Pro-Palestinians programmed, voted against Trump: Watch Kanye West's rant
A video of Kanye has been circulating online.
HT has not independently verified the authenticity of this video.
What's Kanye saying?
Kanye, in the expletive-laden video, can be heard saying, 'You nig** don't know about Palestine, you don't give a f*** about it. The media made you give a f*** about it, and it's shit that you just put up on your motherf***in timeline.'
This rant from Kanye comes after his many anti-Semitic posts, and glorification of Hitler on social media.
On the work front
Kanye has been facing flak on the work front, after he was late to the Shanghai show, with many fans demanding refunds.
'Was hard to get tix for him in Shanghai but got it. Was hyped af. Couldn't even sleep night before. But. Worst concert I've ever been to. @kanyewest u can be better,' one commented after the rapper was almost 40 minutes late after what was billed as his grand return to China after 17 years.
'Mostly lip synching. His microphone must have been up less than 20 per cent of the time,' another said, adding, 'For the encore, he disappeared for over 20 minutes at one point as tracks like Wolves just played out with him nowhere in sight. I could have just played your music at home man. Came to see u perform????'
Troubles on the personal front
Ye is facing troubles on the personal front as well, with an amended lawsuit from former assistant Lauren Pisciotta, accusing him of sexual assault, battery, stalking and sex trafficking. West's spokesperson, meanwhile, has denied these allegations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
20 minutes ago
- News18
UK prosecutors say rocks, eggs thrown at police during asylum hotel protests
London, Jul 21 (AP) Rocks and eggs were thrown at police as they tried to protect a hotel near London being used as accommodation for asylum seekers, prosecutors said Monday as a man arrested in connection with the incident appeared in court. More than 100 protesters — some wearing British flags and releasing red, white and blue smoke — gathered at the Bell Hotel, in Epping Forest, on Sunday as demonstrators gathered to vent their anger after a man was arrested in the area on suspicion of sexual assault. Chanting 'save our kids" and 'send them home," the demonstration escalated, with projectiles thrown at police vans blocking the entrance. Officers escorted a counter-protester from the area after demonstrators surrounded her. A similar protest took place last Thursday. 'Disappointingly, we have seen yet another protest, which begun peacefully, escalate into mindless thuggery with individuals again hurting one of our officers and damaging a police vehicle," Chief Superintendent Simon Anslow of the Essex Police said in a statement on Monday. 'For anyone who thinks we will tolerate their thuggery, think again." The protests come amid escalating tensions over the rising number of asylum seekers who are being housed at government expense in hotels around the UK. Those pressures flared into days of rioting last month in Northern Ireland after two teenagers were arrested on charges of sexual assault. The attacker was a 17-year-old who was born in the UK to parents from Rwanda and was not an asylum seeker, as had been rumoured. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government has acknowledged concerns about immigration and made tackling irregular migration a priority. As Parliament debated the unrest in Epping Forest on Monday, Diana Johnson, the policing minister, said there was no justification for the violence. 'Violent disorder is not a symptom, violent disorder is criminal," she said. 'It's thuggery, it's attacks on our police officers. It should be prosecuted, and people should face the full consequences of the law." Prior to Sunday's protests, local police had issued an order allowing them to force demonstrators to remove face coverings. They later ordered demonstrators to leave the area around the hotel. That dispersal order remained in effect until 4 am Monday. The demonstration came after eight police officers were injured on Thursday after a peaceful protest escalated into violence. Police blamed the violence on people from outside the community who 'arrived at the scene intent on causing trouble." At least nine people have been arrested in connection with the demonstrations, including the 33-year-old man who appeared at Southend Magistrate's Court on Monday. He faces one charge of violent disorder and one charge of criminal damage related to the the unrest that broke out on Thursday. He was released on bail and is scheduled to return to court on August 18. Officers faced 'sustained attacks for over four hours" on Thursday, prosecutors said. The protests outside the hotel were triggered by the arrest of a 38-year-old asylum seeker who was charged with sexual assault after he allegedly attempted to kiss a 14-year-old girl. The man, who denies the charges, was remanded into custody following a court appearance on July 10. 'We don't take sides, we arrest criminals and we have a duty to ensure no-one is hurt — plain and simple,"Anslow said. 'I know the people of Essex know what we're about, so I know they won't believe the rubbish circulating online that is designed to do nothing more than inflame tensions and trouble." Epping Forest District Council, which provides local government services in the area, condemned the violence but said it had long opposed the central government's decision to use the Bell Hotel to house asylum seekers. 'We have consistently shared concerns with the Home Office that the Bell Hotel is an entirely unsuitable location for this facility and should close," the council's leader, Chris Whitbread, said in a statement last week. 'We continue to press Home Office officials for the immediate closure of the site and are encouraged that our local MPs are now actively supporting our call." (AP) GRS GRS view comments First Published: July 21, 2025, 23:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Economic Times
40 minutes ago
- Economic Times
India must enhance its potential as trade and tech partner, and look beyond US
Aap up and away, kya? What is the nature of India's current foreign policy problem, or at least predicament? Donald Trump's episodic statements and social media posts are attention-grabbing. His inner circle's pay-as-you-go diplomacy is alarming. The endless, but unavoidable, wait for tranche 1A of the bilateral trade deal is exasperating. Yet, tactical responses (or non-responses) to any or all of these should not detain us from a strategic re-appraisal. The US' retrenchment from global commitments is creating gaps in three areas - the world's trade and economic system; security frameworks; and provision of international public goods. There is far from a total withdrawal, but the 800-pound gorilla is slimming down to a 700-pound gorilla. What's more, the fat is not being reduced evenly across sectors, regions and geographies. As such, there is the 'known unknown' of the quantum of decline - the notional 100 pounds - but also an 'unknown unknown' of the consistency of American retrenchment: the where, when and for how long. No one nation, partnership or coalition can fill the gap America leaves. This is as true for consumer demand as it is for security architecture. To be sure, different groupings can address some of the gaps in different regions and domains. Read along with fitful, but still inexorable, US-China great power competition, this is leading to two parallel processes of hedging for countries such as India: Tech & security: There's straightforward hedging between the US and China in the digital and strategic technology spheres, as well as security and security-adjacent domains. Here, the space for hedging is like many others, is making its choices. These choices are systemic choices. They have a greater resilience and buy-in in US government agencies, and tech and business constituencies. They will advance with or without the White House's outright support. Sometimes they could even do so in spite of it. Of course, pace and visibility will be modulated. US plus one: Then, a second process involves hedging between the US and like-minded, non-China partners. Here, the space for hedging is actually expanding. Actors such as India seek, if not alternatives, then at least complements and supplements to their export and trade, supply chains, defence and security, and tech relationships with the US. Skewed dependencies are sought to be mitigated to the degree possible. There are attempts to diversify. India and Europe looking to do more together in trade, defence supply chains and innovation is one example. India-Australia cooperation in rare earths is another. Increasing partnerships involving non-US Quad countries, as well as non-Quad countries, in the Indo-Pacific is a said that, in some domains, even a partial withdrawal of the US footprint is so substantial that no new arrangement can entirely fill it. Nevertheless, it is what it is. Volatility and unpredictability are now a way of then, does India navigate the Trumpian age? Revisit the basics. In 1991 (liberalisation), 2000 (Y2K), 2014 (Modi mandate), or 2020-21 (post-Covid), excitement about India was rooted in its potential as a trade and tech partner, as a market for key countries, and as a possible sourcing and supply chains hub for many more. Everything else - cultural and civilisational wealth, democratic and transparency credentials - was, and remains, a useful add-on. Minus economic leverage, India is not a vishwa guru, or even a vishwa mitra; it is a vishwa also-ran. In a time of tariffs and turbulence, with global trade rules being upended and the whole notion of most favoured nation being hollowed out, India once more needs to make its economy and trade attributes the headline of its external strategy. It is not enough to conclude free trade agreements - more accurately, feasible trade agreements - with, depending on who in the government is describing it, 'complementary economies', 'partners to our West' or 'rich countries'. The game is much more gritty, granular and painstaking. India offering a meaningful trade relationship, an economic stake or a supply chain must-have to as many countries as possible is the hard, slow and relentless mechanism to building foreign policy leverage. In such a reckoning, they are simply no non-partners - no countries one can afford to ignore. There will be limitations to what India can do with China and Pakistan, but aside from that, India will need to strive to make itself indispensable to some economic imperative or the other with about every will include individual Asean countries, neighbouring countries - in some of which reckless application of Indian quality control orders (QCOs) has caused legitimate pushback - as well as problem countries such as Turkiye. In the end, what unique economic stake and proposition India offers another nation is the best metric of its foreign policy influence. An aggregation of such stakes and propositions will make for composite national relevance in a smash-and-grab world Minister Narendra Modi's two visits this week - to the UK to conclude a trade deal that, among other things, could give Scotch a market advantage over bourbon, and to the Maldives, where bloody-minded economic engagement has outlasted political acerbity - offer a glimpse of what could be. There'll still be about 200 countries to go. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. From near bankruptcy to blockbuster drug: How Khorakiwala turned around Wockhardt Paid less than plumbers? The real story of freshers' salaries at Infy, TCS. What if Tata Motors buys Iveco's truck unit? Will it propel or drag like JLR? As deposit ground slips under PSU banks' feet, they chase the wealthy If data is the new oil, are data centres the smokestacks of the digital age? Stock Radar: M&M likely to break out from 1-year consolidation range; time to buy? Will consumer stocks see a comeback this festive season? 12 stocks to keep an eye on even when analysts are not bullish Don't fear volatility, focus on businesses: 5 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential of up to 27% Best way to deal with volatility, just ' Hold' for wealth creation: 7 large-cap stocks with an upside potential of up to 41%
Economic Times
41 minutes ago
- Economic Times
US bets $400 million on rare earth champion; Should India rethink its industrial policy?
Agencies MP Materials is not an American company that many would have heard of. It is the only integrated rare earth producer in the US, covering the entire value chain from mining to processing and magnet production. Last week, the US invested $400 mn in it, an attempt to use industrial policy to counter China's might in rare earths. Economics 101 frowns on the use of industrial policy - that is, government 'picking winners'. But it can work if used judiciously. India can learn, particularly from the US experience. In the current mood of de-globalisation and associated economic nationalism, industrial policy has become a global buzzword. But there is a great danger in applying it indiscriminately, particularly in a country like India, which has a long history of largely unsuccessful industrial policy. The fact is that India still does not have a global champion. The key to success lies in three principles: use only for select sectors, front the private sector, and ensure that the supported firms are competing globally. India has often flouted all three. In the most strategic sectors, it is usually the public sector that gets preference. India's industrial policy is oriented towards protection, creating firms or industries that serve the domestic market but are not competitive globally. In the US context, Trump's tariff bluster and blitzkrieg are not industrial policy. They represent a mercantilist strategy to reduce America's trade deficit. They are a political strategy to address key political constituencies. But it's not industrial policy. What the US is doing with MP Materials is. The US government has, for long, supported sectors that are hi-tech or inputs to hi-tech (critical minerals and rare earths in today's world). America's defence manufacturing industry (all of it privately owned) is what it is because of state procurement, an underrated instrument of industrial policy. The rise of SpaceX also owes a great deal to procurement by Nasa. The development of the internet also happened courtesy of R&D spending committed by the US. In India, this is another aspect of industrial policy that is under-recognised and under-funded. Direct state investment in firms is another MP Materials, the US government is now the largest shareholder with a 15% stake, but it allows the company to remain in private hands and function independently. And, in most cases, the goal is to create best-in-the-world companies/industries that can dominate all markets, not just the has a legacy of central planning, like China. While much has changed post-1991, the legacy of central planning lives on - most tellingly via 250-plus PSUs. These are usually given preferences, particularly in strategic sectors. GoI has not moved ahead with privatisation, but at least in defence, there is now a deliberate, welcome attempt to encourage private sector participation. But a challenge long as PSUs exist, GoI will always have to give them business, even when private sector companies are more efficient. In natural resources, GoI gives preference to PSUs (they don't always have to compete in auctions, for example). Even in the race to acquire overseas mineral assets, GoI prefers this un-level playing field, PSUs don't have an incentive to be efficient, while the 'competing' private sector bears the cost. GoI also spends resources propping up PSUs with little future, like BSNL, instead of supporting productive firms and R& also overextends itself. PLI, for example, is a good scheme. It trusts the private sector and has worked well in electronics. But there is less evidence of it working in other sectors. It's better to focus on one or two sectors than spread the greatest challenge for India is to change the mindset from creating firms that produce for India to firms that sell to the world. For this, reliance on protectionist measures like trade barriers must go. GoI should insist that it will only support firms that will be global winners. The writer is chief economist, Vedanta. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. From near bankruptcy to blockbuster drug: How Khorakiwala turned around Wockhardt Paid less than plumbers? The real story of freshers' salaries at Infy, TCS. What if Tata Motors buys Iveco's truck unit? Will it propel or drag like JLR? As deposit ground slips under PSU banks' feet, they chase the wealthy If data is the new oil, are data centres the smokestacks of the digital age? Stock Radar: M&M likely to break out from 1-year consolidation range; time to buy? Will consumer stocks see a comeback this festive season? 12 stocks to keep an eye on even when analysts are not bullish Don't fear volatility, focus on businesses: 5 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential of up to 27% Best way to deal with volatility, just ' Hold' for wealth creation: 7 large-cap stocks with an upside potential of up to 41%
