This is insanely backwards.
Slavery has been one of the very few near-universals in human history. What's exceptional about Britain is that it was one of the first major societies that abolished the slave trade and then abolished slavery in much of its empire, and spent decades using the Royal Navy to intercept slave ships.
If the point of teaching history is to understand how a civilization got things wrong, surely we should also want to understand how it eventually changed its mind, and what it took to do so?
Burnham fuels reparations fears as he agrees to 'address' and apologise for Britain's slave trade legacy after tense talks with Commonwealth leaders trib.al/Bv1iPpk
Of course investing in communities matters.
But you can't build functioning societies without basic safety first.
What Bukele did in El Salvador is the living proof.
You first take the criminals off the streets, then you can invest in everything else.
I think we've become so accustomed to living in relatively safe societies that we sometimes forget how much everything else depends on that safety
Of all the attacks on refrigeration systems across Europe, this one should worry us the most.
Someone managed to change the settings of cold rooms storing plasma for transfusions at three French blood-service sites, through a supplier's systems.
Thankfully the blood service had its own monitoring and alarms, and the staff intervened before anything was lost. But we must stop and think about what this means.
We're connecting practically everything to software, including the things we depend on to keep people alive.
We need to become much better at defending these systems, and making sure they can still function when something goes wrong.
The refrigerators at three regional blood banks in France were hit by a cyberattack overnight between Sunday and Monday, at the same time hackers struck supermarkets from Sweden to Belgium. reut.rs/4sCUDsp
Trump says that America will stop giving Israel ~$4 billion a year.
I think this could be good news, and it's worth clarifying a couple of things.
Before 1967, France was the country supplying Israel with most of its weapons. The military partnership between America and Israel as we know it today, started growing after the Six-Day War, and American assistance expanded in the following years as Israel gained more strategic importance in the Middle East.
But America was also benefiting from this alliance. Most of that money goes towards American weapons, which gives back to Americans and allows Washington some influence over Israel's military decisions. And obviously, ending the aid would also mean giving up some of that influence, which is something worth considering.
That assistance made sense for both countries at the time, but Israel's situation has incredibly changed since then.
If Israel can now pay for its own defense it should not be interpreted as America abandoning it, the opposite!
The two countries could now start cooperating more closely on intelligence, cyber, defense technology and joint development, as partners. The beginning of a healthier and stronger partnership.
And I think a West with more capable and independent allies is a good thing.
The measure of a successful alliance should be how strong its members have become and less dependence is a very good indicator.
There's a more interesting question in Trump's announcement than whether Israel still needs American military aid or not.
Most of the $3.8 billion a year has to be spent on American weapons. So American people are funding an ally's defense, but American companies also get the business, and Washington retains some influence over Israel's military procurement.
If Israel starts paying for its own defense, what does America gain, and what does it give up?
There's a more interesting question in Trump's announcement than whether Israel still needs American military aid or not.
Most of the $3.8 billion a year has to be spent on American weapons. So American people are funding an ally's defense, but American companies also get the business, and Washington retains some influence over Israel's military procurement.
If Israel starts paying for its own defense, what does America gain, and what does it give up?
BREAKING: President Trump says the U.S. will end roughly $4 billion in annual aid to Israel by the end of the year, revealing that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to the decision.
“Because they don’t need it,” Trump said during an exclusive interview on @foxandfriends, describing Israel as a thriving country that no longer requires American financial assistance.
Trump also said Netanyahu raised the idea of ending the aid himself. He emphasized that Israel remains one of America’s most reliable allies as the two countries prepare for a major shift in their financial relationship.
Download the FOX News app for the latest details: foxnews.onelink.me/xLDS/z2jy…
Trump says that America will stop giving Israel ~$4 billion a year.
I think this could be good news, and it's worth clarifying a couple of things.
Before 1967, France was the country supplying Israel with most of its weapons. The military partnership between America and Israel as we know it today, started growing after the Six-Day War, and American assistance expanded in the following years as Israel gained more strategic importance in the Middle East.
But America was also benefiting from this alliance. Most of that money goes towards American weapons, which gives back to Americans and allows Washington some influence over Israel's military decisions. And obviously, ending the aid would also mean giving up some of that influence, which is something worth considering.
That assistance made sense for both countries at the time, but Israel's situation has incredibly changed since then.
If Israel can now pay for its own defense it should not be interpreted as America abandoning it, the opposite!
The two countries could now start cooperating more closely on intelligence, cyber, defense technology and joint development, as partners. The beginning of a healthier and stronger partnership.
And I think a West with more capable and independent allies is a good thing.
The measure of a successful alliance should be how strong its members have become and less dependence is a very good indicator.
Yuval Steuer retweeted
Pray for your future husband. Pray for your future children. Pray for your future self
"decline can always be reversed”
yet decline is the natural state of things.
reversing it takes people who still love their country and what it stands for, and leaders with the courage to act.
look at lee kuan yew in singapore or bukele in el salvador.
decline can be reversed, but it never reverses itself.
this kind of thinking is, at its core, antithetical to everything western liberalism stands for
the entire premise of liberal democracy is that people with fundamentally different beliefs can disagree, debate, and compete for political power without violence
you don't get to threaten a "reckoning" every time an election doesn't go your way. threatening people with violence to change their political behaviour is terrorism, not democracy
but what makes this rhetoric even worse is the underlying framing. political opponents are no longer people you disagree with, but enemies who need to be defeated at any cost
the whole point of western liberalism is that we found a better way to resolve our differences than threatening each other into submission
this kind of thinking needs to be categorically rejected if we want to retain any semblance of civilization
we've become so accustomed to living in free societies that we've forgotten how extraordinary and precious that freedom actually is
One of the best feelings you can experience in life is seeing someone you love fulfill themselves while being the truest most authentic version of themselves and staying loyal to their nature
Act with courage and work through every problem with unyielding resolve. Do not allow yourself to desire peace, or its absence will become another burden
Yuval Steuer retweeted
A genuinely good woman can make a man feel ashamed of the person he was before he met her.
It is beautiful when a man begins exercising greater discernment over his own conduct because he has come to love a woman whose character he respects. Her goodness awakens in him a desire to become more conscientious, and morally responsible.
I think one of the deepest expressions of love is this willingness to refine your own character because you recognise the extraordinary significance of the person who has entrusted you with her affection.
One day, you’ll bury your father
Most people want you beside them. Your father wanted you to go further than he ever did
And when you look at him for the last time, you might understand him for the first
You’ve lost the only man who cared more about your improvement than your approval
Yuval Steuer retweeted
Highly ambitious men can endure extraordinary amounts of suffering, but being misunderstood by the woman they love can hurt them more than anything else.
I think people underestimate how much significance a man attaches to the opinion of a woman he loves and respects. He can withstand professional failures, and immense uncertainty while pursuing his ambitions, yet a single expression of disappointment from her can leave him questioning himself in ways the rest of the world never could.
This vulnerability is humiliatingly beautiful, a man who has cultivated resilience against the world can become so emotionally susceptible to one woman’s perception of him.
And I think women need to recognise the gravity of being entrusted with this part of a man’s emotional existence. Her faith in him can become one of his greatest sources of strength, particularly during moments when his own conviction begins to falter.
x correctly identifies this mentality is ridiculous and dangerous. but x is not where most young women are being a sold a vision of their lives. shaming won’t work. out-arguing a worldview that has become an aesthetic probably won’t either.
we have to play the game to win it. play with desire, not persuasion.
it should be a national priority to build an entertaining, cultural rival by young charismatic women that doesn’t come across as a “lecture” but girl talk. optimizing for the groupchat. call her daddy understands this
a culture organized around rebutting another culture is always playing defense where the opposing worldview is the main character (guess who that is rn)
and the reality is young women want to feel like the main character and their consumption reflects this
















