Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
๐ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ผ ๐ฎ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ต๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐โฆ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐๐๐ป๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ. โ๏ธ Jakob expected boredom. He found reverence. No coffee. No greeters. No stage lights. Just silence, incense, and 2,000 years of worship. He said: โ๐ ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ช๐ค ๐ค๐ฉ๐ถ๐ณ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ด ๐ฎ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ข ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ... show more
40,003 Aufrufe โข vor 9 Monaten โขvia X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfรผgbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
![๐๐๐ '๐๐๐๐๐๐๐' ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐. A new working paper out of UCLA by political psychologist Samuel Pratt has just measured something American conservatives have been claiming for ten years and pretending was anecdotal. It is not anecdotal. It is now data. Pratt and his team built what they call the ๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ซ๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ โ a survey instrument asking respondents how strongly they agree with statements like "๐ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ด๐ค๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ." Three findings. ๐๐ง๐: the belief is stable over time. People who say it this week say it next week. ๐๐ฐ๐จ: the demographic profile of high-scorers is precise. They are ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ , ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐, ๐ง๐จ๐ง-๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ญ๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ. They self-rate as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and โ the key variable โ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฌ. ๐๐ก๐ซ๐๐: they report lower emotional stability, higher anxiety, higher depression, and a stronger tendency to see themselves as ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฌ in everyday conflicts. In one sentence, the psychometric profile of the modern American "empathy advocate" is: ๐๐ง๐ฑ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ, ๐๐๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐, ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ-๐๐จ๐๐๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ-๐๐๐ง๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ. ๐๐จ๐ฐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ Watch California Congresswoman Katie Porter at last week's gubernatorial debate, in real time, demonstrating how the empathy mechanism produces atrocious policy. "๐๐ง ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฎ๐บ ๐ค๐ญ๐ข๐ด๐ด [...] ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ช๐ข ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ถ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ." Empathetic. Reassuring. Compassionate. Also flatly false. Per CBS News' 2020 Los Angeles survey, only ๐๐% of homeless individuals had done any work in the calendar quarter they became homeless. A 2017 San Francisco survey found ๐๐% working part-time or full-time. The reason is no mystery โ a substantial majority of street-homeless Americans are managing untreated severe mental illness, active substance abuse, or both. The "empathetic" policy that emerges from Porter's framing is to leave them on the street. The actually humane policy involves involuntary commitment, mandated treatment, and structured housing โ every one of which the empathy-coded liberal reflexively rejects as cruel. Pratt's data and the on-the-ground reality converge on the same uncomfortable conclusion: ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ, ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฌ, because empathy at scale stops asking ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ด and starts asking ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ How does a fringe view โ communist Twitch streamers, candidates openly excusing full-scale mโrder, congressmen calling themselves democratic socialists โ capture an entire major American political party? Nassim Taleb has the cleanest explanation. He calls it ๐ซ๐๐ง๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. A family of four. One daughter โ ๐๐% of the household โ only eats organic. Mom faces a nightly choice: cook two meals or cook one all-organic meal. The all-organic meal is easier. The household renormalizes to the daughter's preference. The family then attends a barbecue with three other families. The host has the same choice: two menus, or one all-organic. The all-organic menu is easier. ๐๐% renormalizes ๐๐๐% of dinner. Now imagine the daughter's "preference" is not organic food. It is the belief that bank robbery is righteous, that Israel is a colonial regime which must be dismantled, that your health insurance executive should be eliminated by force, and that anyone who objects is a fascist. The mechanism is identical. The intransigent minority creates an asymmetric cost on resistance. The majority renormalizes for convenience. French physicist ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ has modeled the threshold formally. In his work on opinion dynamics, an extreme view captures a population at roughly ๐๐% activated support โ provided the activists do three things consistently. They activate latent prejudices already present in the population. They impose a binary choice: "๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ." And they refuse, ever, to compromise on their core position. Pseudo-moderates then join โ not because they have been persuaded by the full activist position, but because the binary has been imposed and the alternative ("siding with the oppressor") has been made socially intolerable. ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ค๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐๐๐ญ This is the most important paragraph in this post. Read it twice. Hasan Piker โ the Twitch streamer who endorses bank robberies, defends H-m-s, and lives in a $3 million Brentwood mansion โ is ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐. He represents maybe 5-7% of the country. He does not move the needle by himself. The threat is the ๐ฉ๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐๐จ-๐ฆ๐จ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ โ the ๐๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ด reporter who profiles him sympathetically, the Democratic congressman who appears on his stream, the Hollywood actor who shares his clips, the Brooklyn schoolteacher who attends his rallies, the empathetic college freshman who decides he is "๐ข ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ, ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ช๐ด ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต." That coalition โ Galam's ๐๐% โ is what flips the country. Hasan is just the visible 5%. This is also why Pratt's UCLA paper matters. The trait that creates the pseudo-moderate flank is the same trait the activists exploit: ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ, ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฌ. That is the recruitable population. That is the lever Hasan and his industry operate. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐
๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ Empathy is not a virtue. It is a ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ. Like physical sensitivity to heat, it can produce wisdom or it can produce hysteria, depending entirely on what is paired with it. What converts empathy into wisdom is ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ โ the willingness to evaluate consequences, to insist on results, to ask whether the policy that "feels compassionate" actually produces outcomes you would call humane in a year, a decade, or a lifetime. What converts empathy into tyranny is the ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ง๐๐ of judgment โ pure feeling, with no constraint, in service of a binary moral choice imposed by an activated 20%. That is the Democratic Party of 2026. The Pratt scale measures it. The Galam threshold predicts it. Katie Porter demonstrates it. Hasan Piker exploits it. ๐
๐ข๐ฑ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2050939575993069948/amplify_video_thumb/2050938608597737472/img/59L68TDVsmWi6NJz.jpg)
![The Enemy Within: An American Muslim Claims - The U.S. is the Enemy of Islam By: Ofer Binshtok Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose many followers rely on his vast and profound knowledge of Islam, positions the United Statesโhis birthplace and country of citizenshipโas an enemy of Muslims. He asserts that the West, led by the U.S., fundamentally opposes Sharia and Tawhid, listing it alongside Israel and Russia as part of a hostile coalition against Islamโs victory. To him, Islam views the U.S. as an enemy, and every believing Muslim must recognize this. "The army of the Jews is a stoneโs throw away with tanks and planes, waging war alongside the U.S.," he says, yet emphasizes: "They achieve a stunning, lightning-speed victory"โa clear allusion to the conquest of Damascus and the fall of Assad through Jihad. He declares Jihad as "the central pillar" of Islam, rejecting any permanent treaty with disbelievers like the U.S., who "will never accept Sharia," as it negates the struggle to impose Allahโs laws. Citing verses such as "And fight them until there is no more fitnah" (Al-Anfal 8:39), he permits only temporary truces. Jibril sees the victory over Assad as a step in the Jihad to establish Sharia, paving the way to defeat the U.S. and IsraelโIslamโs primary enemies. Details of His Criminal Acts: In 2004, Jibril was convicted in Detroit, alongside his father, on 42 serious charges: conspiracy, bank fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and possession of firearms and ammunition as a felon. The prosecution uncovered a sophisticated scheme involving the destruction of his properties to collect insurance money, resulting in losses of about $400,000. A mail carrier identified mail sent to over 80 aliases, and fake voter registration cards under fictitious names were found at his sisterโs home. Sentenced to 6.5 years in a maximum-security prison in Terre Haute, Indiana ("Guantanamo North"), he was released in 2012 and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. These crimes reveal a pattern of criminal behavior that aligns with his views. Background: Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril is an Islamic-American preacher, a graduate of the University of Medina in Sharia, and holder of a law degree from Michigan. He gained prominence through his lectures on Tawhid and Jihad, attracting numerous followers who admire his deep knowledge, though he sparked controversy after his 2004 conviction. His words are seen as influential among Jihad supporters via social media. Part Two: Implications for the U.S. and the Historical Dimension Muslims in the U.S. who adopt Jibrilโs worldview pose a cunning and dangerous internal threat lurking within American society. With his profound knowledge, he makes it clear this is a religious duty for every believer, backed by commands like "And fight them until there is no more fitnah (non-Muslims)" (Al-Anfal 8:39) and "Slay the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them" (Al-Tawbah 9:5), perfectly aligning with Jihadโs practical actions. They live in the U.S. but are loyal to a vision aiming to topple it from withinโpart of a 1,400-year Islamic colonialist campaign that began with Muhammadโs sword, conquering Persia, Byzantium, and Spain, replacing entire cultures with Sharia. For them, the U.S. is a future battlefield, continuing a patient tradition that waited centuries to seize "infidel" lands. Americaโs internal security faces a severe threatโnot immediate, but as part of a long, calculated historical process that Jibril and his followers represent. They exploit democratic freedoms to grow stronger and plan, just as Islam waited before Constantinople fell in 1453. The victory over Assad proves their plan is in motion, and the U.S. is a future target that could take decades or centuriesโa strategy that reshaped the world over 1,400 years and, in their view, will succeed again. Chapter on Additional Supporting References: As stated in Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)โ As stated in Quran 9.5: โ...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find themโฆ" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." As stated in Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." - The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran ); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amana publications-Beltsville. Maryland U.S.A. Page 599-601. [CERTIFICATION OF AL-AZHAR] IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy. General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. Mr, Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amman, Jordan. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. To commence: In response to the request you have submitted concerning the examination of the English translation of the book 'Umdat al-salik wa 'uddat alnasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib in the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence, together with appendices by Islamic scholars on matters of Islamic law, tenets of faith, and personal ethics and character: we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a). There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. The stamping of the pages of the above-mentioned work with the seal of the department has been completed. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Composed on 26 Rajab 1411 A.H.l11 February 1991 A.D. General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar [signed] Muhammad 'Umar Muhammad 'Umar [signed] Seal of al-Azhar [stamped] General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. - Can Islam live in true peace with the infidels? No. By: Ofer Binshtok Only Hudna (truces), a temporary ceasefire, is made because Islam is in a weak position against the infidels. Hudna buys Islam time until its power overcomes the infidels, and then it will exterminate them, in accordance with Allahโs commands from the Quran and Muhammad. *According to Muhammad, Bukhari 1765, the earth belongs to Allah and his messenger, to Islam: Bukhari 1765: "โฆThe Messenger of Allah (๏ทบ) said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostleโฆ" * According to Allah, from Qur'an 47.35, Allah commands the believers, do not seek peace when your hand is uppermost: Qur'an 47.35: "โฆSo do not weaken and call for peace while you are superiorโฆ" * When Islam is in a position of weakness against the infidels, they have a holy command from Allah from the Quran and Muhammad to lie to the infidels to buy time: Muhammad in Bukhari hadith 3029: Allah's Messenger (๏ทบ) called,: "War is deceit". Muhammad in Hadith Sahih, in Tirmidhi 1939: โLying in time of warโ. The message from Quran 3.28: Permission to lie to disbelievers as a defense, when Islam is in a state of weakness. Taqiyya. The message from Quran 16.106: "...Whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allฤh after his belief...except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith..." * Indeed, Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels: โIslam is in an eternal state of war against heresy and disbelieversโ. Quran 9.29 begins with: โFight those who do not believe in Allah...โ The message is also from Quran 8.39 Fight the disbelievers until only Islam will exists in the world. Quran 9.123 begins with: "O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you..." The message is also from Hadith Bukhari 25: "Fight the disbelievers until they all convert to Islam and only then will their lives and property be protectedโฆ" * In 628 AD, Muhammad moved towards Mecca with an army of 1,400 warriors, a force that was not strong enough to face the mechanical army of the Quraysh tribe. This is why he signed the Hudna Treaty of Hudaybiya, a temporary 10-year ceasefire with the Quraish tribe. An agreement that was considered humiliating for him since he was forbidden to sign it while mentioning his status as a prophet and messenger of Allah. But Muhammad saw this agreement as a victory that gave him time to break the Quraysh's defense agreements with third parties (Bukhari 2731-2732). Which indeed allowed him a year later, in 629, to also attack the Jews of Khaibar. * According to Sharia law, hudna is a temporary ceasefire agreement for ten years; this is the only agreement that Muslims are allowed to sign with the infidels: * TRUCES (Hudna) 09.16 (O: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as: (1) "An acquittal from Allah and His messenger..." (Koran 9:1); (2) "If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also" (Koran 8:61); as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim. Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions. There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High says, "So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Koran ) Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires. * In 630 AD, Muhammad's power increased; he broke the agreement with Quraish and moved towards Mecca with about 10 thousand warriors and conquered it. The Quraish tribe converted to Islam, and Muhammad abolished the religious tolerance that existed in Mecca. With his own hands, he began to destroy the 360 holy sites for the different religions that lived there in mutual tolerance and harmony. He abolished this tolerance and left only the Islamic holy site. * Quran 8.58, in fact, allows Muslims to cancel any contract for "fearโ that the other party will break it. Not because the other party violated the agreement, but only out of fear. So signing an agreement with Islam is basically meaningless. Quran 8.58: "If you are afraid of the treachery of some of your allies, you may disregard your treaty with them. God does not love the treacherous ones." In conclusion: As a religious command, from Allah, from the Quran, from Muhammad, and from Sharia law: * Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels, until it destroys them. * When Islam is weak, the believers are commanded to obtain a hudna (temporary ceasefire) so that they can gain strength that will surpass the strength of the infidels. * There is no meaning in signing an agreement with Islam since they are allowed to violate it at any moment. * When the power of the believers exceeds the power of the infidels, the believers are ordered to abandon the Hudna agreement and destroy the infidels. - A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be establishedโthat is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyรขโ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyรขโ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyรขโ), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allรขh guides not those people who are the Zรขlimรปn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." - Islamic Conquests Throughout History](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1893989034554253679/ext_tw_video_thumb/1893986101515149312/pu/img/su5JR-omZK5TyU5m.jpg)
!["You just hate Hichilema": The dramatic fall of Zambia's president By Sishuwa Sishuwa Hakainde Hichilema stood in the queue to becoming President of Zambia for 15 years before voters finally removed him from it in August 2021. This demonstrates how badly the man wanted this job. But it has taken him only five years in office to display his unfitness for the role. When it comes to the bigger national issues, such as safeguarding our cherished democracy, getting the best out of Zambiaโs mineral wealth, respecting the constitution and the rule of law, fighting corruption beyond rhetoric, genuine promotion of national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service positions, sorting out the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most Zambians, Hichilema has lamentably failed. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the President has become a clear and present danger to Zambiaโs economy, to our democracy, our constitutional order, our nationhood and its 'One Zambia Nation' foundation, and to the lives of ordinary Zambians. Voting Hichilema out of office will be the highest expression of patriotism. As I have previously stated, I am convinced that Hichilema will lose the election on 13 August. The only thing that can save him from defeat is pre-ballot death (of any candidate) or industrial scale vote-rigging. I really hope that we Zambians will never again elect a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag. In addition to his policy failures on major issues of public concern, one reason why Hichilema is losing the election (unless he rigs it on an industrial scale) is because of having extremist supporters, mostly Zambezi supremacists, who dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership actions as hate speech and consequently enable his continued failure to be receptive to criticism, to reflect on the feedback provided by the governed, and to change for the better. When citizens (be it the Catholic Bishops, opposition parties, civic actors, or ordinary Zambians like me) raise governance concerns, they do so in the spirit of accountable democratic governance. They do not do so because they hate the president as a person, hate his ethnic identity, or hate where he was born. I insist that a better Zambia is possible but we wonโt get it if we treat criticism of presidential leadership failure as expression of hate. Unfortunately, even Hichilema himself has embraced this warped thinking that any criticism of his leadership actions is hate speech. This attitude has deprived him of the much needed feedback on his leadership performance and capacity to listen to divergent views, consequently impoverishing his presidency. We must embrace the unfamiliar, eschew haste in passing judgement, and be more tolerant and understanding. These qualities are especially essential to those in public leadership roles. I once raised concern that we seem to have prepared different standards for this president compared to those who came before him. If a leader can only provide five hours of electricity to the people in a day, they have failed. If a leader can only increase the cost of living, they have failed. If a leaderโฆI can go on. In addition to denying the president the benefit of legitimate public feedback on his performance, misconstruing criticism as hate makes it look like the responsibility of holding our public leaders to account falls on those who either love him or hail from the region where the president does not come from. If his supporters and Tongas, Lozis and Zambians from Northwestern Province join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer play the tribal card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred. In the uncritical minds of some of the president's supporters, I criticise Hichilema because I hate him! Most of the individuals who hold this view are people who repeatedly criticise me on this platform, even when their criticism is quite often devoid of reason or substance. I do not think those who criticise me do so because they hate me. I think they criticise me, even if I hold no elected public office, simply because they have a different take, different opinions, on things. Why is it so hard to apply the same logic to my criticism of an elected public leader like Hichilema who is accountable to us, the public? I have been providing regular political commentaries on Zambian affairs since 2009. Why was my much stronger criticism of Hichilema's predecessors, namely Rupiah Banda, Michael Sata, and Edgar Lungu, not considered hatred of these individual leaders? In fact, many of the individuals who today accuse me of harbouring hatred for Hichilema were people who were very happy with my much stinging criticism of the leadership failures of his predecessors. When I called Sata a tribalist and undemocratic leader who did not listen to advise, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Sata's supporters said I was bitter and a Hichilema supporter. When I called Lungu a tribalist and corrupt leader, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Lungu's supporters said I was bitter and petitioned the police to arrest me for sedition. Some of Hichilema's supporters, as part of the enjoyment of their exercise of the right to free expression, even insult me, call me names, or outrightly declare that they dislike me. Of course I would prefer content-based discussion, but if the best that anyone's mind can do is to insult me, I will consider their actions as part of the right to free expression. I recognise that people have the right to dislike me, to call me names, to wish me whatever they desire, to feel however they want about me. I have no problem with all this. I do not speak to be liked or secure the validation of anyone. I speak to express myself and I respect the right of other people to do the same. As I have repeatedly stated, free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with; it is also for people we despise and opinions that we do not support. The important point is not the position I take on a given issue of public interest. It is the reasoning advanced in support of said position. If I say Hichilema is a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag, what is important is not simply this description; it is the reasons and evidence I have adduced in support of this conclusion. Anyone is welcome to challenge my conclusions or evidence, to say "I disagree with your argument for this and that reason." What I totally reject is the idea that criticism of a president's leadership actions amounts to hate; it does not. If I point out that Hichilema is failing to ensure adequate ethnic diversity in public appointments and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilemaโs fight against corruption is a sham and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has eroded Zambiaโs democracy and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to reduce the cost of living, as per his campaign promise, and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema (working in cohort with his friend Situmbeko Musokotwane) has facilitated the extraction of the countryโs mineral wealth by multinational corporations without ensuring sufficient returns in revenue collection for Zambia and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed toโฆand provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. Simply dismissing my criticism as an expression of my alleged hatred for Hichilema is most unhelpful. Those who do so are depriving me the opportunity to learn what I do not know and Hichilema the opportunity to adjust his leadership style and change for the better. While I do not hesitate to share my opinions on matters of public concern, I also retain the intellectual integrity of one who is willing to abandon their point of view if its weakness can be shown. I have repeatedly stated that I harbour no hatred against Hichilema. What I hate is his bad leadership, whose meaning I have explained in the article below. There is no constitutional democracy in the world that requires citizens to love their elected leaders. Loving individuals is the responsibility of their spouses and family members. Once these individuals step up to hold elective public office, we owe them one thing: accountability or feedback on their performance. No elected public leader or their supporter should burden me or another person with any demand for affirmation or affection. In a functioning democracy, the duty of citizens is to hold their elected leaders to account so that they deliver basic services and do not undermine accountable democratic governance. This is what I have been doing across different administrations, including this one. As early as December 2021, when I analysed Hichilma's first 100 days in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2022, when he was celebrating one year in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2023, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2024, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In fact, as did his predecessor in 2021 in response to my criticism of the abuse of state institutions to fix critics and opponents, the president asked his supporters to report me to the police for alleged hate speech against him! In 2025, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. This year and for the many reasons that I shared in the interview on the link below, Hichilema is losing the election because he did not listen to criticism that we, as citizens, raised about his performance. He is also losing the election because of his extremist supporters who, in addition to a wilful but harmful failure to hold him to account, dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership from other people as hate speech. What a pity! What a wasted opportunity! I have just read a story on a ruling party platform casually dismissing Global Witness's report that "Ahead of Zambia's general election...First Quantum Minerals and its associates have been running a decades-long covert influence campaign distorting the copper-rich nation's democracy" and that the Canadian firm has "become his [Hichilema's] largest funder in the upcoming 2026 election after pledging up to $50 million in support." The report adds that "FQM has reaped enormous benefits: major changes to Zambia's tax regime have save the company $771 million between 2022 and 2025, and it has been shielded from legal scrutiny." Rather than interrogating these grave concerns, the publisher, the Zambian Watchdog which is run from State House, is treating the issue so casually when Global Witness, a very credible international outlet, raises serious corruption and governance allegations. In January 2019, I raised questions about Hichilema's relationship with foreign mining firms, but was told by his supporters that I just hate him. Today, we are ere. The net result is that Hichilema, who in opposition politics had positioned himself as the reformist leader Zambia needed to reclaim its democracy, eliminate corruption, unite the country, and set it on the path to economic recovery, has, in power, turned out to be nearly everything he detested about his predecessor and, in some cases, much worse. Under his watch, corruption has thrived on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions have worsened, Zambiaโs previously principled foreign policy has been shredded into something unrecognisable, and democracy is essentially non-existent. The man who was expected to lead reform has instead transitioned into an aspiring despot. Unless he rigs the election, or eliminates his main rival, Zambians should prepare for a new administration after 13 August. Many voters have reached a point of no return and it is too late for Hichilema to change their mind. A combination of failure to listen and the "you just hate Hichilema" brigade has destroyed his once promising presidency. I see many people expressing surprise at the huge turnout at Brian Mundubile's rallies. What they miss is that the turnout reflects the revulsion against Hichilema rather than genuine support for Brian. Even if Brian was not there, voters would have rallied behind another candidate through which to express their opposition to Hichilema as a result of his major policy failures. As early as 2023, wen I noticed Hichilema's direction of travel, I warned that the greatest opposition that he and the UPND face is a politically alert and informed citizenry, not an opposition party: โThe biggest opposition that Hichilema faces is the people, particularly if he fails to lower the cost of living and tackle the huge unemployment outside the health and education sectors. They can stop opposition rallies like Edgar Lungu and the PF tried to do but if Zambians would have decided in a year or two that Hichilema must go at the next election, there is nothing that he can do to stop them....Even if Hichilema tries to, he cannot stop the peopleโs will. Even if he succeeds in killing the PF and in his manoeuvres to block his main political opponents from running in 2026, another platform and another candidate to serve as the outlet of opposition will be found. The voters will support any visionary patriot they see as better placed to be used as the vehicle for removing Hichilema just like they chose him as the vehicle for removing Lungu. Please tell himโ. Hichilema did not listen. Again. This continued failure to listen prompted my conclusion two years later that "Many Zambians may not know yet who they will vote for in the 2026 presidential election, but they already know who they wonโt vote for." The truth is that I tried to warn Hichilema in good time and at different points that he was heading in the wrong direction. The President, dripping with arrogance, did not listen. Think of it this way. A bus (representing a political party in power) is transporting passengers (active citizens) from Intercity terminus (2021, being the departure point of where we did not want to be anymore) to Nakonde (2026, being the arrival point of destination before subsequently deciding whether to book the same bus for the return trip). After leaving Intercity, some passengers notice that the bus is heading towards Livingstone (a wrong destination that takes us back to before 2021). A few of us (active citizens) decide to stand up (holding the leader to account) and confront both the driver (the president) and his conductor (Minister of Finance), demanding an explanation for why we are heading to Livingstone when we were promised that we woud be taken to Nakonde. Other passengers, mainly those who came from the ethnic group of the driver and conductor, defended the duo even before it could respond to our concerns. They repeatedly told us that "You just hate the driver. Please sit down!" One or two relatives of the conductor joined in support, saying the "The driver and the conductor are excellent and one of them has even won awards for stellar performance on his duties, including his remarkable capacity to understand direction of travel"! That is how some passengers kept quiet. I kept on talking, especially after we reached Choma in the hope that if we turned atthat point, we woudl not wast more time. I talked because I could not get off the bus at undesigned stations, so the only solution was to appeal to the driver to change course. I explained that it would be an act of extreme irresponsibility on my part as an active passenger to wait until the bus has reached Livingstone before holding the driver to account about the direction of travel. That is why I tried to warn the driver that we were headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, other passengers said we should just sit back comfortably, enjoy the ride which included some morsels of food delivered by the bus, and trust the driver because other drivers before him were much worse. In the end, we arrived in Livingstone, our undesired destination. Just when we were arriving, we saw another bus, loading passing from there directly to Nakonde. The driver, upon realising the cost of his failure to listen and the disappointment in the eyes of the passengers, urged everyone to sit down, promising that he would take us to Nakonde if we give him more time. With the exception of those who came from the driver's ethnic group and the auxiliary ones, most passengers, who had shown great faith in his driving skills by paying (voting) the fare for the bus as their mode of transport from Intercity to Nakonde, have left the bus for the other. These include those who had adopted silence during the journey after realising that the driver, aided by the choir mentioned, was not a listening kind. As I write this post, the alternative bus is almost full. The same passengers who accused those of us who, along the way, advised the driver to change course, of harbouring hatred for the driver are now wondering why nearly everyone is leaving the bus we came with for an alternative one that is promising to take us directly to Nakonde. One of the driver's supporters, reiterating the driver's earlier appeal that we should stick to the bus that brought us to Livingstone, just shouted at us a moment ago: "The alternative bus will take you to a wrong destination. Its driver cannot be trusted; just stick to this one because you won't have to pay a new fare". The supporter is overlooking the point that we are already at a wrong destination, the current driver has betrayed our trust, and that we would rather repose our trust in another person. It is not good to remain on a bus, driven by a person who does not listen, out of the fear that an alternative one might be driven by someone who could be worse. Let us try the alternative bus. If its driver takes us to a wrong destination, we will disembark from the bus we are about to jump onto, as we have done before, and find another one until we reach Nakonde. For me and other active passengers, such has been the the current driver's betrayal of our trust that we have reached a point of no return. We cannot trust this driver anymore, especially that when we tried to correct him, no one explained to us why our concerns were unfounded. We were just told that we hate hate the driver or his ethic group or or the province where he comes from. Recently, Dr Lee Habasonda, a lecturer in political science at the University of Zambia, told Reuters (watch the video clip on the link below) that electoral success is a matter of thresholds โ of grievances, feelings, frustrations, etc. Leeโs view is that once a certain threshold or tipping point has been reached, "no matter your manifesto, ideology, lies" or whatever those in power do or say, the voters will "decide to change government" because they would have reached a point of no return. Emotionally, many Zambian voters, including some that I know who voted for Hichilema in 2021, have passed that threshold where no matter what Hichilema or UPND does, these voters will reject him. This is because the threshold, or the point of no return, has been reached. As Lee argued, those in power "may say we have already won this election when they campaign but the political coalitions and realignment" suggest otherwise. When the opposition wins next month, we will need to advise them to get non-sycophants at State House and in the critical posts in the civil service. It is important that they understand that unless there is a clear shift away from the harmful culture we have raised concerns about, we will be compelled to challenge them with the same resolve we previously applied to both the PF and UPND governments. On my part, I promise that I will always be on the side of the people. You will not find me in government even after the election. Once Hichilema is out of office, I will leave him alone and my attention will shift to holding to account the next set of public leaders. As I made clear in 2021, I am content serving as an academic and I will work, as part of my civic duty, to hold the new Government to account as I did with previous Governments. I am not available for or interested in any form of government job. For now, Iet me continue listening to the attached song. Chalo chesu.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2078449842368483816/amplify_video_thumb/2078427007344427008/img/tCO3n_fY3sOVQlej.jpg)
!["How do you know you can trust what [a non-human intelligence is] saying?" ~Bigelow Bigelow/Knapp 2: If I Was President, I'd Tell the World We Have Non-Human Craft and Bodies "The President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation...is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something." ~Bigelow Do China and Russia also have non-human bodies and craft? "Oh yeah, freaking yes!" ~Bigelow ~ "You've opened up Pandora's box." ~Bigelow ~ 17:44 (I'm using the KLAS YT video for time stamps. As you'll see, I add a lot to these, so they take forever to put together.) George Knapp (GK): "Would you guess - based on what you know about the topic and how it's been handled over the decades - would you guess that [Trump] had been briefed, or that any other presidents have been briefed? You know that Bill Clinton was not, even though he expressed an interest in it. So at some point, the President has to be told, 'No, we can't tell ya.'" Robert Bigelow (RB): "I think Bush Sr. knew quite a bit because he was the head of the CIA." (Dr. Eric Davis says Bush. Sr. told him some interesting things, including that he (Bush) was partially briefed in 1976 about the alleged 1964 Holloman AFB landing and meeting, and more, when he first became the director of the CIA in 1976. Watch Davis explain it, here. ) ~ RB: "I think Nixon did." (We have the Jackie Gleason story, where Nixon allegedly snuck away from his Secret Service detail and took Gleason to see non-human bodies at Homestead Air Force Base. But that was a claim from his ex-wife, and Gleason, who died in 1987, never said anything about it, on the record. The controversial Larry Warren (Rendlesham) claims Gleason told him the same story, but that's it.) Bigelow: "I think Eisenhower did. So, it's kind of hit and miss over historic...over the period of history as to who has and who hasn't." 18:20 Knapp: "Can you tell us what would be in the briefing document that you left behind? Was it cases? Here's a wave of UFOs, here's a case, here was a crash. Anything like that?" Bigelow: "Yeah, I related conversations I have had with General De Brouwer, who was the chief of the Air Force for Belgium. And there was a very interesting flap that was about 18 months long (1989-1990) with triangular craft. And he was in command of all the Air Force, and he really chased the heck out of these. "And he told me, he said, Bob, 'I'm just burning fuel, and it makes no sense.' He said, 'We're gonna stop because we're not getting anywhere. All we're doing is getting closer, you know, photographs and things, but we're not getting anywhere. We're not getting any information that is really valuable for us to understand anything.'" (I wonder if those were OUR triangles? If so, it's still a solid case/flap of anomalous craft. Dick D'Amato was a longtime (18 years) senior staffer for Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.) "Dick D'Amato has returned from Belgium where he met with Colonel De Brouwer, a 'very interesting fellow.' Dickโs conclusion, again, is that the triangular objects are very plain human craft. ~Jacques Vallรฉe's Forbidden Science Volume 4 - November 1992 And then we have this... Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP, to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value." Lacatski: "[three-second pause] It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." Video... ~~~ RB: "And I gave [Trump] other examples of where large amounts of witnesses were involved, and so that he could read about these particular [incidents]. And, of course, the one with Fife Simington in '97 was so interesting. Because there you had a governor who was an actual witness, and he made a joke of it on and brought a guy in an alien suit on stage because he was scared to death." GK: "It's the Phoenix Lights case." (Great case for Bigelow to show Trump.) RB: "The Phoenix Lights, which weren't just lights, it was actually friggin' craft, and it came from northern Arizona. I think it started, actually, in southern Nevada, is where the craft began. In the Henderson area (not far from me. ~Joe), I think, somewhere in there. And, so you see this huge triangular craft, gigantic craft, going slowly, and [Symington] was scared to death. "But finally, fast forward 10 years later, and he confesses that he was an eyewitness, but he didn't know what to do. So he was there at a point in time when the dynamic of disclosure could have been forced, and actually, confirmation could have been from a governor of the state like that. He was a credible guy. "So we've had many [incidents] like that in the early 50s, flying over the White House and the Capitol building. We've had so many of those. So, in my report, I included a lot of very dramatic, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of witnesses of exhibitions." GK: "Did you share with him anything about your knowledge of a classified program?" RB: "No." GK: "You got a Top-Secret security clearance, right?" RB: "Yeah" GK: "It was for the AAWSAP program for BAASS." RB: "Right." GK: "Operated under the DIA." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You learned a lot during that program. It's the largest accumulation of UFO info. of any government-funded UFO program ever." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You didn't tell him about it." RB: "It wasn't credible enough, I felt, for him." (Someone on here watched this interview and told me that Bigelow said the AAWSAP data wasn't credible. That is NOT what he said. Not credible enough for Trump, is what he said. And if you read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" or listen any of Lacatki's interviews where he talks about UFOs being under a paranormal umbrella, I think Bigelow made the right decision for an 11-minute briefing for someone (Trump) who seems to be struggling (at least in public comments) with the reality of the basics.) RB: "[The AAWSAP data is] just something pertaining to me. And whereas, these other examples are historic, and they're in a lot of literature, they're very famous. The amount of witnesses were huge. We operated under a private situation with the Skinwalker Ranch, and he wouldn't relate to...well, we all had hitchhikers, we all took things home with us. You know, we all saw a lot of stuff. Whether it was at the ranch or where we lived, it didn't make any difference where in the United States we lived. We saw a lot of things, but that wouldn't be relevant for him to be able to relate to that, right?" GK: "Well." RB: "So, why talk about it?" GK: "Yeah, I mean, you know, you're kind of jumping into the deep end of the pool when you get into hitchhikers and skinwalkers." RB: "Yeah." GK: "Maybe for your first big conversation on this topic, that might not be the place to go." RB: "No, you know. And I couldn't even...if he said, 'Oh, I need a beer (Knapp laughs),' I couldn't even give him something to drink. You know, maybe stronger than that. So, I didn't wanna do any, you know." 22:15 GK: "You used the term non-human intelligence in the sentence you gave him. Hey, try this as you're climbing aboard Air Force One. Say that to media, and then, you know, close the door." RB: "Right." GK: "You said non-human intelligence, not ET. Are they the same, and did you share anything with him about what you think it is?" RB: "Well, there have been reports of humans on board, right? But the non-human are more interesting. I mean, if a human's on board and he or she has free reign of the craft, that's pretty damn interesting, right? And you don't know where those people are when they're not on board." (I wonder what cases he's talking about? Travis Walton reported seeing humans with non-humans and John Keel wrote about humans being seen onboard craft.) ~ Bigelow: "But the other ones are...some are scary, you know? It's not surprising, that, in the Universe, everything is [not] gonna look like us. Every intelligent organism is [not] going to look like us. But you have to have... It's also a matter of respect for any really intelligent animal or creature, whatever it is, right? And the more advanced, the more respect because you don't know what they know, and you don't know the future. And they may know. They may know more than just the now." (In interviews (which I can't find right now), Bigelow has hinted at an unstoppable, not-so-rosy future for mankind. Have people in the Legacy programs told him that the NHI have warned us about our doomed future or some cataclysmic event? Or, has Bigelow encountered these non-humans (or humans) and had them make claims about our future?) ~ 23:34 GK: "If you were to have a second conversation with him, would you explain that ET is one idea, but it's not necessarily the only option for a non-human intelligence that's out there?" RB: "You have to tell me first how much time do I have with the second conversation?" GK: "[laughs] Let's make it an hour. You have an hour with the President. What would you tell them about who they are, who they might be?" RB: "Umm... So, I would try to get into the complexity of the relationship. That once you've had confirmation, you know, you've given that text of that little sentence I wrote and quoted there, and you start to go down the path of disclosure, where it's more than than just FLIR videos, and you're seeing other things that are much more crystal clear, you know, in video. "Or, legitimate people in places that you recognize these people, and they're around something, or with some thing, or somebody that's a holy cow, that's wow, you know. That's a very dramatic kind of disclosure about something landing on the lawn somewhere, you know." (I have no idea what he's talking about. Anybody else able to decipher that? Is he saying that there's evidence (that he's seen?) of people that we know (a President or head of state?) hanging with a non-human or next to a downed or landed craft?) RB: "So I think what I would have spent time doing is talking about, how do you establish: You've been in 80 years of denial as a nation, and the world. We have countries who are very upfront, and others that are also in denial. Now you wanna pivot 180 degrees. How do you start that relationship? How do you do that? "And it's not as though that we've ever been in control. We haven't been in control of anything, ever, for this 80 years of modern history. Nothing. We have no ability to control anything." GK: "That's a tough thing to tell the President, right? I would think that would be a tough thing for a President to accept." RB: "Well, you're giving me an hour to talk to him, you said." GK: "[laughs] Yeah, okay." RB: "So I'm using my hour." GK: "All right." 25:46 RB:" So, yeah! So, that's a really intriguing thing is: How do you do that, where do you start? And into a relationship? And I would say more like, well, I would wanna start with, the biggest question I would ask, I would say, what I wanna get from them is... My first question is: What are the chances we are gonna survive ourselves? That we are not going to annihilate ourselves. "Because they already are familiar with a whole lot of other species on a lot of other worlds or other planets. So, chances are they have a pretty good idea of percentage." (That assumes a lot, since we have no idea how long they've been around, what they've seen, or where they're from. Unless...Mr. Bigelow has seen evidence that relates to those questions or heard it from folks who work in the Legacy programs?) RB: "And it's not that we're a spiritual species. You talk to people that have near-death experiences; they're changed for the rest of their life. They've become a spiritual person of a caliber that they've never been. "Well, we're a long way, as an average, from that category, from that level. There are monsters among us, as human beings, and they're angelic people among us. So we are a danger to another species, we're potentially the Klingons. We have a technological maturity that is not just going on a line, but it's vertical and it's segmented because it's jumping. "And meanwhile, our spiritual maturity just bumps along the bottom, you know? So, we look at the 20th century; 60 million people were killed. Are we ever gonna get beyond that? So, the thing of it is, we know so little about how to have a relationship. I'm not in any position to really advise, except for the few ideas I have as to where to start, and the how is really super important. 27:49 "It's not gonna be like a 'Close Encounter of the Third, Kind,' which was a really cool movie. And it's not gonna be because of SETI. You know, it's gonna be by some other kinds of means that you're embarking on. And I'm interested in that kind of research." 28:06 GK: "We go back to your meeting with the President. You walk into the Oval Office, they clear off the Resolute Desk, you spread out your seven piles of stuff, and you start making a presentation about each one, in particular about ET, non-human intelligence. You can't say what he said to you. Can you say whether he asked questions? Was he curious?" RB: "He was distracted by other things. So, he also asked me... He did ask questions, but he asked questions about other stuff that wasn't necessarily just on what I was talking about." GK: "He's getting your input on other things going on in the world." RB: "Yeah, yeah." 28:49 GK: "If you had to make a guess, would you guess that you got through to him on this issue? I mean, he hasn't stood in the doorway of Air Force One and made those remarks yet, but he has taken some pretty dramatic steps on this topic since you met with him. Do you think you made a dent?" RB: "Don't know. I advised him on something that I can measure, and he hasn't taken my advice so far on what I suggested to him, on a totally different, unrelated subject. But so far, he has not taken my advice." GK: Well, somebody seems to have got through to him, because he's been taking steps that we're seeing real results. I mean, people are either..." RB: "Well, I'm talking about an unrelated subject altogether. So, yes, there there are a couple of different task forces that are involved. So, there is an initiation of an activity in this subject, [but] it remains to be seen, though, that he gives actual presidential confirmation. I don't, I haven't... Maybe you're more aware than I am. Has that been...has he done that?" GK: "Not, not really. Nothing like what I'd call confirmation. But that's really what you're talking about. I remember us having a conversation in 2008, right after you had signed the contract with DIA for BAASS to run [AAWSAP]. And you made the case then that what we need is not Disclosure; it's confirmation." RB: "Yeah." 30:25 GK: "For somebody like the President, I'm not sure if it could be anyone less than the President that steps forward and says this, and it carries the same kind of weight." RB: "Yeah. It's a big appetizer. You know, you're looking for the entree, and where's the dessert in this whole buffet? But the confirmation is a huge appetizer to start with, and that's why I started with that in my conversation with him. Is, pushing him to try and make a confirmation. And maybe he wants to get personally more comfortable?" (I have said that I want the entire enchilada NOW, but I'm also a realist, and would take a simple confirmation that somebody else is on this planet with us. That SHOULD wake up the mainstream media and masses, but no guarantees since Trump is so controversial and people might just ignore it, IF he ever did it. I've also said that I'd surround him with people like Schumer, Rubio, Rounds and Gillibrand in order to show that it's bipartisan. And a few firsthand whistleblowers who say they worked hands on, IN one of these alleged Legacy UFO/UAP programs.) 30:57 Bigelow: "And, you know, he will go down in history for a lot of things, for better or worse, that people are on both sides of the fence about him and so forth. But he's involved in so many different things and has been, that I don't know what his legacy is gonna be, I really don't. "He has an opportunity, in this serious subject, to build a legacy using this as part of the blocks, part of the brick and the structure...the content of a structure that is very unique. So, you can have all the political programs that you want, and so forth, and nobody is gonna really remember those as time goes by, as the decades fade away. "Nobody can remember Benghazi and Afghanistan and Iraq, different kinds of things, and that's just recent history. You know, the world goes so fast. But the President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation, and actually built a satisfactory conclusion of a relationship between human beings and that subject is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something. And if it's handled right, it can be done successfully." (To me, it's a no brainer. His presidency would go down as one that changed the world and our species. Or course, I'm sure he has people in his ear telling him that confirmation would cause societal disruption that we're not prepared to handle, and that THAT would be his legacy.) (32:21) GK: "A lot of Presidents have made comments, often after they're out of office, on this topic. 'Yeah, gosh, I'm real interested in that.' Or, 'Wouldn't that be something?' Or, 'I think aliens could exist.' Something like that. But nothing like what you're talking about, which amounts to confirmation, saying, 'It's real. They're here. We gotta figure it out,' and stopping it there, not disclosing..." RB: "Well, the dialogue, the ability to learn something from them is huge. What can we do for you? I mean, that's where...one of the first things I would ask is, not just, are we going to survive ourselves? Yeah, that's pretty damn important. That's like, probably number one, you know? "But close behind that is: Okay, we've been aware of you for a long time, and the government's never admitted it. But us as a public, we know it, and we're really curious. Is there anything that we can do for you? Not just what can you do... I loved what John Kennedy, what he said famously: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That huge. So that's giving them a kind of a respect that they deserve." (Do they deserve respect? I'm not so sure. It all depends on if they're upfront with us and tell us their true intentions. Of course, how do we know they're telling us the truth? Why have you (or some of you) been abducting us against our will, and injuring some of us? See Jim Semivan's abduction story with his wife. "I don't think [the phenomenon] cares whether it does harm. I think it may go out of its way not to do harm, but, if it does harm... "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." ~Former CIA Officer, Jim Semivan to Engaging The Phenomenon ~ 33:33 GK: "If you were President, would you announce that yes, we've got crash retrievals, yes, we have reverse engineering programs, and yes, we've got bodies?" RB: "Yeah, because the rest of the world already knows that. The people that count in Russia and China already know." GK: "Because they've got their own." RB: "Oh yeah, freaking yes! Yeah! They've had their missiles shut down, they've had their missiles activated. You know, depending on which country you're talking about." 33:56 GK: "Have you considered the political fallout for a President? Let's say it's Trump, because he might be the guy that would do it and just cast his fate to the winds. But, he makes an announcement: 'Yeah, they're here. Yeah, we've got programs. Yeah, we've got crashes, we've got bodies. That's as far as I'm able to go right now.' What happens to him, politically? Is he able to get anything else done?" RB: "That's more than I would have said, for him to say. What you just said." GK: "That goes too far." RB: "I wouldn't advise him to say, initially, what you just said." GK: "You just say, non-human intelligence, been here a long time, and leave it at that." RB: "Yeah, that one sentence is a starter because it's a huge canon. You've opened up Pandora's box, in terms of, 'Oh my gosh, what's gonna happen?' Okay. So now, you can categorize and segment into topics. And you need time to do that, and it needs to be digestible." ~ โI have met with people who I know are in the know. One of them told me the truth is indigestible.โ ~Jim Semivan to James Iandoli ~ RB: "And it needs to be not packaged in a scary kind of way, and it can't be packaged in a way that you're divulging what you shouldn't be divulging. You know, other countries aren't, so there's reasons to have national secrets. There really are. I mean, that's kind of like common sense, right?" (Well, David Grusch claimed that some other countries aren't divulging for a specific reason." Grusch on Yes Theory: "So there are certainly friendly governments, both across the pond and say, local to where we...our landmass, that are for this. And a lot of them know that they got a raw deal with the U.S. because they were, basically, part of the secrecy, through kind of agreements like, bilateral, unilateral agreements. And they're like, you know, they kind of wanna be, 'Release me!' Like, you know, because they they do realize it was a bad deal. "With the ecosystem secrecy, some people, one of their arguments is like, 'Well how would they keep the secret?' I'm, like dude, I was cleared to some of the most nation's most sensitive programs, I used to handle the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing). You know, I had full access to most DoD activities. And most of the stuff, BROAD programs that were enduring, have NEVER leaked. "So the U.S. and its allies are very good at keeping secrecies, to include programs that are, let's say, global in nature. And really, it's been leaking like a sieve in some weird way for many decades. Now it's been mixed in with some BS in ufology and stuff, but the general gist of it's actually been out there for a long time. It has been leaking in some sense, so." ~ 35:06 GK: "We don't want the Russians and Chinese and maybe other adversaries to know how far along we are, or are not, in configuring this out." RB: "Absolutely. Especially of that. I think that the relationship (with he phenomenon) thing is a mankind relationship. It's not just for America. When you are embarking as a President on trying to initiate a solemn relationship, you're not doing for U.S. of A. only. "And so, the...and then we probably can do a show on communication (with a non-human intelligence), but it's really complex because, who are you going to have initiate it? Are you going to have politicians initiate? Are you going to have military people? Because everybody has kind of their own mindset. Are you gonna have a bunch of lawyers initiate it? Are you gonna have scientists only, initiate it? (And what if we're dealing with more than one non-human intelligence? Who do we communicate with? And what if it's one intelligence pretended to be multiple? How would we even figure that out?) "[Hynek] cited the 'poltergeist' phenomena experienced by some...after a close encounter; the fact that some witnesses develop psychic abilities after an encounter. 'Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?'" ~J. Allen Hynek ~ RB: "And how do you know to whom you're talking? You know, how do you know you can trust what they're saying?" (I'm so glad he said that. We don't, and we don't.) RB: "Because it depends on the form of communication, and what are you asking for in the way of proof or demonstrations to establish trust, both ways, in the communication process?" "Because, we haven't had that happen before. It is totally new ground, and frankly, we need The Others' help. We need the help of The Others to help, to guide us." (Firs off, it MAY have happened within these Legacy programs. And, if we don't know who we're talking to, or if we can trust them, why would we enlist the help of The Others? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2087243559091261706/amplify_video_thumb/2087241641329561600/img/dSAd4v8WLh8yq8Qw.jpg)
