Arne Fischmann

They castrated your ancestors. That’s why.

There’s something so twisted about the European Union demanding abolishment of the death penalty but legalizing euthanasia for gang-rape victims.

Western right-wingers' deep admiration for the Japanese proves they're not irrationally xenophobic. They simply dislike dysfunctional people from dysfunctional cultures.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - let’s talk a bit about her. She is one of the most courageous voices of our time. She was born in 1969 in Mogadishu, Somalia, into a strict Muslim family. As a young girl, she was subjected to female genital mutilation. She grew up between Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya under a strict Islamic upbringing. In 1992, she fled to the Netherlands to escape an arranged marriage - she jumped off a train in Europe and applied for asylum. There, she learned Dutch, earned a degree in political science, and began working with integration. She lost her faith in Islam. She became an atheist, and later converted to Christianity in 2023. She saw clearly how Islam oppresses women - forced marriages, honor killings, female genital mutilation, polygamy, and the total lack of freedom. In 2004, she made the short film Submission together with Theo van Gogh. The film showed violence against women in Islam. Shortly after, Theo van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight in Amsterdam by a radical Muslim. A threat against Ayaan was left pinned to his chest: she was next. She received death threats for years. She had to live under police protection. She was elected to the Dutch parliament for the Liberal Party, where she fought for Muslim women’s rights and against the illusions of multiculturalism. She has written books such as Infidel, Nomad, and Heretic, where she directly criticizes the core of Islam - not just “extremism,” but the ideology itself. Today, she lives in the United States, married to historian Niall Ferguson, and continues her work, among other things through her foundation (AHA Foundation). She warns the West about mass immigration from Muslim countries, parallel societies, and the self-deception that claims Islam can be reformed without confronting its texts and history. Like Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has paid a high price for speaking the truth. Rushdie was hunted for a book. She was hunted for showing the reality of her own life and the lives of millions of Muslim women. She is not “Islamophobic.” She is a former Muslim who has seen the system from the inside and refuses to stay silent. She points to the uncomfortable truth: that Western values such as freedom of speech, gender equality, and individual liberty are incompatible with classical sharia Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a living example of why the Enlightenment is still worth defending. She risked her life to say what most people don’t dare: that the problem is not only “extremists,” but a religion that, at its core, oppresses women and rejects criticism. She deserves respect from all of us - not because she is “controversial,” but because she refuses to lie in order to be politically correct. In a time where many bow to threats, she continues to speak the truth. These are the kind of people who keep the soul of the West alive. Thank you Ayaan.❤️‍🔥🪽✝️

Alle reden von Fake News, während die strategische Fakten-Exklusion mMn inzwischen viel problematischer ist. Nachteile werden weggelassen, belastende Fakten unterschlagen und unangenehme Wahrheiten ausgeblendet.

- Noelia Castillo Ramos wächst in einer zerrütteten Familie auf - Der Staat entzieht mit 13 den Eltern das Sorgerecht und holt sie in ein Heim. - Dort wird wieder und wieder von Migrantenbanden vergewaltigt. - Gegen die Verdächtigen wird keine Strafanzeige erstattet, ihre Hilferufe werden ignoriert. - Sie ist so verzweifelt, sie vom Dach des Hauses springt um zu sterben und wierd querschnittsgelähmt. - Sie leidet daraufhin unter schwersten Depressionen. - Jetzt mit 25 "hilft" der Staat ihr, indem er der psychisch nicht zurechnungsfähigen, verzweifelten Frau ihren "Wunsch" zur Euthanasie erfüllt. - Freunde und Familie werden nicht zu ihr vorgelassen und Ärzte sagen, dass die Tötung stattfinden muss, da ihre Organe bereits fix verplant sind. - Noelia wird umgebracht, verwertet und alle Schuldigen in diesem zerstörten Leben bleiben unbestraft. Habe ich irgendwas an dieser irren Geschichte übersehen? Unsere Staaten sind kalte, brutale Monster gegen das eigene Volk.

wow. The Middle East Forum analyzed 1,378 news articles covering the war and found... 98% cited Gaza Ministry of Health figures. Only 5% mentioned Israeli casualty figures for combatants killed. The New York Times cited militant casualty numbers in 0% of its articles analyzed. CNN and the Guardian managed 1%. Only 15% of all articles even noted that Hamas doesn't distinguish combatants from civilians in its data. HonestReporting found that over a four-month period (February-May 2024), 84% of major English-language publications failed to make the combatant-civilian distinction in their total casualty numbers. The effect is that every figure gets absorbed by the audience as a civilian death count. The framing compounds the numbers problem. Journalists routinely cited aggregate totals as purely civilian. CNN's Fareed Zakaria referenced "35,000 civilians dying." CBS's Major Harrison Mann asked, "I don't know how you kill 35,000 civilians by accident." The UN itself produced videos titled "25,000 Civilians Killed" without distinguishing combatants. Meanwhile, asymmetric source scrutiny was the norm. Hamas figures were questioned in roughly 1% of articles. IDF data was challenged in 50% of the limited cases where Israeli sources were cited at all. Nearly 20% of articles cited GHM numbers without even attributing them to Hamas.

@NathanpmYoung PhDs are almost uniquely susceptible to Dunning-Kruger situations outside their narrow area of expertise.

@NathanpmYoung She invokes her PhD as a marker of intelligence, then uses it as an excuse for lack of understanding -- revealing her strong opinions are based on faith, not intelligence Our "experts" are so siloed they rely on other "experts" to do their thinking for them. What could go wrong.

@NathanpmYoung Thomas Sowell (actual economist) has a great quote for this:

I have this conversation a lot: - This policy is good/people are dumb for disliking it - Simple question - Oh it's not my job to understand it

ℹ️ Legende israelische Expansion – Krieg in Zeitlupe Immer wieder berichten Medien über neue israelische Siedlungen im Westjordanland. Und erklären es nicht. Dies führt in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung dazu, dass sich ein Bild verfestigt hat, Israel würde immer mehr Land im Westjordanland in Beschlag nehmen. Und das wiederum wird als Nachweis für eine Expansionspolitik verwendet. ❗️ Das ist falsch. Zunächst stelle ich erneut klar, dass ich gegen jede Expansion und gegen die Siedlungen bin. Ich vertrete nach wie vor eine Zweistaatenlösung. (Aus viel gemeineren Gründen als die meisten denken, aber anderes Thema.) Ich wurde und werde aber ausschließlich von Linksradikalen, Muslimen oder/und Arabern bedroht, niemals von Israelis. Mit denen habe ich grundsätzlich freundliche und konstruktive Diskussionen, in denen ich schon viel gelernt habe. ▶️ In der Nacht der Gründung Israels wurde es von allen umliegenden Staaten angegriffen. Jordanien besetzte und annektierte das heutige Westjordanland. Daher der Name, deshalb sagen Israelis lieber „Judea und Samaria“, es ist die offizielle israelische Bezeichnung. Der Gazastreifen wurde von Ägypten besetzt. ▶️ Als Israel 1967 erneut angegriffen wurde, eroberte es diese Gebiete. Und weit mehr. Zur eigenen Sicherheit besetzte es den Gazastreifen, das Westjordanland und die Golanhöhen. 🔵 Den Sinai (Ägypten) hat Israel zwei Mal besetzt und beide Male wieder zurückgegeben. 🔵 Den Südlibanon hatte Israel insgesamt dreimal militärisch besetzt und jedes Mal wieder geräumt. Bis 2000 hatte Israel eine Sicherheitszone gehalten, wobei es von der Miliz der „Südlibanesischen Armee“ unterstützt wurde. 🔵 Die Golanhöhen (Syrien) hat Israel besetzt und später annektiert. Zum Zeitpunkt der Annexion lebten dort nur etwa 25.000 Menschen, fast ausschließlich Drusen. Den Drusen wurde und wird eine israelische Staatsbürgerschaft angeboten, nicht aufgezwungen. Die Drusen stellen heute die größte Minderheit in den IDF. Israel versteht sich als Schutzmacht der Drusen, da das grundsätzlich muslimische Drusentum von streng gläubigen Sunniten als Ketzerei abgelehnt wird. 🔵 Der Gazastreifen (Ägypten) wurde besetzt und 2006 geräumt. Es wird von der UN weiter als besetzt definiert, vor allem weil es mit dem Westjordanland als eine Entität gesehen und die Trennung von PLO und Hamas ignoriert wird. 🔵 Das Westjordanland (Jordanien) wurde aus Sicherheitsgründen besetzt. Im sog. Abkommen Oslo-II wurde bereits 1995 eine vorläufige Lösung definiert. • Die Gebiete A stehen vollständig unter palästinensischer Kontrolle. Mit eigener Polizei, eigener Gerichtsbarkeit, eigener Regierung. • Die Gebiete B stehen ebenfalls unter vollständiger palästinensischer Kontrolle, werden jedoch von Israel militärisch kontrolliert. • Die Gebiete C stehen unter vollständiger Kontrolle Israels. Sie orientieren sich zumeist an den größeren Verbindungsstraßen. 🔴 Und nur in diesen Gebieten C werden neue Siedlungen gebaut. ▶️ Das bedeutet, Israel expandiert nicht. Es hat weite Teile des Gebiets, das es in seiner größten Ausdehnung kontrollierte, meist von selber oder in Verhandlungen wieder zurückgegeben. Die vermeintliche Expansion im Westjordanland ist eigentlich keine. Sondern es sind Siedlungen auf dem Gebiet, das gemäß des Interims Oslo-II seit über 30 Jahren israelisch kontrolliertes Gebiet ist. Und das erklärt auch die häufige Formulierung, dass die Regierung hier Fakten schaffen will. Denn umso mehr Siedlungen dort entstehen, umso schwieriger wird es später, das Land zurückzufordern oder zu räumen. Das bedeutet aber nicht, dass dadurch palästinensischer Lebensraum genommen wird. Der ist seit über 30 Jahren absolut gleich. ▶️ Es ist eine Nachlässigkeit der Medien, dies nicht bei jeder Meldung zu erklären. Beispielsweise bei einer Meldung, dass es irgendwo Siedlergewalt (zumeist sog. Hilltop Youth, anders Thema) gegeben habe oder dass neue Siedlungen genehmigt wurden. Es müsste jedes Mal dazugeschrieben werden, um welche Zonen es sich handelt. 🔴 Ich versuche das mit einem Bild zu verdeutlichen: Die Meisten kennen sicher Zeitraffer-Karten, beispielsweise über den Kriegsverlauf im Ersten oder Zweiten Weltkrieg. Würde man so etwas für Israel ab ca. 1950 erstellen, würde man sehen, dass es genauso aussieht, wie ein laufender Krieg. Das Gebiete erobert und wieder abgegeben werden (verloren hat Israel keine), dass die „Fronten“ hin und her gehen. Man würde aber auch sehen, dass Israel im Kern die ganze Zeit gleich bleibt. Einzige Ausnahme Golanhöhen, womit die Palästinenser aber nichts zu tun haben. ▶️ Was die Propaganda, die Pro-Pali-Apologeten und die Windelköppe nun tun, ist eigentlich sehr einfach. Sie nehmen diese Zeitraffer-Aufnahme und verlangsamen sie wieder. Wie bei einer gewonnenen Schlacht im Ersten Weltkrieg wird Gebiet erobert, und sie zeigen mit dem Finger darauf und schreien „Da! Da! Die wollen expandieren.“ Ohne den vorherigen Kriegsverlauf zu erklären. Geschweige denn zu erklären, was militärisch umsetzbar oder wahrscheinlich ist. Und das fällt natürlich vor allem in Europa auf fruchtbaren Boden. Da wir nach Jahrhunderten verwirrender kriegerischer Auseinandersetzungen nun in der längsten Friedensphase angekommen sind, die es in (West-)Europa je gab. Abgesehen von mangelnden Informationen und Wissen um die Region. Wir beurteilen die Weltordnung nach Nationalstaaten und Völkerrecht. Und sind damit überfordert, wenn das in einer Region der Welt dann eben nicht so ist. Oder noch nicht, denn so lange ist das historisch gesehen auch in Europa nicht so. Ps.: Ich denke, ich werde gleich mal mit meinem Grafikfrettchen über die Zeitraffer-Idee sprechen.

Where I said “in the war”? I always emphasize that this is not a war; this is a rescue mission. The reason I lost my cousin is only and only the Islamic regime and no one else. Shame on you, Clash Report, for spreading false information! Report their account!

BREAKING: Senior Hamas official says that he does not care at all about the death toll in Gaza: “50,000 were born in Gaza during the war, just like the number of casualties; Westerners convert to Islam, U.S. students support liberation.”

Nobody asks the question... Why would Hamas start a war they had no chance of winning? Think of that. No chance. Zero. They knew it from the beginning, everybody knew it. So why do it? He needed his own people to die on camera. Yahya Sinwar architected the whole thing. He designed it. He wanted Israel to come in with overwhelming force. He wanted the destruction. He wanted the footage. Every crumbled building, every crying child, every cloud of smoke… that was the entire point. And the media was his most important weapon. More important than the rockets under the crumbled buildings, more important than the tunnels they held hostages in, more important than the children they intentionally put in harm's way. Because Sinwar knew the cameras would show every last frame of destruction… and never once explain who put them there or why. Global public opinion turned against Israel to an inconceivable extent. Sinwar knew exactly what he was doing.

Was struck again today that progressive women, especially (in my experience): 1. They actually do, nominally, want public order, and they do, nominally, want the government to "move along" the folks who are disturbing the public order. 2. But where their brain gets blocked is that they cannot support any muscular solution to the problem. Muscular solutions are supported by bad people, and they are good people. So, they really want to believe that education will solve the problem. We just need to tell this guy who is misbehaving in the public square everyday that his behavior is not OK, and he'll stop. Or, we need to offer these folks some kind of other support (like drug rehab)... but even then, you can't FORCE them into rehab, because that would be a muscular solution. So you want to tell them... OK, you want us to help the drug addict on the sidewalk, but you also want him to have an inviolable right to refuse all help. What do you think will probably happen? And they know, actually, what will probably happen, and when forced to think about it, it bothers them. But it doesn't bother them as much as supporting a muscular solution to the problem would bother them, because that's a thing bad people support.

Before you say “the Iran AI slop accounts from Pakistan won’t fall for this one” just remember that I actually got them to steal and post this.

Someone put this diagram together and it deserves to be read slowly. Three of the most disturbing psychological experiments in modern history placed in a Venn diagram with COVID policy sitting precisely at their intersection. They were not wrong. Most people know the Milgram experiment. Ordinary people administering what they believed were lethal electric shocks to strangers because an authority figure in a white coat told them to continue. We wrote about this. COVID replicated it at planetary scale, the doctors, the neighbours, the employers, the family members who enforced mandates with a zeal that had nothing to do with science and everything to do with institutional obedience. But the other two are equally important and far less discussed. The Asch Conformity Experiment demonstrated something even more fundamental. Solomon Asch showed in the 1950s that a significant majority of people will deny the evidence of their own eyes will give an answer they know to be factually wrong, simply because everyone else in the room is giving that answer. Not because they were threatened. Not because they were paid. Because the social pressure of the group was sufficient to override direct sensory experience. This is what masking a healthy population, cancelling Christmas, and demanding that people treat their neighbours as biological threats actually accomplished. It was not about any of those things specifically. It was about training an entire population to override their own perception and defer to the group consensus, however absurd that consensus became. And then the Stanford Prison Experiment. Philip Zimbardo’s 1971 study abandoned early because it spiralled so rapidly out of control, showed that ordinary people assigned roles of authority over other ordinary people will, within days, begin to abuse that authority in ways they would have found unthinkable before the role was assigned. The guards became cruel not because they were cruel people but because the structure gave them permission and the institution backed them up. We watched this happen in real time. The COVID marshals. The border agents turning families away. The hospital administrators barring visitors from dying patients. The teachers reporting parents. The neighbours calling police on children playing in parks. The HR departments gleefully processing terminations for the unvaccinated. Ordinary people, handed a role and a uniform of institutional approval, discovering capacities for cruelty that their pre-2020 selves would not have recognised. Now go deeper. Because the institution at the centre of this, the one that has connected these threads across decades is not an accident of history. Stanford sits at the intersection of centralised medicine, defence research, and the surveillance architecture that has been constructed around human attention and behaviour for the better part of a century. The Stanford Research Institute. The connections to MKUltra the CIA’s mind control programme that ran from the early 1950s and included everything from Mexican mescaline experiments to the weaponisation of LSD on unwitting subjects, overseen by figures who moved seamlessly between military intelligence and the medical establishment. From General Groves who oversaw the Manhattan Project and the deliberate suppression of radiation health data to Sidney Gottlieb, the CIA chemist who ran MKUltra’s most extreme programmes. The through-line is not conspiracy. It is institutional continuity. The same networks. The same funding streams. The same willingness to use human beings as experimental subjects in the service of power dressed as science.

Imagine a house, your house, built over generations. Its walls shaped by hard-won values: freedom of speech, equal rights, rule of law, freedom of conscience, pluralism. Now imagine a new arrival at the door. Not just visiting, moving in. At first, everyone smiles. “Welcome,” you say. “This is a house of peace. There’s room for everyone.” The new arrival nods politely. Grateful. Quiet. Respectful, at first. Over time, the new arrival begins rearranging things. “This bookshelf offends me,” they say. “Take it down.” “That painting, too provocative.” “This language you use, this food you eat, these clothes you wear, they clash with my values, I don't like this friends of yours". They don’t ask you to change, they expect it. Because in their mind, their values are divine, and yours are temporary. Some in the house raise concerns. They’ve done the background check. They’ve read the ideology. They know that the new arrival’s culture doesn’t believe in co-exsitence, it believes in control. It brings with it a legal code, a political system, and a religious mandate to rule, not just its room, but the entire house. Others in the house resisit: “Don’t be a bigot,” they say. “They’re peaceful.” “They’re misunderstood.” “Your fear is the problem, not them.” The new arrival realizes something: No one in the house wants to be the one who says no. So they keep going. They test the limits. Push a little more. A word here, a policy there. A teacher silenced. A book banned. A cartoonist attacked. A law reinterpreted. And always, someone in the house defends them: “Be tolerant.” “Be inclusive.” “Be silent.” Meanwhile, the ones who warned early are pushed to the fringe. Called hateful. Dismissed. Until the day comes when the new arrival stops asking altogether. Because by now, they’ve learned: This house doesn’t have a spine. It won’t say no. It won’t defend its foundation. A house with multiple cultures under one roof only works when one culture has the final say. Every house needs a core. Someone has to decide what’s sacred, what’s legal, what’s non-negotiable. If it’s not your culture, it will be someone else’s. And in this story, Islam doesn’t knock politely forever. It doesn’t believe your culture is equal. It believes it’s temporary. A system to be replaced. So now the question isn’t whether you’re welcoming. The question is: whose house is this? And are you willing to defend it, before someone else claims it as theirs? x.com/EYakoby/status…