X Time

Always learning…. Always sharing to save our constitutional Republic!

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Tout le monde pense que le monde libre a gagné en 1989, à la chute du mur de Berlin.

C'est faux.

Et c'est exactement pour ça que le monde est aujourd'hui en feu.

Ce qui est tombé le 9 novembre 1989, c'est un appareil.

Une économie planifiée, un empire militaire, un mur de béton. Ce qui n'est pas tombé, c'est l'idée. L'idée que le monde se divise en oppresseurs et en opprimés. L'idée qu'il existe une égalité finale à atteindre, par tous les moyens. L'idée que tout ce qui existe (la famille, la nation, le mérite, l'héritage) est une structure de domination à abattre.

Cette idée-là n'était plus dans le bâtiment quand le bâtiment s'est effondré.

Il faut reprendre la chronologie, parce que tout est dans la chronologie :

Le communisme économique avait un défaut fatal : il était réfutable. Il promettait l'abondance, il produisait des famines. Il promettait l'émancipation, il produisait des barbelés. Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, L'Archipel du Goulag publié à Paris en 1973, les boat people de 1979 : à chaque décennie, le réel envoyait sa réfutation. Les boat people étaient une réfutation flottante, visible depuis les plages.

Alors l'idéologie a fait ce que fait tout organisme menacé : elle a muté.

La mutation a un nom, et j'en ai raconté la généalogie ici : la French Theory.

Foucault a déplacé la guerre du terrain des faits, où le communisme perdait à chaque fois, vers le terrain du savoir lui-même.

S'il n'y a pas de vérité, s'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir, alors plus aucune famine, plus aucun mur, plus aucun goulag ne peut réfuter quoi que ce soit.

La French Theory n'a pas enterré le marxisme.

Elle l'a rendu irréfutable.

Et la mutation a des dates. Toutes antérieures à 1989.

1934 : l'École de Francfort, chassée d'Allemagne, s'installe à Columbia. La critique de l'économie devient critique de la culture.

1964-1965 : Marcuse, exilé allemand devenu professeur américain, remplace le prolétariat défaillant par un nouveau sujet révolutionnaire (les minorités, les étudiants, les marginaux) et écrit noir sur blanc que la tolérance doit être accordée aux mouvements de gauche et refusée à ceux de droite.

Octobre 1966 : le débarquement a une date précise. Université Johns Hopkins, Baltimore. Derrida, Barthes, Lacan présentent la pensée française aux campus américains.

1967 : Rudi Dutschke lance le mot d'ordre, la longue marche à travers les institutions.

1968 : les révolutions de rue échouent partout.

Qu'importe. La révolution ne passera plus par la rue, elle passera par la salle de classe.

1975-1985 : Yale, Berkeley, Columbia absorbent la théorie, qui devient le système d'exploitation des humanités.

1987 : Allan Bloom publie The Closing of the American Mind pour donner l'alerte. Un million d'exemplaires vendus.

L'université le traite de réactionnaire et passe à autre chose.

L'Amérique avait son Aron, elle en a fait la même chose que nous du nôtre.

Puis arrive le 9 novembre 1989.

Le Mur tombe. L'Occident célèbre. Fukuyama avait déclaré la fin de l'Histoire dès l'été, avant même la chute. On démantèle les missiles, on encaisse les dividendes de la paix, on déclare le match terminé.

Nous avons célébré notre victoire sur une adresse vide. L'idéologie avait déménagé vingt ans plus tôt. Nous avons gagné contre les chars et perdu contre les chaires.

Pendant ce temps, l'autre empire communiste faisait la lecture inverse. Pékin avait écrasé Tian'anmen dans le sang cinq mois avant Berlin. Sinistre, mais lucide sur un point : la Chine savait que la guerre était idéologique.

Elle a choisi : abandonner l'économie marxiste, garder le contrôle du récit. L'Occident a fait l'exact opposé : il a gardé le marché et absorbé l'idéologie. Trente-cinq ans plus tard, regardez qui construit des centrales et qui déboulonne ses statues.

Vous voulez la preuve que c'est le même logiciel ? Faites la table de correspondance.

La lutte des classes est devenue la lutte des identités.

Les koulaks sont devenus les privilégiés.

L'autocritique maoïste est devenue le privilege checking. Les commissaires politiques sont devenus les DEI officers.

Le samizdat est devenu le compte shadowbanné.

La nomenklatura a quitté Moscou pour Davos et Bruxelles.

Et le paradis ne s'appelle plus la société sans classes : il s'appelle l'équité, l'égalité des résultats.

Exactement ce que je décrivais ici il y a quelques semaines.

On me dira : il n'y a pas de Goulag.

C'est vrai. C'est même tout le génie de la version 2.0.

Le communisme dur devait briser les corps parce qu'il ne tenait pas les esprits.

Le communisme mou tient les esprits : il lui suffit de briser les carrières.

Pas de camps, des services RH.
Pas de procès de Moscou, des excuses publiques.
Pas de Sibérie, la mort sociale.
Demandez aux émigrés du bloc de l'Est installés en Occident ce qu'ils ressentent en traversant une université américaine en 2026.
Ils reconnaissent l'odeur.

Et voilà pourquoi le monde est en feu.

Une civilisation a passé trente-cinq ans à enseigner à ses propres enfants qu'elle était le problème. Résultat : elle ne sait plus défendre ses frontières, transmettre son héritage, ni même nommer ses ennemis.

Quand la présidente de Harvard, devant le Congrès, répond que condamner un appel au génocide « dépend du contexte », vous voyez le logiciel tourner en production.

Et les prédateurs du dehors lisent cette faiblesse comme un livre ouvert : Moscou teste, Pékin patiente, l'islamisme avance dans les rues de nos capitales.

Le feu extérieur n'est que la conséquence du désarmement intérieur. On ne brûle bien que les maisons qui se sont vidées de leurs défenseurs.

Le Mur n'est pas tombé. Il s'est déplacé. Il ne sépare plus l'Est de l'Ouest : il passe désormais à l'intérieur de chaque institution occidentale, entre ceux qui construisent et ceux qui déconstruisent.

La première guerre froide s'est gagnée avec des missiles et du PIB. La seconde se gagnera avec des écoles, des médias libres et des modèles d'IA. Celui qui écrit les valeurs dans les machines écrira le prochain 1989.

Cette fois, ne nous trompons pas de victoire. Au travail.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Il faut avoir l'honnêteté de reconnaître le coup de génie de la gauche, parce que c'en est un. Le plus grand hold-up rhétorique du siècle tient en un seul mot : raciste.

Voici le mécanisme.

Après 1945, après les droits civiques, l'Occident a fait du racisme le mal absolu. À juste titre : c'est une de ses plus grandes conquêtes morales. « Raciste » est devenu le mot le plus radioactif de la langue, l'excommunication moderne, la mort sociale instantanée.

Le coup de génie a été de détourner ce capital moral. Pas pour protéger des personnes : pour protéger une idéologie.

L'égalitarisme des résultats ne gagne jamais un débat sur les faits. Il produit l'inverse de ce qu'il promet, partout, à chaque fois. Alors plutôt que de gagner le débat, on a rendu le débat impayable. Tu questionnes les résultats de l'immigration sans assimilation ? Raciste. Tu défends le mérite ? Raciste. Les maths avancées ? Racistes. Les frontières ? Racistes. Le mot a cessé de décrire un comportement pour décrire une position sur l'échiquier.

Et regardez la beauté technique du dispositif. Pas besoin d'arguments : l'accusation suffit. Pas besoin de procès : la dénégation aggrave le cas (votre défensivité prouve votre culpabilité). Pas besoin de police : la peur fait le travail, chacun se surveille lui-même et surveille son voisin gratuitement. Il suffit d'exécuter publiquement quelques exemples par an pour tenir des millions de gens. Une idéologie irréfutable, protégée par un mot imprononçable. Les deux pare-feux du même système : la French Theory avait aboli la vérité, l'accusation a aboli le débat.

Est-ce qu'un comité s'est réuni pour concevoir ça ? Pas besoin. Les idées subissent une sélection darwinienne : celles qui survivent sont celles qui se défendent le mieux. Marcuse avait quand même déposé le brevet dès 1965, noir sur blanc : tolérance pour les mouvements de gauche, intolérance pour ceux de droite. Le reste a évolué tout seul. Il faut l'avouer : c'était génial.

Mais ce dispositif génial avait un coût, et le coût a un bilan. À Rotherham, le rapport officiel Jay a établi que des fonctionnaires britanniques ont laissé plus de 1 400 gamines se faire exploiter pendant seize ans, en partie par peur d'être traités de racistes s'ils nommaient les faits. Relisez cette phrase. Des enfants ont été sacrifiées à un mot. Voilà ce que veut dire idéologie mortifère : pas une métaphore, un bilan.

Et maintenant, regardez ce qui s'effondre sous nos yeux.

Une insulte ne fonctionne que si elle fait peur, et une monnaie ne fonctionne que si elle est rare. Ils ont imprimé le mot comme Weimar imprimait le mark. Quand tout est raciste, plus rien ne l'est. Résultat : des tweets qui commencent par « traitez-moi de raciste si vous voulez » récoltent des dizaines de milliers de likes et l'approbation de l'homme le plus riche du monde. Il y a dix ans, cette phrase était un suicide professionnel. Aujourd'hui, c'est un haussement d'épaules. L'hyperinflation a tué la monnaie.

Et voilà la vraie tragédie, que les faussaires devront porter : en imprimant le mot sans limite, ils l'ont brûlé pour tout le monde. Y compris pour nommer le vrai racisme quand il existe, car il existe. Les faux-monnayeurs ne détruisent pas que leur arme. Ils détruisent le mot dont une société honnête a besoin.

Privée de son mot magique, l'idéologie va maintenant devoir faire ce qu'elle n'a jamais su faire : gagner un débat sur les faits.

Elle ne le gagnera pas. Au travail.

[🇨🇭🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿InLucysHead🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇨🇭© @InsideLucysHead]

I am truly perplexed that so many people are against mosques being built...

I think it should be the goal of every Western Society to be tolerant regardless of their religious beliefs. Thus mosques should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.

That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque, thereby promoting tolerance from within the mosque. We could call one of the clubs, which would be gay, "The Turban Cowboy ", and the other a topless bar called "You Mecca Me Hot."

Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork, and adjacent to that an open-pit barbecue pork restaurant, called "Iraq o' Ribs."

Across the street there could be a lingerie store called "Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret ", with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the goods.

Next door to the lingerie shop there would be room for an adult sex toy shop, "Koranal Knowledge ", its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side an off-licence called "Morehammered."

All of this would encourage Muslims to demonstrate the tolerance they demand of us, so their mosque issue would not be a problem for others.

[X Time @Time2_Twit]

@Eyalo365 Excellent commentary. Only weakened by you ad hominem personal feelings about POTUS… Don’t lose the argument with such a throwaway comment on the mental state of someone else.

[Mor Edge Insight @MorEdge_Insight]

Even Arab leaders admit it.

Everyone is sharing the Bill Clinton clip where he describes how Yasser Arafat rejected a generous peace offer at Camp David that would have given the Palestinians a state on 96 percent of the West Bank, land swaps, and a capital in East Jerusalem. Clinton says Arafat lied to him and that the Palestinian leadership never actually wanted a two-state solution. They wanted to destroy Israel. It’s a video often shared by people like @VividProwess, and it’s an important one for people to see.

Of course, critics immediately dismiss it. They claim Clinton is biased or he’s pro-Israel. They’ll tell you that you cannot trust the American perspective.

Ok, so let us set that aside.

Now watch this.

In this powerful interview, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab leader who was directly involved in negotiations, says exactly the same thing from the Arab side. He talks about the Mena House Conference in Cairo as well as the Camp David negotiations of 1978. All failed because of the Palestinians repeatedly rejecting any offer. The Oslo accords were signed but because Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were not involved, they derailed the accords and any chance for peace by initiating 4 years of terrorist suicide attacks in Israel. Then came the second Camp David negotiations in 2000 which Arafat agreed to, then rejected and instead initiated the Second Intifada.

Mubarak explains how the Palestinians refused to even participate in the Mena House conference of 1977. He describes repeated opportunities they were given, including a detailed document that called for Israeli withdrawal from the Samaria, Judea and Gaza, security arrangements during a transitional period, and other major concessions. The Israelis were willing to negotiate on difficult issues like who would control security. The Palestinians, according to Mubarak, kept saying no and wasting chance after chance.

He speaks with clear frustration about how for decades the Palestinian side has rejected peace initiatives and realistic compromises.

The video further shows footage from the PLO representative in 1977, as well as old footage of Egyptian president Sadat who was involved in the Mena House and first Camp David negotiations of 1978.

This perhaps is far more impactful than Clinton’s account because it is not a Western or Israeli voice. It is prominent Arab leaders who lived the negotiations, who represented the broader Arab world, and who had zero incentive to defend Israel.

When leaders from both sides of the table describe the same pattern of Palestinian rejectionism and violence, it becomes much harder to dismiss as bias.

The pattern is clear across decades and across different voices… generous offers, repeated refusals, and continued demands for everything while giving nothing in return.

This is not ancient history. It is the core reason the conflict continues today.

If you value the truth, please share.

[Lyndsey Fifield @lyndseyfifield]

I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.

As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.

But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.

After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?

Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?

Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).

Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?

The editors said it was too much, they explained.

The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.

It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.

And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.

Still fawning after all these years.

[Apple Lamps @lamps_apple]

The Carroll case rested on a sequence of legal maneuvers with no precedent in American civil litigation. Democratic legislators passed a retroactive temporary law eliminating the statute of limitations for decades-old accusations that could not be dated, located, or defended with alibis. The day the temporary law took effect, Carroll filed her pre-prepared lawsuit, the first in the state to do so.

A Democratic mega-donor secretly funded the plaintiff’s legal costs through a nonprofit. The arrangement stayed hidden until one of Trump’s lawyers discovered it. A Clinton-appointed judge then sealed all records so the jury never learned the billionaire backer had publicly committed to Trump’s political destruction. Every participant in the legislative, funding, and judicial steps operated inside the same political network, and each decision produced the same cumulative result.

The jury explicitly checked “no” on the verdict form’s specific rape question. The judge ruled rape proven anyway, claiming the jury had used a common rather than statutory definition… an impossibility, since their rejection under the common definition precludes rape by any standard. Trump’s team was barred from arguing innocence before a second jury, which awarded $83.3 million ($65 million punitive) on the rape finding the first jury had rejected.

A defendant was sued for defamation over denying an accusation, prevented from asserting that denial as a defense, tried before a judge who concealed the plaintiff’s political funding, and hit with a nine-figure verdict built on facts the jury itself refused to find.

No comparable sequence exists in recorded U.S. civil litigation history.

[Old Salty Marine @BamaSaltyMarine]

HISTORY LESSON ON YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD:
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are FACTS.

Up until the 1980's, Social Security cards expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes.
Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in black, with updates in brackets.

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary [No longer voluntary],

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program [Now 7.65% on the first $90,000, and 15% on the first $90,000 if you’re self-employed],

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year [No longer tax deductible]

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent]

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income [Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed].

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’ — you may be interested in the following.

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

AND MY FAVORITE:

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!

The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Now, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, though.

Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so but it’s worth a try.

How many people can YOU send this to?

[Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 @JasonJournoDC]

💥NEW: Alan Dershowitz says Dem NY Gov. Kathy Hochul’s new anti-ICE laws are “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”💥

“You CANNOT pass a statute that says that you are prohibited from cooperating with the federal government in the enforcement of its duties.”

“It’s also unconstitutional for the state to tell federal agents what they can wear and what they can’t wear. Federal agents are entitled to protect themselves.”

“They’ve been threatened, their families have been threatened … there’s no reason that their faces have to be seen by people who will then go to their homes and threaten violence to them and their family.”

[X Time @Time2_Twit]

@aj_inapi @aj_inapi Always bringing the receipts! Well done. 👍

[AJ Inapi (Allan) @aj_inapi]

As you continue to see rumblings around Nancy Mace and her run for Governor and President Trump endorsing her opponent, it's important to watch this video.

Reference points matter. Everything else is noise.

[SaltyGoat @SaltyGoat17]

The 13th amendment (abolished slavery) was passed with 100% of Republican support

77% of Democrats voted against it!

The 14th amendment (gave blacks citizenship) was passed with 94% of Republican support

100% of Democrats voted against it!

The 15th amendment (gave slaves the right to vote) was passed with 100% of Republican support

100% of Democrats voted against it!!

This is good info to have the next time you vote...

[Camus @newstart_2024]

Sex once a week = up to 49% lower all-cause mortality.

Dr. Rena Malik on the Shawn Ryan Show laid it out:

People having sex 52 times a year live longer, have lower heart disease risk, and better overall health outcomes compared to those who have it rarely. The same frequency also boosts mental health by reducing depression and anxiety.

For men, ejaculating 21+ times per month (sex or masturbation) is linked to significantly lower prostate cancer risk. Women see benefits too — stronger immune function, lower blood pressure, and better pelvic health.

One major study showed the striking 49% reduction in all-cause mortality with regular weekly sex.

In a stressed and often lonely world, consistent intimacy is a simple, enjoyable lever for better longevity and wellness.

Regular sexual activity is also associated with higher levels of oxytocin and endorphins, which naturally reduce cortisol (stress hormone) and support better sleep quality and immune response.

[RedWave Press @RedWavePress]

CNN’s statistician, Harry Enten: “The George W. Bush era of the Republican Party is simply put, it is dead. It is dead, and [John Cornyn’s loss] was the capstone to it. And Donald Trump’s Republican Party is very much alive. He is the leader of the Republican Party.”

“Donald Trump was 45 points under water with Republicans [in May 2015]... This is over a 100 point shift. I do believe. Donald Trump is now at +61… in the positive direction for Trump.”

“The worst GOP primary loss by the margin. The worst ever for a Republican senator. It now belongs to John Cornyn. His 28-point loss Tuesday night…”

[Ida Turan 🇮🇷 ایده توران @iranidaturan]

Those who are frustrated with Trump for not “finishing the job,” and who catastrophize that he has abandoned Iranians or has been bought by Arabs, have no idea how dangerous this situation really is.

Yes, US had the ability to eliminate all the regime commanders, but they didn’t. Why? Because there is still some degree of central control over the extremists.

You may not have seen them, but I grow up in Iran among them in top universities, I have seen those who genuinely believe they are among the only 313 followers of Mahdi, and everyone else is lost, and that their job is to blow the world up. and no, they are not dumb or incompetent. Don’t underestimate them.

Just imagine what would happen in a power vacuum after a sudden regime collapse. If the remaining fanatical elements got access to 60% enriched uranium that is already 97% of the way to becoming weapons‑grade, and then everyone lost track of it.

No, uranium doesn’t have GPS. No, you can’t track it with satellites. If even part of it goes missing, the consequences could be catastrophic.

We are not living in a superhero world where the U.S. and Israel can control everything. They can’t control chaos. The U.S. seriously messed up in Afghanistan and Iraq, people have catastrophically short memories. But luckily Trump's admin don't.

The regime is like a psychopath with its finger on the trigger, capable of commiting unimaginable atrocities.

The reason Trump is “negotiating” with it is not because they want to reach a fair agreement with these lunatics, or they are naive and you need to teach them not to trust the regime. no. It’s because they first need to take that trigger away.

Stop oversimplifying and catastrophizing events panicans. If you can't handle the news, just don't read them. You are not helping by constantly screaming and insulting Trump. Respectfully, all you have to do is to shut up.

Trump knows what he is doing, let’s hope he succeeds. This is a price he is paying to maintain control over the aftermath of the regime’s fall.

Patience is strength, is maturity. be strong, be patient.

[Sassafrass84 @Sassafrass_84]

Let me say it loud for the retards in the back who keep rewriting history:

President Trump was advised to lock the country down for two weeks to slow the curve. He listened. Republican-led states reopened and got back to work. Democrat-led states stayed shut down for over a year.
Trump repeatedly pleaded with those blue-state governors to reopen their economies. They refused. Their goal was clear: tank the Trump economy so they could blame him for the damage. Millions lost jobs and livelihoods because of it.

Democrat governors chose to send sick COVID patients into nursing homes — a decision that killed thousands of our elderly. That was their choice, not Trump’s.
They lectured him: “Don’t tell me how to run my state, Trump! Don’t overstep your authority!” While encouraging people to snitch on their neighbors for not following the rules.

Operation Warp Speed happened under President Trump. The vaccines were developed a few years prior. Democrats originally scoffed: “I’m not taking a Trump vaccine.”

Then Biden and Democrats stole the election, forced vaccine mandates, and suddenly, it was “safe and effective” — take it or lose your job. Blue states cheered and reopened.

Don’t twist the history. Those of us who lived through 2020-2024 remember exactly what happened.

[X Time @Time2_Twit]

@RawaneOsmane Incredible assessment. Well done. 👍

[Rawan Osman روان عثمان @RawaneOsmane]

“Free Palestine.”

I grew up on those words.

In Lebanon, most people around me wanted a free Palestine for a very practical reason — to send the Palestinian refugees back. The civil war that tore my country apart was ignited in no small part by the Palestinian armed factions who turned Lebanon into their launching pad. “Free Palestine” meant: free us from them.

In Damascus, where my father’s family lived, the sentiment was different but equally self-serving. Palestine must be returned to the Arabs, its righteous owners. No one asked follow-up questions. No one was expected to.

Palestine was central to Islam, most Arabs are Muslim, therefore supporting the Palestinian cause was reflexive. A non-brainer in the most literal sense — no brain engaged at all.

Nobody stopped to point out that Palestine is not an Arabic word. Nobody found it strange that Jerusalem, the supposedly third holiest city in Islam, is not mentioned once in the Quran. Not once. Nor is Palestine. The entire theological and political architecture of this cause rests on a foundation that their own scripture doesn’t bother to acknowledge.

What was actually happening was indoctrination. A systematic, generational rejection of Jewish sovereignty — and frankly, of any minority sovereignty. Jews, Christians, Druze, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis — the Arab world has been remarkably consistent in how it treats people who are different. We just don’t talk about that.

Instead, in the West, we talk about Palestine.

In the West, a civilization that has elevated human rights to its highest moral currency, the Palestinian cause has become the one exception to every rule. In the queue of human suffering, Palestinians cut the line every time. Homosexuals executed in Gaza and hanged from cranes in Iran? Palestine first. Women imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for campaigning for the right to drive — a right they were denied until 2018 — girls sold into marriage in Afghanistan, women erased from public life entirely under the Taliban? After Palestine. Political dissidents ground into dust in Syrian and Egyptian prisons, journalists disappeared in Libya, children starving in Yemen while their rulers wage proxy wars, entire populations hollowed out by hunger in Sudan? All of it waits. Christians ethnically cleansed from Iraq and Syria, the Arab world methodically emptied of every Jewish community it once held — a demographic erasure carried out across a century with surgical patience and near-total Western silence?

Palestine is still first.

So let’s end where we started. Free Palestine. Which Palestine, exactly? The Roman invention? The British administrative line? The British Mandate covered the entire territory of what is today Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan. In 1921, 78% of that mandate was handed to the Hashemite family — a dynasty imported from Hijaz in present-day Saudi Arabia — and became the Kingdom of Jordan, which it remains to this day. A foreign royal family, on the majority of historic Palestine, ruling it as a monarchy. Nobody protests that. No flags, no chants, no encampments. The remaining 22% was designated for the Jews, became Israel, and is the only part that any pro-Palestinian activist has ever had a problem with.

So when you say Free Palestine, you mean that 22%. You mean the Jews.

And free it from whom? From a people with a three-thousand-year-old documented presence in that land, to restore the glory of a name coined by Roman colonizers, a name lifted from the Torah, a name that has no roots in Arabic, no mention in the Quran, and no history as a sovereign state?

You are not chanting for liberation. You are chanting for colonialism — the Roman kind, repackaged for social media.

Free Palestine is not a cause. It is a colonial term, coined by invaders, recycled by the indoctrinated. The least you can do is have the intelligence to understand it and the decency to reflect on your position.

📍#Israel

[X Time @Time2_Twit]

@aj_inapi @NanLee1124 Stellar analysis!!!

[hunter @hxxntrr]

Elon Musk hasn't sold a Tesla share in years and lives off $1 billion in personal loans

His Tesla stock keeps appreciating
The loans charge him 2-3% interest
The IRS never sees a single dollar of capital gains tax

This is exactly how the wealthiest people in America accumulate wealth without paying taxes and it's available to anyone with $100K+ in assets

The strategy is called "borrow against appreciated assets" or sometimes "buy borrow die." It's the single most powerful tax-minimization strategy used by ultra-wealthy individuals in America

Mechanics:

When you SELL an asset that has appreciated, you owe capital gains tax. Federal long-term capital gains rates: 0%, 15%, or 20% depending on income. Plus state capital gains in most states (CA: 13.3%; NY: 8.82%). Plus net investment income tax of 3.8% for higher earners (IRC Section 1411)

For someone like Elon Musk selling $1B in Tesla stock, the total tax bill would be approximately:

Federal capital gains at 20%: $200M
Net investment income tax at 3.8%: $38M
Texas state tax: $0 (Texas has no state income tax, this is why Elon moved there)

Total tax bill on selling $1B: $238M

When you BORROW against appreciated assets, you owe ZERO tax. Loan proceeds are not income under IRC Section 61. They never appear on your tax return. They never trigger a tax event

For Elon to access $1B in cash for spending purposes, the math is:

Sell $1B in Tesla stock: $762M in net proceeds after tax
OR
Borrow $1B against $1B in Tesla collateral at 2-3% interest: $1B in net proceeds tax-free

Selling costs him $238M in taxes
Borrowing costs him $20-30M/year in interest (or roughly $200-300M over a decade if held that long)

But the borrowing strategy has additional benefits:

Tesla stock continues to appreciate. Over 10 years, $1B in Tesla stock has historically appreciated to multiples of that. Selling locks in the gain at today's value. Borrowing keeps the upside

The interest paid on the loan is potentially tax-deductible if structured as an investment loan (IRC Section 163(d)). Effective after-tax cost can be reduced to 1-2%

The loan never has to be repaid during his lifetime. He can refinance it indefinitely. When he dies, his heirs inherit the stock at a "stepped-up basis" (IRC Section 1014). The accumulated capital gains die with him. The heirs sell the stock at the stepped-up basis, pay off the loan, and keep the entire upside tax-free

The wealth transfers from Elon to his heirs entirely tax-free if structured correctly. Estate tax is a separate question but is largely avoidable through proper trust structures

The ultra-wealthy version of this strategy:

Borrow against appreciated stock
Use the loan proceeds for consumption (homes, cars, art, business operations)
Never sell the underlying stock
Refinance the loan at maturity to extract more cash if the underlying has appreciated
Pass everything to heirs at death with stepped-up basis
Heirs sell with $0 in accumulated capital gains tax owed

This strategy is sometimes called "buy, borrow, die" by tax planners. It's the foundation of how billionaire wealth perpetuates across generations without significant taxation

Available products for this strategy:

Pledged Asset Line (Schwab): borrow up to 50-70% of portfolio value at SOFR + 1-2%
Securities Backed Line of Credit (Morgan Stanley, Goldman): similar terms, $1M+ minimum
Custom Lending Solutions (private banking): for $10M+ portfolios, rates can drop to 1-2%

The accessibility tier:

If you have $100K+ in investment assets at Schwab/Fidelity/Vanguard, you can open a Pledged Asset Line. Typical terms: borrow up to 50% of your portfolio value at SOFR + 1.5-3% (current rates roughly 6-8% all-in). No fixed monthly principal payments. Interest only or pay nothing as long as the loan stays below the maintenance threshold

For someone with $200K in stocks/ETFs:
Borrow $100K at 6.5%
Use the $100K for any purpose (real estate down payment, business operations, etc.)
Annual interest cost: $6,500
Tax savings vs selling stocks: roughly $20,000-$30,000 in deferred capital gains
Net benefit: $13,500-$23,500/year in tax savings during the borrowing period

For someone with $1M in stocks/ETFs:
Borrow $500K at 6.5%
Use the $500K for real estate purchases, business equity, etc
Annual interest cost: $32,500
Tax savings vs selling stocks: roughly $100,000-$150,000 in deferred capital gains
Net benefit: $67,500-$117,500/year

Comparison to the alternative:

If you sell $500K in long-term appreciated stock to access cash:
Federal capital gains at 15%: $75,000 owed
State capital gains (varies): $20,000-$40,000 owed
Net cash to you: $385,000-$405,000

If you borrow $500K against the same stock:
Net cash to you: $500,000
Tax owed: $0
Annual interest cost: $32,500

Even paying $32,500/year in interest, you're $90K-$110K ahead in year 1 and the gap grows because your stock keeps appreciating while you hold it

The compounding effect over 20 years:

Person A sells $100K of Tesla stock at 15% capital gains, takes $85K. Spends it
Person B borrows $100K against $100K of Tesla stock, takes $100K, spends it. Stock keeps growing at historical rate (let's say 20%/yr conservatively)

20 years later:
Person A: stock is gone. Whatever they bought with $85K is whatever it is
Person B: still owns the original $100K in Tesla, now worth $3.8M. Refinanced the loan multiple times. Currently owes maybe $200K against $3.8M in collateral. Net wealth on this position: $3.6M

Same starting position. Different decision. $3.5M+ difference in 20 years

Important caveats:

The strategy works only when underlying asset is appreciating
Margin call risk if asset value drops below maintenance threshold
Interest costs accumulate over time and eventually reduce the net benefit if rates rise enough
Some borrowing limits apply (typically max 50-70% of portfolio value)

The strategy is most powerful for:

Concentrated stock holdings in publicly traded companies (especially employee stock from tech companies, founder stock, ESOP grants)
Large diversified portfolios held in taxable brokerage accounts
Real estate equity (similar strategy via cash-out refinances)
Business equity (some forms of borrowing available against ownership stakes)

The strategy is least useful for:

Small portfolios under $50K (interest costs eat any benefit)
Retirement accounts (can't borrow against IRAs/401(k)s; some 401(k)s allow loans but limited to $50K)
Assets without an established lending market (collectibles, private real estate that's hard to finance)

The reason this isn't standard financial advice:

Most financial advisors are compensated based on assets under management. They make more money when you keep assets invested. They don't necessarily make money when you optimize for cash extraction. The strategy is genuinely good for sophisticated clients but doesn't fit the standard advisor compensation model

Banks DO know about this strategy. They actively market it to wealthy clients. The Pledged Asset Line and securities-backed line of credit products are billion-dollar businesses at every major brokerage. They're just not marketed to ordinary retail clients because the minimums and complexity make them inappropriate for mass market

The threshold for accessing this strategy:

$100K+ in liquid investment assets = entry-level access via Schwab/Fidelity
$1M+ = full access to most products and competitive rates
$10M+ = access to private banking rates of 1-2%
$100M+ = Elon-level rates of essentially 0% real cost after tax deduction and stock appreciation

At each tier, the math becomes more favorable. The richest Americans access this strategy at rates that mean borrowing $1B is essentially free relative to their portfolio appreciation

Most middle-class Americans never use this strategy because:

They don't know it exists
They don't have $100K+ in taxable investment accounts
They follow standard advice that says "live within your means and don't borrow"

The wealthiest Americans use it constantly because:

They have the assets
They understand the math
They follow advice from advisors who are sophisticated about tax optimization

The gap between the two groups isn't talent. It's understanding that the tax code is written to reward holding assets indefinitely and penalize selling them. Selling = taxable event. Holding + borrowing = no taxable event. The system rewards never realizing gains

Elon never sells Tesla. He never pays capital gains tax. The IRS doesn't collect a dollar from his accumulated wealth. The strategy is legal. It's mathematically optimal. And it's been written into the tax code since before any of us were born

You don't need to be Elon to use this strategy. You need $100K and a Schwab account

(we get business owners up to 250k in 0% interest business funding, link in bio)