¡Ya disponible! Investigación de Telegram 2025 — los principales insights del año 
315
Suscriptores
Sin datos24 horas
+27 días
-330 días
Carga de datos en curso...
Canales Similares
Nube de Etiquetas
Menciones Entrantes y Salientes
---
---
---
---
---
---
Atraer Suscriptores
junio '26
junio '26
+10
en 3 canales
mayo '26
+11
en 1 canales
Get PRO
abril '26
+7
en 1 canales
Get PRO
marzo '26
+8
en 1 canales
Get PRO
febrero '26
+10
en 4 canales
Get PRO
enero '26
+6
en 2 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '25
+4
en 1 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '25
+18
en 3 canales
Get PRO
octubre '25
+6
en 2 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '25
+21
en 3 canales
Get PRO
agosto '25
+4
en 3 canales
Get PRO
julio '25
+3
en 1 canales
Get PRO
junio '25
+4
en 2 canales
Get PRO
mayo '25
+5
en 1 canales
Get PRO
abril '25
+3
en 2 canales
Get PRO
marzo '25
+16
en 3 canales
Get PRO
febrero '25
+11
en 1 canales
Get PRO
enero '25
+21
en 10 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '24
+9
en 2 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '24
+7
en 1 canales
Get PRO
octubre '24
+11
en 2 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '24
+9
en 2 canales
Get PRO
agosto '24
+11
en 2 canales
Get PRO
julio '24
+2
en 2 canales
Get PRO
junio '24
+12
en 6 canales
Get PRO
mayo '24
+9
en 3 canales
Get PRO
abril '24
+9
en 4 canales
Get PRO
marzo '24
+15
en 13 canales
Get PRO
febrero '24
+9
en 13 canales
Get PRO
enero '24
+35
en 7 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '23
+8
en 4 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '23
+255
en 1 canales
| Fecha | Crecimiento de Suscriptores | Menciones | Canales | |
| 26 junio | +2 | |||
| 25 junio | 0 | |||
| 24 junio | 0 | |||
| 23 junio | +2 | |||
| 22 junio | +1 | |||
| 21 junio | 0 | |||
| 20 junio | 0 | |||
| 19 junio | 0 | |||
| 18 junio | 0 | |||
| 17 junio | +2 | |||
| 16 junio | 0 | |||
| 15 junio | 0 | |||
| 14 junio | 0 | |||
| 13 junio | 0 | |||
| 12 junio | 0 | |||
| 11 junio | +2 | |||
| 10 junio | +1 | |||
| 09 junio | 0 | |||
| 08 junio | 0 | |||
| 07 junio | 0 | |||
| 06 junio | 0 | |||
| 05 junio | 0 | |||
| 04 junio | 0 | |||
| 03 junio | 0 | |||
| 02 junio | 0 | |||
| 01 junio | 0 |
Publicaciones del Canal
Repost from BioClandestine
Fun fact:
The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed into federal law, to combat the Communist Party of the United States.
The CPUSA was labeled an illegitimate party, that was the arm of a foreign conspiracy, seeking to overthrow the US government. Sound familiar?
That’s what we are witnessing right now with the Democrat Party in the present day United States. The DNC is no longer a legitimate US political party. These are unlawful enemy combatants, pretending to be a political party, with intent to overthrow the United States government.
They are not operating on behalf of the American People. They are part of a foreign conspiracy, which is trying to infiltrate and subvert the United States from within. The DNC/Left was the entry point for Communism to reach the United States, under the guise of “progress”.
This is not a game. The Dems are quite literally enemies of the United States, trying to exterminate and replace the American People, and the only way this country prospers, is if we expel this illegitimate party from our nation, exterminate this poisonous Left-wing ideology from our society, and hold all the traitors to the fullest extent of the law.
| 2 |  Most Muslims believe the only thing preventing Islam from taking over the world is America.
Muslims view their presence in America solely as a religious call to undermine the country and achieve that goal.
“We are in the belly of the beast, and we need to strike the heart of the Empire to bring it down.”
Muslims in America are working to destroy the country from within, and they are allying with progressive useful idiots.
🇺🇸Join👉 @SGTnewsNetwork
📎 X (Twitter)▪️Truth Social | 12 |
| 3 | Means-tested welfare spending has grown from relatively modest levels in the mid-1960s to over a trillion dollars annually in recent federal figures (plus state contributions), encompassing dozens of programs. Official poverty metrics improved modestly at first due to economic growth and transfers, then stagnated in behavioral terms. The explosion in single-parent households and nonmarital births tracks the welfare expansion and its incentive structure more closely than it tracks racism, deindustrialization alone, or other popular explanations.
The 1996 reforms proved that changing incentives changes outcomes. Caseloads fell, work rose, and some of the worst poverty traps eased—until expansions in other programs and cultural shifts partially offset gains. The broader lesson remains: systems that pay people to remain outside the labor market and outside stable family structures will produce more of both.
Cloward and Piven wanted to end poverty by overloading the system and forcing a guaranteed income. What emerged instead was an overburdened, fragmented, and enormously expensive welfare state that subsidizes dependency, amplifies class rhetoric, and anchors a significant population to government support. That population, in turn, provides reliable political support for the very policies that sustain the cycle.
This was not an accidental byproduct. It was the foreseeable result of a strategy that treated welfare rules as weapons to create crisis rather than as tools to encourage self-sufficiency. Decades later, the costs—in family structure, human capital, fiscal burden, and political polarization—are still being paid.
The alternative is not indifference to hardship. It is welfare designed around work, marriage, and mobility—policies that treat adults as capable agents rather than permanent clients. The data from the pre-Great Society era and from the 1996 reforms show that economic growth plus incentive-aligned safety nets reduce poverty more effectively than engineered overload ever did. The Cloward-Piven legacy stands as a warning: when you subsidize dependency at scale and tie political power to it, you do not eliminate poverty. You institutionalize it. | 24 |
| 4 | The 1996 welfare reform (PRWORA), which replaced AFDC with TANF and imposed work requirements and time limits, produced caseload drops of over 60%, increased employment among single mothers, and modest improvements in child poverty metrics in many states. That reform worked precisely because it reversed key incentive distortions the earlier system had baked in.
The Cloward-Piven approach—maximize enrollment, minimize conditions—did the opposite. It subsidized behaviors that correlate strongly with persistent poverty: single parenthood, low work effort, and reliance on transfers rather than earnings or family support. In doing so, it helped manufacture more people who needed the system. Dependency is not just an unfortunate side effect; under these rules, it is a predictable outcome.
Bolshevik-Style Class Warfare
The strategy also fed a narrative of permanent class conflict. By framing poverty as a failure of “the system” requiring ever-larger state intervention, it shifted focus from individual agency, family structure, culture, and economic growth to redistribution from “the rich” to “the poor.” This echoes older revolutionary tactics: aggravate contradictions, mobilize the disaffected, and use crisis to force expropriation and central control.
In practice, it pitted working taxpayers—many of them middle-class or aspiring working-class—against net recipients. The “rich” in this framing are often two-earner families, small business owners, and skilled tradespeople whose payroll and income taxes fund the administrative state and transfers. Meanwhile, the welfare apparatus itself became a major employer and political constituency. Billions flow not just to recipients but to caseworkers, nonprofits, consultants, and bureaucracies invested in managing (rather than ending) poverty.
This is not organic class consciousness. It is manufactured division sustained by policy design. When poverty is redefined as whatever the state says it is, and when benefits expand faster than wages for low-skill work, the political economy rewards grievance over mobility. The result resembles the clientelism seen in various socialist experiments: a dependent population whose immediate interests align with the party or faction that controls the spigot.
A Permanent Class of Government-Dependent Voters
The most durable political consequence is the creation of a reliable voting bloc tethered to the welfare state. Means-tested program recipients—SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, EITC supplements, and legacy cash aid—disproportionately support the political party most associated with expanding and defending these programs. Self-reported data and household surveys consistently show higher lifetime or current participation among Democratic-leaning voters. Low-income and net-transfer households vote heavily Democratic in national and local elections.
This is not conspiracy; it is public choice economics in action. Concentrated benefits create concentrated political support. Diffuse costs (taxes, debt, slower growth, family breakdown) are harder to organize against. Politicians who promise more transfers or looser eligibility gain reliable constituencies. Those who push work requirements, time limits, or cuts face organized opposition from recipients, administrators, and allied interest groups.
The cycle reinforces itself. Long-term welfare participation correlates with lower workforce attachment and different family formation patterns. Children raised in high-dependency households are more likely to enter the same system as adults. The strategy did not merely expand rolls in the 1960s–70s; it helped institutionalize a subclass whose economic security is tied to government policy rather than private earnings, marriage, or community. That subclass votes accordingly.
The Record Since the 1960s | 18 |
| 5 | The Cloward-Piven Strategy: How Overloading the Welfare System Created Dependency, Class Division, and a Permanent Political Underclass
In 1966, sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven published “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in *The Nation*. Their proposal was straightforward and radical: mobilize the poor—especially those eligible but not yet enrolled—to flood the welfare system with applications. By overwhelming local and state bureaucracies and budgets with legitimate claims, they argued, a fiscal and political crisis would erupt. This crisis would then force the federal government to replace the fragmented, inadequate welfare patchwork with a national guaranteed annual income, effectively ending poverty through massive redistribution.
The authors were not subtle about the mechanism. They saw existing welfare rules as tools that kept the poor disorganized and compliant. Mass enrollment would expose the system’s contradictions, create chaos in Democratic-run cities, and compel a leftward shift in national policy. The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), which they helped influence, put elements of this into practice through protests, legal challenges, and aggressive enrollment drives in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
What Actually Happened
The strategy aligned with broader Great Society expansions under Lyndon Johnson and subsequent policies. AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) caseloads exploded. In 1966, roughly 4.5–5 million people received benefits. By 1972, that number had more than doubled to over 10.9 million. In New York City—the epicenter of the activism—rolls surged from around 500,000 to over 1.1 million, contributing directly to the city’s near-bankruptcy in 1975. Participation rates among eligible families rose sharply as administrative barriers fell and outreach intensified.
This was not organic growth from economic downturn alone. Court rulings (such as *Goldberg v. Kelly* in 1970) made it harder to remove people from rolls without due process. Welfare rights activists actively recruited. The system was deliberately stressed.
The promised guaranteed income never arrived in the form Cloward and Piven envisioned. Instead, the overload produced backlash: fiscal strain, public resentment, and eventual reforms. But the damage to incentives and family structure was already done. The strategy succeeded in expanding the welfare state dramatically; it failed at its stated goal of lifting people out of poverty through systemic redesign. What it helped create was something more durable and destructive: entrenched dependency.
Creating More Poor Through Dependency
Welfare programs are not neutral transfers. Their rules shape behavior. Pre-1996 AFDC rules often penalized marriage and work. A “man in the house” could disqualify a family. Earnings above very low thresholds triggered sharp benefit cliffs—effective marginal tax rates of 50%, 70%, or even over 100% when combining loss of cash aid, food stamps, Medicaid, and housing subsidies. Rational people responded to the incentives.
The results are visible in the data. Nonmarital birth rates stood around 8% in the mid-1960s. They climbed steadily to over 40% today. Single-mother families—once a small share of the poor—now account for the majority of child poverty cases. Official poverty rates for single-mother households remain stubbornly high (around 28–40% depending on the measure), even as trillions in means-tested spending flowed. The safety net reduces measured poverty on paper (especially under the Supplemental Poverty Measure), but it has not reversed the behavioral trends that keep families poor across generations.
Critics from Thomas Sowell to Charles Murray to Robert Rector have documented how the post-1960s welfare expansion correlated with the breakdown of two-parent households, declining labor force attachment among prime-age men in some communities, and the rise of long-term welfare use. | 19 |
| 6 |  Sin texto... | 18 |
| 7 | Breaking: A March Across America—the Rise of Cultural Marxism in the United States.
Societal collapse is never a singular event. It is a process.
I have been warning the American people for many years now about the deliberate implementation of socialist governance structures within our federal and municipal systems. This trajectory began with explicit statements made by Barack Obama in 2008, when he promised to fundamentally transform the nation.
I took those statements seriously because I understood the ideological commitment behind them.
For over a decade, I have documented and articulated how this transformation was being executed through the administrative state, the education apparatus, and the cultural institutions.
The strategy has been consistent: use the machinery of government to reshape American society according to principles fundamentally at odds with the constitutional order and individual liberty.
What we are witnessing in New York City today is the predictable result of this long-term campaign. The collapse of public safety, the erasure of law enforcement accountability, the systematic release of criminal offenders back into American communities, and the open abandonment of border security are not discrete failures. They are the intentional and direct consequences of socialist ideology embedded in policy.
Democratic leadership in that city has made deliberate choices to deemphasize enforcement, to prioritize ideology over order, and to subordinate the safety of American citizens to the demands of progressive governance.
The American people now see what I have been saying for over a decade. The question that remains is whether we possess the will to reverse course through lawful, constitutional means. That begins with local action and restored accountability. | 18 |
| 8 | It’s becoming harder and harder to deny, that what we have been witnessing, is a hostile Communist takeover.
Communism infiltrated the US, under the guise of “Liberalism” and “Progress”.
The Dems have been Communist this whole time, but their masks have slipped off. They are merely revealing what they have been all along, wolves in sheep’s clothing. Their ideology is poison, designed to subvert and destroy the United States from within.
They are not interested in the rule of law or the prosperity of the American People. They are interested in global domination, and We are standing in their way. | 27 |
| 9 | Trump is now pressuring the Senate GOP to pass the SAVE America Act. This tells me that we are getting close.
It’s time for the Senate GOP to put up or shut up. Either they deliver for the American People now, or Trump will be forced to explore the “Executive option”.
It doesn’t really matter to me. I know that one way or the other, the 2026 election will be secure, because it’s a matter of National Security, as we are under assault from within via a corrupt conspiracy/insurrection who wish to overthrow the United States of America, and POTUS confirmed he is willing to handle it himself if has to.
It would be much better optically for the Senate GOP to pass this into law and for Trump to not have to do it the Executive way, but I’m at the point where I don’t give a rat’s ass. Trump is going to save this nation, whether anyone likes it or not, and anyone who thinks he does not have the power or authority to do so, is mistaken. | 35 |
| 10 | The White House livestream is happening right now in the official app - super easy to watch. Join me! Download it here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/app/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/app/ | 49 |
| 11 | We Do NOT Agree to Certify the California Primary in LA County!
Press Conference
Ballot Processing Center
13401 Crossroads Pkwy.
City of Industry, CA 91746
1:30 pm PDT
Friday June 26
Make your voice heard and protest the certification of the LA County California Primary as candidates are being denied records they requested from County Registrar Dean Logan and more...come hear our speakers - a mixture of concerned moms and candidates!
Join Us
Text Corinne Cliford
White House Press
1.917.287.1314
For more info | 42 |
| 12 | I'm not against public education.
I grew up in public education myself. And I think I was educated quite adequately.
But when public education starts to undermine our foundations in our shared society, that becomes a problem.
When public education tries to change our societal structure, it becomes a problem.
National unity is something that's quite important. People cannot walk together in the same direction unless they are going to the same destination.
Our Republic was founded on principles such as these. Working together to achieve a common good. Biblical Christian principles about how government, finances, and family are to be structured and to work together.
When you start introducing competing points of view, you destroy the unity.
That's called, "divide and conquer".
Most people don't realize that this is what they've been doing to us since our country was founded. There's always been attempts to divide and conquer what our founders established.
And what did they establish? They established equality under the law for all people. It took a while for some of it to work itself out, but the founders enshrined it in our founding documents to make sure we could achieve it.
The Republican party was the party that was founded to fight for this Republic. To fight for equality for all under the law.
That's why the Republicans fought against slavery. That's why the Republicans fought against Jim Crow. That's why, on June 19th, the Republicans freed the slaves from the Democrats.
Republicanism is greater than democracy. By far.
It takes the best parts of democracy, the people have a say-so in their government, but structures it in a way so that the 51% can't tell the 49% what to do.
It ensures freedom for all people, under the law.
And the law ensures life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That's for all people.
So one person cannot infringe on another person's pursuit of happiness. This in principle even limits all the other things that we outlaw, such as murder. One man cannot murder another because it would infringe on his rights. One man cannot enslave another because it would infringe on his rights. It's a very basic principle that ensures freedom for all people.
And that's why Liberty is tied to morality. Real freedom requires that you have a morality that ensures the freedoms of others.
Back to public education...
We must educate our youth about the greatness of the structure of our constitutional government and the Republic our founders created.
We need to create unity in our education systems, which endeavors to bring our nation together.
I am a full-blown proponent of school choice. But the reason I am is because our government-funded schools have become leftist indoctrination centers. They teach many things which I disagree with in our public schools.
And I've been wondering, is the solution to go toward breaking this up so that parents can make their own choices and allow competition among schools through capitalism? Or is it for us to fix our public school system so it gets back to the values we initially founded our country on?
Centralized control of schools creates opportunities for bad people to centralize their control over our children.
But decentralized schools may produce more divisions.
With the way our world is going, I think that moving towards school choice is the best option. But we need to have some sort of controls to make sure that our students aren't being taught things that would undermine our constitutional republic. | 45 |
| 13 |  https://x.com/i/status/2069833551873241325 | 48 |
| 14 |  REPOST THE HECK OUT OF THIS…ARREST FAUCI (OTHERS?). | 37 |
| 15 |  Huge Day. Father's Day. Look's like Santa Hammer and Gifts. I am Ready.
🔤 qalerts.app/?q=%23%234108 | 47 |
| 16 | As a plumber who fixes problems every day, I see SB73 for what it is: a band-aid that hides leaks instead of stopping them. Newsom’s bill ties the hands of sheriffs and feds trying to verify votes and secure ballots. Californians deserve elections we can trust—not laws shielding the process from scrutiny.
What do you think? Share this. #MitchForCongress #MitchThePlumber #IFixThings" | 51 |
| 17 |  Quantum cryptography is a field that uses principles of quantum mechanics to create highly secure communication systems, especially for encrypting and transmitting data in ways that are theoretically unbreakable by classical computers — even future quantum computers in many scenarios.
In short, quantum cryptography represents a shift from computational security to physical security, promising unbreakable encryption based on the fundamental laws of nature. It's still emerging but has seen real-world use and major government investment. | 40 |
| 18 |  Sin texto... | 49 |
| 19 | https://x.com/i/status/2069477706593604018 | 46 |
| 20 | https://x.com/i/status/2069474510982779080 | 46 |
