Red Mug

英屬香港遺民

[Yunxiao Han 韩云霄 @leoefgf]

中国的食品安全现状！

有网友说：这个视频应该全网播放，最好在中共央视上循环播放！

[liten drage @DrageLiten]

@elonmusk How @SpaceX Will Build a City on Mars? 🚀@TheSpaceRaceYT

[YiFeng Su @sam51824016070]

中国的水果高科技，世界遥遥领先。

[心淡的懶貓🎗🐈‍⬛🥀🌴 @yiyiyilam]

#差那人帶來的國際線煩惱及新思維！
🙆🏻‍♀️🙆🏻‍♀️🙆🏻‍♀️🤣🤣🤣

[Fairice @yibingsg]

你吃的海参不一定是真的！带你看看仿制的有毒海参。社会没有诚信了还有什么可以相信？

[香港/中國新聞-小豬 @hk2019freehk]

轉：即睇全文：https://t.co/bxKGdwNY9F

呢鋪又要多謝誠哥，對付死亡率極高嘅「癌王」胰臟癌，香港醫療界邁出重要一步。

港大臨床醫學學院與港怡醫院團隊，順利完成首兩宗「組織碎化技術」（Histotripsy）治療。首宗個案腫瘤達 5 厘米，仲要貼住膽管同大血管，傳統手術根本係「禁區」。團隊用高強度超聲波物理擊碎癌細胞，術後兩週血清腫瘤標記 CA 19.9 濃度跌咗超過 3 倍，成功瓦解腫瘤負荷

第二宗個案更展現咗技術處理「轉移性癌症」嘅潛力：團隊喺同一次治療中，同步處理咗胰臟同肝臟腫瘤！

呢個亞洲首例證明咗，對於身體較虛弱、唔適合做傳統切除手術嘅多發性轉移患者，呢種無創、非熱性嘅技術提供咗額外嘅舒緩手段。不過客觀嚟講，團隊亦強調目前只係起點，長期穩定性仲要更多樣本驗證。

李嘉誠基金會目前喺全球部署咗 8 套 Histotripsy 系統，香港獨佔 3 套，其餘分佈新加坡、美國史丹佛同英國劍橋。呢種「三地四國」模式，唔止係買機，更係資助臨床名額同培訓，令香港科研人員可以同全球頂尖學府同步共享數據，加速技術轉化。

#經一熱話 #臨床 #醫癌神器 #Histotripsy #誠哥 #李嘉誠基金會 #經濟一週 #ED_W

[Red Mug @iamredmug]

@KingTunde_SZN 1886

[il Donaldo Trumpo @PapiTrumpo]

WE LOVE OUR BEAUTIFUL JAPANESE PATRIOTS!!!🇯🇵❤️🇺🇸

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

Socialism relies on the poor

To justify its existence

So it perpetuates poverty

[DiaperDiplomacy @DiaperDiplomacy]

“Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor?” — Trump brings ‘surprise diplomacy’ to Japan 🇺🇸🇯🇵

[これ見たことある人RT @Sebasti22120632]

この技術すごすぎる…🌿😳

[Red Mug @iamredmug]

錯重點：長期精神操控、強制控制行為係咪話緊你呀爺？

[パンダさん【時事ニュースチャンネル】 @panda_jiji_news]

メイクが凄すぎて
話が入ってこないと話題

[Red Mug @iamredmug]

滅國預言

[淘喵先生 @Baoliaogeming64]

👁️🥹英国，终于走到这一步了吗……

一名16岁的少女手中拿着“自己国家的国旗”，却被警察强行没收。理由竟然是“会刺激移民”😖

英国的状况实在太糟糕了，举起自己国家的国旗竟然会变成“罪”，不可思议吧😈

[Red Mug @iamredmug]

尷尬？呢啲叫羞恥！
#殃殃大角

[作家崔成浩 @cuichenghao]

本届冬奥会出现尴尬一幕。

在花样滑冰团体赛，日本选手坂本花織出场时，中国队竟全员离席。坂本花織不负众望，勇夺冠军。中国选手仅获第八。

[サキガケ @nihonpatriot]

イギリスが日本に警鐘を鳴らす

イギリス人「気づいたら、政治家は日本人じゃなくて、彼らの代表になるんだ。で、俺たちは言う。『なぜ俺らを反面教師にしなかったんだ、警告しただろ』って」

[Chad Crowley @CCrowley100]

Conquered, not stolen.

Since time immemorial, conquest has determined who occupies a land and who does not.

Territory has never been distributed by moral abstraction or granted by retrospective entitlement, except in recent times and only in the Western world.

It has been claimed, defended, and inherited through force, will, and continuity. This has been the rule across civilizations and centuries, whether in tribal migration or imperial expansion.

What is changing today is not the nature of conquest but the way it is remembered.

The phrase “stolen land” is an attempt to deny this reality. No phrase is repeated more casually and with less scrutiny. It appears in classrooms, on protest signs, and in official proclamations, as if it were a self-evident truth rather than a political invention designed to invert the meaning of history. The concept does not clarify the past. It repurposes it, weaponizing memory to serve the ideological needs of the present.

It is not a description of historical events but a formula of accusation, crafted to transform conquest into guilt and settlement into sin. It replaces historical understanding with a fixed moral narrative, one that justifies grievance in the name of justice and demands erasure in the name of memory. It recasts the builders of civilization as intruders and the victors of history as thieves.

In this framework, the phrase does not describe a border conflict or a military loss. It signifies the permanent illegitimacy of the victor, and it is applied exclusively to the descendants of European conquerors. This moral fiction now governs how the American Southwest is remembered and stands as the chief rhetorical obstacle to any serious defense of the civilization built there.

Its function is not merely retrospective. The myth prepares the ground for demographic transformation by denying the moral legitimacy of existing populations. If White Americans are portrayed as permanent usurpers, then their replacement is not a tragedy but a correction. This is the logic that underlies the narrative: that those who built must step aside for those who did not, because presence without ancestry is less offensive than ancestry without permission.

When we first confronted this accusation in relation to Mexico, we did so to refute the claim that the lands of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California were wrongfully taken from a rightful Mexican inheritance. But Mexico’s claim was itself the outcome of Spanish conquest, built upon the ruins of earlier tribal orders. Its northern territories were weakly held, sparsely populated, and barely governed. They were frontier zones raided by hostile tribes, economically stagnant, and only loosely tethered to the Mexican core. Their absorption by the United States was not theft. It was consolidation, an act of settlement and struggle.

Even this, however, grants too much to the premise. The Mexican framing is merely the outermost layer of a larger ideological assault. The “stolen land” myth is not confined to the American Southwest, nor to the United States. It is a global narrative applied to every White-settled nation, from Canada to Australia, from former Rhodesia to South Africa, and always in the same pattern.

What is at stake is not the justice of one war or the boundaries of one treaty, but the legitimacy of the European presence in the New World and beyond. The purpose of this myth is to strip White nations of any rightful claim to the lands they built, casting their very existence as a permanent crime. It recasts founding as theft, inheritance as injustice, and continuity as illegitimate occupation.

The term “indigenous” serves as the instrument of that erasure. It offers a moral absolute: a group that arrived first, suffered most, and never recovered. This label, though applied globally, acquires its most weaponized form in the context of Western settler nations, where European peoples are not treated as builders of order but as trespassers without end. In this narrative, to be White is not to belong to a civilization but to an intergenerational invasion. The word “indigenous” functions as a replacement for historical understanding. It flattens the layered realities of migration, war, and succession into a binary of oppressor and oppressed, belonging and exile.

Yet there is no serious historical basis for this purity. The lands of the American Southwest were not stolen from a single indigenous nation. They were claimed from nature by many peoples in succession, most of them by war. The Comanche, whose empire is vividly documented in S. C. Gwynne’s Empire of the Summer Moon, were not gentle caretakers of sacred land. They were one of the most violent, expansionist, and militarily sophisticated tribes ever to roam the plains.

They displaced other Indians, raided deep into Mexico, trafficked in captives, and held vast territory through fear and predation. Comanche war bands tortured prisoners, gang-raped captured women, mutilated corpses, and slaughtered settlers without mercy. They burned homesteads, butchered children, and left mutilated bodies on the plains as a warning to others. Their authority was not symbolic, but absolute, imposed through terror and the complete subjugation of rival tribes. Their defeat at the hands of American settlers was not a moral tragedy but the outcome of a civilizational collision in which both sides understood the stakes. Territory belongs to those who can take it and hold it.

The same was true in California, where tribal fragmentation, ecological exploitation, and endemic violence defined the pre-contact world. The romantic image of peaceful tribal communities living in ecological harmony cannot withstand the scrutiny of serious anthropology. Robert Whelan, in Wild in the Woods, traces the noble savage myth to Renaissance projections and Enlightenment fantasies, not to historical accounts. From the earliest Spanish reports, we find widespread evidence of ritual cannibalism, enslavement, and infanticide among the peoples who now serve as icons of environmental sanctity. The illusion of indigenous innocence is not native to them. It is a European invention, crafted to reflect our guilt, not their reality.

Even the ecological argument, so often deployed to elevate indigenous societies as models of sustainability, collapses under pressure. Where scarcity imposed restraint, practices of conservation emerged, but these were not ethical principles. They were strategies of survival. As Allyn Stearman shows in her research on Amazonian societies, when abundance returned, restraint disappeared. There were no sacred taboos preventing overhunting in the rich lowlands of Bolivia. What modern environmentalists call wisdom was, in most cases, merely necessity. And when necessity no longer applied, so too vanished the balance.

If we are to take history seriously, then we must dispense with these illusions. Violence and territorial conquest were not introduced to the Americas by Europeans. They were already present, embedded in tribal life, ritual structure, and myth. Among the Māori of New Zealand, slavery and cannibalism were institutional. In the Congo, children were captured, butchered, and consumed, not in famine, but as spectacle and assertion of power. In the Americas, the Maya conducted mass human sacrifices to celestial gods, and the Comanche burned men alive for sport and honor. These were not exceptional acts. They were structural practices. And to excuse them is not to respect indigenous cultures, but to infantilize them.

This is the ultimate consequence of the “indigenous” framework. It denies to non-Western peoples the full moral agency that we expect of ourselves. It absolves them of the duties of judgment, responsibility, and consequence. It recasts them as eternal victims, existing not in history but in myth, useful only as moral leverage against the civilization that outcompeted them. This is not scholarship, but a form of ritual abasement that calls not for understanding, but for surrender.

There is no reason to participate in this fiction. The American Southwest was not stolen. It was conquered, built, and defended. And conquest is not a sin. It is a historical constant. Every people that now claims a homeland has done so by seizing it from others or preserving it through resistance. The Comanche understood this. So did the Spanish, and so did the Americans. What is unique to our time is the expectation that we forget it, that we dissolve the foundations of our own legitimacy in order to appease the descendants of those who, given the opportunity, would not have hesitated to do the same.

In practice, the “indigenous” framework serves to justify the displacement of White populations under the guise of moral restitution. It allows demographic revolution to proceed not as conquest, but as redemption. Erasure becomes a virtue, so long as it is inflicted upon the builders of the world they now inhabit.

To reject this demand is not to deny the past, but to remember it fully—and to defend the right of those who built to remain. The truth may not be comfortable, but it is not ours to surrender. It is ours to uphold.

[菲菲4.0 @meimei1935]

奥巴马的十大罪状。
奥巴马前的美国和奥巴马后的美国是完全不一样的美国。
奥巴马之前两党的共识大于分歧，之后的美国分歧大于共识。
奥巴马之前美国只有两种性别，之后美国有几十种性别。
奥巴马之前美国是基督教国家，之后美国是所有人国家。
奥巴马之前国父的雕像是用来纪念的，之后是用来拉倒的。
奥巴马之前美国认人为才，之后美国认人为族。
奥巴马之前是有所有的言论自由，之后是政治正确的言论自由。
奥巴马之前是以美国人的利益优先，之后是以非法移民的利益优先。
奥巴马之前吸大麻是吸毒，之后是娱乐。
奥巴马之前没有人称总统是希特勒，之后称川普是希特勒。
奥巴马之前司法是维护正义的工具，之后是打击异见的武器……
说得太好了👍💯

[Red Mug @iamredmug]

@Elonmusklona A