Recent well liked threads
As we know Charlie, there are sane people in the world that want Peace @charliekirk11 @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @Scavino47 and there are insane people in the world that want war.
The war lovers are “Merchants of Chaos”.
They thrive and profit from the misery of others.
They work hard to destroy sane peace efforts and they are working hard now to destroy the positive future that President Trump and so many other peace loving people are also envisioning.
@kadmitriev @AndreyGGeorgiev
Peace is entirely more joyful profitable and pleasureable that the horrors of war and so it is worth investigating highlighting and educating ourselves and others as to exactly who it is that seeks to profit from conflict. They should be brought to Justice.
Who has a dog in the fight?
The recent phone call that was from both side’s account and viewpoint respectful and positive can indeed be the foundation for a peaceful and economic future beyond our wildest dreams.
I was recently reminded of a little known part of US / Russian history the other day.
The historical relationship between U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and Russian Tsar Alexander II during the American Civil War (1861–1865) is a fascinating episode of international diplomacy, marked by mutual interests, parallel reforms, and a strategic alignment that influenced the war’s outcome and the future of the United States. Their governments’ cooperation, including Russia’s deployment of naval flotillas to U.S. ports in 1863, played a significant role in supporting the Union and reinforcing the cause of emancipation.
Below is historical data addressing the role of the Russian flotillas, clarifying British and French positions, and evaluation of the impact on the U.S.’s future, while highlighting the nature of the Lincoln-Alexander connection.
Abraham Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II never met, but their leadership coincided during transformative periods in their nations.
Alexander II issued the Emancipation Manifesto on March 3, 1861, freeing over 20 million Russian serfs, a reform that resonated with American abolitionists and Lincoln’s own moral opposition to slavery. Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, aimed to end slavery in Confederate territories, aligning the Civil War with the cause of human freedom. Both leaders faced domestic resistance—Alexander from conservative nobles, Lincoln from pro-slavery factions and border states—and both were assassinated for their reforms (Lincoln in 1865, Alexander in 1881).
Their governments found common ground in geopolitical strategy. Russia, weakened after the Crimean War (1853–1856), sought to counter British and French influence, which often aligned with the Confederacy due to economic ties to Southern cotton. The U.S., fighting to preserve the Union, needed international support to deter European intervention. This convergence fostered a pragmatic partnership, described by some as a “friendship in spirit.”
The war lovers are “Merchants of Chaos”.
They thrive and profit from the misery of others.
They work hard to destroy sane peace efforts and they are working hard now to destroy the positive future that President Trump and so many other peace loving people are also envisioning.
@kadmitriev @AndreyGGeorgiev
Peace is entirely more joyful profitable and pleasureable that the horrors of war and so it is worth investigating highlighting and educating ourselves and others as to exactly who it is that seeks to profit from conflict. They should be brought to Justice.
Who has a dog in the fight?
The recent phone call that was from both side’s account and viewpoint respectful and positive can indeed be the foundation for a peaceful and economic future beyond our wildest dreams.
I was recently reminded of a little known part of US / Russian history the other day.
The historical relationship between U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and Russian Tsar Alexander II during the American Civil War (1861–1865) is a fascinating episode of international diplomacy, marked by mutual interests, parallel reforms, and a strategic alignment that influenced the war’s outcome and the future of the United States. Their governments’ cooperation, including Russia’s deployment of naval flotillas to U.S. ports in 1863, played a significant role in supporting the Union and reinforcing the cause of emancipation.
Below is historical data addressing the role of the Russian flotillas, clarifying British and French positions, and evaluation of the impact on the U.S.’s future, while highlighting the nature of the Lincoln-Alexander connection.
Abraham Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II never met, but their leadership coincided during transformative periods in their nations.
Alexander II issued the Emancipation Manifesto on March 3, 1861, freeing over 20 million Russian serfs, a reform that resonated with American abolitionists and Lincoln’s own moral opposition to slavery. Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, aimed to end slavery in Confederate territories, aligning the Civil War with the cause of human freedom. Both leaders faced domestic resistance—Alexander from conservative nobles, Lincoln from pro-slavery factions and border states—and both were assassinated for their reforms (Lincoln in 1865, Alexander in 1881).
Their governments found common ground in geopolitical strategy. Russia, weakened after the Crimean War (1853–1856), sought to counter British and French influence, which often aligned with the Confederacy due to economic ties to Southern cotton. The U.S., fighting to preserve the Union, needed international support to deter European intervention. This convergence fostered a pragmatic partnership, described by some as a “friendship in spirit.”
The Russian Flotillas: Strategic Support in 1863
In September and October 1863, Russia dispatched two naval squadrons—one to New York and another to San Francisco—during a critical phase of the Civil War. These flotillas, comprising ships like the Oslyabya and Alexander Nevsky, remained in U.S. ports for about seven months. The deployment is often cited as a show of support for Lincoln’s Union, but its motives and impact require careful analysis.
Russian Motives
• Geopolitical Strategy: Russia’s primary motive was to protect its navy from British and French threats amid the Polish Uprising of 1863. By stationing ships in neutral U.S. ports, Russia ensured its fleet could operate in case of a European war, potentially disrupting British and French commerce.
• Support for the Union: Russia explicitly backed the Union as the legitimate U.S. government. Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov wrote in 1862, “Russia desires above all the maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation.” This stance aligned with Alexander II’s anti-slavery reforms and Russia’s interest in countering Britain and France, who leaned toward the Confederacy.
• Response to Lincoln’s Appeal: Some accounts suggest Lincoln sent a personal appeal to Alexander II, to which the Tsar responded generously, though evidence is anecdotal. A post on X claims Alexander II said, “Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain,” before sending the fleets. While this story reflects Russian goodwill, primary sources like diplomatic correspondence don’t fully substantiate it.
Impact of the Flotillas
• Deterrence of European Intervention: The Russian presence in U.S. ports signaled to Britain and France that Russia might side with the Union in any escalation. This was critical in 1863, when Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy after Confederate victories like Chancellorsville. The flotillas, combined with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which galvanized British abolitionist sentiment, helped deter intervention.
• Moral and Diplomatic Boost: The Russian ships were warmly received in New York, with events like the “Soirée Russe” on November 5, 1863, attended by 2,000 elites. This public display strengthened Union morale and underscored Russia’s support, contrasting with Britain and France’s neutrality.
• Specific Role in San Francisco: In San Francisco, the Russian flotilla was seen as a safeguard against potential Confederate or secessionist threats in California, though no direct military action occurred.
——
British and French Positions
Contrary to some narratives, Britain and France did not openly support the Confederacy but maintained neutrality, driven by economic and political calculations:
• Britain: Reliant on Southern cotton for its textile industry, Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy but was swayed by abolitionist public opinion and the Union’s naval blockade, which disrupted cotton exports. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made intervention on the Confederate side politically untenable.
• France: Under Napoleon III, France explored joint intervention with Britain, particularly during the Trent Affair (1861) and after Confederate battlefield successes. However, France hesitated without British commitment and faced domestic abolitionist pressure.
Both nations prioritized economic interests and geopolitical balance, and their neutrality frustrated the Confederacy more than the Union. The Russian flotillas, by contrast, tilted the diplomatic scales toward the Union.
——
In September and October 1863, Russia dispatched two naval squadrons—one to New York and another to San Francisco—during a critical phase of the Civil War. These flotillas, comprising ships like the Oslyabya and Alexander Nevsky, remained in U.S. ports for about seven months. The deployment is often cited as a show of support for Lincoln’s Union, but its motives and impact require careful analysis.
Russian Motives
• Geopolitical Strategy: Russia’s primary motive was to protect its navy from British and French threats amid the Polish Uprising of 1863. By stationing ships in neutral U.S. ports, Russia ensured its fleet could operate in case of a European war, potentially disrupting British and French commerce.
• Support for the Union: Russia explicitly backed the Union as the legitimate U.S. government. Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov wrote in 1862, “Russia desires above all the maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation.” This stance aligned with Alexander II’s anti-slavery reforms and Russia’s interest in countering Britain and France, who leaned toward the Confederacy.
• Response to Lincoln’s Appeal: Some accounts suggest Lincoln sent a personal appeal to Alexander II, to which the Tsar responded generously, though evidence is anecdotal. A post on X claims Alexander II said, “Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain,” before sending the fleets. While this story reflects Russian goodwill, primary sources like diplomatic correspondence don’t fully substantiate it.
Impact of the Flotillas
• Deterrence of European Intervention: The Russian presence in U.S. ports signaled to Britain and France that Russia might side with the Union in any escalation. This was critical in 1863, when Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy after Confederate victories like Chancellorsville. The flotillas, combined with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which galvanized British abolitionist sentiment, helped deter intervention.
• Moral and Diplomatic Boost: The Russian ships were warmly received in New York, with events like the “Soirée Russe” on November 5, 1863, attended by 2,000 elites. This public display strengthened Union morale and underscored Russia’s support, contrasting with Britain and France’s neutrality.
• Specific Role in San Francisco: In San Francisco, the Russian flotilla was seen as a safeguard against potential Confederate or secessionist threats in California, though no direct military action occurred.
——
British and French Positions
Contrary to some narratives, Britain and France did not openly support the Confederacy but maintained neutrality, driven by economic and political calculations:
• Britain: Reliant on Southern cotton for its textile industry, Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy but was swayed by abolitionist public opinion and the Union’s naval blockade, which disrupted cotton exports. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made intervention on the Confederate side politically untenable.
• France: Under Napoleon III, France explored joint intervention with Britain, particularly during the Trent Affair (1861) and after Confederate battlefield successes. However, France hesitated without British commitment and faced domestic abolitionist pressure.
Both nations prioritized economic interests and geopolitical balance, and their neutrality frustrated the Confederacy more than the Union. The Russian flotillas, by contrast, tilted the diplomatic scales toward the Union.
——
Significant Role in the Future of the USA
The Russian support, particularly the flotillas, had both immediate and long-term impacts on the United States:
Immediate Impact During the Civil War
• Preservation of the Union: By deterring British and French intervention, Russia’s presence helped the Union maintain its blockade and military focus on the Confederacy. The Union’s victory at Gettysburg (July 1863) and the Russian flotillas’ arrival shortly after solidified international confidence in the Union’s survival.
• Strengthening Emancipation: The Russian flotillas amplified the moral weight of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Alexander II’s prior emancipation of serfs provided a global precedent, energizing Northern abolitionists and framing the Civil War as a fight for freedom. This shift made slavery’s abolition irreversible, culminating in the Thirteenth Amendment (1865).
Long-Term Impact on the USA
• Geopolitical Alignment: The Civil War partnership laid the foundation for U.S.-Russian cooperation, notably the Alaska Purchase (1867), where Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. for $7.2 million, partly due to goodwill from the war. This expanded U.S. territory and influence in the Pacific.
• Abolition’s Legacy: The Union’s victory and slavery’s end reshaped the U.S. as a nation committed to equality, though racial struggles persisted. The moral alliance with Russia, a major power, reinforced the U.S.’s emerging role as a global advocate for human rights, influencing its foreign policy in the 20th century.
• National Unity: The preservation of the Union ensured the U.S. would grow as a single, industrialized nation, setting the stage for its rise as a superpower. Without Russian support, European intervention might have prolonged the war or fractured the nation, delaying or altering this trajectory.
—-
Conclusion
Abraham Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II’s cooperation during the Civil War, exemplified by Russia’s 1863 naval flotillas, was a strategic partnership that bolstered the Union and deterred European intervention. While Britain and France remained neutral, their flirtation with the Confederacy made Russia’s support critical. The flotillas, alongside Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, reinforced the moral and military fight against slavery, ensuring the Union’s survival and slavery’s abolition. This partnership strengthened U.S.-Russian ties, facilitated territorial expansion, and cemented the U.S.’s path toward unity and global influence. The “warmth” of their connection, though more symbolic than personal, reflected shared reformist ideals, leaving a lasting legacy in both nations’ histories.
The Russian support, particularly the flotillas, had both immediate and long-term impacts on the United States:
Immediate Impact During the Civil War
• Preservation of the Union: By deterring British and French intervention, Russia’s presence helped the Union maintain its blockade and military focus on the Confederacy. The Union’s victory at Gettysburg (July 1863) and the Russian flotillas’ arrival shortly after solidified international confidence in the Union’s survival.
• Strengthening Emancipation: The Russian flotillas amplified the moral weight of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Alexander II’s prior emancipation of serfs provided a global precedent, energizing Northern abolitionists and framing the Civil War as a fight for freedom. This shift made slavery’s abolition irreversible, culminating in the Thirteenth Amendment (1865).
Long-Term Impact on the USA
• Geopolitical Alignment: The Civil War partnership laid the foundation for U.S.-Russian cooperation, notably the Alaska Purchase (1867), where Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. for $7.2 million, partly due to goodwill from the war. This expanded U.S. territory and influence in the Pacific.
• Abolition’s Legacy: The Union’s victory and slavery’s end reshaped the U.S. as a nation committed to equality, though racial struggles persisted. The moral alliance with Russia, a major power, reinforced the U.S.’s emerging role as a global advocate for human rights, influencing its foreign policy in the 20th century.
• National Unity: The preservation of the Union ensured the U.S. would grow as a single, industrialized nation, setting the stage for its rise as a superpower. Without Russian support, European intervention might have prolonged the war or fractured the nation, delaying or altering this trajectory.
—-
Conclusion
Abraham Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II’s cooperation during the Civil War, exemplified by Russia’s 1863 naval flotillas, was a strategic partnership that bolstered the Union and deterred European intervention. While Britain and France remained neutral, their flirtation with the Confederacy made Russia’s support critical. The flotillas, alongside Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, reinforced the moral and military fight against slavery, ensuring the Union’s survival and slavery’s abolition. This partnership strengthened U.S.-Russian ties, facilitated territorial expansion, and cemented the U.S.’s path toward unity and global influence. The “warmth” of their connection, though more symbolic than personal, reflected shared reformist ideals, leaving a lasting legacy in both nations’ histories.
1/ PATTERNS
CIA involvement in regime change operations abroad, followed by the relocation of local collaborators or supporters to the US, where some engage in criminal activities—has been documented in various historical contexts.
CIA involvement in regime change operations abroad, followed by the relocation of local collaborators or supporters to the US, where some engage in criminal activities—has been documented in various historical contexts.
2/ US support often involved backing dictators, leading to coups or proxy wars. Relocation sometimes occurred through refugee programs, witness protection, or informal channels, and crimes in the US have included terrorism, drug trafficking, conspiracy, and gang violence.
3/ The CIA heavily recruited Cuban exiles after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution, training them for operations like the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion and Operation Mongoose (aimed at destabilizing Castro).
1/ Why have so many supposedly MAGA accounts on X been exposed as being based in Nigeria? The answer may be linked to the unfortunate coincidence that the word "maga" in Nigerian Pidgin English means "a gullible person, a fool, or the unsuspecting victim of a scam". ⬇️ 
2/ "Maga" is widely believed to have evolved from the Yoruba word "múgùn" (or "mugu"), which translates to someone who can be easily manipulated or used as a "ladder to reach the top".
Calling someone a "maga" is an insult, implying they are simple, easily controlled, or naive.
Calling someone a "maga" is an insult, implying they are simple, easily controlled, or naive.
3/ Some specific examples:
🔺 "Maga don pay": → A common phrase among scammers, meaning "the victim has paid up," indicating a successful swindle.
🔺 "Maga must pay": → Reflects the mindset that it is inevitable for a naive person to be conned.
🔺 "Maga don pay": → A common phrase among scammers, meaning "the victim has paid up," indicating a successful swindle.
🔺 "Maga must pay": → Reflects the mindset that it is inevitable for a naive person to be conned.
Jammie Booker, a man pretending to be a woman, just won the title of “World’s Strongest Woman” at the World’s Strongest Woman competition in Arlington, Texas.
Andrea Thompson, the female runner-up, had her title stolen by a man.
KEEP MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S SPORTS
Andrea Thompson, the female runner-up, had her title stolen by a man.
KEEP MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S SPORTS
Female lifter urges people to protect women’s sports after a male won world’s strongest women’s competition
Althetic company cuts ties with Jammie Booker, a man pretending to be a woman who won world’s strongest woman
So what's new @grok?
Can U prove or disprove that @elonmusk may allegedly have many accounts on X that use #AI to impersonate very high profile famous folks &&& are deceiving enormous numbers of unsuspecting older women in fake #RomanceScams in order to scam them for money 🤑💰?
Can U prove or disprove that @elonmusk may allegedly have many accounts on X that use #AI to impersonate very high profile famous folks &&& are deceiving enormous numbers of unsuspecting older women in fake #RomanceScams in order to scam them for money 🤑💰?
@threadreaderapp Unroll pls
@threadreaderapp unroll pls the whole think & leave off the threatening beheaded women photo. Or else I'll report it. Don't ever threaten me.
By using Owens’ exaggerated grimace multiple times in your montage, you show that this exercise you present as purely factual and rational is actually tinted with the artifices of propaganda — the kind used to discredit someone and carry out a character assassination. That alone is enough to undermine your approach and your claim to some sort of “objective academic demonstration.”
Moreover, the tactic of bad-faith cherry-picking — creating sub-chapters with theoretical labels to better validate your assertions and cloak them in scientific intellectualism — is an already worn-out method. It also explains the success of Candace Owens and many others, whose public persona appears, quite rightly, as more honest than average (despite her flaws, which she has like everyone else).
Furthermore, the amount of time you spend analyzing Owens’ supposed weaknesses from a definitive angle (the “manipulation” of her audience, which would be her final goal) cannot be taken seriously, especially when you remain silent about the concrete revelations her work has brought to light — starting with the fact that Kirk had explicitly said he wanted to cut ties with his Zionist backers just hours before his assassination, something that was buried by his own team and many of his so-called friends for several weeks.
As for your flagship example, Netanyahu’s letter: it tells us absolutely nothing about the allegedly malicious tactics of Candace Owens. Those who follow her know her method: she turns every stone, pushes people into a corner, forces them to commit themselves publicly. If a lead proves too weak, she drops it. Faced with a world built on secrecy and manipulation, her only point of access is on the visible surface — and that is why her audience fully understands that she must scratch that surface in every direction in order to pierce it. If your approach consisted in identifying potential flaws in Owens’ work while also analyzing the global environment in which she operates — an environment whose power is infinitely greater than hers — then you might be somewhat credible. Apparently you lack that honesty, and therefore you are not.
Finally, let’s put an end to this absurd slander claiming that Owens does it all for the money. Of course, as a typical American, she doesn’t apologize for her success or for the resources that success brings, securing her independence. But if money were her only goal, she would have said what needed to be said — or kept quiet where silence was required — in order to remain comfortably at The Daily Wire, where she was extremely well paid.
Let us also recall why Candace Owens truly became known in the first place. She became known because she has the ability to put herself at odds with her own camp. She became a conservative icon because, as a young Black woman, everyone recognized the courage it took for her not to play along with the complacencies of her own community. When October 7 happened, she didn’t hesitate to say what she thought, despite the context in which she said it. And from that moment on, she didn’t hesitate to defend even young left-wing students who were being unjustly arrested for exercising their freedom of expression regarding Israel. Today, after having been this conservative idol, she does not hesitate to say that the issue is no longer a matter of right versus left, but something far beyond that. We can therefore see the evolution of a woman who is simply capable of thinking for herself — and who clearly, undeniably, has her own convictions. Trying to smear her on that point says far more about you than about her.
What makes Owens complex is that she engages (or gathers around herself) both investigative-style work and, in parallel, a sort of eschatological battle rooted in her faith — one that makes her cast a very wide net, and one that creates exactly the unique flavor of what makes her so singular and so valuable. Your attempts at smearing her through some sort of […] ⤵️
Moreover, the tactic of bad-faith cherry-picking — creating sub-chapters with theoretical labels to better validate your assertions and cloak them in scientific intellectualism — is an already worn-out method. It also explains the success of Candace Owens and many others, whose public persona appears, quite rightly, as more honest than average (despite her flaws, which she has like everyone else).
Furthermore, the amount of time you spend analyzing Owens’ supposed weaknesses from a definitive angle (the “manipulation” of her audience, which would be her final goal) cannot be taken seriously, especially when you remain silent about the concrete revelations her work has brought to light — starting with the fact that Kirk had explicitly said he wanted to cut ties with his Zionist backers just hours before his assassination, something that was buried by his own team and many of his so-called friends for several weeks.
As for your flagship example, Netanyahu’s letter: it tells us absolutely nothing about the allegedly malicious tactics of Candace Owens. Those who follow her know her method: she turns every stone, pushes people into a corner, forces them to commit themselves publicly. If a lead proves too weak, she drops it. Faced with a world built on secrecy and manipulation, her only point of access is on the visible surface — and that is why her audience fully understands that she must scratch that surface in every direction in order to pierce it. If your approach consisted in identifying potential flaws in Owens’ work while also analyzing the global environment in which she operates — an environment whose power is infinitely greater than hers — then you might be somewhat credible. Apparently you lack that honesty, and therefore you are not.
Finally, let’s put an end to this absurd slander claiming that Owens does it all for the money. Of course, as a typical American, she doesn’t apologize for her success or for the resources that success brings, securing her independence. But if money were her only goal, she would have said what needed to be said — or kept quiet where silence was required — in order to remain comfortably at The Daily Wire, where she was extremely well paid.
Let us also recall why Candace Owens truly became known in the first place. She became known because she has the ability to put herself at odds with her own camp. She became a conservative icon because, as a young Black woman, everyone recognized the courage it took for her not to play along with the complacencies of her own community. When October 7 happened, she didn’t hesitate to say what she thought, despite the context in which she said it. And from that moment on, she didn’t hesitate to defend even young left-wing students who were being unjustly arrested for exercising their freedom of expression regarding Israel. Today, after having been this conservative idol, she does not hesitate to say that the issue is no longer a matter of right versus left, but something far beyond that. We can therefore see the evolution of a woman who is simply capable of thinking for herself — and who clearly, undeniably, has her own convictions. Trying to smear her on that point says far more about you than about her.
What makes Owens complex is that she engages (or gathers around herself) both investigative-style work and, in parallel, a sort of eschatological battle rooted in her faith — one that makes her cast a very wide net, and one that creates exactly the unique flavor of what makes her so singular and so valuable. Your attempts at smearing her through some sort of […] ⤵️
[…] pseudo-aristocratic textual or visual analysis will not work here. Because behind those trappings, it is just as vulgar as the lies of a Josh Hammer.
@mtaibbi @walterkirn @IanCarrollShow @ComicDaveSmith @XavierPoussard @jimmy_dore @kurtmetzger @MaxBlumenthal @ggreenwald @Villgecrazylady @RealCandaceO @BasedSamParker @JohnMappin @LibertyLockPod @5149jamesli @ShadowofEzra @durov @AGDugin @imelizabethlane @HarrisonHSmith @RyanMattaMedia @AdameMedia
@mtaibbi @walterkirn @IanCarrollShow @ComicDaveSmith @XavierPoussard @jimmy_dore @kurtmetzger @MaxBlumenthal @ggreenwald @Villgecrazylady @RealCandaceO @BasedSamParker @JohnMappin @LibertyLockPod @5149jamesli @ShadowofEzra @durov @AGDugin @imelizabethlane @HarrisonHSmith @RyanMattaMedia @AdameMedia
Le calembour du jour est signé Odoxa.
Selon leur dernier « sondage », basé sur des échantillons de 689 à 874 personnes, Jordan Bardella gagnerait dans toutes les configurations au second tour de la présidentielle.
⬇️
Selon leur dernier « sondage », basé sur des échantillons de 689 à 874 personnes, Jordan Bardella gagnerait dans toutes les configurations au second tour de la présidentielle.
⬇️
Selon leurs « résultats », si Jean-Luc Mélenchon était opposé à l’extrême-droite au second tour en 2027, la participation au second tour serait de 57% contre 77% à l'élection présidentielle de 2022.
Qui peut croire une fable pareille ?
Qui peut croire une fable pareille ?
Pire encore, dans leurs fantasmes, Jean-Luc Mélenchon réaliserait seulement 7,4 millions de voix au second tour d'une élection présidentielle.
C'est 300 000 voix de moins que le résultat qu'il a réalisé au PREMIER TOUR de l'élection de 2022.
N'en faites pas trop.
C'est 300 000 voix de moins que le résultat qu'il a réalisé au PREMIER TOUR de l'élection de 2022.
N'en faites pas trop.
1/24 So, with all the hysteria and shouting about the King's puberty blocker research, it seems that somebody should take the trouble to download and read the 113 page study protocol, and it will have to be me. Here are some preliminary thoughts.
2/24 Statement of interest. I am a professor of clinical psychology, and experienced clinical trialist, but my field is psychosis. I have met a few trans people during my career but never worked formally with them. I have no dog in this race.
3/24 I am puzzled about transexualism which I don't think anyone understands. I support women's rights (so would exclude M->F from women's sports)n but want maximum empathy for trasn people. I despise the politicisation of this issue.
After reading 1000s of books...
I'm convinced everyone needs to read these 10 books before they turn 30:
10. The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho.
I'm convinced everyone needs to read these 10 books before they turn 30:
10. The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho.
9. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari.
8. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger.
Chaos: two rival factions - one tied the president and one to the VP - are trying to set US policy on Ukraine, cutting out the State Dept. Each pushes Ukraine to surrender, then leaks to press to claim they are official. FT now reports Vance's faction is holding its own talks. 1/
In Oct. the Trump faction - son-in-law Jared Kushner & business pal Steve Witkoff - met secretly with a Russian rep in Miami. Now the Vance faction - his Yale friend Dan Driscoll - is meeting in Abu Dhabi with Russians and a Ukrainian. Rival efforts. 2/
ft.com/content/55a9f8…
ft.com/content/55a9f8…
FT's source is clearly part of the Vance camp and tries to portray SecArmy Dan Driscoll, a 39-year-old former 1st lieutenant whose only qualification his friendship with Vance, as a new important conduit to Russia. FT had to ask if Ukrainians were involved at all. 3/
1/ 🧵Part 1
How election interference works counter-narrative using 2 historical examples in Nicaragua and Venezeula. It's important to explore Nicaragua bc it was the model for Venezuela (and others).
How election interference works counter-narrative using 2 historical examples in Nicaragua and Venezeula. It's important to explore Nicaragua bc it was the model for Venezuela (and others).
2/ These operations are a whole of government effort: principally directed by the Department of State (DS), the Agency for International Development (AID), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) along with its four associated…
3/ …foundations. These are the International Republican Institute (IRI, ran by Sen John McCain for 25 yrs) of the Republican Party; the National Democratic Institute (NDI) of the Democratic Party; the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)
Paxos just bought the israeli blockchain start-up Fordefi for $100 million, including their Tel Aviv HQ, and will continue to employ dozens of israeli employees.
Tell @Paxos to divest from genocide and shut down their new TLV office
Tell @Paxos to divest from genocide and shut down their new TLV office
@Paxos Paxos CEO @chadcascarilla has no reason to keep operating an office full of war criminals from the IDF's Unit 8200.
@Paxos @chadcascarilla Tell Paxos co-founder @rich_teo to quickly end @PaxosGlobal's complicity with genocide and apartheid
1/ 🧵Part 2 Election Interference case studies: CIA
Since the 1980’s ODI/OTI has financed projects directly using 4 foundations associated with NED, in recent years OTI has channeled more $$ to them than has NED.
Since the 1980’s ODI/OTI has financed projects directly using 4 foundations associated with NED, in recent years OTI has channeled more $$ to them than has NED.
2/ The 2 funding sources, OTI and NED, have also sent funds to a network of U.S. foundations, consulting, & PR firms. This laundering conceal the source financing by the U.S. gov that maintains control over the funds.
3/ The CIA can provide funds secretly to NED and OTI, they often fund salaries of foreign 'assets' employed by these foundations. CIA can launder their funds through individuals, businesses, or private institutions.
🧵👇 La riqueza de Rusia: ¿qué recursos la convierten en la primera del mundo?
(1/10) El valor total de las riquezas naturales del gigante euroasiático supera los 100 billones de dólares, reveló el jefe de la compañía rusa Rosneft, Ígor Sechin.
Lee en Sputnik qué incluye el potencial natural de un país que abarca 11 husos horarios y lo coloca entre los más ricos del mundo.
(1/10) El valor total de las riquezas naturales del gigante euroasiático supera los 100 billones de dólares, reveló el jefe de la compañía rusa Rosneft, Ígor Sechin.
Lee en Sputnik qué incluye el potencial natural de un país que abarca 11 husos horarios y lo coloca entre los más ricos del mundo.
(2/10) La primera entre las primeras
💬 "Rusia, que posee una base de recursos única, puede garantizar la seguridad energética de toda Eurasia. El valor conjunto de las riquezas naturales alcanza casi los 100 billones de dólares, casi el doble que el indicador equivalente de EEUU", declaró Sechin, durante su intervención en el foro empresarial energético Rusia-China.
Según la agencia estadounidense Investopedia, que en 2024 elaboró una clasificación de los 10 países más ricos en recursos naturales, Rusia ocupó el primer lugar, mientras que Estados Unidos quedó en segunda posición, pero a gran distancia: el valor de sus recursos se estima en 45 billones.
💬 "Rusia, que posee una base de recursos única, puede garantizar la seguridad energética de toda Eurasia. El valor conjunto de las riquezas naturales alcanza casi los 100 billones de dólares, casi el doble que el indicador equivalente de EEUU", declaró Sechin, durante su intervención en el foro empresarial energético Rusia-China.
Según la agencia estadounidense Investopedia, que en 2024 elaboró una clasificación de los 10 países más ricos en recursos naturales, Rusia ocupó el primer lugar, mientras que Estados Unidos quedó en segunda posición, pero a gran distancia: el valor de sus recursos se estima en 45 billones.
(3/10) Gas natural
El país euroasiático cuenta con las mayores reservas probadas de gas natural del mundo, estimadas en unos 67 billones de metros cúbicos, según muestran los datos del Fondo Geológico Federal ruso correspondientes al primer semestre de 2025. Esto representa una quinta parte de las reservas globales.
Además, los trabajos de exploración avanzan más rápido que la extracción. Con los niveles actuales de producción, Rusia dispone de gas para más de 100 años, según los cálculos del Ministerio de Recursos Naturales.
El país euroasiático cuenta con las mayores reservas probadas de gas natural del mundo, estimadas en unos 67 billones de metros cúbicos, según muestran los datos del Fondo Geológico Federal ruso correspondientes al primer semestre de 2025. Esto representa una quinta parte de las reservas globales.
Además, los trabajos de exploración avanzan más rápido que la extracción. Con los niveles actuales de producción, Rusia dispone de gas para más de 100 años, según los cálculos del Ministerio de Recursos Naturales.
