X
رفتن به کانال در Telegram
7 469
مشترکین
-2124 ساعت
-677 روز
-30230 روز
در حال بارگیری داده...
کانال‌های مشابه
هیچ داده‌ای
مشکلی وجود دارد؟ لطفاً صفحه را تازه کنید یا با مدیر پشتیبانی ما تماس بگیرید.
ابر برچسب‌ها
اشارات ورودی و خروجی
---
---
---
---
---
---
جذب مشترکین
اکتبر '26اکتبر '26
اکتبر '26
+3
در 6 کانال‌ها
سپتامبر '26
+25
در 6 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '26
+19
در 9 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '26
+96
در 51 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '26
+185
در 69 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '26
+206
در 43 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '26
+138
در 21 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '26
+282
در 45 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '26
+164
در 55 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '26
+363
در 105 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '25
+387
در 152 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '25
+806
در 177 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '25
+1 223
در 189 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '25
+403
در 74 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '25
+115
در 62 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '25
+166
در 53 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '25
+355
در 91 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '25
+1 489
در 129 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '25
+399
در 90 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '25
+601
در 62 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '25
+749
در 70 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '25
+4 110
در 67 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '240
در 66 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '24
+3
در 28 کانال‌ها
| تاریخ | رشد مشترکین | اشارات | کانال‌ها | |
| 05 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 04 اکتبر | +1 | |||
| 03 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 02 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 01 اکتبر | +2 |
پست‌های کانال
I could write TEN BOOKS about the fights we've had with the CABALS across the years, and you probably wouldn't believe half of what happened. There were moments that changed everything, moments when people disappeared from the picture, moments when someone gave the public one tiny HINT and then went completely silent again. Some of the people you've heard about are still fighting from the SHADOWS. They don't need applause. They don't need recognition. Sometimes all they leave behind is a CLUE, a document,a message,a number,a few words for the people paying attention — and then they disappear again. But that's not the point of these stories.
The point is that THIS DOES NOT STOP. What has been built over all these years cannot simply be drained away because someone wants it gone. There is MUCH MORE behind the scenes than most people could possibly imagine,and much more already moving that you have never been shown. You know some of the names. You know some of the people who have been fighting for years. What you don't know is how many others stayed completely invisible while doing the same thing.
-THE PUBLIC HAS ONLY SEEN PIECES.
And one day, the pieces will become history. Books will be written about WHAT HAPPENED, WHO STOOD THERE, WHO REFUSED TO BOW, AND WHO KEPT MOVING FORWARD WHEN EVERYONE ELSE THOUGHT IT WAS OVER.
And those books won't only be about the people whose names you already know. THEY WILL BE ABOUT YOU TOO. Because the people building, learning, holding the line, and refusing to give up are not watching history from the outside. YOU ARE PART OF IT. You may not understand the full picture today, but years from now people will look back and realize that this was not a moment that simply passed.
THIS WAS THE BEGINNING OF A CHAPTER THEY NEVER MANAGED TO ERASE.
| 2 | The SECOND ATTACK came from a direction I had never expected. They understood that attacking my businesses had only made me stronger, so this time they went around everything I had built and aimed at the one place they believed I would be VULNERABLE — MY FAMILY. I had already seen enough of their methods to know why I called them SNAKES. They didn't need to stand in front of you. They used FEAR, PRESSURE, THREATS, AND PEOPLE CLOSE TO THE TARGET. That was exactly what they did this time.
It started with things that, on their own, could have been explained away. A family member began having UNUSUAL HEALTH PROBLEMS. Then another problem appeared. Then another. We would make changes, things would improve for a while, and then something else would happen. I started looking at the situation the way I looked at a business problem: TIMELINE, ACCESS, PEOPLE, INFORMATION, AND PATTERNS. I realized someone outside the family knew private details about where we were, what our routines were, and things that should have been known by almost nobody. That information had to be coming from inside. I started quietly testing what different people knew, giving different pieces of harmless information to different people, and waiting to see where those details resurfaced. Eventually, one detail appeared exactly where it shouldn't have. THAT WAS THE THREAD.
The person behind it wasn't some mastermind who wanted to destroy me. He was TERRIFIED. When I confronted him, he denied it at first, then completely broke down. He told me he had been THREATENED, and that he had been made to believe that refusing them could cost him his LIFE. He had been pressured into giving them information and helping them get close enough to my family to create situations that could damage our health without immediately revealing where it was coming from. By then, I was looking at a family member whose health had already been affected, and I understood exactly what they had done: THEY COULDN'T BREAK THE MAN, SO THEY TRIED TO BREAK THE PEOPLE HE LOVED. That was the moment money stopped meaning anything to me. I had more money than I could ever spend, but none of it could buy back a night of fear when someone you love is sick and you don't yet know why.
What happened after that is something almost nobody ever saw. I STARTED A WAR THEY NEVER KNEW WAS HAPPENING. There were no press conferences, no public threats, no dramatic announcements. I kept running my companies, kept meeting investors, kept answering calls, kept moving money, and kept building relationships as though everything was normal. Behind that, I was changing who had access to my family, cutting off the channels they had used, protecting people who were being threatened, and helping others who had been trapped by the same kind of fear. Some people only know who these people are PARTIALLY because of what I chose to do after that night. I could've just walk away, disappear and forget everything.
Instead, I made a decision: ANYONE WHO DESERVED PROTECTION, WHO WAS WILLING TO LISTEN, AND WHO WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WOULD HAVE SOMEONE STANDING BESIDE THEM. They thought attacking my family would make me afraid. It made me RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE THAN MYSELF.
XXX | 829 |
| 3 | FIRST ATTACK.
MONEY was never the problem. INFLUENCE was never the problem. I had spent decades building relationships the right way, and I had always treated my partners with RESPECT, LOYALTY, AND FAIRNESS. I never believed that being wealthy gave me the right to look down on anyone who helped build the things around me. That reputation mattered. I could call people at midnight and have them answer. Presidents, CEOs, bankers, investors—people who could move markets with a sentence knew my name, not because I bought their loyalty, but because over the years I had KEPT MY WORD,PROTECTED MY PARTNERS,AND DELIVERED WHAT I PROMISED. When the first attack came,it wasn't just an attack on my money; it was an attempt to break the network of trust I had spent a lifetime building.
A major financing agreement was frozen, two banking relationships suddenly demanded reviews, and a partner I had personally brought into a multi-country project stopped returning calls. I started looking for the connection instead of reacting to the pressure. My legal team and forensic accountants went through every contract,transaction,email,and corporate filing. Then I found the pattern. Confidential information was moving between people who had no legitimate reason to have it,and the same names kept appearing around decisions that were damaging my businesses. I didn't make threats,and I didn't run to the press. I made ONE CALL to the people I had worked with for years,including government leaders and senior officials who had become partners in projects I had helped bring to their countries. I asked them to meet privately so I could put the evidence in front of them myself. When that room filled, I wasn't asking anyone for a favor. I was showing them exactly what was happening.
Then I made my move. I separated the legitimate operations from compromised relationships, secured independent financing, replaced unauthorized access, and took every unlawful action through the proper legal channels. I reopened the financing they had tried to kill and completed the project they had tried to stop. Every accusation was answered with DOCUMENTS. Every obstacle was answered with RESULTS. And I continued protecting the partners who had stood beside me,because loyalty means something when everything is going wrong. That was the moment they understood their mistake. THEY HAD CONFUSED RESPECT WITH WEAKNESS. I had spent my entire life building relationships,keeping my word,and doing things correctly. They thought that made me an easy target. Instead,it gave me the network,the credibility,and the discipline to come back stronger. THEY DIDN'T BREAK WHAT I BUILT. THEY SHOWED ME HOW STRONG IT REALLY WAS.
XXX | 910 |
| 4 | 🔣🔠🔠🔠🔣 | 1 240 |
| 5 | We move towards LIQUIDITY, EXCELLENT HEALTH, FREEDOM, INNOVATION, and so much more... but the real question is:
-WHAT GOOD CAN I BRING TO YOU?
-WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE YOUR LIFE BETTER?
-WHAT WOULD YOU BUILD IF YOU HAD THE RESOURCES TO BUILD IT?
I'm thinking beyond another project... maybe one day we build our own COUNTRY. A place built from the ground up around the ideas that matter to us. But first, tell me WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE? WHAT DO YOU NEED? WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE?
XXX | 1 586 |
| 6 | I fought them for years. If you think MONEY and CONTROL kept me safe, you still do not understand what they are capable of.
John and I walked a long road together. He knows the BATTLEFRONT better than almost anyone still breathing. I call them SNAKES for a reason. Even that feels like an insult to the animal.
I did not come back to talk. I came back with NEWS and RESULTS. That is why I disappeared. Stay here. You will like what comes next.
XXX | 2 978 |
| 7 | A clean story only needs to be told once.
''Theirs needed ten versions.''
That is the giveaway. Not a leak. Not a whistleblower. The LIE itself. Every rewrite left another mark. Every denial added another date, another name, another hole they had to fill.
People do not scramble like that when they are telling the TRUTH. They scramble when the first version already failed and the next one has to hide the last one.
So stop hunting for a secret file. Watch the edits. The COVER-UP is the confession.
XXX | 2 876 |
| 8 | I want YOU to CONTROL the FUTURE.
-HOW?
You will soon know.
It is TIME to END this CIRCUS. | 2 725 |
| 9 | IN LIES WE TRUST | 3 956 |
| 10 | X – REBORN | 3 912 |
| 11 | You don’t really know me… but you can start by watching the Relentless Patriot. streaming on Apple TV and Amazon Prime 🇺🇸
https://i.fixupx.com/i/status/2089052226920604010 | 1 503 |
| 12 | NO ACTIVITY
NO POSTS | 3 427 |
| 13 | Offshore Papers (Panama / Paradise / Pandora) | 750 |
| 14 | After the Snowden disclosures, pressure mounted on the FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT. For decades the court had operated almost entirely in secret, hearing only from the government. In 2015 the USA FREEDOM ACT created a formal mechanism for the court to appoint independent advocates — amici curiae — in cases that presented novel or significant interpretations of law, particularly those affecting privacy and civil liberties.
The decision to appoint an amicus remains with the court. Appointment is not automatic. Even when an amicus is appointed, the advocate does not represent a specific target. The advocate does not receive the full universe of underlying intelligence reporting in every instance. The government still controls the presentation of the factual record. The proceedings remain closed. The amicus can submit legal arguments and, in some cases, participate in limited proceedings, but the structure does not become a traditional adversarial courtroom.
The REFORM AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2024 expanded the circumstances under which the court is expected to appoint amici. This was presented as a meaningful strengthening of oversight. In reality it adjusted the frequency and formal expectations around appointment while leaving the fundamental architecture unchanged: a secret court, a government monopoly on the initial factual presentation, and an optional independent voice that appears only when the court decides it should.
I have watched this mechanism operate across multiple years. It serves a specific function. When the complete absence of any opposing voice becomes politically unsustainable, a limited opposing voice is introduced. The introduction of that voice is then cited as proof that the system has been reformed. The underlying secrecy, the government’s structural advantage in framing the facts, and the absence of a true defense counsel for affected individuals all remain.
This is consistent with the larger pattern I have shown you.
— Crisis expands authority.
— Visibility creates pressure.
— Selective procedural additions manage the pressure.
— The core capacity continues.
The amici process is one of those procedural additions. It is not nothing. It is also not the creation of a genuinely balanced system. Most public discussion stops at the announcement that independent advocates now participate. Fewer examine the limits on when they participate, what they can see, and how much the government’s informational advantage is actually reduced.
FOLLOW MR X | 3 478 |
| 15 | In April 2024, Congress passed and President Biden signed the REFORM AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2024. It extended SECTION 702 until April 19, 2026. The public was told this was the moment of meaningful correction after years of documented problems inside the FBI’s use of the database.
The most visible changes focused on how the FBI may query data already collected under Section 702 when the query involves a U.S. person. Higher-level approval was required for certain sensitive queries. Some categories of “evidence-of-a-crime” searches were restricted. Additional reporting and internal audit requirements were imposed. The FISA Court was directed to appoint outside advocates (amici) in a wider set of cases. A few collection practices that had already been limited were formally constrained further.
These adjustments were real. They responded to Inspector General findings and public criticism of FBI compliance failures.
What the Act did not do is equally important.
It did not impose a warrant requirement before the government can search Section 702 data for information about Americans. That was the central demand from privacy advocates and from a bipartisan group in Congress. It was rejected. The core authority — warrantless targeting of non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be abroad, with the compelled assistance of U.S. service providers, and the inevitable incidental collection of Americans’ communications — remained intact and was extended for two more years.
The debate was framed as a binary choice between “national security” and “privacy reform.” In practice, the outcome followed the same pattern I have described before. The practices that had become politically toxic were narrowed. The underlying collection architecture was preserved. The capacity first expanded in the years after 2001, formalized in 2008, and repeatedly reauthorized, continues.
The REFORM AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2024 performed a familiar function. It absorbed public and congressional pressure by adjusting the most criticized internal procedures while leaving the foundational warrantless system in place. The two-year sunset ensures the argument will return in 2026, at which point the same sequence can repeat.
Most coverage celebrated the “reforms.”
Fewer examined what was deliberately left unchanged.
I am showing you the distinction because it matters.
Selective constraint of downstream querying is not the same as limiting the upstream collection authority itself. One manages political cost. The other would alter the structure. In 2024, the first path was taken.
FOLLOW MR X | 2 366 |
| 16 | SECTION 702 did not appear in the original PATRIOT ACT. It came later, in 2008, through the FISA Amendments Act. The public was told it was a necessary tool to target foreign terrorists and spies located outside the United States. Collection would occur with the compelled assistance of American electronic service providers. No individual warrant would be required for the foreign target.
That was the surface story.
What I observed was the creation of a durable collection system that sits inside the United States and necessarily captures the communications of Americans who are in contact with those foreign targets. This is called “incidental” collection. The word is precise and also misleading. Once an American’s communication is acquired, it can be retained, searched, and used under rules that are far more permissive than a traditional warrant standard.
In 2012 the authority was extended.
In 2018 it was extended again.
In April 2024 it was reauthorized once more, this time until 2026, through the Reform and Reauthorization Act. Some new limits and reporting requirements were added. The core structure remained.
Each time the public debate focused on the same tension. Officials described SECTION 702 as indispensable against foreign threats. Critics pointed to documented instances of FBI personnel querying the database for Americans’ information in ways that exceeded the intended rules. The surface conversation became a contest between “national security” and “privacy reforms.”
The deeper pattern I have tracked is consistent with what I showed you about the PATRIOT ACT and the USA FREEDOM ACT.
— An expansive collection capability is created. It is justified by foreign threats. It necessarily sweeps in Americans’ data. When misuse or overreach becomes visible, selective reforms are offered. The underlying authority continues.
SECTION 702 is not a temporary emergency measure. It has become a standing feature of the post-2001 architecture. The reauthorizations do not merely continue a program. They confirm that the capacity built under crisis conditions has been normalized.
— Crisis creates the opening.
— Authority is expanded.
— Visibility produces pressure.
— Selective adjustment manages the pressure.
— The core capacity endures.
SECTION 702 is one of the clearest living examples of that sequence still operating today.
FOLLOW MR X | 2 050 |
| 17 | After the PATRIOT ACT expanded the architecture in 2001, the public eventually saw part of what had been built. In June 2013 Edward Snowden released documents showing that SECTION 215 had been used for the bulk collection of domestic telephone metadata. The surface story of “targeted tools against foreign terrorists” collided with the operational reality.
Pressure followed. The same authorities that had been granted in crisis now faced public exposure. By 2015 the response was ready.
On June 2, 2015, President Barack Obama signed the USA FREEDOM ACT into law. The public was told this was the correction. Bulk collection under Section 215 would end. The government would now have to request specific records from the telephone companies with a court order instead of holding the data itself. Some FISA Court opinions would be declassified. An advocate could appear before the court on behalf of privacy interests. Several expiring provisions of the Patriot Act were reauthorized at the same time.
That was the surface story — reform, restored balance, lessons learned.
The most visible and politically damaging program was modified. The broader surveillance architecture was left intact. Roving wiretaps continued. The “lone wolf” provision continued. National Security Letters retained significant power. Information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement remained expanded. The institutional capacity created in 2001 was not dismantled; it was adjusted so that the most publicly toxic element could be removed while the underlying structure continued.
This is a pattern I have observed many times. When an expansion of power becomes too visible and generates sustained resistance, the response is rarely full reversal. The response is selective reform. The element that created the outrage is narrowed or relocated. The rest of the architecture stays in place, now insulated by the appearance of correction.
The USA FREEDOM ACT performed that function. It answered the public demand for change after Snowden while preserving the durable instruments that had been built under the earlier emergency. Most people accepted the surface narrative of reform. Fewer examined what remained operational after the reform was celebrated.
Crisis → Rapid Expansion → Later Exposure → Selective Reform that Protects the Core.
The PATRIOT ACT built capacity.
The USA FREEDOM ACT managed the political cost of that capacity becoming visible.
Both moves belong to the same architecture.
FOLLOW MR X | 1 956 |
| 18 | SECTION 702 did not appear in the original PATRIOT ACT. It came later, in 2008, through the FISA Amendments Act. The public was told it was a necessary tool to target foreign terrorists and spies located outside the United States. Collection would occur with the compelled assistance of American electronic service providers. No individual warrant would be required for the foreign target.
That was the surface story.
What I observed was the creation of a durable collection system that sits inside the United States and necessarily captures the communications of Americans who are in contact with those foreign targets. This is called “incidental” collection. The word is precise and also misleading. Once an American’s communication is acquired, it can be retained, searched, and used under rules that are far more permissive than a traditional warrant standard.
In 2012 the authority was extended.
In 2018 it was extended again.
In April 2024 it was reauthorized once more, this time until 2026, through the Reform and Reauthorization Act. Some new limits and reporting requirements were added. The core structure remained.
Each time the public debate focused on the same tension. Officials described SECTION 702 as indispensable against foreign threats. Critics pointed to documented instances of FBI personnel querying the database for Americans’ information in ways that exceeded the intended rules. The surface conversation became a contest between “national security” and “privacy reforms.”
The deeper pattern I have tracked is consistent with what I showed you about the PATRIOT ACT and the USA FREEDOM ACT. | 1 |
| 19 | SECTION 702 did not appear in the original PATRIOT ACT. It came later, in 2008, through the FISA Amendments Act. The public was told it was a necessary tool to target foreign terrorists and spies located outside the United States. Collection would occur with the compelled assistance of American electronic service providers. No individual warrant would be required for the foreign target.
That was the surface story.
What I observed was the creation of a durable collection system that sits inside the United States and necessarily captures the communications of Americans who are in contact with those foreign targets. This is called “incidental” collection. The word is precise and also misleading. Once an American’s communication is acquired, it can be retained, searched, and used under rules that are far more permissive than a traditional warrant standard.
In 2012 the authority was extended.
In 2018 it was extended again.
In April 2024 it was reauthorized once more, this time until 2026, through the Reform and Reauthorization Act. Some new limits and reporting requirements were added. The core structure remained.
Each time the public debate focused on the same tension. Officials described SECTION 702 as indispensable against foreign threats. Critics pointed to documented instances of FBI personnel querying the database for Americans’ information in ways that exceeded the intended rules. The surface conversation became a contest between “national security” and “privacy reforms.” | 2 |
| 20 | Most of you were told the PATRIOT ACT was written to protect you.
On September 11, 2001 the attacks created a window of pure fear. Within days the machinery was already moving. By October 26, only forty-five days later, President Bush signed the bill into law. The public was told this was about stopping foreign terrorists. That was the surface story.
The authorities written into that law went far beyond the narrow threat that justified them. SECTION 215 allowed the collection of business records on a scale most people never imagined. National Security Letters let the FBI demand information while legally silencing the companies that received the demands. Barriers that once separated foreign intelligence from domestic law enforcement were lowered. The language was carefully crafted so that powers granted in the name of terrorism could later be applied more broadly.
I watched the speed of it. Normal legislative scrutiny disappeared. Debate was compressed. Opposition was framed as unpatriotic. The same pattern I have seen many times: a real crisis is used to expand institutional capacity while public resistance is at its lowest.
Years later, when Edward Snowden released the documents in 2013, the gap between the 2001 justification and the operational reality became visible to anyone willing to look. Bulk collection of domestic telephone metadata had been running under authorities sold to the public as targeted tools against foreign enemies. The exceptional powers had normalized.
Crisis. Compressed timeline. Expanded authority. Reduced oversight. Later normalization.
That sequence did not begin in 2001, and it did not end there. The PATRIOT ACT was one clear demonstration of how durable new instruments of power are created when the public is focused on survival.
FOLLOW MR X | 2 604 |
