Dave Hadwin 大卫 🇬🇧 🇩🇪 🇨🇳 🇹🇭 🇻🇳 🇵🇭

@swisschocoo Explain why government should have the right to dictate what children watch.

If you’re against the concept of limiting social media use for children, you’re clueless

@Aku_700 They start low - morals, IQ - and keep going downwards.

🚨Savage Black Men Beast 101-Year-Old Woman in Sick Rape & Beatdown – Smiles in Court. In a disgusting act of pure evil, heartless black men broke into a helpless 101-year-old woman’s home in Milwaukee. They found nothing worth stealing, so they beat her badly and raped her in her own bed. The main monster, Antoine Pettis, showed no mercy to this fragile grandma who had lived over a century. This brutal crime shocked everyone. DNA caught the savage. In court, he smiled arrogantly and joked about becoming a celebrity. Now justice hits hard with decades behind bars. How can black men sink so low and destroy an innocent elder like this? Pure animal rage with zero humanity. This horror must wake people up to the dangers out there. Never forget this nightmare attack on the weakest among us.

On the morning of November 30, 2021, a judge in a Frankfurt courtroom delivered a verdict no court anywhere in the world had ever delivered before. The defendant, a former ISIS member, was guilty of genocide. The specific crime: the death of a five-year-old Yazidi girl named Reda. He and his wife had purchased Reda and her mother as slaves in 2015. As punishment for wetting the bed, he chained the child outside in the open sun in Fallujah, Iraq — in heat that reached fifty-one degrees Celsius — and left her there until she died. Her mother survived. She testified. It was the first time any court anywhere had convicted an ISIS member of genocide. The first time any court had ruled in law that what was done to the Yazidi people constituted genocide. The path that made it possible to use that word, in that courtroom, six years after Reda died, leads back to a twenty-two-year-old Yazidi woman who decided, in December 2015, not to speak in generalities. Her name is Nadia Murad. She was born in Kocho — a small Yazidi village of about seventeen hundred people in the Sinjar region of northern Iraq. On August 3, 2014, ISIS surrounded Kocho. They separated the men from the women and took the men to the edge of the village and shot them. They shot the older women too. Among the dead were six of Nadia's brothers and her mother. The younger women — Nadia among them — were loaded onto buses and driven to Mosul, where they were sold. She was twenty-one years old. She spent the next three months in captivity, passed between captors, until one day she found a door left unlocked and ran. A Muslim family in Mosul sheltered her at enormous risk to themselves and helped her escape. She crossed into northern Iraq, then a refugee camp, then Germany, which granted her asylum. She was free. She was also free to be silent. Most survivors of mass sexual violence choose silence — and that choice deserves every ounce of respect. Nadia Murad chose differently. On December 16, 2015, she walked into the chamber of the United Nations Security Council — accompanied by human rights lawyer Amal Clooney — and described what had been done to her and her community. She did not use diplomatic euphemisms. She did not speak in abstractions. She said the women had been sold. She said the children were as young as nine. She said her mother had been executed. She said what had been done to her. Then she made the demand her testimony had been built to make: international recognition that this was a genocide, and prosecution of those responsible. The room went silent. The transcript exists in the UN archives. That specificity was not accidental. Vague testimony cannot become evidence. A genocide conviction requires testimony precise enough for a judge to rule on intent, on system, on pattern. Nadia's testimony — and the testimony of survivors she helped gather in the years that followed — was precise enough to do exactly that work. In 2016, the UN Commission of Inquiry formally determined that ISIS's treatment of the Yazidis met the legal definition of genocide. The United States, the European Parliament, and the UK Parliament reached the same conclusion. In 2017, the UN established a specialized investigative body to collect evidence to courtroom standard. In 2018, Nadia Murad was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. She used the acceptance speech to remind the room of the women still missing. And in 2021 in Frankfurt, in a case where Amal Clooney represented Reda's mother, the legal architecture built from that testimony produced the verdict that had never existed before. Further convictions have followed. Open prosecutions continue in multiple countries under universal-jurisdiction laws that allow genocide to be tried wherever the perpetrator is found. Nadia Murad is thirty-two years old. She continues to travel and testify and run Nadia's Initiative, which rebuilds water systems, clinics, and schools in the Sinjar region she came from. More than two thousand eight hundred Yazidi women and children are still missing or held in captivity. Mass graves are still being excavated. The first time a court used the word genocide for what was done to her people, the year was 2021. The first time anyone said it in a chamber where the law could hear it was December 16, 2015. The woman who said it was twenty-two years old. She did not speak in generalities. She spoke in names, and ages, and facts — and the law followed.

Posez-vous une seule question, et tout l'édifice s'effondre. Pourquoi des causes qui n'ont, en apparence, rien à voir entre elles finissent-elles toujours par dire exactement la même chose, avec les mêmes mots, contre les mêmes gens? Le droit des homosexuels n'a rien à voir avec le climat. Le climat n'a rien à voir avec la question raciale. La question raciale n'a rien à voir avec la théorie du genre. Quatre sujets distincts, quatre histoires, quatre publics, quatre champs d'expertise séparés. Et pourtant. Prenez le porte-parole le plus visible de chacun de ces combats. Mettez les quatre dans une pièce. Vous obtenez quatre personnes qui votent pareil, qui méprisent les mêmes gens, qui emploient le même lexique (systémique, déconstruire, privilège, inclusif), et qui ne se contredisent jamais. Jamais. Ce n'est pas une coïncidence. C'est une loi. Elle fonctionne en trois temps, et chacun se vérifie avec des chiffres. Premier temps. Dans n'importe quel groupe, ce n'est jamais la majorité qui parle. C'est la frange la plus militante. La masse vit sa vie. Le petit noyau le plus idéologisé s'empare du micro, parce que lui seul a le temps, l'argent et le fanatisme de le tenir. Ce n'est pas une intuition. L'étude Hidden Tribes (8 000 Américains interrogés) chiffre cette frange, les Progressive Activists, à 8% de la population. Un Américain sur douze. En face, une majorité épuisée de deux tiers qui n'a jamais demandé le micro et qui n'a jamais voté pour le porte-parole. Robert Conquest avait formulé la mécanique dès les années 1960 : toute organisation qui n'est pas explicitement de droite finit, avec le temps, par devenir de gauche. Pas par complot. Par sélection naturelle. Le fanatique reste quand le modéré rentre chez lui. Deuxième temps. Cette frange ne ressemble en rien à ceux qu'elle prétend représenter, et elle est plus radicale qu'eux. Voici le chiffre qui devrait clore le débat. Le bloc militant le plus à gauche d'Amérique, celui qui parle au nom des minorités à longueur de journée, est composé à 67% de Blancs. Sept pour cent de Noirs (Pew, juin 2026). Le groupe le plus diplômé, le plus aisé, le plus connecté du pays. Ceux qui hurlent le plus fort au nom des opprimés sont, statistiquement, les plus privilégiés du tableau. Et ils sont plus extrêmes que les concernés eux-mêmes. 71% des Blancs progressistes veulent couper le budget de la police. Les Noirs américains, eux, sont partagés (53% pour, 44% contre), et seulement 28% ont soutenu le slogan "defund the police". Les Hispaniques y étaient majoritairement opposés (57%). Le porte-parole autoproclamé était donc plus radical que la communauté au nom de laquelle il prétendait parler. Une étude (ANES) pousse jusqu'au vertige : les Blancs progressistes sont le seul groupe du pays à mieux noter les autres races que la leur. Traduction. Un diplômé aisé a décidé de parler au nom de l'opprimé. Et l'opprimé n'est pas d'accord. Et ces franges sortent toutes du même moule. Le même appareil universitaire (Foucault, Derrida, l'École de Francfort, dont j'ai raconté la généalogie). Le même écosystème de fondations, qui financent ouvertement, sur catalogue public, l'associatif militant de chaque cause. Le même séminaire, le même lexique, les mêmes formations. On ne produit pas vingt idéologies. On produit vingt antennes d'un seul émetteur. Troisième temps. Une fois installée, la frange parle au nom de tous et écrase ceux qui, à l'intérieur du groupe, refusent de suivre. L'homosexuel discret qui ne se reconnaît pas dans le mégaphone. Le Noir conservateur. La femme qui refuse qu'on efface le mot femme. Tous traités en traîtres. Parce que le premier ennemi du militant n'est jamais l'adversaire d'en face. C'est le modéré de son propre camp. Le modéré est le danger absolu : il prouve, par sa seule existence, que le mégaphone ment quand il dit parler au nom de tous. Résultat. Vous croyez voir une mosaïque de combats pour les droits. Vous voyez en réalité un seul logiciel, installé sur des machines différentes. La cause n'est jamais la cause. La cause est le costume. Et celui qui porte le costume sert toujours le même propriétaire : l'idée que tout, absolument tout (la famille, la nation, le mérite, la norme, la frontière, la vérité elle-même) est une structure d'oppression à abattre. C'est la matrice marxiste, qui a simplement quitté l'usine pour l'identité. La lutte des classes ne fonctionnait plus (les ouvriers s'embourgeoisaient), alors on a multiplié les classes : une par minorité, une par cause, à l'infini. Un prolétariat de rechange, renouvelable indéfiniment. Et voici le test qui ne trompe jamais, le seul qui compte. Une cause sincère accepte la contradiction en son sein. Un costume idéologique, non. Le jour où vous verrez le porte-parole d'une de ces causes défendre publiquement un dissident de son propre camp, contre son propre camp, vous saurez que c'était une vraie cause. Vous attendrez longtemps. La bonne nouvelle, c'est que ce qui tient par un seul fil tombe par un seul fil. Une frange de 8% ne gouverne que tant que les 92% se taisent. Le jour où la majorité silencieuse de chaque groupe reprend son micro, l'émetteur se retrouve sans antennes. Il n'émet plus que dans le vide. Ce micro, personne ne vous interdit de le reprendre. Au travail.

@zombisaurio7 Not severe enough

Españoles dan una paliza a un marroquí que agredió sexualmente a una mujer. ¿Qué te parece?

Just a reminder that she also refused to investigate the UN’s own complicity of violence against girls and women. Haiti 2014-present day: 134 UN peacekeepers raped and abused 9 Haitian children. They also ran a child sex ring involving rape, prostitution, and exploitation. 75 more individuals from other UN teams were involved separately Central African Republic 2014-present day: Upwards of over 227 children reported being raped by UN officials DRC 1999-present day: 150 allegations of girls, as young as 13, being raped, prostituted, and traded for money Bosnia and Herzegovina/Kosovo 1990s: UN Peacekeepers involved in rape, sex trafficking, and forced prostitution Timor-Leste Late 1990s-2000s: multiple UN contingents involved in rape, harassment, and exploitation of orphan children in particular The UN should blacklist itself before making things up on “evidence” against Israel

Meet Reem Alsalem, UN expert on violence against women. She took $70K from Saudi Arabia + $100K from Qatar and other Arab states. She's silent on Saudi male guardianship law, marital rape, jailed women activists, Qatar’s kafala slavery of migrant women. x.com/UNSRVAW/status…

@paulmasonnews If believing some Russian lies makes you a traitor then what does importing huge numbers of third-world criminals by failing to protect our borders make you?

The UK is under hybrid attack and every Brit who spread Russian disinformation narratives about Keir Starmer is a traitor 👇🏽 hang your heads. Idiots. ✊🇬🇧🇺🇦🚩

Tell me you're an economically illiterate fucktard without telling me you're an economically illiterate fucktard.

@HadwinDave Bit rich coming from a sex tourist in vietnam

Oh look, that thing that we're told never happens has happened again.

@CoreySherrif @BellRibeiroAddy

@BellRibeiroAddy Same reason Palestine Action was banned Labour now solidly identified as more loyal to Israel than the British people Your Leader even regularly wears a kippah hat

Gaza has been a major factor behind voters leaving our party. In one recent poll, 53% of former Labour voters said it was a decisive factor. Why is this government willing to expend so much political capital to ensure weapons companies can keep arming Israel?

Anyone else find it strange… A couple weeks after the internet exposed the UK trying to hide the Henry Nowak murder the UK is pushing internet censorship? I’m sure it’s a total coincidence.

En pleine affaire Henry Nowak, le compte @W_L_M__U_K diffuse cette vidéo dont aucun média ne s'est fait l'écho. On y voit des policiers britanniques manquant de tuer un adolescent de 15 ans en lui écrasant la tête contre une clôture à pointes. Au lieu de recevoir des soins immédiats, le jeune Rocco, qui se vide de son sang après avoir été empalé, est retenu et emmené de force. La blessure aurait pourtant pu lui être fatale. On entend d'ailleurs le garçon dire à la police : « Je ne veux pas mourir ». Mais Rocco est blanc, tout comme Henry l'était, alors tous les médias s'en foutent.

We're banning raves, because we don't want you having fun where we can't watch you. By the way let me tell you about Woodstock. We're cracking down on underage drinking. It's bad for you. Yeah of course we hit up the pubs at your age it was great. We're banning smoking, but just for you - the smoking age will go up one year every year. Oh yes of course, we used to be able to smoke inside everywhere, it was great really. We're banning flavored vapes. We don't have any evidence they're bad for you, you just like them too much. We're banning dodgeball during recess, someone might get hurt. Yeah we really enjoyed dodgeball too. We're banning flirting, because it might make the girls uncomfortable. We're locking you in your room for the next two years. Yes we know you're in no danger from the virus, but we're worried that you'll get us sick. By the way you have to take this needle if you want to leave your room again. Yes, twice. Well there will be boosters too. No, we aren't worried about side effects, that doesn't effect us at all. We're closing the frat houses, because we don't want you having fun without our permission. Please join these officially sanctioned university clubs instead. We're bringing in labor from the third world to work the service jobs, so you can't have a summer job. You need to go to university to get a good job. By the way we're raising the price of tuition. Oh look we're raising it again. Don't worry there are loans. At interest. Actually we're giving the good jobs to the foreigners we just imported, to make up for our racist past. We are very good people. No of course we aren't sacrificing anything. You just have to take one for the team. Also, we're giving the foreigners the houses. We needed to increase real estate prices. For our pensions, you see. Sadly no, you'll probably never be able to afford one yourself. By the way don't forget to pay your taxes. Need to support those pensions somehow! Eh? No, we're giving ourselves tax breaks of course. Seniors discount you know. Oh by the way, that one thing you still have, now that we've banned joy and kicked every ladder out from under you? That social media stuff you kids like? You guessed it! We're banning that too! Just for you though, we're still going to watch AI videos on Facebook. It's for your safety, you see. We've noticed that you're all getting rather irate, and we think it would be better for your mental health if you shut up for a while. Why don't you just go outside? Eh? No of course we aren't going to stop Ahmed and his twelve illiterate cousins from raping your sister, that would be culturally insensitive, which would make us feel very bad, and we can't have that.

@JayDarkmoore Looks like you got seriously ratioed. Starting to understand now?

I don’t see the problem with why stopping under 16’s using social media is a bad thing. Can someone please tell me what the counter argument is? Why are people upset / concerned?

This manhole in Haifa is older than the state of Israel 😆

Young Bob savagely attacked by migrants. The police will do nothing They’re on their side They do not care about white people We need a revolution

If Starmer was genuinely concerned about under-16s, why didn't protect them from muslim rape gangs?

@IanMurrayMP Then 9/10 parents should have done their jobs as parents better. Fuck off you authoritarian cunts.

A huge step in protecting young people. 9/10 parents responding to the consultation wanted a ban.