Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 120
February 11, 2025
Egypt deploys 40 tanks to beef up border with Gaza as Rafah offensive looms
Reuters
CAIRO, Egypt — Egypt has sent about 40 tanks and armored personnel carriers to northeastern Sinai within the past two weeks as part of a series of measures to bolster security on its border with Gaza, two Egyptian security sources said.
The deployment took place ahead of the expansion of Israeli military operations around Gaza’s southern city of Rafah, where much of its population has sought safety, sharpening Egyptian fears that Palestinians could attempt to flee the offensive by attempting to rush the Egyptian border.
Stepped up Israeli airstrikes have pounded the city, with over a million Palestinians crammed into the city awaiting a full-scale offensive with the rest of the enclave in ruins and nowhere left to run.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said it had ordered the military to develop a plan to evacuate Rafah and destroy four Hamas battalions it says are deployed there.
Following the outbreak of war on October 7, Egypt constructed a concrete border wall that reaches six meters into the ground and is topped with barbed wire. It has also built berms and enhanced surveillance at border posts, the security sources said.
Last month Egypt’s state information service detailed some of the measures it had taken on its border in response to Israeli suggestions that Hamas had obtained weapons smuggled from Egypt. Three lines of barriers made any above-ground or underground smuggling impossible, it said.
Images shared with Reuters by the Sinai Foundation for Human Rights, an independent group, appear to show the installation of the wall in December, with several berms running behind it.
Later pictures, which the group said were taken in early February, appear to show three vertical layers of coiled barbed wire being installed on top of the wall. Reuters was not able to independently verify the images.
Egyptian and Israeli authorities did not respond to requests for comment.
Egypt’s military over the last several years has consolidated its grip in northern Sinai as it battles an Islamist insurgency that escalated a decade ago.
Well before the current war in Gaza broke out, Egypt said it had destroyed tunnels through which smuggling to Gaza had previously flourished, and had cleared a buffer zone near the border, displacing tens of thousands of people and destroying thousands of homes.
On the approach to the Rafah Crossing with Gaza, the remains of razed houses can been seen along with miles of concrete walls that have been built parallel to the sea and near roads close to the border.
Egypt and Israel have been at peace for more than four decades and in recent years have extended ties through Israeli exports of natural gas and security coordination around their shared border and the Gaza Strip.
The two countries have maintained a blockade on Gaza, strictly limiting the movement of people and goods across its borders, after Hamas took control there in 2007. Israel, which has been repeatedly attacked from Gaza, says its blockade is necessary to keep Hamas from building up military infrastructure.
But the relationship has come under strain due to Israel’s military operation in Gaza, unleashed in response to the October 7 Hamas massacre in southern Israel, in which some 1,200 people were killed, mostly civilians, and another 253 kidnapped and taken hostage inside Gaza.
Egypt has repeatedly raised the alarm over the possibility that Israel’s offensive could send desperate Gazans into Sinai, while bristling over suggestions from Israel that it would retake full control of the Gaza-Egypt border corridor in order to ensure the Palestinian territory’s demilitarization.
In January, Egypt announced two operations to tackle drug smuggling in northeastern Sinai in an apparent effort to demonstrate its control of the area.
An Israeli official told Reuters that restructuring of security on the border, where he said a small number of tunnels remained, was under regular discussion by the two countries.
Israel would try to organize for the movement of displaced Palestinians northwards within Gaza ahead of any military operation there, the official said.
Egyptian security sources have played down any discussions and said they are prioritizing efforts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza. The state information service called accusations of smuggling “lies” intended to give cover to Israel’s objective of occupying the border buffer zone, known as the Philadelphi Corridor.
Egypt has also blamed Israel for limiting deliveries of aid into Gaza, where the risk of famine is growing and aid workers have warned of disease spreading.
Israel has denied holding up or rejecting humanitarian supplies.
Egypt has framed its opposition to the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza as part of wider Arab rejection of any repeat of what Palestinians mourn as the “Nakba”, or “catastrophe”, when some 700,000 fled or were forced from their homes in the war surrounding Israel’s creation in 1948.
Diplomats and analysts say Egypt is also concerned about infiltration by Hamas and hosting a large refugee population. In October, President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi warned that displacement could turn Sinai into a base for attacks against Israel.
[…]
Jordan ready for war with Israel if Palestinians expelled into its territory
Jordanians protest in solidarity with Palestinians in the Jordanian capital Amman on 6 December 2024 (Alaa Al Sukhni/Reuters) (Khalil Mazraawi/AFP)
By Peter Oborne and Richard Sanders in Amman
Jordan is ready to declare war on Israel in the event that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempts to forcibly expel Palestinians into its territory, Middle East Eye understands.
The warning comes in the wake of repeated statements from US President Donald Trump that he would like to see Jordan and Egypt take in Palestinians as part of a move to “clean out” the Gaza Strip.
Well-placed sources in Amman and Jerusalem told MEE that the last thing Jordan wants is war and it is eager for a peaceful solution. But they are adamant that the Jordanians will close the border if refugees begin to cross into the country.
If the Israelis seek to re-open it, that would be “a casus belli,” one source said.
The Jordanians are under no illusion they could win a war with Israel, but believe they would have no choice but to fight.
Jordan previously sent extra battalions to its western borders following an unambiguous statement from Amman that it would view any attempt to force Palestinians across the border as a gross breach of the country’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel.
Israel responded by creating a new eastern division to guard its border with Jordan.
One source told MEE that Trump’s proposal was an “existential issue” both for Jordan and the Hashemite dynasty, pointing out that the country is the third-poorest in terms of water in the world.
Its 12 million people live largely in a strip of land along the Israeli border, close to the Jordan River. It would simply be unable to accommodate a significant inflow of refugees, they said.
Jordan’s red lineWhile the Israelis with their vastly superior military resources might quickly win a conventional victory, they would be left having to hold down a sprawling territory with an open desert frontier to the east.
The Israeli border with Jordan stretches for 400km, almost the entire length of the country and 10 times longer than Israel’s boundary with Gaza. Much of the border area is mountainous, rugged and in parts almost impossible to police.
This raises the prospect of the kind of protracted guerrilla campaign that ultimately drove the Americans from Iraq and Afghanistan. It would almost certainly draw in fighters from Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. Jordan has an open desert border to the east.
For many years Jordan has provided stability on Israel’s eastern border – stability that would vanish overnight if war broke out.
Relations between the two states have been cool in any case. The Jordanian government has made no secret of its mounting horror at the assault on Gaza and the wave of settler atrocities and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
Shortly after the start of the conflict in Gaza in October 2023, Jordan’s King Abdullah declared: “On the issue of refugees coming to Jordan… that is a red line.”
Yet last week Trump declared he had spoken to King Abdullah and told him: “I’d love you to take on more,” as part of a plan to “clean out” 1.5 million people from the Gaza Strip.
During meetings with European officials in Brussels on Wednesday, King Abdullah reiterated “Jordan’s unwavering opinion on the necessity of establishing Palestinians on their land and gaining their legitimate rights, in accordance with the two-state solution.”
Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi similarly said on Monday that “any discussion on an alternate homeland [for the Palestinians]… is rejected”.
The situation is made much more complicated by the fact that Trump has already cut US aid to Jordan, and there are fears that the US president may make Jordanian acceptance of Palestinian refugees a condition of restoration of aid. The presence of US bases in Jordan is a further complexity.
An influx of refugees would upset the country’s delicate ethnic balance. More than 2 million Jordanians are registered as Palestinian refugees. Other estimates put the figure far higher, possibly a majority of the population.
Instability and ethnic strife
The rapid influx of refugees into Jordan during the Nakba in 1948 and again in 1967 led to Black September in 1970, when the Hashemite dynasty crushed Palestinian factions it feared were seeking to take over the state.
Sources say that Jordan fears an influx of refugees would lead to renewed civil strife. Jordan’s population has already been angered by the conflict in Gaza, and refugees from Gaza and the West Bank would constitute an additional destabilising factor.
On Saturday, top diplomats from Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar rejected any forcible displacement of Palestinians during a meeting in Cairo.
“We affirm our rejection of [any attempts] to compromise Palestinians’ unalienable rights, whether through settlement activities, or evictions or annex of land or through vacating the land from its owners… in any form or under any circumstances or justifications,” the countries said in a joint statement.
Versions of Trump’s proposal to export Palestinians to Jordan date back at least as far as the so-called Allon Plan, named after the Israeli politician Yigal Allon. In the wake of the 1967 war, Allon called for the annexation of much of the West Bank.
The Hashemites are also the custodians of the Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. Any move to demolish the Dome of the Rock or Al-Aqsa Mosque to build a third Jewish temple – a cherished aim of many far-right groups in Israel – would also be a casus belli, the sources said.
Worryingly, even Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new defence secretary, has recklessly called for the building of a third Jewish temple on the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
[…]
Meet The Peter Thiel Acolytes in Donald Trump’s 2nd Administration
Derrick Broze
As we approach the third week of Donald Trump’s 2nd presidential term, it is once again clear that Peter Thiel is having an outsized influence on the administration.
Peter Thiel is the infamous co-founder of Palantir, the “private” surveillance firm with a long history of involvement and collaboration with the CIA. Thiel is also a Steering Committee Member of the Bilderberg Group, the infamously secretive group which represents the interests of the hidden ruling class.
Now, in the second Trump administration, Thiel’s influence is more visible than ever as numerous associates and acolytes of his are set to play various influential roles.
I’ve previously reported how Thiel and others in the right-wing of Big Tech decided to go all-in on Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. They argued that this was a defensive move to protect their industries from the encroachment of the Biden/Harris administration. However, despite the hesitance of many of the Silicon Valley CEO’s to embrace Trump in 2016 and 2020, Thiel has a long history of supporting the two-time president.
In 2016, Thiel donated $1.25 million to Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign. Despite claiming to have tired of politics and not publicly supporting Trump in 2020 and 2024, Thiel was absolutely a behind-the-scenes advocate for a 2nd Trump term.
While speaking at the All In Summit in early October 2024, Thiel claimed that while he was not donating money to any political candidate, he was still supporting Donald Trump and now-Vice President JD Vance “in every other way possible”.
“I am still very strongly pro-Trump, pro-J.D.,” Thiel said.
Despite his years long embrace of Donald Trump, it is also worth noting that Thiel collaborated with the Biden administration. In 2021, I reported on how the Biden administration was receiving criticism for continuing Trump’s plans for a border wall in the form of a “virtual” or biometric wall.
[…]
Vice President J.D. VanceDespite not giving directly to the 2024 Trump campaign, Thiel has gained well-deserved scrutiny for his role in financing the rise of Vice President J.D. Vance.
Vance, the 40-year-old former Ohio Senator, was in attendance at David Sacks’ June 2024 fundraiser for Trump. Sacks is the partner of Craft Ventures, the former Chief Operating Officer of PayPal.
[…]
Thiel and Vance have an extensive relationship. Vance claims that after hearing Peter Thiel deliver a speech at Yale Law School in 2011 he was inspired to pursue a career in big tech firms. He started as a junior investor with the Thiel-backed Mithril Capital in 2016.
Vance briefly worked at biotechnology firm Circuit Therapeutics, a move which then-CEO Frederic Moll told the NY Times was a “favor to Peter.” In 2019, Vance would found his own venture firm, Narya Capital, with financial backing from the former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the billionaire investor Marc Andreessen, and, of course, Peter Thiel.
When Vance announced his run for Ohio Senator, Peter Thiel was there and gave $15 million to the campaign. With this money Vance was able to secure a victory and within two years he was on the way to the White House with the full support of Thiel and other technocrats.
Elon MuskWhile Musk is a powerful and influential technocrat in his own right — choosing to maintain a more public personality than that of Thiel — he and Thiel have their own history of collaboration.
Elon Musk and Peter Thiel have been friends for more than two decades and both men received massive financial wealth from their co-founding of PayPal. Thiel has also been a prominent investor in Musk’s various ventures, including Neuralink.
Musk and Peter Thiel also co-founded “America PAC” as their vehicle to support Trump’s return to the White House. In July 2024 it was initially reported that Musk would invest $45 million a month into the Trump campaign. In the end, Musk would give nearly $75 million to the PAC.
[…]
David SacksDavid Sacks is most well-known for his involvement in the early days of PayPal, serving as the COO with Thiel as the CEO. He is considered a member of the so-called “PayPal Mafia”, a name given to the founders of PayPal who later founded numerous tech companies, including Tesla, LinkedIn, Palantir Technologies, SpaceX, YouTube, and Yelp.
In 1998, Thiel and Sacks co-authored the book, The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and Political Intolerance on Campus, arguing that political correctness has harmed the college education system and academia in general. The book expanded on the pair’s writings in The Stanford Review, a student-run newspaper founded by Thiel and Sacks in 1987. Peter Thiel and Sacks would later apologize for statements made in the book which belittled rape.
In June 2024, Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya hosted a fundraiser for Trump at Sacks’ home in the Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. The meeting netted the Trump campaign $12 million after Trump reportedly said he would be “the crypto president”. It was this dinner where the billionaires told Trump he should choose Vance as his running mate.
Shortly after his victory in the 2024 election, Trump rewarded Sacks for his loyalty by appointing him as the “AI and Crypto Czar”. In this position Sacks is expected to greatly influence the U.S. government’s policies on cryptocurrency, and the advancement of AI.
Howard LutnickHoward Lutnick is the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald investment firm and has become a vocal proponent for Bitcoin in the last couple years.
Lutnick is also an investor in anti-ESG Strive Asset Management, which was founded by Vivek Ramaswamy. Peter Thiel, the Founders Fund, and J.D. Vance’s Narya Capital also contributed to Strive’s $30 million funding round.
Lutnick is also a part owner of video platform Rumble, founded by Chris Pavlovski. In December 2021, Pavlovski announced his intention to take Rumble public by combining forces with CF Acquisition Corp, a division of the Lutnick’s Cantor Fitzgerald. The deal was completed by September 2022 with CF Acquisition Corp providing “approximately $400 million in gross proceeds” to help “build out Rumble’s independent infrastructure”.
“With its massive growth in users and engagement, this is an exciting time for Rumble to become public. I am excited to see ‘RUM’ shares trading in the marketplace,” Lutnick said at the time of the deal.
Following Rumble becoming a publicly traded company, the top institutional share holders include Cantor Fitzgerald, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, State Street, and Rockefeller Capital Management, among others.
In August 2024 I reported on Howard Lutnick’s appearance at the 2024 Bitcoin Nashville event and his involvement in the Bitcoin community more broadly. During his own speech at Bitcoin Nashville, Trump called Lutnick “one of the truly brilliant men of Wall Street”. That Trump sees Lutnick — one of the most high profile traders of U.S. debt and a Wall Street regular — as a brilliant man is likely a sign that Wall Street banks will continue to influence U.S. financial policy under Trump’s 2nd administration.
Lutnick was also formerly a neighbor to Jeffrey Epstein in NYC and raised millions for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential campaign.
Lutnick has spoken at the World Economic Forum’s various meetings as far back as 2016 and as recently as January 2023. At the 2023 WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Lutnick participated in a panel titled, Real Estate at a Turning Point.
[…]
Jim O’NeillDonald Trump has appointed Jim O’Neill as deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). O’Neill has extensive connections and collaborations with Peter Thiel.
O’Neill worked at two of Peter Thiel’s funds, Clarium Capital and Mithril Capital Management from 2012 to 2019. In 2010, he co-founded Peter Thiel‘s Thiel Fellowship. He also worked as the CEO of the Thiel Foundation from 2009 to 2012.
From 2019 to July 2021, O’Neill was the CEO of SENS Research Foundation, an organization focused on “rejuvenation”. The SENS received its initial funding from Peter Thiel in 2006 and 2008, a fact that should come as no surprise given Thiel’s own interest in fighting aging using the blood of the young.
Whitney Webb recently wrote a detailed investigation further outlining O’Neill’s connections to Thiel and how his appointment might be used to stifle Robert F. Kennedy Jr. if his nomination is confirmed in the coming weeks.
Ken HoweryTrump named Ken Howery as his pick for U.S. ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark. Howery previously served as a U.S. ambassador to Sweden, and Trump wrote that he “served our Nation brilliantly” in that role.
The connections between Howery, Peter Thiel, and the World Economic Forum run deep. Apparently, Trump sees those connections as a net positive.
Howery was another PayPal co-founder with Thiel. The pair also co-founded the venture capital fund Founders Fund.
In March 2012, the WEF named Howery a member of the Young Global Leader program. He is also a member of the Selection Committee for the World Economic Forum Technology Pioneers Program.
Howery may have been selected for the role of ambassador to Denmark to help Trump fulfill his goal of annexing Greenland. Denmark has administrative control over Greenland as part of its kingdom. Interestingly, Trump’s calls for purchasing Greenland and making it part of the United States mirrors the original Technocrats plan for the “Technate of America”, including Canada and Panama as well.
Jacob HelbergJacob Helberg was appointed to be undersecretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment. Helberg donated $2 million to Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.
He is an ardent supporter of Israel and a former supporter of Democrats who has said his shift to Trump was a result of Democrats becoming “anti-Israel”. While the Democrats also support Israel and generally vote to give the nation unlimited funding and weapons stockpiles, Helberg believes they are not sufficiently obedient.
Helberg is also a senior adviser to Palantir Technologies, the private surveillance firm co-founded by Peter Thiel. Helberg also is also senior advisor to Alex Karp, Thiel’s co-founder and CEO of Palantir Technologies.
Michael KratsiosDonald Trump has named Michael Kratsios to serve as science adviser and director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. Kratsios also served in the role in the first Trump White House and the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. Kratsios led the 1st Trump admin’s policy specialist on artificial intelligence, drones, quantum computing, and cybersecurity.
Kratsios worked for two of Peter Thiel’s funds, Thiel Capital and Clarium Capital.
Vivek RamaswamyAlthough Vivek Ramaswamy is no longer involved in DOGE, he is still in Trump’s orbit and has announced a run for Governor of Ohio. It would not be surprising to see Peter Thiel invest in his political campaign. Thiel previously invested in Ramaswamy’s fund, Strive Asset Management.
Other Influential Thiel AcolytesTrae Stephens is a partner at venture capital firm Founders Fund, which was organized by Peter Thiel, Ken Howery, and Luke Nosek in early 2005. Stephens is also the co-founder and chair of Anduril Industries, which was funded by Peter Thiel. Finally, Stephens worked for Thiel’s Palantir Technologies. According to Bloomberg,Trump and his team have consulted with Trae Stephens.
Politico has also previously reported that Shyam Sankar, current Palantir chief technology officer, has been considered for the Pentagon’s top research and engineering job.
Finally, Blake Masters, who worked for Thiel Capital and for the Thiel Foundation, was reportedly up for nomination as Trump’s head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) at one point.
Alex Karp – The Other Palantir Founder & Bilderberg MemberAlex Karp is the co-founder of Palantir Technologies Inc. Karp co-founded Palantir with fellow technocrat Peter Thiel with the assistance of two rounds of investment from CIA’s venture capital firm In-Q-Tel.
Karp is also a steering committee member of the Bilderberg Group.
While Karp has mostly stayed out of politics in the public sphere, in 2024 he told the NYT that he was now supporting Kamala Harris. While Karp has traditionally supported Progressive politicians and described himself as a radical leftist, and Thiel has supported Conservative politicians, both men are now united in the support of the Trump administration.
[…]
Karp, Thiel, and Palantir’s Support of GenocideKarp is also an open advocate for supporting the Zionist movement. Researcher James Corbett recently noted that, “in November of last year, Palantir issued a letter to shareholders that stressed the company’s support for Israel’s quest to ethnically cleanse Palestinians.”
[…]
Via https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/peter-thiel-acolyte-trump-2nd-term/
February 10, 2025
Indonesia Joins BRICS: What Does It Mean for West Papua?
By Ali Mirin
Indonesia officially joined the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa consortium) on January 6 — marking a significant milestone in its foreign relations. In a statement released on January 7, the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasised that this membership reflects Indonesia’s dedication to strengthening multilateral cooperation and its growing influence in global politics. The ministry highlighted that joining BRICS aligns with Indonesia’s independent and proactive foreign policy, which seeks to maintain balanced relations with major powers while prioritising national interests.
This pivotal move showcases Jakarta’s efforts to enhance its international presence as an emerging power within a select group of global influencers. Traditionally, Indonesia has embraced a non-aligned stance while bolstering its military and economic strength through collaborations with Western and Eastern nations, including the United States, China and Russia. By joining BRICS, Indonesia is clearly signalling a shift from its non-aligned status, aligning itself with a coalition of emerging powers poised to challenge and redefine the existing global geopolitical landscape dominated by a Western neoliberal order led by the US.
Supporters of a multipolar world, championed by China, Russia and their allies, may view Indonesia’s entry into BRICS as a significant victory. In contrast, advocates of the US-led unipolar world, often referred to as the “rules-based international order”, might see Indonesia’s decision as a regrettable shift that could trigger retaliatory actions from the US.
The future will determine how Indonesia balances its relations with these two superpowers. However, there is considerable concern about the potential fallout for Indonesia from its long-standing US allies.
The smaller Pacific Island nations, which Indonesia has been endeavouring to win over in a bid to thwart support for West Papuan independence, may also become entangled in the crosshairs of geostrategic rivalries, and their response to Indonesia’s membership in the BRICS alliance will prove critical for the fate of West Papua.
Critical QuestionsThe crucial questions facing the islanders are perhaps pertaining to the loyalties of these Pacific nations: are they aligning themselves with Beijing or Washington, and in what ways could their decisions influence the delicate balance of power in the ongoing competition between great powers, ultimately altering the destiny of the Papuan people?
For Papuans, Indonesia’s membership in BRICS, or any other global or regional forums, is irrelevant as long as the illegal occupation of their land continues driving them toward extinction.
The pressing question for Papuans is which force will ultimately dismantle Indonesia’s unlawful hold on their sovereignty. Will Indonesia’s BRICS alliance open new paths for Papuan liberation fighters to reengage with the West in ways not seen since the Cold War? Or does this membership indicate a deeper entrenchment of Papuans’ fate within China’s influence — making any dream of Papuan independence almost impossible?
While forecasting the future with certainty is difficult, nevertheless, it is critical to contemplate this new complex geopolitical landscape, as the ultimate fate of West Papua is what is truly at stake here.
Indonesia’s membership in BRICS could augment Indonesia’s capacity to frame the West Papuan issue as an internal matter among BRICS members within the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs. Such backing could provide Jakarta with a cushion of diplomatic protection against international censure, particularly from Western nations regarding its policies in West Papua.
However, it is also crucial to note that for more than six decades, despite the Western world priding itself on being a champion of freedom and human rights, no nation has been permitted to voice concerns or hold Indonesia accountable for the atrocities committed against Indigenous Papuans.
The pressing question to consider is what or who silences the 193 member states of the United Nations from intervening to save the Papuans from potential eradication at the hands of Indonesia. Is it the US and its allies, or is it China, Russia and their allies, or the UN itself?
Double Standards and HypocrisyIndonesia’s support for Palestine bolsters its image as a defender of international law and human rights on global platforms like the UN and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. This commitment was notably highlighted at the BRICS Summit in October, where Indonesia reaffirmed its dedication to Palestinian self-determination and called for global action to address the ongoing conflict in line with international law and UN resolutions, reflecting its constitutional duty to oppose colonialism.
Nonetheless, Indonesia’s self-image as a saviour for the Palestinians presents a rather ignoble facade being promoted in the international diplomatic arena, as the Indonesian government engages in precisely the same behaviours it condemns Israel for in Palestine.
Moreover, Indonesia’s interaction with Pacific nations serves to perpetuate a facade of double standards — on one hand, it endeavours to portray itself as a burgeoning power and a champion of moral causes concerning security issues, human rights, climate change and development; on the other, it distracts the communities and nations of Oceania, particularly Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, which have long upheld the West Papua independence movement, from holding Indonesia accountable for its transgressions against their compatriots in West Papua.
Indonesian Defence Ministry official Brigadier General Mohamad Nafis unveiled a strategic initiative on October 10, intended to assert sovereignty claims over West Papua. This plan purports to foster stability across the Pacific Islands through enhanced defence cooperation and safeguarding of territorial integrity.
The efforts to expand influence are characterised by joint military exercises, defence partnerships and assistance programs, all crafted to address common challenges such as terrorism, piracy and natural disasters. However, most critically, Indonesia’s engagement with Pacific Island nations aims to undermine the regional solidarity surrounding West Papua’s right to self-determination. This involvement encapsulates infrastructure initiatives, defence training and financial diplomacy, nurturing goodwill while aligning the interests of Pacific nations with Indonesia’s geopolitical aspirations.
Military OccupationAs Indonesia strives to galvanise international support for its territorial integrity, the military presence in West Papua has intensified significantly, instilling widespread fear among local Papuan communities due to heightened deployments, surveillance and restrictions. Indonesian forces have been mobilised to secure economically strategic regions, including the Grasberg Mine, which holds some of the world’s largest gold and copper reserves. These operations have resulted in the displacement of Indigenous communities and substantial environmental degradation.
As of December, approximately 83,295 individuals have been internally displaced in West Papua due to armed conflicts between Indonesian security forces and the West Papua Liberation Army (TPNPB). Recent reports detail new instances of displacement in the Tambrauw and Pegunungan Bintang regencies following clashes between the TPNPB and security forces. Villagers have evacuated their homes in fear of further military incursions and confrontations, leaving many in psychological distress.
The significant increase in Indonesia’s military presence in West Papua has coincided with demographic shifts that jeopardise the survival of Indigenous Papuans. Government transmigration policies and large-scale agricultural initiatives, such as the food estate project in Merauke, have marginalised Indigenous communities.
These programs, aimed at ensuring national food security, result in land expropriation and cultural erosion, threatening traditional Papuan lifestyles and identities. For more than 63 years, Indonesia has occupied West Papua, subjecting Indigenous communities to systemic marginalisation and brink of extinction. Traditional languages, oral histories and cultural values face obliteration under Indonesia’s colonial occupation.
Glimmer of Hope?Despite these formidable challenges, solidarity movements within the Pacific and global communities persist in their advocacy for West Papua’s self-determination. These groups, united by a shared sense of humanity and justice, work tirelessly to maintain hope for West Papua’s liberation. Even so, Indonesia’s diplomatic engagement with Pacific nations, characterised by eloquent rhetoric and military alliances, represents a calculated endeavour to extinguish this fragile hope for Papuan liberation.
Indonesia’s membership in BRICS will either amplify this tiny hope of salvation within the grand vision of a new world re-engineered by Beijing’s BRICS and its allies or will it conceal West Papua’s independence dream on a path that is even harder and more impossible to achieve than the one they have been on for 60 years under the US-led unipolar world system.
Most significantly, it might present a new opportunity for Papuan liberation fighters to reengage with the new re-ordering global superpowers — a chance that has eluded them for more than 60 years.
From the 1920s to the 1960s, the tumult of the First and Second World Wars, coupled with the ensuing cries for decolonisation from nations subjugated by Western powers and Cold War tensions, forged the very existence of the nation known as “Indonesia”.
Regardless of the consequences of Indonesia’s BRICS membership, the fundamental existential question for the Papuans is whether they, along with their global solidarity networks, can reinvent themselves while nurturing the fragile hope of restoring West Papua’s sovereignty in a world rife with change and uncertainty.
[…]
Via https://www.asia-pacificresearch.com/indonesia-joins-brics-mean-west-papua/5632612
Argentina Announces Withdrawal from WHO Over COVID Lockdown ‘Economic Catastrophe’
Owen Evans
The Argentine government has announced its decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to the “catastrophic” economic impact of the COVID-19 lockdowns.
In a statement shared on social media platform X on Feb. 5, the office of Argentine President Javier Milei stated that the COVID-19 lockdowns were one of the greatest economic catastrophes in world history, citing the severe and lasting impact on global economies as Argentina’s primary reason for pulling out.“The WHO was established in 1948 to coordinate global health emergency responses, but it failed its most significant test: it promoted indefinite quarantines without scientific backing during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the statement reads in English translation.
“These quarantines caused one of the largest economic catastrophes in world history.”
According to the statement, under the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, such lockdown policies could be classified as “a crime against humanity.”Milei’s office stated that in Argentina, the WHO responded to a government that “kept children out of school, left hundreds of thousands of workers without income, caused businesses and [small and medium-sized enterprises] to go bankrupt, and, despite all of this, led to the loss of 130,000 lives.”
“It is urgent that the international community reassess the role of supranational organizations—funded by all—that fail to fulfill the purposes for which they were created, engage in political maneuvering, and attempt to impose their will on member states,” Milei’s office stated.
Anarcho-Capitalist“President Milei instructed Foreign Minister Gerardo Werthein to withdraw Argentina’s participation in the World Health Organization,” presidential spokesman Manuel Adorni said at a Feb. 5 news conference.
Milei, a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist, was inaugurated as Argentina’s president in 2023 after defeating Sergio Massa, economy minister for Alberto Fernández’s socialist administration.
In a September 2024 speech at the United Nations, Milei took aim at the 2030 Agenda’s Sustainable Development Goals, a global initiative for sustainable economic growth and environmental protection.
He said that although the program is “well-intentioned in its goals,” it is “nothing more than a supranational government program with a socialist slant.”
“If the 2030 agenda failed, as its own promoters acknowledge, the answer should be to ask ourselves if it was not an ill-conceived program to begin with,” Milei said.
Trump’s Similar MoveOn Jan. 20, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States, the WHO’s top donor, would pull out of the organization.He said the global health agency had mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic and other international health crises.
Negotiations with the group about a pandemic agreement and the International Health Regulations would be suspended while the withdrawal is taking place, Trump said.
He said the WHO had failed to act independently from the “inappropriate political influence of WHO member states” and required “unfairly onerous payments” from the United States that were disproportionate to the sums provided by other, larger countries, such as China.
“World Health ripped us off, everybody rips off the United States. It’s not going to happen anymore,” Trump said.
WHO spokesperson Tarik Jasarevic said in response,
“We hope that the United States will reconsider, and we really hope that there will be constructive dialogue for the benefit of everyone, for Americans but also for people around the world.”
The United States is currently the largest WHO funder, contributing about $1.28 billion during 2022–2023, the last year reported on the organization’s website. That equates to almost half of the WHO’s joint external evaluation missions for the last fiscal year.
WHO’s Reaction to China’s COVID Cover-UpThis is Trump’s second attempt to withdraw from the WHO. The president began the process in 2020 because of frustration over the WHO’s reaction to China’s cover-up of details surrounding the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at the start of what became the COVID-19 pandemic.
The House Oversight and Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a report in December 2024 on the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, calling it “an abject failure.”
According to the report, the WHO bent to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed “China’s political interests ahead of its international duties.”
[…]
Court Challenges to Trump Executive Orders
Credit Eric Lee/The New York TimesMattathias Schwartz reports on the federal courts from Philadelphia.
More than 40 lawsuits filed in recent days by state attorneys general, unions and nonprofits seek to erect a bulwark in the federal courts against President Trump’s blitzkrieg of executive actions that have upended much of the federal government and challenged the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.Unlike the opening of Mr. Trump’s first term in 2017, little significant resistance to his second term has arisen in the streets, the halls of Congress or within his own Republican Party. For now at least, lawyers say, the judicial branch may be it.
“The courts really are the front line,” said Skye Perryman, the chief executive of Democracy Forward, which has filed nine lawsuits and won four court orders against the Trump administration.
The multipronged legal pushback has already yielded quick — if potentially fleeting — results. Judicial orders in nine federal court cases will, for a time, partially bind the administration’s hands on its goals. Those include ending automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants on U.S. soil; transferring transgender female inmates to male-only prisons; potentially who investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol; coaxing federal workers to accept “deferred resignation” under a tight deadline; and freezing as much as $3 trillion in domestic spending.
The judiciary’s response to the legal challenges is continuing through the weekend. On Friday afternoon, Judge Carl Nichols, a district judge nominated by Mr. Trump. said he would issue a temporary restraining order halting the administrative leave of 2,200 employees at the U.S. Agency for International Development and the looming withdrawal of nearly all of the agency’s workers from overseas.
Also, late on Friday night, Judge John D. Bates, a nominee of President George W. Bush, rejected a request by a coalition of unions for an emergency order blocking Elon Musk’s team from accessing Labor Department data. While that case is ongoing, Judge Bates’s ruling was the first victory for Mr. Trump’s new administration in federal court. In the early hours of Saturday, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, one of President Obama’s nominees, restricted access by Mr. Musk’s government efficiency program to the Treasury Department’s payment and data systems, saying access would risk “irreparable harm.”Image
Judges have not minced words. In Seattle last week, a district judge issued the second nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Trump’s order to end universal birthright citizenship. “The Constitution is not something with which the government may play policy games,” Judge John C. Coughenour said. Such a change, he added, could be made only through amending the Constitution. “That’s how the rule of law works.”
But while the executive branch is entrusted with the capacity for swift, decisive action, the judiciary is slow by design, and the legal opposition to Mr. Trump’s opening moves may struggle to keep up with his fire hose of disruption.
“Last night I was eating dinner with my family with an earpiece in my ear listening to a conference call and trying to be a dad at the same time,” Attorney General Rob Bonta of California said in an interview on Friday. “It’s hard work, but we’re not asking anyone to feel sorry for us. This is what we signed up to do.”
Mr. Trump’s first three weeks in office have yielded scores of executive orders to upend American foreign aid, domestic spending and social policy, many in open defiance of existing law. Without buy-in from or even consultation with the legislative branch of government, the president has wielded unilateral executive power in an attempt to dismantle parts of the government, override regulations governing civil service, overturn more than a century of precedent on immigration law, seek possible vengeance on his perceived enemies, and roll back liberal advances made in diversity and equity and transgender rights.
“No president should be able to rewrite 120-plus years of interpretation of the Constitution with a stroke of a pen,” said Dan Rayfield, Oregon’s attorney general, in an interview. “That is the existential threat.”
Some legal experts see the executive branch’s deliberate effort to push the boundaries of legality as a bare-knuckle strategy to overwhelm the president’s opposition and eventually win at least some precedent-shattering decisions from the conservative Supreme Court.
“The administration seems to have wanted challenges that consume a ton of resources — of opponents, courts and public attention — even as members of the administration know the provisions do not square with the law that exists,” said Judith Resnik, a professor at Yale Law School.
To Mr. Trump’s backers, the president’s orders are well within the powers outlined in the Constitution’s second section on the executive branch. It is the judicial pushback, they say, that is overstepping the constitutional boundaries laid out in the third section on the judiciary.
“President Trump is not stealing other branches’ powers,” said Mike Davis, who heads the Article III Project, a conservative advocacy group. “He is exercising his Article II powers under the Constitution. And judges who say he can’t? They’re legally wrong. The Supreme Court is going to side with Trump.”
Sunday on X, Vice President Vance made a provocative post that seemed to suggest that when it comes to the legality of the White House’s orders, judges do not have the final say. “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he wrote.
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.
If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.
Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 9, 2025
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Mr. Vance’s post “opens the door to a potentially dangerous path,” said Quinta Jurecic, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a senior editor at Lawfare. “What Vance’s wording suggests here, without directly saying it, is that the executive could potentially respond to a court order by saying to the court, ‘You’re unconstitutionally intruding on my authority and I’m not going to do what you say.’”
“At that point,” Ms. Jurecic said, “The Constitution falls apart.”
As of Sunday afternoon, there was already at least one indication that existing court orders issued by federal judges to block Mr. Trump’s executive actions were not immediately changing the administration’s behavior on the ground. An emergency motion filed Friday by 22 state attorneys general before Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island district court claims an “ever-changing kaleidoscope of federal financial assistance that has been suspended, deleted, in transit, under review, and more,” despite a court order from Judge McConnell on Jan. 31 to end the funding freeze.
Further, the states say, the administration is claiming it can still freeze billions of dollars that are due under the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure act.
The Justice Department has until the end of Sunday to reply to the emergency motion.
According to the White House, Mr. Trump’s electoral victory in November gives him a mandate to exercise extraordinary power, narrow as the popular vote margin was.
“Every action taken by the Trump-Vance administration is fully legal and compliant with federal law,” Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said in a statement. “Any legal challenge against it is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the will of the American people.”
That should, in fact, be for the courts to determine — if Mr. Trump abides by their decisions.
Final judgments won’t come any time soon. Judge Coughenour’s injunction blocking Mr. Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil has already been appealed by the Justice Department to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The ascent of some cases through the trial courts, to the appellate courts, and then to the Supreme Court could take months. Those lengthy battles will be political as well as legal, pitting a president who sees himself as the almost invincible leader of a populist movement against attorneys general, almost all Democrats, with their own ambitions, some legal scholars say.
“The attorneys general swung into action quickly. If they eventually prevail in court and in public opinion, they will reap political dividends for their perceived defense and vindication of their citizens’ rights,” said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School.
If the attorneys general are using the campaign against Mr. Trump to burnish their own political futures, Mr. Amar added, that too is by design. “Our Constitution was designed so that ambition would counter ambition,” he said. “That is how the framers drew up the blueprint.”
Those pursuing the cases say they are unsurprised by the task ahead. Parallel efforts by Democracy Forward and the Democratic attorneys general to prepare for a second Trump presidency have been underway since early 2024. Now, coalitions of plaintiffs huddle on Slack long after midnight to prepare complaints in response to the administration’s latest moves. For the most part, the attorneys general have presented a united front, with some occasional last-minute jostling to decide who will get top billing as one of the leaders of the case, and in which venue it will be filed.
The one surprise factor? Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman who has been handed extraordinary — and possibly illegal — powers to cut and reshape the government, with no real title or Senate confirmation.
Matthew J. Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general, called Mr. Musk “the one wild card” thrown at them.
“I’m not even sure Trump knows what he is doing,” Mr. Platkin said of Mr. Musk. “He’s an unelected billionaire running around government, slashing huge amounts of the work force and behaving in all kinds of potentially illegal ways.”
In legal filings, the Justice Department has argued that Mr. Musk’s associates are acting lawfully as employees detailed to agencies across the government and that they are under the authority of acting cabinet members.
The states have “special solicitude” as plaintiffs, a doctrine that draws on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling. That doctrine, which has carried less weight in recent years, makes it easier for states to bring lawsuits claiming that their rights or the rights of their citizens have been violated. It may be harder for those same states to apply that doctrine in claims against Mr. Musk’s teams, which operate at the federal level and affect the states less directly, according to lawyers familiar with the effort by attorneys general.
But that wrinkle did not stop Judge Engelmayer from siding, for now, with Letitia James, attorney general of New York, and 18 other Democratic attorneys general in their effort to keep Mr. Musk’s teams out of sensitive Treasury Department systems.
They argued that giving the government efficiency team access would violate the Constitution, and harm states that rely on the Treasury Department to fund child support payments and recover debts.
“I think right now we’re in the midst of a constitutional crisis,” said Ms. James, when the lawsuit was announced last week.
Ms. Resnik, the Yale Law School professor, said that while she expected the legal system to be “resilient,” it was hard to overstate the stakes for the judiciary in the coming weeks and months.
“Unbounded power is the antithesis of the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “That point is on display every time you enter the U.S. Supreme Court, where etched in stone are the words: ‘equal justice under law.’”
[…]
Via https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/09/us/trump-federal-courts-lawsuits.html
Five Arab Countries Announce International Conference on Palestine Two State Solution in June
TASS Russian News Agency
All eyes are on the International Peace Conference to actually IMPLEMENT the actual division of JERUSALEM , aka the “Two State solution.”
THE WORDING IS VERY SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT IS COMING JUNE 2-4, 2025. The High-level International Conference (hereinafter “THE CONFERENCE”) will be
aimed at advancing the IMPLEMENTATION (KEY WORDING) of the United Nations resolutions pertaining to the question of Palestine and the two-State solution for the achievement of a JUST, AND LASTING COMPREHENSIVE PEACE in the MIDDLE EAST. (A Middle East peace plan)
The Conference will be held from June 2-4, 2025, in New York, preceded by
a PREPARATORY MEETING, to be held in MAY 2025.(most likely in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) The Conference will adopt an ACTION-ORIENTED OUTCOME, to urgently chart an IRREVERSIBLE PATHWAY (not able to be undone by ANYONE or reversed at all) towards the “PEACEFUL settlement of the IMPLEMENTATION of the TWO-STATE SOLUTION.”
[…]
Via https://tass.com/world/1907439
Hong Kong: 453 Square Meters of Hell
453 Square Meters of Hell
Directed by Vitaly Buzuev and Alexandr Avilov (2020)
Film Review
Hong Kong has the largest population density in the world. As Southeast Asia’s banking center, it mainly consists of skyscrapers. Property prices are astronomic and 20% of Honk Kong live below the poverty line, which is $US512 per person per month.
The documentary follows the life of several of these unfortunates, who pay hundreds of dollars a month to live in cage the size of a dog kennel (180 x 60 centimeters). One, in his late sixties, supplements his $US300/month pension by collecting garbage off the street. The cage dwellers share a toilet have no access to kitchen facilities and share a communal toilet.
About half the population live in subdivided flats averaging 15×15 meters. For this they pay $US585 for rent, usually one-third of their salary. About 40% live in public subsidized housing costing $US100-300 per month.
One indigent Hong Kong resident owns a 10×12 meter room with a toilet and rice cooker for which he paid $US256,000.
Many poor Hong Kong residents are referred to as McSleepers because they spend the night in fast food restaurants. Most earn an average of $US2,000 a month but are required to pay most of the earnings into a pension fund.
The Hong Kong government is talking about creating an artificial island to build additional housing.
Another possible solution are the mini homes OPOD Concrete produce from concrete water pipes. With a living area of 100 square feet, the units cost $10,000 euros, are transportable and can be stacked on top of one another.
February 9, 2025
Republican Attorneys General Seek to Bypass Biden Pardon, Investigate Fauci on State Level
Breitbart
A coalition of Republican attorneys general are seeking to bypass President Joe Biden’s last-minute preemptive pardon of Dr. Anthony Fauci to investigate him on a state level for his role in the COVID-19 pandemic response.
The attorneys general, led by South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) on Wednesday asking to be kept in the loop about “any further findings or direct evidence that suggests there may have been any violation of state laws” so that “we may evaluate state-level courses of action.”
“Certainly, one potential tool at our disposal is the referral of any pertinent findings to state officials. As you are aware, a pardon by former President Biden does not extend to preclude state-level investigations or legal proceedings,” they wrote. “As state Attorneys General, we possess the authority to address violations of state law or breaches of public trust. We are fully committed to investigating any malfeasance that may have occurred to the fullest extent of our authority and are prepared to collaborate with you in further efforts.”
The attorneys general specifically referenced a report released by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in December 2024, which details widespread failures and potential misconduct by high-ranking government officials, including Fauci. Some of the report’s findings include:
Evidence suggesting Fauci worked to discredit the “lab leak” theory, despite evidence supporting it.Accusations that Fauci allegedly provided false testimony to Congress about the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.Evidence NIH allegedly mismanaged taxpayer funds by failing to properly oversee grants to EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled funding to the Wuhan lab.Evidence that prominent scientists who raised concerns about vaccine risks were allegedly silenced, ultimately limiting debate and public awareness.Despite the report’s findings, Biden preemptively pardoned Fauci with just hours left in his administration, effective from January 2014 to the day of the pardon, and lauded Fauci for “sav[ing] countless lives by managing the government’s response to pressing health crises, including HIV/AIDS, as well as the Ebola and Zika viruses.”
“During his tenure as my Chief Medical Advisor, he helped the country tackle a once-in-a-century pandemic. The United States is safer and healthier because of him,” Biden said.
The attorneys general noted that pardon “purports to apply to any offenses arising from his service as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or the White House COVID-19 Response Team, or as Chief Medical Advisor to the President.”
“To say we are troubled by the scope and timing of the pardon—on the heels of the Subcommittee’s Final Report—would be a gross understatement. To ensure that former President Biden’s shameful pardon does not frustrate accountability, we urge Congress to consider using all available tools at its disposal,” they wrote.
[…]
Elon Musk: US Will Lose Next War Very Badly
RT
Elon Musk speaks with US President-elect Donald Trump at a viewing of the launch of a test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket on November 19, 2024. © Getty/Brandon Bell
The US risks major defeat in the country’s next war unless it urgently reforms its outdated weapons programs, Elon Musk has warned in a stark assessment of the nation’s defense capabilities.
Musk, who owns X and heads SpaceX and Tesla, has been appointed as a “special government employee” to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under US President Donald Trump, and is now among his key advisers.
“American weapons programs need to be completely redone. The current strategy is to build a small number of weapons at a high price to fight yesterday’s war. Unless there are immediate and dramatic changes made, America will lose the next war very badly,” Musk wrote on X.
The billionaire has long been a vocal critic of inefficiencies within the US defense sector, arguing that excessive bureaucracy and outdated military strategies undermine national security.
Musk’s DOGE department has actively worked to streamline federal operations, including those related to defense. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, the maker of the Predator drone, has urged DOGE to reform the Pentagon’s contracting system, calling the current process too slow and bureaucratic to counter threats from nations such as China and Iran.
L3Harris Technologies, a major defense contractor, has provided DOGE with recommendations to improve the defense acquisition system. These include eliminating duplicative Cost Accounting Standard requirements and establishing a central contracting arm within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to manage joint procurement programs.
DOGE has already canceled approximately $420 million in government contracts within its first 80 hours of operations, taking initial steps toward an ambitious goal of reducing federal spending by $2 trillion.
Musk’s critique also extended to specific defense programs. He has been particularly damning of the F-35 fighter jet program, labeling it a “sh*t design” and advocating for a shift toward unmanned systems, which he believes are more effective and economical in modern combat.Speaking at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York in February, Musk emphasized the transformative impact of drones and artificial intelligence (AI) on warfare, citing the Ukraine conflict as a prime example.
“The current war in Ukraine is very much a drone war already,” Musk noted. “If there’s a major power war, it’s very much going to be a drone war.” He called for increased investment in drone production and a significant acceleration in manufacturing, warning against the pitfalls of preparing for past conflicts instead of future ones. “Countries pretty much are geared up to fight the last war, not the next war,” Musk cautioned.
[…]
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
