From Palestine to the irgc roger waters side with the terrorists once again. https://youtube.com/shorts/0pcZc22-DFE?si=t5BiZiTvLkhOxH7r

Pure comedy 😂

During yesterday's open discussion, a member has said that the current situation in Italy with regard to antisemitism is the same as it was a century ago under Fascist rule. Let's try and clarify why the member has such a negative perception of today's Italy. First of all, let's summarize how Italy had been back then. While in the first sixteen years (1922 - 1938) of the Fascist regime there was no antisemitism in Italy, but 'only' antijudaism (I'll explain the difference later), in its last 5 years (1938 - 1943) we had laws forbidding Jewish children to study at school (except for only-Jewish schools, which were permitted) and Jewish adults to have a regular job and to employ non-Jewish people. While the Nazi persecution was, already then, threatening Jewish lives outside of Italy, in those five years Jewish lives in Italy were still protected, deportation (requested by Hitler and his gang) was generally boycotted by both the government and the common people and temporary-transitionary migration to Italy of Jews escaping to save their own lives was a common practice. As stated by historian Raul Hilberg and political philosopher Hannah Arendt, together with Denmark Italy was the country which best protected Jewish lives during that period. Of course, denying jobs and education was an expression of antisemitism: Italy was certainly an antisemitic country between the years 1938 - 1943, while in the last two years of war (1944-1945) Italy was occupied by Nazi and became hunting ground for Jewish lives, the hunt being carried on both by German Nazis and by those Fascists who didn't switch side and who 'radicalized', of course obeying to German orders. Many other former Fascists and common people boycotted and sabotaged the hunt. Let's move on, then, to the present: is Italy currently an antisemitic country? No, it isn't, at least if you make a careful distinction among antijudaism - the fact of feeling hatred and/or contempt for Jews - and antisemitism, which is antijudaism become political. There are political movements who are antisemitic, but they are quite marginal and stand at the two extremes (right and left) of the political spectrum. Government forces and parlamentary opposition forces are non antisemitic: the opposition (the letfist coalition) isn't actually antisemitic, because it doesn't have the power nor the political will to translate its own (quite clear) hatred for Israel into any actual policy. The ruling parties (a center-right coalition) aren't actually antisemitic too, because despite their clear antijudaism, which is strongly tied to their catholicism, one of their main political goals is to harshly exploit immigrants through the non-recognition of their equality in term of citizenship, and they use anti-Islamic fears (which, by the way, are often reasonable these days - but these parties would act the same even if those fears were never reasonable) in order to succeed in this specific political goal.

I went on Ynet, Israel's largest news outlet, to deliver a critical message from the Iranian people as the regime attempts to hide a massacre under a total internet blackout. With reports of over 12,000 dead in just two days, the situation on the ground is catastrophic, yet Iranians are still taking to the streets and calling for the return of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. In this interview, I remind Prime Minister Netanyahu of his promise to stand with us, explaining that the Iranian people are Israel's most vital allies in the region, and that while the Islamic Republic is on the brink of collapse, we need immediate support to stop the slaughter and secure a future of peace and friendship between our two nations.

Here is the recording of our latest session. In our latest daily session, the focus shifted from the immediate tactics of the revolution to the long-term architecture of the state. The room dissected a critical question regarding the return of the Pahlavi dynasty. Do the Iranian people require a purely symbolic "King Charles" figurehead, or do they need a sovereign with the actual mechanical authority to govern? The consensus was that a ceremonial ribbon-cutter is a luxury a recovering nation cannot afford. The discussion proposed a specific role for the Monarch. The "Protector of the Constitution." This is a rejection of both the absolutism of the past and the impotence of modern European royals. The King must function as an institutional circuit breaker. If a future Prime Minister becomes corrupt, or if a Parliament attempts to legislate away the rights of the citizenry, the Monarch must possess the reserved power to dissolve the government. This is not tyranny. It is the failsafe against it. Friction emerged when comparing this model to the West. One dissenting voice noted that the British Monarch theoretically retains the power to dissolve Parliament but simply chooses not to exercise it. The counter-argument from the group was sharp. A power that cannot be used without triggering a constitutional crisis is not a power at all. Iran does not need theoretical safeguards. It needs a functional executive backstop capable of halting the "Islamic virus" before it reinfects the body politic. We are not building a museum piece. We are building a fortress for liberty. This is not a passive news feed. We are actively debating the architectural blueprints of a post-regime nation. If you have the intellectual bandwidth to contribute to high-level discussions on statecraft, governance, and liberty, your voice is needed in the room. View the calendar at this link to join our next discussion: https://www.skool.com/libertypolitics/calendar