Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
@NadavPollak @yashar 1).
„Former Prime Minister and Defense Minister @naftalibennett on Monday issued a sharply worded statement in response to findings by i24NEWS
„Former Prime Minister and Defense Minister @naftalibennett on Monday issued a sharply worded statement in response to findings by i24NEWS
@NadavPollak @yashar @naftalibennett 2).
that senior officials in @IsraeliPM Benjamin @netanyahu's office allegedly coordinated efforts to promote pro-Qatari messages in the Israeli media.”
Dec. 22, 2025
@i24NEWS_EN i24news.tv/en/news/israel…
that senior officials in @IsraeliPM Benjamin @netanyahu's office allegedly coordinated efforts to promote pro-Qatari messages in the Israeli media.”
Dec. 22, 2025
@i24NEWS_EN i24news.tv/en/news/israel…
@NadavPollak @yashar @naftalibennett @IsraeliPM @netanyahu @i24NEWS_EN Please unroll @threadreaderapp. Thank you in advance 𓃠
The second slide from left to right is a part of hymns of Gathas from Zarathustra.
It exactly describes a Messianic figure who the power of Iran will be donated to him.
The last slide mentions the greatest rise of wisedom which is about to come soon.
The rest is in thread...
It exactly describes a Messianic figure who the power of Iran will be donated to him.
The last slide mentions the greatest rise of wisedom which is about to come soon.
The rest is in thread...
Then even so many become barriers to stop what's coming they will be destroyed.
Zarathustra is one of the greatest powers in this world. Just them are enough to help the rise of Christ.
Visibly some of the corrupted clerics sold their souls to the satanic powers.
Zarathustra is one of the greatest powers in this world. Just them are enough to help the rise of Christ.
Visibly some of the corrupted clerics sold their souls to the satanic powers.
The destruction of those corrupted people will come soon.
A force of corruption exists in Poland which controls the police of this country.
Their basis will be on fire and none of them will remain alive.
The ongoing chaotic stories in Iran will end in a fire 🔥.
A force of corruption exists in Poland which controls the police of this country.
Their basis will be on fire and none of them will remain alive.
The ongoing chaotic stories in Iran will end in a fire 🔥.
A somewhat long thread on the importance of the Ukrainian success in Kupyansk now that even Russian military analysts and correspondents acknowledge that the city is again under Ukrainian control. See below the map from Rybar (with lost positions colored orange.) 1/5
Putin repeatedly and publicly made outlandish claims about Russian control of Kupyansk, and about the allegedly encircled 15 Ukrainian battalions there. He even dismissed Zelensky’s recent visit to the city entrance as a fake. See Tass stories ⬇️
Why is Kupyansk important? Putin wants to trade the largely rural and insignificant parts of Kharkiv, Sumy and Dnipro regions that Russia currently controls for the major cities in northern Donetsk, as per the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Kupyansk, in Kharkiv, would have been the by far biggest of the cities in these areas. Now it is no longer one of Putin’s cards. (3/5)
After more than 35 years of destruction,displacement,exile, bombings,& killings, today marks a historic and memorable day for Somalia.A whole generation that endured difficult times now witnesses the restoration of civic dignity,the right to vote,and the election of their leaders
@HassanSMohamud @TheVillaSomalia @AlJazeera @AJEnglish @BBCWorld @BBCBreaking @FoxNews @cnnbrk @HarunMaruf @grok
@HassanSMohamud @TheVillaSomalia @AlJazeera @AJEnglish @BBCWorld @BBCBreaking @FoxNews @cnnbrk @HarunMaruf @threadreaderapp unroll
The song about Saint Behnam.
An originally Iranian who killed by Iranian(Medes) because he believed in Jesus Christ.
The rest including the complete song of the story is in this thread.
An originally Iranian who killed by Iranian(Medes) because he believed in Jesus Christ.
The rest including the complete song of the story is in this thread.
This is the complete song which twitter doesn't allow to be shown here, I tried to share several times but the X doesn't allow it to be shown:
Here I tried again to see whether it allows or not and as you can see they don't allow the people see this video:
Good night @CodeXero_xyz
Merry Christmas
Another day of building comes to an end, quiet progress today, stronger foundations for tomorrow
Merry Christmas
Another day of building comes to an end, quiet progress today, stronger foundations for tomorrow
@CodeXero_xyz @pikaso_me screenshot this
@CodeXero_xyz @sign post
🪡1/4 How Göring Almost Derailed the Nuremberg Trials:
A Critical Examination
The commonly held image of Hermann Göring as the corpulent, drug-addled, and bumbling Nazi leader near the end of World War II bears little resemblance to the sharp, calculating defendant who took the stand at Nuremberg in March 1946. According to recently released documents from the Kilmuir Papers at the Churchill Archives, Göring came remarkably close to fundamentally undermining the entire Nuremberg judicial process through an extraordinary display of courtroom mastery that nearly succeeded in exonerating Nazi leadership for waging aggressive and genocidal warfare. This near-crisis in international justice reveals the precarious position of the trial’s legitimacy and the pivotal role of skillful prosecution in salvaging its credibility.
The Threat Posed by Göring’s Strategic Brilliance
Upon arrival at Nuremberg, Göring presented a starkly different figure than observers expected. Having been housed in Luxembourg’s Camp Ashcan after his capture, Göring had been systematically weaned from his long-standing morphine addiction—he had been consuming the equivalent of three or four grains (260 to 320 mg) of morphine daily—and placed on a strict diet, losing approximately 60 pounds (27 kg). This physical transformation coincided with a mental clarity that caught Allied prosecutors off-guard. Rather than the elderly, defeated villain history suggested, Göring emerged as utterly focused and determined to construct a compelling legal narrative that would shield Nazi leaders from personal culpability for aggressive war and genocide.
The stakes for this single defendant were extraordinarily high. Allied prosecutors had invested enormous effort in establishing the legal principle that individual Nazi leaders bore criminal responsibility for initiating aggressive warfare and orchestrating systematic genocide. If Göring—the second-highest-ranking Nazi official tried at Nuremberg—could successfully establish alternative narratives that absolved Nazi leadership of these charges, the entire purpose of the trials would be compromised. The prosecution feared that a legal victory for Göring would set a precedent that effectively rendered the trial a symbolic exercise in victors’ justice rather than a rigorous application of international law.
The Allied Judicial Response and Jackson’s Struggle
Recognising the magnitude of this threat, each of the major Allied powers dispatched its most senior legal talent to Nuremberg. The Americans fielded Justice Robert H. Jackson, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court who had served as both United States Solicitor General and Attorney General. Jackson had established a formidable legal reputation, though it is notable that he had never attended law school and had risen through practice and governmental service. The British sent Sir Hartley Shawcross, Labour’s Attorney General and Member of Parliament, alongside Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, a Conservative Member of Parliament and former Solicitor General, both considered among the most brilliant legal minds of their generation. The Soviet Union sent Andrei Vyshinsky, Stalin’s former chief prosecutor during the Moscow Show Trials of 1936-38, whose very presence embodied the trial’s geopolitical dimensions. Vyshinsky’s renowned black humor was captured at the prosecutors’ first formal dinner when he proposed a toast to the defendants: “May their paths lead straight from the courthouse to the grave!”
A Critical Examination
The commonly held image of Hermann Göring as the corpulent, drug-addled, and bumbling Nazi leader near the end of World War II bears little resemblance to the sharp, calculating defendant who took the stand at Nuremberg in March 1946. According to recently released documents from the Kilmuir Papers at the Churchill Archives, Göring came remarkably close to fundamentally undermining the entire Nuremberg judicial process through an extraordinary display of courtroom mastery that nearly succeeded in exonerating Nazi leadership for waging aggressive and genocidal warfare. This near-crisis in international justice reveals the precarious position of the trial’s legitimacy and the pivotal role of skillful prosecution in salvaging its credibility.
The Threat Posed by Göring’s Strategic Brilliance
Upon arrival at Nuremberg, Göring presented a starkly different figure than observers expected. Having been housed in Luxembourg’s Camp Ashcan after his capture, Göring had been systematically weaned from his long-standing morphine addiction—he had been consuming the equivalent of three or four grains (260 to 320 mg) of morphine daily—and placed on a strict diet, losing approximately 60 pounds (27 kg). This physical transformation coincided with a mental clarity that caught Allied prosecutors off-guard. Rather than the elderly, defeated villain history suggested, Göring emerged as utterly focused and determined to construct a compelling legal narrative that would shield Nazi leaders from personal culpability for aggressive war and genocide.
The stakes for this single defendant were extraordinarily high. Allied prosecutors had invested enormous effort in establishing the legal principle that individual Nazi leaders bore criminal responsibility for initiating aggressive warfare and orchestrating systematic genocide. If Göring—the second-highest-ranking Nazi official tried at Nuremberg—could successfully establish alternative narratives that absolved Nazi leadership of these charges, the entire purpose of the trials would be compromised. The prosecution feared that a legal victory for Göring would set a precedent that effectively rendered the trial a symbolic exercise in victors’ justice rather than a rigorous application of international law.
The Allied Judicial Response and Jackson’s Struggle
Recognising the magnitude of this threat, each of the major Allied powers dispatched its most senior legal talent to Nuremberg. The Americans fielded Justice Robert H. Jackson, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court who had served as both United States Solicitor General and Attorney General. Jackson had established a formidable legal reputation, though it is notable that he had never attended law school and had risen through practice and governmental service. The British sent Sir Hartley Shawcross, Labour’s Attorney General and Member of Parliament, alongside Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, a Conservative Member of Parliament and former Solicitor General, both considered among the most brilliant legal minds of their generation. The Soviet Union sent Andrei Vyshinsky, Stalin’s former chief prosecutor during the Moscow Show Trials of 1936-38, whose very presence embodied the trial’s geopolitical dimensions. Vyshinsky’s renowned black humor was captured at the prosecutors’ first formal dinner when he proposed a toast to the defendants: “May their paths lead straight from the courthouse to the grave!”
🪡2/4
Jackson’s cross-examination of Göring, which began in mid-March 1946, began catastrophically and deteriorated further over the course of three days. The American prosecutor adopted an approach that allowed Göring extensive latitude to expound on Nazi philosophy and justify Nazi actions in their most favorable light. Multiple observers noted Jackson’s inability to control the witness or maintain the initiative. When Jackson attempted to interrupt Göring’s lengthy answers, the presiding judge, Sir Norman Birkett (serving as the British alternate judge), repeatedly overruled him and permitted Göring to continue speaking.
The consequences were immediately apparent to courtroom observers. British diplomat Patrick Dean reported after the first day of Jackson’s cross-examination: “It was very disappointing and unimpressive and has been severely criticised here. He never pressed Göring on any of the numerous matters on which the cross-examination touched even though Göring was frequently lying.” Even more damning was Birkett’s private assessment: “The cross-examination had not proceeded more than ten minutes before it was seen that Göring was the complete master of Mr Justice Jackson, who despite his great abilities and charm and his great powers of exposition had never learnt the very first elements of cross-examination as it is understood in the English courts. He was overwhelmed by his documents, and there was no chance of lightning questions following upon some careless or damaging answer, no quick parry and thrust, no leading the witness on to a prepared pitfall.”
The second day of Jackson’s examination proved even more problematic. Jackson attempted to confront Göring with a document from 1939, believing he had caught the defendant in an incriminating admission. However, Jackson made a fundamental error: he mistook the River Rhine for the Rhineland, and misinterpreted the German word “Befreiung” (liberation) as referring to the “clearing” of civilian river traffic prior to German mobilisation. When a flustered Jackson attempted to recover by claiming that Germany had kept its war preparations “entirely secret from foreign powers,” Göring delivered a withering response: “I do not think that I can recall reading beforehand the publication of the mobilisation plans of the United States.” At this point, Jackson lost his temper, and the tribunal adjourned for the remainder of the day.
By the conclusion of his three-day cross-examination, Jackson himself acknowledged defeat, characterizing the exchange as a “bickering contest.” More significantly, by the end of his exchange with Göring, it had become clear that the prosecution had failed to establish its case in the watertight manner necessary to justify the imposition of capital punishment. Göring had effectively turned the courtroom into an arena where his rhetorical talents and mastery of documentary evidence allowed him to shape the narrative of Nazi motivations and actions in ways that suggested alternative explanations for Germany’s aggression and atrocities.
Maxwell Fyfe’s Intervention and the Reversal
At this critical juncture, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe stepped forward for the British cross-examination. Maxwell Fyfe’s approach differed fundamentally from Jackson’s strategy. Rather than permitting Göring extensive opportunity for philosophical exposition, Maxwell Fyfe adopted a forensic methodology grounded in meticulous preparation and knowledge of documentary evidence. Having been trained at the criminal bar in Liverpool and having become, in 1934, the youngest person appointed King’s Counsel in 250 years, Maxwell Fyfe possessed formidable courtroom skills honed through years of demanding criminal practice.
Jackson’s cross-examination of Göring, which began in mid-March 1946, began catastrophically and deteriorated further over the course of three days. The American prosecutor adopted an approach that allowed Göring extensive latitude to expound on Nazi philosophy and justify Nazi actions in their most favorable light. Multiple observers noted Jackson’s inability to control the witness or maintain the initiative. When Jackson attempted to interrupt Göring’s lengthy answers, the presiding judge, Sir Norman Birkett (serving as the British alternate judge), repeatedly overruled him and permitted Göring to continue speaking.
The consequences were immediately apparent to courtroom observers. British diplomat Patrick Dean reported after the first day of Jackson’s cross-examination: “It was very disappointing and unimpressive and has been severely criticised here. He never pressed Göring on any of the numerous matters on which the cross-examination touched even though Göring was frequently lying.” Even more damning was Birkett’s private assessment: “The cross-examination had not proceeded more than ten minutes before it was seen that Göring was the complete master of Mr Justice Jackson, who despite his great abilities and charm and his great powers of exposition had never learnt the very first elements of cross-examination as it is understood in the English courts. He was overwhelmed by his documents, and there was no chance of lightning questions following upon some careless or damaging answer, no quick parry and thrust, no leading the witness on to a prepared pitfall.”
The second day of Jackson’s examination proved even more problematic. Jackson attempted to confront Göring with a document from 1939, believing he had caught the defendant in an incriminating admission. However, Jackson made a fundamental error: he mistook the River Rhine for the Rhineland, and misinterpreted the German word “Befreiung” (liberation) as referring to the “clearing” of civilian river traffic prior to German mobilisation. When a flustered Jackson attempted to recover by claiming that Germany had kept its war preparations “entirely secret from foreign powers,” Göring delivered a withering response: “I do not think that I can recall reading beforehand the publication of the mobilisation plans of the United States.” At this point, Jackson lost his temper, and the tribunal adjourned for the remainder of the day.
By the conclusion of his three-day cross-examination, Jackson himself acknowledged defeat, characterizing the exchange as a “bickering contest.” More significantly, by the end of his exchange with Göring, it had become clear that the prosecution had failed to establish its case in the watertight manner necessary to justify the imposition of capital punishment. Göring had effectively turned the courtroom into an arena where his rhetorical talents and mastery of documentary evidence allowed him to shape the narrative of Nazi motivations and actions in ways that suggested alternative explanations for Germany’s aggression and atrocities.
Maxwell Fyfe’s Intervention and the Reversal
At this critical juncture, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe stepped forward for the British cross-examination. Maxwell Fyfe’s approach differed fundamentally from Jackson’s strategy. Rather than permitting Göring extensive opportunity for philosophical exposition, Maxwell Fyfe adopted a forensic methodology grounded in meticulous preparation and knowledge of documentary evidence. Having been trained at the criminal bar in Liverpool and having become, in 1934, the youngest person appointed King’s Counsel in 250 years, Maxwell Fyfe possessed formidable courtroom skills honed through years of demanding criminal practice.
🪡3/4
Maxwell Fyfe chose as his initial focus the cold-blooded execution of 50 Allied airmen who had escaped from Stalag Luft III in Sagan, Poland, on March 25, 1944—an event later immortalized as “The Great Escape.” Of 76 prisoners who successfully escaped from the camp, 73 were recaptured, and exactly 50 of them were executed on the personal orders of Adolf Hitler. Maxwell Fyfe had prepared exhaustively on this crime, mastering the minutiae of Luftwaffe titles, organizational procedures, and documentation surrounding the murders.
His cross-examination technique proved devastatingly effective. Rather than broad, open-ended questions that allowed Göring latitude for lengthy responses, Maxwell Fyfe employed short, precise inquiries that demanded brief affirmative or negative replies. This approach prevented Göring from deploying his rhetorical mastery to reframe events in favorable terms. Maxwell Fyfe systematically led Göring through the chain of command and documentary evidence to demonstrate his personal knowledge of and involvement in the murders.
A key tactical innovation was Maxwell Fyfe’s exploitation of Göring’s earlier apparent cooperativeness. On several occasions during the cross-examination, Maxwell Fyfe would ask: “Now, would you like to help me – you were most helpful last time – find the place?” This politeness, combined with what appeared to be a straightforward request for assistance, actually led Göring to locate passages in documents that directly incriminated him. In particular, these extracts stated that “the Reichsmarschall was fully informed” about various murders of recaptured airmen, undermining his claims of ignorance.
The psychological and physical impact on Göring became visible to courtroom observers. According to one contemporary account: “By the end of the afternoon, journalists saw that Göring’s face had blanched. His lips were drawn into a thin line and his hands were nervously gripping the sides of the witness box. He was rattled.” Göring, who had earlier in the trial bullied and cajoled other defendants and witnesses, and who had emerged victorious from his engagement with Jackson, found himself confronted with an adversary whose mastery of evidence and command of cross-examination technique left him without effective defense strategies.
When Göring attempted to regain composure by expounding at length on particular subjects, Maxwell Fyfe would curtly interrupt: “I have put my question: I pass on to another point.” This relentless, controlled approach prevented Göring from deploying the discursive strategies that had served him well against Jackson. Maxwell Fyfe progressively established Göring’s complicity in multiple war crimes: the invasion of Poland in 1939, the invasions of the Low Countries and Yugoslavia, the treatment of prisoners of war, and most significantly, his knowledge of the Holocaust and the extermination camp at Auschwitz.
Maxwell Fyfe chose as his initial focus the cold-blooded execution of 50 Allied airmen who had escaped from Stalag Luft III in Sagan, Poland, on March 25, 1944—an event later immortalized as “The Great Escape.” Of 76 prisoners who successfully escaped from the camp, 73 were recaptured, and exactly 50 of them were executed on the personal orders of Adolf Hitler. Maxwell Fyfe had prepared exhaustively on this crime, mastering the minutiae of Luftwaffe titles, organizational procedures, and documentation surrounding the murders.
His cross-examination technique proved devastatingly effective. Rather than broad, open-ended questions that allowed Göring latitude for lengthy responses, Maxwell Fyfe employed short, precise inquiries that demanded brief affirmative or negative replies. This approach prevented Göring from deploying his rhetorical mastery to reframe events in favorable terms. Maxwell Fyfe systematically led Göring through the chain of command and documentary evidence to demonstrate his personal knowledge of and involvement in the murders.
A key tactical innovation was Maxwell Fyfe’s exploitation of Göring’s earlier apparent cooperativeness. On several occasions during the cross-examination, Maxwell Fyfe would ask: “Now, would you like to help me – you were most helpful last time – find the place?” This politeness, combined with what appeared to be a straightforward request for assistance, actually led Göring to locate passages in documents that directly incriminated him. In particular, these extracts stated that “the Reichsmarschall was fully informed” about various murders of recaptured airmen, undermining his claims of ignorance.
The psychological and physical impact on Göring became visible to courtroom observers. According to one contemporary account: “By the end of the afternoon, journalists saw that Göring’s face had blanched. His lips were drawn into a thin line and his hands were nervously gripping the sides of the witness box. He was rattled.” Göring, who had earlier in the trial bullied and cajoled other defendants and witnesses, and who had emerged victorious from his engagement with Jackson, found himself confronted with an adversary whose mastery of evidence and command of cross-examination technique left him without effective defense strategies.
When Göring attempted to regain composure by expounding at length on particular subjects, Maxwell Fyfe would curtly interrupt: “I have put my question: I pass on to another point.” This relentless, controlled approach prevented Göring from deploying the discursive strategies that had served him well against Jackson. Maxwell Fyfe progressively established Göring’s complicity in multiple war crimes: the invasion of Poland in 1939, the invasions of the Low Countries and Yugoslavia, the treatment of prisoners of war, and most significantly, his knowledge of the Holocaust and the extermination camp at Auschwitz.
🧵 THREAD: While Everyone Watches Crypto, Smart Money Moves to Silver
1️⃣
Something important is happening in the markets — and most investors are missing it.
While headlines stay focused on crypto, institutional money is quietly rotating.
Something important is happening in the markets — and most investors are missing it.
While headlines stay focused on crypto, institutional money is quietly rotating.
2️⃣
Bitcoin ETFs just saw ~$500M in outflows in a single week.
Over $3.5B left in November alone.
That’s not noise.
That’s intentional capital movement.
Bitcoin ETFs just saw ~$500M in outflows in a single week.
Over $3.5B left in November alone.
That’s not noise.
That’s intentional capital movement.
A quantum dot (QD) gate laser pulse manipulates quantum states in QDs, acting as a fundamental tool for quantum computing and single-photon sources, often using ultrafast pulses to excite excitons (electron-hole pairs) or control spin qubits, enabling operations like creating single photons or performing conditional quantum logic gates by precisely tuning pulse frequency, polarization, and duration to control transitions and interactions within the dots.
ENTRANCE
INTERFERENCE
Hersh has not changed his position on the Ghouta 2013 false flag, @DAaronovitch. As @aaronjmate explains here. @ClarkeMicah x.com/aaronjmate/sta… x.com/DAaronovitch/s…
1) There is, in additional to Hersh's reporting, overwhelming evidence the event was instigated by opposition groups working in tandem with Western, Turkish and Israeli intelligence. For an overview, a good place to start is here @ukcolumnukcolumn.org/article/the-ev…
2) And then read @WVanwagenen's detailed analysis: libertarianinstitute.org/blog/creative-…
🧵 THREAD: Two Prices. One Metal. And a Market That’s Breaking
1️⃣
Silver at ~$71–72 on Western screens.
Calm candles. Small pullbacks.
Looks… boring, right?
That’s exactly how real regime changes begin.
Silver at ~$71–72 on Western screens.
Calm candles. Small pullbacks.
Looks… boring, right?
That’s exactly how real regime changes begin.
2️⃣
Now zoom out from the chart — and look East.
On Shanghai Gold Exchange and Shanghai Futures Exchange, silver is ~$77–78/oz.
Different price.
Different message.
Different reality.
Now zoom out from the chart — and look East.
On Shanghai Gold Exchange and Shanghai Futures Exchange, silver is ~$77–78/oz.
Different price.
Different message.
Different reality.
Yesterday, 3M people found my weird obsession with cognitive biases.
A "cognitive bias" is a systematic error in thinking that destroys decision-making.
7 more of the most powerful (and dangerous) cognitive biases I've found: 🧵
1. Confirmation Bias:
A "cognitive bias" is a systematic error in thinking that destroys decision-making.
7 more of the most powerful (and dangerous) cognitive biases I've found: 🧵
1. Confirmation Bias:
1. Confirmation Bias:
We search for information that supports our beliefs and reject anything that contradicts them.
If you hate a specific politician, you only read news that makes them look bad.
You don't want the truth; you want to be right.
We search for information that supports our beliefs and reject anything that contradicts them.
If you hate a specific politician, you only read news that makes them look bad.
You don't want the truth; you want to be right.
P.S. If you want my complete collection of the best, most useful mental models, cognitive biases, and mental fallacies, grab a free copy here:
Now back to the thread. 👇besuperhuman.gumroad.com/l/mentalmodels
Now back to the thread. 👇besuperhuman.gumroad.com/l/mentalmodels
