the EFF is frequently viewed through a lens of hostility, in part because it is a black-led party, and that perception shapes the reaction it receives. As a result, some black citizens, influenced by long-standing narratives, direct harsher and more emotive criticism towards it. When similar points are made by figures like Helen Zille, the response is often markedly different. That contrast speaks to deeper historical conditioning and the psychological legacy of colonialism. It has not disappeared, and changing it will take time. The fundamental difference, however, lies in the intent and framing of their messages. Malema’s position on immigration is part of a broader effort to confront and address the structural inequalities created by colonial rule. Zille’s position, by contrast, can be seen as operating within and reinforcing an existing economic framework that has its roots in that same colonial architecture which feeds off cheap migrant labour. However, you can't fix the broken system by chasing away immigrants, legal or illegal, you can only empower black South Africans by allowing them to own the means of production and not fighting in the streets for crumbs. Have a lovely weekend.

You are confusing cause and effect, and in doing so, you are missing the deeper structural reality that is the central point of the argument. Migration in Africa does not happen in a vacuum. People do not wake up and casually decide to leave their homes, families, and countries for no apparent reason. Movement of people across colonial borders is driven by economic collapse, political instability, conflict, and governance failures, yes, but also by powerful historical forces that shaped those very conditions in the first place. Not everyone has the third eye to see those historical forces at play unless they read, comprehend and follow ideas and not populist demagoguery. Apartheid was not just a South African policy that ended in 1994. Its effects still live with South Africans to this very day. It was part of a wider political and more importantly economic system of racial capitalism that structured the region’s economy. What you fixed in 1994 was only the political and not the economic side of it. South Africa was designed as the industrial hub, while neighbouring countries were deliberately underdeveloped and turned into labour reserves for South Africa’s economy. Migrant labour from countries like Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Lesotho was not an accident at all, it was built into the system. It was designed that way and remains so to this very day. The owners of the means of production then remain the owners of the means of production today. Black people are largely still workers. You have a few token black individuals at the top, but the majority remain little more than exploited labour. So when people move from their countries today, they are often moving along routes that were created decades ago. The inequality between South Africa and its neighbours did not emerge overnight, and it is not simply the result of “African leaders” in isolation of other key factors. It is the continuation of a historical economic design that concentrated wealth in one place and poverty in others. That does not absolve African governments of responsibility. Many have failed their citizens through corruption, mismanagement, and repression. I write about this daily, and I have gone to prison three times in my lifetime for doing so. I have had to leave my country to save my life for doing so. But to reduce a complex, multi-layered issue to “it is African leaders” is intellectually lazy and historically dishonest. It ignores history, economics, and global power dynamics. As for Malema, whether you agree with him or not, his political skill lies in identifying how political and economic narratives are shaped and who benefits from them. He is pointing out that anger is often redirected away from the very systems of inequality and towards vulnerable people, migrants, who did not create those conditions. If you want a serious conversation, then deal with the full picture. Migration is about history, economics, governance, and global inequality. Blaming one factor while ignoring the rest is not analysis at all, it is deceitful propaganda. The economically and intellectually illiterate are often the easiest targets of political propaganda, precisely because they are fed simple, emotionally satisfying explanations for complex structural problems. They are told who to blame for their suffering, migrants, neighbouring countries, or vague notions of “outsiders”, while the real drivers, historical dispossession, entrenched economic inequality, and elite collusion, are deliberately obscured. In Southern Africa, and particularly in South Africa, this manifests in xenophobic narratives that blame Zimbabweans or Mozambicans for unemployment and poverty, when in reality those conditions are rooted in a long standing economic architecture that concentrated wealth and ownership in very few hands. It is easier to turn the poor against the poor than to confront systems that benefit those in power. What is often forgotten in this debate is that the political elites of colonial South Africa and Rhodesia worked in concert to sustain a repressive regional system that enriched a minority while extracting labour and resources from the rest. Your former apartheid Prime Minister John Vorster says it in this video in a very tactful manner. That logic has not disappeared at all, it has merely changed form. Today, segments of the political elite in both South Africa and Zimbabwe continue to operate in ways that protect entrenched economic interests while the majority remain economically marginalised. South Africa was the only true white settler “home”, where wealth, infrastructure, and industry were concentrated, while territories like Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Nyasaland (Malawi) functioned largely as economic outposts, feeding capital, labour, and raw materials into that system. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was presented as a project of regional integration, but in practice it reinforced patterns of extraction, with mining in Zambia, agriculture in Zimbabwe, and labour flows from Malawi all tied into a broader economic network dominated by South African capital. The same remains to this very day. The tragedy of focusing on Julius as the messenger rather than the message is something I speak about regularly, the need to focus on ideas and not personalities. You do not have to like Julius Malema. You do not have to agree with everything he says. All you need to do is focus on his message and interrogate it critically. I am not enslaved to Julius Malema’s ideas. I pick and choose what I agree with, and I am able to articulate a reasoned argument for both what I support and what I reject. You should do the same. One of the most powerful weapons of colonialism was the deliberate fragmentation of black people into small Bantustans, into isolated villages where communities were conditioned to view the next village with suspicion. In Rhodesia we had “reserves” and “keeps.” People from other Bantustans were treated as outsiders. That mentality was never dismantled, it still exists today. The idea of seeing others with suspicion simply because of an arbitrary line, a colonial border, remains deeply entrenched. Many do not fully appreciate how powerful and enduring that mentality and conditioning is. Yet when you look at the descendants of colonialists, they do not view each other through those same lenses. White Zimbabweans move into South Africa without attracting the same hostility because of the economic architecture that allows them to stay away from the so called lumpen. White people from across the world come and settle with ease in South Africa. In fact, one of the most visible figures advocating for the secession of the Western Cape is a British citizen, yet there is no comparable outrage from black South Africans. The same energy of protests and marches that is directed at fellow Africans is rarely directed there. That is not accidental at all, it is well designed that way. It speaks to the protection afforded by entrenched economic power and privilege, but also to a deeper psychological conditioning in how black people are taught to see each other and to see whiteness. This will not disappear overnight. It may not even disappear in my lifetime. But the task is to keep planting the seeds of awareness and unity. As Bob Marley said, you give your more to get your little. What you do today may seem small, but in time it contributes to something much larger, especially if there is collective effort to confront and resolve these divisions. One of the most important things colonialists understood was that education is the key to discernment, to the ability to interrogate and understand issues such as those I raised in this essay. That is precisely why they restricted access to it. Only a few black people were allowed meaningful education, and the consequences of that exclusion remain with us today, not only in South Africa but across much of the continent. We did not dismantle the systems that underpinned colonialism. We largely inherited them, changed the faces at the top, and continued to operate within the same structures. So I will end by saying this, if anyone truly wants change on the issues being debated, you must fix the foundation. You cannot repair window panes when the foundation itself is cracking. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, will always exist, but it is sustained not by foreigners alone, but by the system itself. When Zimbabweans cross the border without passports, they are often enabled by South Africans within a broken system. When documents are obtained illegally, it is again the system that enables it. When Zimbabwe’s political crisis persists without free and fair elections, regional dynamics, including South Africa’s political and economic interests, often play a role in sustaining that status quo. There is a web of political and economic interests that mirrors, in some respects, the relationships that existed during the colonial and apartheid eras. As long as those interests remain, there is little incentive for those in power to confront injustice decisively. The corruption and governance failures in Zimbabwe are real and significant, but they are part of a broader structural problem. The real issue is the foundation. If black South Africans were living well, with access to quality education, meaningful employment, and economic security, they would not be marching in the streets. The anger you see today is not simply about immigration. It is a reflection of an economic structure that has remained fundamentally unchanged, even after 1994. Repression underpinned by racism in Rhodesia effectively came to an end when South Africa shifted its position and recognised that the system was no longer sustainable. The same principle applies today. Repression underpinned by political corruption in Zimbabwe will begin to end the day South Africa, the regional power whether one accepts it or not, decides that the current situation is no longer acceptable. Zimbabwe’s crisis has, over time, been treated as a largely domestic issue rather than a regional one, yet the political and economic realities of Southern Africa make that distinction artificial. What happens in Zimbabwe does not exist in isolation, it is shaped, sustained, and, at times, enabled by regional dynamics, particularly South Africa’s stance. This may be an uncomfortable truth, but history consistently shows that regional power centres play a decisive role in determining outcomes. Ignoring that reality does not change it, it only delays the moment when it must be confronted. It was convenient then for John Vorster and successive apartheid regimes to continue using illegal migrants as a source of cheap labour in South Africa for menial jobs. It remains the same today. As I have said, the political and economic architecture of the apartheid era largely remains in place. What has changed are the political faces, the white faces that held power then and the black faces that hold office today, often operating within and alongside the same entrenched economic structures. Whether one accepts it or not, that is the reality of our politics in the region and of the economic architecture that continues to shape it. There is a reason why certain political actors avoid critically engaging with the structural drivers of immigration, particularly those that sustain flows of cheap labour. There is also a reason why figures like Helen Zille often emphasise the need to document illegal immigrants in South Africa, that position can be understood within the broader context of preserving an economic order that has long depended on controlling and managing labour rather than fundamentally transforming the conditions that produce it. That economic order is rooted in historical structures of concentrated power that shaped not only South Africa, but the wider region more than a century ago. How black Africans view themselves is often reflected in how they respond to political messages. It is why some are quick to criticise Julius Malema for positions that are, in substance, not fundamentally different from those expressed by Helen Zille. On immigration, there is significant overlap in what has been said across the political spectrum, including by the DA and the EFF. Yet the EFF is frequently viewed through a lens of hostility, in part because it is a black-led party, and that perception shapes the reaction it receives. As a result, some black citizens, influenced by long-standing narratives, direct harsher and more emotive criticism towards it. When similar points are made by figures like Helen Zille, the response is often markedly different. That contrast speaks to deeper historical conditioning and the psychological legacy of colonialism. It has not disappeared, and changing it will take time. The fundamental difference, however, lies in the intent and framing of their messages. Malema’s position on immigration is part of a broader effort to confront and address the structural inequalities created by colonial rule. Zille’s position, by contrast, can be seen as operating within and reinforcing an existing economic framework that has its roots in that same colonial architecture which feeds off cheap migrant labour. However, you can't fix the broken system by chasing away immigrants, legal or illegal, you can only empower black South Africans by allowing them to own the means of production and not fighting in the streets for crumbs. Have a lovely weekend.

Hopewell Chin’ono

21,194 次观看 • 3 个月前

Last night, I spoke in the debate on the government’s proposed new immigration and asylum legislation. What has become clear is that a significant number of people in this country – around 50 to 60 per cent, according to polling – believe immigration and asylum policy is in need of reform. That includes a more robust approach to people-smuggling gangs, faster processing of asylum claims, quicker removal of those whose claims fail and a reduction in the use of asylum hotels. Some of that concern is rooted in fact. Case backlogs, rising boat crossings and the sheer scale of numbers are real, and they play their part. This is legitimate criticism of a system that is failing everyone: those who rightfully seek to be here, those seeking sanctuary, and those who live here and want a democratic say over the scale and pace of immigration. That isn’t racism. That’s giving people a real say over their own community. But other forces have played their part too. Structural racism, dog-whistle politics, media sensationalism and the mainstreaming of racist tropes by the main political parties are all bound up in the complex equation that has brought us here. Responsible progressives must confront this reality as humanely and responsibly as possible. Failure to act will simply drive more people into the arms of extremists. So what should reform look like? An immigration system that is responsive, democratic and flexible: alive to the needs of the economy, balancing genuine labour shortages sector by sector with re-skilling and training programmes for those already here, and matched by investment in public services and housing. Alongside it, an asylum system that is fair, provides safe routes, fosters integration and sees us take our fair share of the world’s dispossessed. Both must be rooted in clear but strict rules and, critically, in public support. Anything else simply isn’t sustainable. Judged against that standard, the government’s new legislation is neither humane, effective nor responsible. Aside from one or two proposals, the bill is a smorgasbord of political signalling to a reactionary gallery that will never be sated, and of punitive measures that will do little to reduce case backlogs, cut the numbers in hotel accommodation or speed up integration. It also opens the door to the hard right on human rights. They have long sought, for a variety of reasons, to undermine these universal protections. Indeed, the Tories saw the opportunity a Labour government presented with this bill. Not content with it watering down human rights protections for all of us, they attempted to go further and remove us from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) altogether. That is not a door we should be opening in an attempt to placate the hard right. Human rights legislation was forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, of the concentration camps, of the horrors of fascism. It has protected hundreds of millions of people across the world. Yet the Tories, Reform and many others across Parliament glibly talk of throwing it away. Labour should not be following them down this path. The reason they are called “human” rights is that being human is the universal condition. The day we forget that is the day we open a dark chapter in our country’s history. For this reason and others, I voted against the bill at second reading. It is the last gasp of a government that has lost moral authority on this issue for millions of people. With new leadership, I hope we can finally grasp this issue in a practical, effective and humane way: striking a balance between protection and enforcement, and rebuilding trust with the majority of voters on secure borders.

Last night, I spoke in the debate on the government’s proposed new immigration and asylum legislation. What has become clear is that a significant number of people in this country – around 50 to 60 per cent, according to polling – believe immigration and asylum policy is in need of reform. That includes a more robust approach to people-smuggling gangs, faster processing of asylum claims, quicker removal of those whose claims fail and a reduction in the use of asylum hotels. Some of that concern is rooted in fact. Case backlogs, rising boat crossings and the sheer scale of numbers are real, and they play their part. This is legitimate criticism of a system that is failing everyone: those who rightfully seek to be here, those seeking sanctuary, and those who live here and want a democratic say over the scale and pace of immigration. That isn’t racism. That’s giving people a real say over their own community. But other forces have played their part too. Structural racism, dog-whistle politics, media sensationalism and the mainstreaming of racist tropes by the main political parties are all bound up in the complex equation that has brought us here. Responsible progressives must confront this reality as humanely and responsibly as possible. Failure to act will simply drive more people into the arms of extremists. So what should reform look like? An immigration system that is responsive, democratic and flexible: alive to the needs of the economy, balancing genuine labour shortages sector by sector with re-skilling and training programmes for those already here, and matched by investment in public services and housing. Alongside it, an asylum system that is fair, provides safe routes, fosters integration and sees us take our fair share of the world’s dispossessed. Both must be rooted in clear but strict rules and, critically, in public support. Anything else simply isn’t sustainable. Judged against that standard, the government’s new legislation is neither humane, effective nor responsible. Aside from one or two proposals, the bill is a smorgasbord of political signalling to a reactionary gallery that will never be sated, and of punitive measures that will do little to reduce case backlogs, cut the numbers in hotel accommodation or speed up integration. It also opens the door to the hard right on human rights. They have long sought, for a variety of reasons, to undermine these universal protections. Indeed, the Tories saw the opportunity a Labour government presented with this bill. Not content with it watering down human rights protections for all of us, they attempted to go further and remove us from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) altogether. That is not a door we should be opening in an attempt to placate the hard right. Human rights legislation was forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, of the concentration camps, of the horrors of fascism. It has protected hundreds of millions of people across the world. Yet the Tories, Reform and many others across Parliament glibly talk of throwing it away. Labour should not be following them down this path. The reason they are called “human” rights is that being human is the universal condition. The day we forget that is the day we open a dark chapter in our country’s history. For this reason and others, I voted against the bill at second reading. It is the last gasp of a government that has lost moral authority on this issue for millions of people. With new leadership, I hope we can finally grasp this issue in a practical, effective and humane way: striking a balance between protection and enforcement, and rebuilding trust with the majority of voters on secure borders.

Clive Lewis MP

39,178 次观看 • 29 天前

[WATCH] MIGRATION, COMMUNITY TENSIONS AND THE THREATS AROUND 30 JUNE Nowhere is the first promise of the Freedom Charter — that South Africa belongs to all who live in it more sorely tested today than on the question of migration. We speak with compassion and with firmness, and above all in defence of the rule of law and the unity of our nation. Let us first place the facts before the public, because they are too often drowned out by noise and by those who profit from fear. Government is acting, and it is acting at scale. The Department of Home Affairs reports more than 110,000 deportations in the year to date, and the cancellation of some 2,000 fraudulently obtained study visas. Our police service and the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration report more than 40,000 arrests of undocumented persons this year, over 7,400 of them in the past month alone, and 143 persons arrested for inciting violence against foreign nationals. This is a State enforcing its laws, firmly and without apology. The repatriation of those with no lawful right to remain is being conducted in an orderly and humane manner. In KwaZulu-Natal, by the evening of the 20th of June, 4,907 Malawian nationals had been safely returned home from a single gathering point with women and children moved first. Hundreds more have been returned through the Mwanza border, and 980 of our neighbours were repatriated with dignity in a single convoy on the 11th of June. South Africa does not operate refugee camps, and we have no intention of creating them but nor will we abandon the principle that even those we return home are returned in safety and with their dignity intact. Our borders, too, are being made secure. The Border Management Authority is driving a R12.5 billion overhaul of six of our major ports of entry, deploying drones, modern surveillance and 5,500 additional officers along the borderline. The result is a hardening of our frontier and a sharp reduction in unlawful crossings: thousands attempting to cross illegally have been intercepted and turned back, smuggling syndicates have been disrupted, and the authority of the State has been restored mile by mile along our boundaries. We commend the BMA, the JCPS led by Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi for this work. The enforcement of immigration law is the work of the democratic State, and of the State alone. Having placed the facts before you, let us now speak plainly and politically because what is unfolding on some of our streets is not, at its heart, about immigration at all. We have seen this architecture before. In July 2021 our country was dragged to the very edge of the abyss by a co-ordinated assault dressed up as a grievance an organised attempt to render the country ungovernable and to challenge the authority of the democratic State itself. What we are witnessing now carries the same fingerprints. Unlawful immigration is being manipulated by new political formations a convenient cover by political formations whose real purpose is to manufacture chaos, to collapse the institutions of the State, and to engineer fear and unfair conditions on the very eve of our local government elections. There are formations in our politics that have embraced an open ethno-nationalism, and that have sought hijack the proud heritage of the amabutho and the sacred symbols of our people’s history, bending them to a reckless and destructive agenda. Let us be unequivocal: the amabutho are heritage institutions that we hold in the deepest admiration and respect they are the pride of our nation’s history, and they must never be abused or hijacked as a cover for nefarious and criminal acts. The regiments of our forebears were raised to defend the nation and its people not to terrorise the vulnerable, to loot the trader, or to burn the home of the poor. #ANCmediabriefing #ANCnwcOutcomes #RegisterToVoteANC

[WATCH] MIGRATION, COMMUNITY TENSIONS AND THE THREATS AROUND 30 JUNE Nowhere is the first promise of the Freedom Charter — that South Africa belongs to all who live in it more sorely tested today than on the question of migration. We speak with compassion and with firmness, and above all in defence of the rule of law and the unity of our nation. Let us first place the facts before the public, because they are too often drowned out by noise and by those who profit from fear. Government is acting, and it is acting at scale. The Department of Home Affairs reports more than 110,000 deportations in the year to date, and the cancellation of some 2,000 fraudulently obtained study visas. Our police service and the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration report more than 40,000 arrests of undocumented persons this year, over 7,400 of them in the past month alone, and 143 persons arrested for inciting violence against foreign nationals. This is a State enforcing its laws, firmly and without apology. The repatriation of those with no lawful right to remain is being conducted in an orderly and humane manner. In KwaZulu-Natal, by the evening of the 20th of June, 4,907 Malawian nationals had been safely returned home from a single gathering point with women and children moved first. Hundreds more have been returned through the Mwanza border, and 980 of our neighbours were repatriated with dignity in a single convoy on the 11th of June. South Africa does not operate refugee camps, and we have no intention of creating them but nor will we abandon the principle that even those we return home are returned in safety and with their dignity intact. Our borders, too, are being made secure. The Border Management Authority is driving a R12.5 billion overhaul of six of our major ports of entry, deploying drones, modern surveillance and 5,500 additional officers along the borderline. The result is a hardening of our frontier and a sharp reduction in unlawful crossings: thousands attempting to cross illegally have been intercepted and turned back, smuggling syndicates have been disrupted, and the authority of the State has been restored mile by mile along our boundaries. We commend the BMA, the JCPS led by Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi for this work. The enforcement of immigration law is the work of the democratic State, and of the State alone. Having placed the facts before you, let us now speak plainly and politically because what is unfolding on some of our streets is not, at its heart, about immigration at all. We have seen this architecture before. In July 2021 our country was dragged to the very edge of the abyss by a co-ordinated assault dressed up as a grievance an organised attempt to render the country ungovernable and to challenge the authority of the democratic State itself. What we are witnessing now carries the same fingerprints. Unlawful immigration is being manipulated by new political formations a convenient cover by political formations whose real purpose is to manufacture chaos, to collapse the institutions of the State, and to engineer fear and unfair conditions on the very eve of our local government elections. There are formations in our politics that have embraced an open ethno-nationalism, and that have sought hijack the proud heritage of the amabutho and the sacred symbols of our people’s history, bending them to a reckless and destructive agenda. Let us be unequivocal: the amabutho are heritage institutions that we hold in the deepest admiration and respect they are the pride of our nation’s history, and they must never be abused or hijacked as a cover for nefarious and criminal acts. The regiments of our forebears were raised to defend the nation and its people not to terrorise the vulnerable, to loot the trader, or to burn the home of the poor. #ANCmediabriefing #ANCnwcOutcomes #RegisterToVoteANC

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

13,857 次观看 • 1 个月前

A series of explosive reports—led by an investigation from The Washington Post—alleged that Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has been providing "minute-by-minute" updates to the Kremlin during confidential EU summits. According to intelligence sources and diplomatic cables cited in the reports, Szijjártó maintained a direct line to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during high-level meetings in Brussels. It is alleged that during breaks in sensitive discussions—particularly those concerning military aid to Ukraine and the 20th EU sanctions package—Szijjártó would call Lavrov to relay the specific bargaining positions and "red lines" of other EU member states. These reports provide the most concrete evidence to date, suggesting that Moscow isn't just watching from the outside but has a virtual seat at the table. The reaction from European leaders has been one of grim validation rather than shock. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk remarked that the allegations were "no surprise”, admitting that he and other leaders have been "self-censoring" for months. Tusk noted that he often limits his interventions in the European Council to strictly necessary points whenever Hungarian representatives are in the room. NATO and EU security officials have reportedly begun formalising a "tiered" information-sharing system. This effectively creates a "black box" around Hungary, where the most sensitive intelligence regarding Russian troop movements or cyber-warfare is no longer shared with Budapest. Hungarian opposition leader Péter Magyar, head of the Tisza Party, has labeled Szijjártó a "traitor to the homeland and Europe," using the reports to argue that the Orbán government has compromised national sovereignty for the sake of Kremlin interests. This is no longer just a policy disagreement over sanctions, it is a fundamental breakdown of trust within the EU’s security architecture. As the bloc attempts to finalise a €90 billion loan for Ukraine, the fear is that any strategy discussed with Hungary present will be on putin’s before the meeting even adjourns.

A series of explosive reports—led by an investigation from The Washington Post—alleged that Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has been providing "minute-by-minute" updates to the Kremlin during confidential EU summits. According to intelligence sources and diplomatic cables cited in the reports, Szijjártó maintained a direct line to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during high-level meetings in Brussels. It is alleged that during breaks in sensitive discussions—particularly those concerning military aid to Ukraine and the 20th EU sanctions package—Szijjártó would call Lavrov to relay the specific bargaining positions and "red lines" of other EU member states. These reports provide the most concrete evidence to date, suggesting that Moscow isn't just watching from the outside but has a virtual seat at the table. The reaction from European leaders has been one of grim validation rather than shock. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk remarked that the allegations were "no surprise”, admitting that he and other leaders have been "self-censoring" for months. Tusk noted that he often limits his interventions in the European Council to strictly necessary points whenever Hungarian representatives are in the room. NATO and EU security officials have reportedly begun formalising a "tiered" information-sharing system. This effectively creates a "black box" around Hungary, where the most sensitive intelligence regarding Russian troop movements or cyber-warfare is no longer shared with Budapest. Hungarian opposition leader Péter Magyar, head of the Tisza Party, has labeled Szijjártó a "traitor to the homeland and Europe," using the reports to argue that the Orbán government has compromised national sovereignty for the sake of Kremlin interests. This is no longer just a policy disagreement over sanctions, it is a fundamental breakdown of trust within the EU’s security architecture. As the bloc attempts to finalise a €90 billion loan for Ukraine, the fear is that any strategy discussed with Hungary present will be on putin’s before the meeting even adjourns.

Yasmina

164,422 次观看 • 4 个月前

Karoline Leavitt flips the script on a White House reporter with a brutal reality check on mass migration. The reporter tried to frame taking in asylum seekers as the moral thing to do. But Leavitt fired back with a harsh dose of reality: REPORTER: “How would refugees, people coming from war-torn places who are seeking a safe haven in America, like many of our forebears in this room, not add to our nation’s integrity and character of our national identity?” LEAVITT: “I’ll tell you what does not add to our nation’s character and integrity is refugees who come here under the alleged plight of asylum and fleeing persecution and then come to the United States to abuse our system and rip off American taxpayers. “And as I pointed out, The New York Times, to their credit, it was about six months too late. But they did write about how Somali immigrants in Minnesota have been ripping off American taxpayers. In fact, 86 people have been charged in a rampant and widespread fraud scheme spanning multiple programs in Minnesota. “Of those 86, 78 of those people are Somali, 91% of them charged. So far, 59 of those people have been convicted for their roles in fraud plots that have stolen $1 billion from taxpayers. “In one scheme, and this is egregious, a nonprofit and its affiliates with the Somali migrants claimed to have fed tens of thousands of American children during the pandemic. They were reimbursed for those meals by taxpayers. However, federal prosecutors found that almost all of those meals were never even delivered to hungry children. “In fact, those organizations’ leaders spent the money on houses, luxury cars, and real estate in Turkey and Kenya. Another scheme involved hundreds of organizations that were reimbursed for services that were supposed to help people at risk of homelessness, but once again, those services were never provided. “All of this has happened under Democrat leadership in a Democrat-run state where these refugees, these migrants are coming to the United States, they are abusing our system, they are draining our resources that should be going to law-abiding, taxpayer-funded, tax-paying Americans. And this president is not going to put up with it anymore.” Watching Leavitt’s response hits even harder than reading it. The reporter’s narrative collapsed in real time.

Karoline Leavitt flips the script on a White House reporter with a brutal reality check on mass migration. The reporter tried to frame taking in asylum seekers as the moral thing to do. But Leavitt fired back with a harsh dose of reality: REPORTER: “How would refugees, people coming from war-torn places who are seeking a safe haven in America, like many of our forebears in this room, not add to our nation’s integrity and character of our national identity?” LEAVITT: “I’ll tell you what does not add to our nation’s character and integrity is refugees who come here under the alleged plight of asylum and fleeing persecution and then come to the United States to abuse our system and rip off American taxpayers. “And as I pointed out, The New York Times, to their credit, it was about six months too late. But they did write about how Somali immigrants in Minnesota have been ripping off American taxpayers. In fact, 86 people have been charged in a rampant and widespread fraud scheme spanning multiple programs in Minnesota. “Of those 86, 78 of those people are Somali, 91% of them charged. So far, 59 of those people have been convicted for their roles in fraud plots that have stolen $1 billion from taxpayers. “In one scheme, and this is egregious, a nonprofit and its affiliates with the Somali migrants claimed to have fed tens of thousands of American children during the pandemic. They were reimbursed for those meals by taxpayers. However, federal prosecutors found that almost all of those meals were never even delivered to hungry children. “In fact, those organizations’ leaders spent the money on houses, luxury cars, and real estate in Turkey and Kenya. Another scheme involved hundreds of organizations that were reimbursed for services that were supposed to help people at risk of homelessness, but once again, those services were never provided. “All of this has happened under Democrat leadership in a Democrat-run state where these refugees, these migrants are coming to the United States, they are abusing our system, they are draining our resources that should be going to law-abiding, taxpayer-funded, tax-paying Americans. And this president is not going to put up with it anymore.” Watching Leavitt’s response hits even harder than reading it. The reporter’s narrative collapsed in real time.

Vigilant Fox 🦊

320,574 次观看 • 8 个月前

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

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

Hillel Neuer

68,720 次观看 • 9 个月前

On 1 August 2018, six Zimbabweans were gunned down by the army for protesting the delay in election results. The world watched in horror as it unfolded live on international television. Many ask why Zimbabweans no longer take to the streets. The answer is simple—they once did. And they were met not only with bullets from the regime, but with betrayal from the very man they were defending. Nelson Chamisa, then the opposition leader leading the MDC Alliance, said of the protesters: “It was very stupid even for people who demonstrated. To demonstrate for the results to be released, it was stupid… I am not insulting them, but… it was premature, it was unstrategic, and open to be manipulated by the enemy.” Those words struck deeper, way-way deeper than many imagine because they came from the mouth of hope. Unless this betrayal is acknowledged and those words walked back, Zimbabweans will not rise. Not because they are cowards, but because the last time they stood up in huge numbers, they were shot down by the regime; and told they were “stupid” by the leader they thought they were standing up for. When bullets kill the body and words kill the spirit, what then do you expect of the people left behind in Zimbabwe? There is a long and painful history of betrayal by the opposition. In 2008, I was the first journalist to break the story of post-election violence on South Africa’s eNCA news station. Over 400 lives were lost, yet the opposition; then led by Morgan Tsvangirai, did nothing meaningful to support the victims. Instead, they entered government and enjoyed the perks of power. Nelson Chamisa even gave an interview to The Globe and Mail of Canada, justifying the need for expensive cars in the GNU because, according to him, such cars brought “respect.” That one interview told the story of a movement that had shifted from the people to self-interest. They forgot the very communities that had risked everything to vote them into power. And that is precisely why those communities will no longer put their lives on the line for politicians who abandon them at the first taste of comfort. Until this betrayal is addressed—until opposition leaders begin to fight back with integrity and sacrifice; ZANUPF will remain in power, sustained not only by fear, but by the absence of a credible alternative willing to confront it. The current government of Zimbabwe will never change; but Nelson Chamisa has an opportunity to fix the mess he created by calling citizens fighting for a fair election; STUPID. He must confront the hard truth that real leadership begins with accountability. He needs to publicly acknowledge that calling the 2018 protesters “stupid” was a betrayal of the very people who risked their lives for democracy. He must campaign for the Motlanthe Report to be implemented and for the victims’ families to be fully compensated. One of the family members wrote to me, telling me they have no one helping them. After such deliberate betrayals, those around them will never take to the streets again.

On 1 August 2018, six Zimbabweans were gunned down by the army for protesting the delay in election results. The world watched in horror as it unfolded live on international television. Many ask why Zimbabweans no longer take to the streets. The answer is simple—they once did. And they were met not only with bullets from the regime, but with betrayal from the very man they were defending. Nelson Chamisa, then the opposition leader leading the MDC Alliance, said of the protesters: “It was very stupid even for people who demonstrated. To demonstrate for the results to be released, it was stupid… I am not insulting them, but… it was premature, it was unstrategic, and open to be manipulated by the enemy.” Those words struck deeper, way-way deeper than many imagine because they came from the mouth of hope. Unless this betrayal is acknowledged and those words walked back, Zimbabweans will not rise. Not because they are cowards, but because the last time they stood up in huge numbers, they were shot down by the regime; and told they were “stupid” by the leader they thought they were standing up for. When bullets kill the body and words kill the spirit, what then do you expect of the people left behind in Zimbabwe? There is a long and painful history of betrayal by the opposition. In 2008, I was the first journalist to break the story of post-election violence on South Africa’s eNCA news station. Over 400 lives were lost, yet the opposition; then led by Morgan Tsvangirai, did nothing meaningful to support the victims. Instead, they entered government and enjoyed the perks of power. Nelson Chamisa even gave an interview to The Globe and Mail of Canada, justifying the need for expensive cars in the GNU because, according to him, such cars brought “respect.” That one interview told the story of a movement that had shifted from the people to self-interest. They forgot the very communities that had risked everything to vote them into power. And that is precisely why those communities will no longer put their lives on the line for politicians who abandon them at the first taste of comfort. Until this betrayal is addressed—until opposition leaders begin to fight back with integrity and sacrifice; ZANUPF will remain in power, sustained not only by fear, but by the absence of a credible alternative willing to confront it. The current government of Zimbabwe will never change; but Nelson Chamisa has an opportunity to fix the mess he created by calling citizens fighting for a fair election; STUPID. He must confront the hard truth that real leadership begins with accountability. He needs to publicly acknowledge that calling the 2018 protesters “stupid” was a betrayal of the very people who risked their lives for democracy. He must campaign for the Motlanthe Report to be implemented and for the victims’ families to be fully compensated. One of the family members wrote to me, telling me they have no one helping them. After such deliberate betrayals, those around them will never take to the streets again.

Hopewell Chin’ono

78,864 次观看 • 1 年前

$The Dance Between Elizabeth and Darcy: A Swordfight Cloaked in Ceremony In the 1995 adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice”, the dance between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy at the Netherfield ball is no romantic interlude. It is a confrontation carefully veiled beneath the forms of etiquette. Screenwriter Andrew Davies once described their exchange as “a swordfight set within a dance.” Indeed, every step forward or back obeys the courtesies of the ballroom, yet every word lands like a probing thrust. It is precisely this fusion of polished surface and underlying conflict that renders the scene one of the most charged moments in the series. In Regency society, dancing was among the few social rituals that allowed a man and a woman to remain near one another for an extended period. They might take hands, meet each other’s eyes, and converse without breaching decorum. At the same time, the rules bound them together until the music ended. The dance thus created a rare and charged circumstance: two people were required to sustain each other’s presence for the full length of the set, no matter how the conversation unfolded. The production exploits this circumstance with remarkable restraint. For much of the sequence, director Simon Langton keeps Elizabeth and Darcy together in medium shots and two-shots. Rather than cutting constantly between isolated close-ups, the camera often holds both speaker and listener within the same frame, allowing the audience to register dialogue, glances, and the smallest shifts of expression simultaneously. The choice ensures that every remark is immediately answered by the other’s reaction, rather than becoming two separate lines of speech. The blocking itself follows the architecture of a Regency dance. Elizabeth and Darcy continually change places, hands, and orientation, yet the movements always return them face to face. The rhythm of the dance supplies natural pauses in the conversation. Each time the partners separate and reunite, the two-shot continues to contain them both, so that every look, silence, and reply becomes part of the quiet contest taking place. The sound design preserves the atmosphere of a crowded ballroom. Carl Davis’s music mingles with the soft tread of feet, the rustle of other couples, and the low murmur of surrounding conversation. Against this continuous backdrop, Elizabeth and Darcy’s words remain clear yet never detach themselves from the larger space, so that their exchange feels like a natural strand within the evening rather than a private duet. Considered separately, the camera placement, blocking, and sound are all understated. Combined, they do not call attention to the dance itself; they transform the dance into the very arena for their dialogue. Within that arena, the film’s true interest lies not in the steps but in the shifting awareness of the two characters. For Elizabeth, this is the first moment when the opinions she has already formed about Darcy are tested against an immediate reality. From the opening lines she holds the initiative. She begins with perfectly proper remarks—“I believe we must have some conversation…” and “You should say something about the dance…”—yet her choice of words and tone carry a quiet irony more than any genuine wish for connection. As the exchange continues, she steers its tempo with pointed questions and sharp replies, gradually drawing the talk toward the subject that truly concerns her: George Wickham. This is not an open effort to understand Darcy; it is a verification of conclusions she has already reached. Yet that self-assurance is no longer entirely intact by the end of the dance. Jennifer Ehle conveys the slight fracture through the smallest of changes. Elizabeth’s voice remains intelligent and cutting, but her gaze is no longer purely interrogative. When she says, “I hear such different accounts of you as to puzzle me exceedingly,” she does not underline the line with sharp sarcasm. Her eyes flicker; a brief hesitation appears before the familiar sharpness returns. That nearly imperceptible moment reveals the first crack in a prejudice that had previously seemed airtight. If Ehle portrays a perception beginning to fracture, Colin Firth constructs Darcy as a man determined to preserve composure. From the outset he rarely initiates. He answers Elizabeth’s openings with brief questions, then attempts to steer the talk toward safer ground. As she continually returns the conversation to probing subjects, he grows more guarded, allowing longer pauses before he replies. Firth never expresses tension through dramatic gesture. A momentary stillness of the eyes, a measured hesitation before speaking, or a carefully controlled expression is enough to show that Darcy is weighing every word. By the time he says, “I wish, Miss Bennet, that you would not attempt to sketch my character at the present moment,” his voice remains level, yet it also reveals discomfort at the knowledge that she is trying to fix his character. Darcy never allows emotion to breach the bounds of civility, but the very effort of restraint exposes the pressure he feels. The dance does not cause him to abandon self-command; it forces him to recognize that Elizabeth judges him not by rank or reputation, but by what she believes to be true—and that his own dignity and reserve are insufficient to alter her view. Taken together, the restrained cinematic language and the psychological progression of both characters make plain that the sequence was never conceived as a romantic interlude. The entire scene directs attention to the dialogue itself. Within the strict framework of Regency etiquette, every question, every reply, and every silence becomes part of a contest of wits between two people intent on defending both their view of the other and the way they themselves are seen. The contest at Netherfield therefore ends without a victor. Elizabeth has not relinquished her prejudices, nor has Darcy succeeded in changing the way she regards him. Yet the encounter has already opened the first small fissure in the understanding of each. Elizabeth begins to doubt conclusions that once seemed certain; Darcy realizes for the first time that composure and dignity alone cannot secure the understanding of the woman he respects. That is what gives the image of “a swordfight set within a dance” its lasting force: the confrontation concludes not with a winner, but with the irreversible knowledge that neither can continue to see the other in quite the same way. The dance between Elizabeth and Darcy reflects a familiar paradox of human exchange: in many conversations, what people strive to protect is not merely their opinion, but the way they see another person and the way they wish to be seen in return. Thus a dialogue can easily become a struggle for the right to interpret, rather than an opportunity for genuine understanding. Perhaps that is the scene’s most enduring insight. Understanding rarely arrives fully formed within a single conversation. Yet conversation itself can be the place where the first cracks appear in settled prejudice. Only from those cracks can people begin, at last, to see one another truly.$

The Dance Between Elizabeth and Darcy: A Swordfight Cloaked in Ceremony In the 1995 adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice”, the dance between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy at the Netherfield ball is no romantic interlude. It is a confrontation carefully veiled beneath the forms of etiquette. Screenwriter Andrew Davies once described their exchange as “a swordfight set within a dance.” Indeed, every step forward or back obeys the courtesies of the ballroom, yet every word lands like a probing thrust. It is precisely this fusion of polished surface and underlying conflict that renders the scene one of the most charged moments in the series. In Regency society, dancing was among the few social rituals that allowed a man and a woman to remain near one another for an extended period. They might take hands, meet each other’s eyes, and converse without breaching decorum. At the same time, the rules bound them together until the music ended. The dance thus created a rare and charged circumstance: two people were required to sustain each other’s presence for the full length of the set, no matter how the conversation unfolded. The production exploits this circumstance with remarkable restraint. For much of the sequence, director Simon Langton keeps Elizabeth and Darcy together in medium shots and two-shots. Rather than cutting constantly between isolated close-ups, the camera often holds both speaker and listener within the same frame, allowing the audience to register dialogue, glances, and the smallest shifts of expression simultaneously. The choice ensures that every remark is immediately answered by the other’s reaction, rather than becoming two separate lines of speech. The blocking itself follows the architecture of a Regency dance. Elizabeth and Darcy continually change places, hands, and orientation, yet the movements always return them face to face. The rhythm of the dance supplies natural pauses in the conversation. Each time the partners separate and reunite, the two-shot continues to contain them both, so that every look, silence, and reply becomes part of the quiet contest taking place. The sound design preserves the atmosphere of a crowded ballroom. Carl Davis’s music mingles with the soft tread of feet, the rustle of other couples, and the low murmur of surrounding conversation. Against this continuous backdrop, Elizabeth and Darcy’s words remain clear yet never detach themselves from the larger space, so that their exchange feels like a natural strand within the evening rather than a private duet. Considered separately, the camera placement, blocking, and sound are all understated. Combined, they do not call attention to the dance itself; they transform the dance into the very arena for their dialogue. Within that arena, the film’s true interest lies not in the steps but in the shifting awareness of the two characters. For Elizabeth, this is the first moment when the opinions she has already formed about Darcy are tested against an immediate reality. From the opening lines she holds the initiative. She begins with perfectly proper remarks—“I believe we must have some conversation…” and “You should say something about the dance…”—yet her choice of words and tone carry a quiet irony more than any genuine wish for connection. As the exchange continues, she steers its tempo with pointed questions and sharp replies, gradually drawing the talk toward the subject that truly concerns her: George Wickham. This is not an open effort to understand Darcy; it is a verification of conclusions she has already reached. Yet that self-assurance is no longer entirely intact by the end of the dance. Jennifer Ehle conveys the slight fracture through the smallest of changes. Elizabeth’s voice remains intelligent and cutting, but her gaze is no longer purely interrogative. When she says, “I hear such different accounts of you as to puzzle me exceedingly,” she does not underline the line with sharp sarcasm. Her eyes flicker; a brief hesitation appears before the familiar sharpness returns. That nearly imperceptible moment reveals the first crack in a prejudice that had previously seemed airtight. If Ehle portrays a perception beginning to fracture, Colin Firth constructs Darcy as a man determined to preserve composure. From the outset he rarely initiates. He answers Elizabeth’s openings with brief questions, then attempts to steer the talk toward safer ground. As she continually returns the conversation to probing subjects, he grows more guarded, allowing longer pauses before he replies. Firth never expresses tension through dramatic gesture. A momentary stillness of the eyes, a measured hesitation before speaking, or a carefully controlled expression is enough to show that Darcy is weighing every word. By the time he says, “I wish, Miss Bennet, that you would not attempt to sketch my character at the present moment,” his voice remains level, yet it also reveals discomfort at the knowledge that she is trying to fix his character. Darcy never allows emotion to breach the bounds of civility, but the very effort of restraint exposes the pressure he feels. The dance does not cause him to abandon self-command; it forces him to recognize that Elizabeth judges him not by rank or reputation, but by what she believes to be true—and that his own dignity and reserve are insufficient to alter her view. Taken together, the restrained cinematic language and the psychological progression of both characters make plain that the sequence was never conceived as a romantic interlude. The entire scene directs attention to the dialogue itself. Within the strict framework of Regency etiquette, every question, every reply, and every silence becomes part of a contest of wits between two people intent on defending both their view of the other and the way they themselves are seen. The contest at Netherfield therefore ends without a victor. Elizabeth has not relinquished her prejudices, nor has Darcy succeeded in changing the way she regards him. Yet the encounter has already opened the first small fissure in the understanding of each. Elizabeth begins to doubt conclusions that once seemed certain; Darcy realizes for the first time that composure and dignity alone cannot secure the understanding of the woman he respects. That is what gives the image of “a swordfight set within a dance” its lasting force: the confrontation concludes not with a winner, but with the irreversible knowledge that neither can continue to see the other in quite the same way. The dance between Elizabeth and Darcy reflects a familiar paradox of human exchange: in many conversations, what people strive to protect is not merely their opinion, but the way they see another person and the way they wish to be seen in return. Thus a dialogue can easily become a struggle for the right to interpret, rather than an opportunity for genuine understanding. Perhaps that is the scene’s most enduring insight. Understanding rarely arrives fully formed within a single conversation. Yet conversation itself can be the place where the first cracks appear in settled prejudice. Only from those cracks can people begin, at last, to see one another truly.

🌸🎵 Beautiful Melody 🎶💖

29,606 次观看 • 22 天前