Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

A 24-year-old Kurdish guy with an impressive 19 cm (7.5 inch) dick 🍌💦 absolutely wrecked me!🥵 During sex, he completely took my ass apart and spanked me hard!👋🏼🍑 It was an unforgettable, wild ride that left me speechless!😈🔥 #HotEncounter #WildNight #IntenseVibes #HardSlaps You will find the entire porn on... show more

CrossDresserGERMANY 🇩🇪

17,022 subscribers

136,234 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #HotEncounter #WildNight #IntenseVibes #HardSlaps

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🎵My Dolly Parton Story🎶 - (Video and additional photos in 🧵 below) Exactly one year before the government shut down the world because of the #CommieVirus — especially killing the live entertainment industry — my bands were firing on all cylinders. My private event band, Bull City Syndicate, was doing especially well. We’d been the headlining entertainment for the past two North Carolina Governor’s Inaugural Balls, and played hundreds of high-end corporate events, charity balls, and top-shelf weddings. On March 2, 2019, we were especially excited to be hired as the featured entertainment for a charity event where Dolly Parton would be the main attraction. Not as a musical performer herself, but to promote her own charity, Imagination Library (Imagination Library), and to do a live poetry reading from her own work. The event was the 25th Anniversary Smart Start Gala. Raleigh’s mayor, the governor of NC, and many other VIPs would be in attendance. While the event planner never suggested that we perform or back up Dolly on any of her tunes, it was, in the back of my mind, something I thought would have been really cool. But not something I’d dare suggest or insinuate on my own. My only preshow contact with Dolly’s organization was with her head of security. The Marble’s Kids Museum in Raleigh, NC is a fabulous venue for fun charity events, but it has only one “green room” next to the staging area. Security informed me that the band would have to completely evacuate that shared space at least 30-minutes before Dolly arrived for her portion of the evening’s proceedings. (Not an unusual or inappropriate request, given her enormous superstar status.) The entire 10-piece band was on stage when Dolly was escorted through the back entrance and into the green room. There was some back-and-forth between VIP speeches and live music, so the band stayed in place throughout. Since the event was completely sold out and standing room only, we knew we’d have the best vantage of Dolly if we just stayed on the stage. Dolly’s presentation was scheduled to be only about 10-15 minutes. While the governor and mayor were delivering remarks just in advance of Dolly taking the stage, I looked back at the green room door, off stage left, and I saw my son, Duncan, in full-on, intense conversation with Dolly! (WHAT?!) Duncan, who was only 20 years old at the time and already a freak-of-nature musician himself, was working on my stage crew that night. I’m the band leader, so I’m having to give full attention to the event host and what’s happening on the speaker’s side of the stage … but only 20 feet away, Duncan and Dolly are chatting away like long-lost friends. Finally, at one of my many glances in their direction, Dolly and Duncan catch my eye and both start waving me over to them. I silently point at my chest, then mouth, “Me?” They both nod, say yes, and wave more insistently. I dart off the stage, over to the dimly lit green room entrance corridor. Duncan, who is much taller than I am, puts his hand on my shoulder and introduces me to “Dolly Parton.” (You can imagine the look on my face. Ha!) He tells me that Dolly has a request. I lean down to put my ear close to Dolly, so that she wouldn’t have to speak too loudly while the governor was talking to the audience. (I can imitate her voice, and I wish you could hear it in her voice and Tennessee mountain accent right now.) She says to me: “I didn’t know there was going to be a band here tonight. If I’d known there would be a band, I’d have had you learn some of my songs.” Then she came right out with it. “Do y’all know any of my songs?” I straightened back up, and over the course of less than five seconds my mind raced through every Top-40 solo and duet hit single of hers I’d ever heard on the radio. Country, pop, and otherwise. I made an immediate band leader decision … and lied my ass off. “Yes, we can play ‘Jolene.’” We’d never performed or rehearsed “Jolene,” or any other Dolly Parton tune, in the 20 years I’d led that band. The conversation continued: DOLLY: “Y’all know ‘Jolene?!’” ME: “Yes, ma’am.” DOLLY: “That’s great! When I finish reading my poem, I’ll tell everyone we’re going to sing ‘Jolene.’” ME: “We’ll be ready. What key do you do ‘Jolene’ in?” DOLLY: “I don’t know.” Dolly’s personal assistant leaned over to me and whispered in my ear, “C minor.” (Cm) The original key for “Jolene” was C-sharp minor (C#m), but I assume at 73 years old she might be lowering keys, as many aging vocalists tend to do. I gave Dolly an assuring look and said, “Thank you.” I looked at Duncan with an eye-raised, “Oh, sh-t” look on my face, then ran to the stage and called an emergency huddle of my rhythm section as Governor Cooper droned on in the background. In whispered, panicked tones, I told them, “Guys, you have 10 minutes to learn ‘Jolene’ … Key of C minor … GO!” The guys immediately took out their phones and pulled up the song, each listening privately through their in-ear monitors or holding the phone speaker close to their heads. They started silently fingering around on the guitar and bass guitar frets, and the keyboards. Our drummer sat quietly and listened to the track on his phone. I darted over to our female lead singer, Danie Ward, and asked her if she knew the words and background harmonies to “Jolene.” She gave me “The Look.” Back story … Danie was with my band for over ten years. She was my all-time favorite female lead vocalist, and we became great friends. She and her husband were very active in their church as pastor and she as worship leader. She and her sisters also performed for many years as a family Gospel group. But Danie, as a Black gospel artist, was immensely versatile, able to sing anything from Aretha Franklin to Lady Gaga and leaving you wanting more. And although a Black Gospel artist, her secret desire and ambition was to be a Country music artist. (I kid you not.) So, when I asked her if she knew the words and harmonies to “Jolene,” THE LOOK she gave me was … “Seriously? You dare ask ME that question?” All I needed in response from Danie was “The Look.” No words spoken, and I slinked away appropriately chastised. My band members were all world-class pros, at every position. Especially that rhythm section. Most of whom had been with me for many years at this point. They ended up with more than 10 minutes to quietly and individually—with no rehearsal—learn “Jolene.” A few more minutes passed before Dolly was introduced and brought onstage; then she took another 20 minutes to deliver her remarks and poetry reading. The guys were ready. Dolly finished her poem to a round of applause and immediately announced she’d be performing “Jolene” for them. They cheered in approval. My drummer clicked a four count with his drumsticks, and they were off. As soon as Dolly began to sing the first words of the song, you can see me — in the video below — walking across the front of the stage with a huge smile on my face. Danie then got the thrill of her life. As soon as she’d finished singing the first round of harmonies behind Dolly’s lead, Dolly turned and looked toward Danie and said loudly into the mic, “Good job!” No one knew how or when Dolly wanted to end the song, so there was no real conclusion. They all just kinda stopped. But the audience was enthusiastically grateful they’d gotten more than what they paid for that night. I do wish the event planner had informed Dolly and her team that a band was at the event. I’d have loved to have learned a handful of her songs for the show. Maybe I’d have even been able to sing with her one of her chart-topping duets that she recorded with Kenny Rogers. Even though I never personally sang or performed a single musical note with Dolly, I’ll always be able to say “My band” performed with Dolly Parton. —— Postscript: A few days after that event, I received a call from Dolly’s personal assistant. (The same guy who whispered “C minor” into my ear.) He said he needed my son's address because Dolly had a gift she wanted to send him. Dolly’s PA explained that Duncan reminded her so much of her late brother, Floyd, when he was Duncan’s age. She wanted to send Duncan something special. For whatever reason, the package never arrived. Whether lost in the shuffle of Dolly’s or her staff’s busy life, or because some porch pirate pilfered it, Duncan never received that gift. But the very thought that was conveyed shows you what kind of person Dolly was. (Photos in thread below.) —— Post Postscript: Later that same year, I was attending the W.C. Handy Music Festival in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. At the time, I was managing a renowned Shoals songwriter and his band, James LeBlanc & The Winchesters. Some members of James’ band were performing a lunchtime show at one of the local Shoals area eateries as part of the 10-day festival’s scheduled events. I arrived a few minutes late, and the place was packed. Seated alone at a table near the stage was a woman with bleached Big Hair. She saw me looking for a spot and waved me over. Before I got to the table, I knew she had to be related to Dolly. Sure enough, it was Stella Parton, Dolly’s sister. Stella has had her own far less notable career in music, so I made sure not to gush over Dolly (just in case, and not knowing the family dynamics), but I did tell her about my band performing with Dolly earlier that year. I will forever and always have that story to tell. ⬇️

🎵My Dolly Parton Story🎶 - (Video and additional photos in 🧵 below) Exactly one year before the government shut down the world because of the #CommieVirus — especially killing the live entertainment industry — my bands were firing on all cylinders. My private event band, Bull City Syndicate, was doing especially well. We’d been the headlining entertainment for the past two North Carolina Governor’s Inaugural Balls, and played hundreds of high-end corporate events, charity balls, and top-shelf weddings. On March 2, 2019, we were especially excited to be hired as the featured entertainment for a charity event where Dolly Parton would be the main attraction. Not as a musical performer herself, but to promote her own charity, Imagination Library (Imagination Library), and to do a live poetry reading from her own work. The event was the 25th Anniversary Smart Start Gala. Raleigh’s mayor, the governor of NC, and many other VIPs would be in attendance. While the event planner never suggested that we perform or back up Dolly on any of her tunes, it was, in the back of my mind, something I thought would have been really cool. But not something I’d dare suggest or insinuate on my own. My only preshow contact with Dolly’s organization was with her head of security. The Marble’s Kids Museum in Raleigh, NC is a fabulous venue for fun charity events, but it has only one “green room” next to the staging area. Security informed me that the band would have to completely evacuate that shared space at least 30-minutes before Dolly arrived for her portion of the evening’s proceedings. (Not an unusual or inappropriate request, given her enormous superstar status.) The entire 10-piece band was on stage when Dolly was escorted through the back entrance and into the green room. There was some back-and-forth between VIP speeches and live music, so the band stayed in place throughout. Since the event was completely sold out and standing room only, we knew we’d have the best vantage of Dolly if we just stayed on the stage. Dolly’s presentation was scheduled to be only about 10-15 minutes. While the governor and mayor were delivering remarks just in advance of Dolly taking the stage, I looked back at the green room door, off stage left, and I saw my son, Duncan, in full-on, intense conversation with Dolly! (WHAT?!) Duncan, who was only 20 years old at the time and already a freak-of-nature musician himself, was working on my stage crew that night. I’m the band leader, so I’m having to give full attention to the event host and what’s happening on the speaker’s side of the stage … but only 20 feet away, Duncan and Dolly are chatting away like long-lost friends. Finally, at one of my many glances in their direction, Dolly and Duncan catch my eye and both start waving me over to them. I silently point at my chest, then mouth, “Me?” They both nod, say yes, and wave more insistently. I dart off the stage, over to the dimly lit green room entrance corridor. Duncan, who is much taller than I am, puts his hand on my shoulder and introduces me to “Dolly Parton.” (You can imagine the look on my face. Ha!) He tells me that Dolly has a request. I lean down to put my ear close to Dolly, so that she wouldn’t have to speak too loudly while the governor was talking to the audience. (I can imitate her voice, and I wish you could hear it in her voice and Tennessee mountain accent right now.) She says to me: “I didn’t know there was going to be a band here tonight. If I’d known there would be a band, I’d have had you learn some of my songs.” Then she came right out with it. “Do y’all know any of my songs?” I straightened back up, and over the course of less than five seconds my mind raced through every Top-40 solo and duet hit single of hers I’d ever heard on the radio. Country, pop, and otherwise. I made an immediate band leader decision … and lied my ass off. “Yes, we can play ‘Jolene.’” We’d never performed or rehearsed “Jolene,” or any other Dolly Parton tune, in the 20 years I’d led that band. The conversation continued: DOLLY: “Y’all know ‘Jolene?!’” ME: “Yes, ma’am.” DOLLY: “That’s great! When I finish reading my poem, I’ll tell everyone we’re going to sing ‘Jolene.’” ME: “We’ll be ready. What key do you do ‘Jolene’ in?” DOLLY: “I don’t know.” Dolly’s personal assistant leaned over to me and whispered in my ear, “C minor.” (Cm) The original key for “Jolene” was C-sharp minor (C#m), but I assume at 73 years old she might be lowering keys, as many aging vocalists tend to do. I gave Dolly an assuring look and said, “Thank you.” I looked at Duncan with an eye-raised, “Oh, sh-t” look on my face, then ran to the stage and called an emergency huddle of my rhythm section as Governor Cooper droned on in the background. In whispered, panicked tones, I told them, “Guys, you have 10 minutes to learn ‘Jolene’ … Key of C minor … GO!” The guys immediately took out their phones and pulled up the song, each listening privately through their in-ear monitors or holding the phone speaker close to their heads. They started silently fingering around on the guitar and bass guitar frets, and the keyboards. Our drummer sat quietly and listened to the track on his phone. I darted over to our female lead singer, Danie Ward, and asked her if she knew the words and background harmonies to “Jolene.” She gave me “The Look.” Back story … Danie was with my band for over ten years. She was my all-time favorite female lead vocalist, and we became great friends. She and her husband were very active in their church as pastor and she as worship leader. She and her sisters also performed for many years as a family Gospel group. But Danie, as a Black gospel artist, was immensely versatile, able to sing anything from Aretha Franklin to Lady Gaga and leaving you wanting more. And although a Black Gospel artist, her secret desire and ambition was to be a Country music artist. (I kid you not.) So, when I asked her if she knew the words and harmonies to “Jolene,” THE LOOK she gave me was … “Seriously? You dare ask ME that question?” All I needed in response from Danie was “The Look.” No words spoken, and I slinked away appropriately chastised. My band members were all world-class pros, at every position. Especially that rhythm section. Most of whom had been with me for many years at this point. They ended up with more than 10 minutes to quietly and individually—with no rehearsal—learn “Jolene.” A few more minutes passed before Dolly was introduced and brought onstage; then she took another 20 minutes to deliver her remarks and poetry reading. The guys were ready. Dolly finished her poem to a round of applause and immediately announced she’d be performing “Jolene” for them. They cheered in approval. My drummer clicked a four count with his drumsticks, and they were off. As soon as Dolly began to sing the first words of the song, you can see me — in the video below — walking across the front of the stage with a huge smile on my face. Danie then got the thrill of her life. As soon as she’d finished singing the first round of harmonies behind Dolly’s lead, Dolly turned and looked toward Danie and said loudly into the mic, “Good job!” No one knew how or when Dolly wanted to end the song, so there was no real conclusion. They all just kinda stopped. But the audience was enthusiastically grateful they’d gotten more than what they paid for that night. I do wish the event planner had informed Dolly and her team that a band was at the event. I’d have loved to have learned a handful of her songs for the show. Maybe I’d have even been able to sing with her one of her chart-topping duets that she recorded with Kenny Rogers. Even though I never personally sang or performed a single musical note with Dolly, I’ll always be able to say “My band” performed with Dolly Parton. —— Postscript: A few days after that event, I received a call from Dolly’s personal assistant. (The same guy who whispered “C minor” into my ear.) He said he needed my son's address because Dolly had a gift she wanted to send him. Dolly’s PA explained that Duncan reminded her so much of her late brother, Floyd, when he was Duncan’s age. She wanted to send Duncan something special. For whatever reason, the package never arrived. Whether lost in the shuffle of Dolly’s or her staff’s busy life, or because some porch pirate pilfered it, Duncan never received that gift. But the very thought that was conveyed shows you what kind of person Dolly was. (Photos in thread below.) —— Post Postscript: Later that same year, I was attending the W.C. Handy Music Festival in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. At the time, I was managing a renowned Shoals songwriter and his band, James LeBlanc & The Winchesters. Some members of James’ band were performing a lunchtime show at one of the local Shoals area eateries as part of the 10-day festival’s scheduled events. I arrived a few minutes late, and the place was packed. Seated alone at a table near the stage was a woman with bleached Big Hair. She saw me looking for a spot and waved me over. Before I got to the table, I knew she had to be related to Dolly. Sure enough, it was Stella Parton, Dolly’s sister. Stella has had her own far less notable career in music, so I made sure not to gush over Dolly (just in case, and not knowing the family dynamics), but I did tell her about my band performing with Dolly earlier that year. I will forever and always have that story to tell. ⬇️

Steve Baker

50,752 views • 1 month ago

.Christian Rivera (el que dijo que KOI era un equipo de mierda y se dedicaba a acosar a los jugadores) me llama nena en su stream, me dice que no tengo idea de lol y que soy un cagón. Obviando la fantasmada histórica, vamos a hablar un poco de mí y de este estafador: 👇 Lo voy a hacer en inglés para que puedan salir todos sus fanboys (tres o cuatro) y para que no tenga la excusa de la traducción. Yo no necesito esconderme. Le dais al translate y pilláis rápidamente el flow. As for the question of who am I, I think it is the mark of a moron to expect your name to carry your takes. Anyone can and will make plenty of mistakes when talking about complicated and opinionated subjects such as League. I feel context is necessary if you are coming late to what is quickly becoming a shouting match. My beef with Dom is based on me accusing him of basically being a grifter. Someone pretending to understand competitive League at a high level to sell gambling content to unaware kids after, in one of his many desperate attempts to claw his way back into pseudo-relevance, he declared KOI players to be "shit" and made this a running joke within his fandom. These alleged "shit players" in a "shit team" made finals on their first split and worlds on their first year. After upgrading their midlane to Jojopyun, have just now won LEC and made MSI. 2/5 finals, 2/4 internationals and a 3-1 LEC split finals against Cap's G2. Seems to me that, after combining defamatory language with such an ill-informed professional blunder (I don't consider him a analyst but he does, so it is a professional blunder from his pretended pov), it would fall on Dominate to give a proper public explanation. Instead, he hides on his stream while accusing others of cowardice. Let's put a pin on that and come back to the subject of what have I ever done (a weak whataboutism that barely qualifies as an excuse for running a harassment campaign against rookie players). I started taking League seriously and joined the scene as a writer in 2017. By the end of that year I managed to join Mad Lions, a team that would find great success without me during 2018, being that I left within the span of two weeks. After an argument with then coach Araneae, I became disillusioned with the competitive side of League. In this argument my head coach, a veteran player and unarguably successful coach before and since, was adamant about the idea that lane matchups decide strongside. I argued that it is actually jungle windows of play that determine who should get to push the wave. Today, we all know it's a bit of a mixed bag, and winning matchups have evolved much beyond who gets to crash any given wave. We agreed that both of us were people that have a hard time letting go of our opinions and parted ways amicably. To me, what makes League a worthwhile pursuit is exploring the interesting ideas that can be built through it, not necessarily the drive to win. I left the team wanting to use content as a means to an end, as after that argument, I became obsessed with understanding the competitive jungle. It took me a year and a half, and you can call it luck, but I'm actually quite proud of the narratives I was able to push building around that knowledge. By MSI 2019, attended by at the time world champion "Ning" and mechanical prodigy "Clid", I pushed Jankos as the clear best jungler of the tournament. I understand the English speaking community has no way of knowing this, but I faced significant backlash for putting a western player above these two greats. His cover style of jungle allowed G2 to greedily succeed in getting the most of their flex-heavy drafts that often landed them on the winning side of matchups, and coasted them into a midgame where they found no match. G2 took that tournament and set a record for the quickest international finals. By the time EU legend Jankos arrived at worlds, many had them as the key player/mvp that made 2019 G2 work. This time, even though most experts had Clid as clear top 1 jungler and I had just found success (maybe luck?) through Jankos, I actually pushed Tian as the top 1. Admittedly, this one is kind of murky, since it was Doinb's understanding of midlane windows that actually had Tian play the peak of his career. Still, the fact remains that FPX brought the best jungle/river play system and ended up taking the tournament. Finally, after a clear-cut exceptional Canyon that dominated 2020 and pushed the limits of what jungle efficiency is (hard to argue against his inherent quality nor was I ever inclined to do so), I had Wei as my top jungler for 2021's MSI. This time, professional junglers (with whom I had an amicable relationship, this was not in bad faith) wrote to me privately, joking about how they were expecting for the tournament to end and Canyon to stomp Wei so they could laugh at me publically and quote-RT my tierlist. I was committing the sacrilege of putting some chinese guy above the best jungler to ever play the game, in the tournament following his peak performance. Sadly, their time never came. Wei's mastery of damage limits and unique skill with the Rumble pick (which was disgustingly broken, even if only one guy could actually play it, never mind what Phreak's winrate analysis told you) made Canyon's Morgana spam look disappointing to say the least. Bear in mind that Canyon is still in my mind the best jungler to ever play the game, he just wasn't in his best form at that particular MSI. Call it luck if you want, but bringing three dark horse takes in a row and have them all pay you back is no easy feat. Ask Dom how his KOI take is doing, I don't think he's too happy with it. I can't sit here with you and spend all day exploring every bullseye I've ever gotten (there isn't enough room in a tweet), but I can tell you a few more. Had Fnatic becoming a dysfunctional team over Razork´s transition from selfish jungler into adc lapdog, recently confirmed by Vladi in chat (I think he is a bit better than Dom at the game). Had "Nisqy will never make an international tournament ever again" after he parted ways with Elyoya, while other content creators were pushing the opposite. We had to sit for years and pretend he was enabling Elyoya to look good and not the other way around. Nisqy seems like a fun guy, I'm actually low-key a fan of his, but I don't build my takes on whose dick I can suck deep enough so that they might show up on my stream and give me credibility by association (unlike other people). I had 2023 T1 beating JDG when the narrative was JDG's royal road. How? Because since MSI 2022 I've been pushing every team to study T1's early vision system. Like, I literally said over and over again, whoever is not studying this team's early vision system is hard trolling. Recorded several videos on it. This is before Faker ever made world finals against DRX. Back when I was saying T1 had revolutionized competitive League of Legends, accusations were that T1 were washed and chokers (remember which side of that narrative jungle soloq genius IWD was on?). After they made three World's finals in a row and won two of them, it seems like I was onto something, wasn't I? I also made a very controversial video in 2022 that titles "The Second Korean Age", speaking about how T1's advancement in vision systems would push Korea ahead for years to come. It was pretty controversial back then, in 2022, when China had won 3/5 of the last world championships. Now Korea has won three years in a row, not so controversial anymore. Lucky again. However, my proudest work is not something that seems that impressive at first glance. It's called "Pyramids towards 13.19". It's a work that explores the evolution of season 13's World's metagame, drawing a paralellism between understanding a patch and the religions in the lost city of Teotihuacán, wherein they'd build towards the sky in order to get a bit closer to the gods without any possible end to that process. Just as a side note, I also have a video about how laning between turrets is sleeper op and Riot will have to nerf it eventually. T1 and some Chinese teams were toying with it last summer, but everyone focused on swaps instead (as they were easier to build and had a more solid body of working examples). I recorded my theory in 2023 MSI and watched the best teams in the world converge on it a year later. There is more stuff like this, but again, I can't list it all. Not bad for a nobody, I wonder how that compares to knowing what item is op on Volibear in terms of respectable and interesting knowledge of the game. I often get professional coaching offers, including at the LEC level, despite only having two weeks of experience on the job. I've made a habit of declining them in order to keep working on what I consider to be interesting. Other than that, I've built quite a successful private media platform centered around analytical pro League discussion (that thing everyone tells you no one actually cares for) in a dwindling ecosystem where no one understands what people care about enough to pay for. I'd say that's pretty impressive in and of itself. As far as I can see, your numbers keep going down, so maybe I can help you with that too. So at this point I wonder, at which point am I allowed to ask what has Dominate ever done? Other than harassing players, a pattern older than his beef with KOI. I remember he used to gloat and act like an absolute turd, reacting to Rekkles' tears for YouTube views back when he had that string of public breakdowns. Is this a moral standard on which he gets to call me out on the crime of (and I wish I was kidding), posting a screenshot without context and then defending the Kcorp player "Vladi" in it to my Spanish-speaking fans? What a fucking ass I am. I wish I could harass kids online, sell gambling to minors, and bully people having public breakdowns so I could have the legitimacy of a real, tried-and-true voice of the community. The absolute gall to call me a pussy while you hide behind reaction content disguised as insight, a parasite of the co-streaming era of content, while I put my best foot forward building interesting stories that no one is talking about and get proven right; over and over. How is that KOI take aging mate, are you proud of that one? Where are your deep explanations? The actual content, where is it? Other than ragebaiting I mean. I'd really love to check it out, since you are sooo good at clicking with Udyr on the NA server. I want to remind everyone, as this can't be stressed enough, that this whole beef is about a guy making a shit (joke intended) take. Posing as a respectable professional to sell gambling while completely uninformed, driving a harassment campaing against players he knows nothing about, and then being butthurt that some Spanish guy calls him out on his pattern of abuse. You see, my mistake was that he can get Challenger on Dr. Mundo or whatever the fuck he plays, which somehow turns this into a debate and not someone being called out for acting like an absolute asshole. Then it invalidates my whole career, as I don't speak 3rd grade English natively and am unwilling to leave behind my people who supported me from the beginning. All I know about you, Dom, is that you are a bully who seems to enjoy it. Believe it or not, I'm not eager to get into a screaming match while I teach you league for free, all while joining your stream that averages similar numbers (while having streaming rights for years) as mine does broadcasting a stopwatch whenever I feel like streaming once in a blue moon. I don't think it takes courage to do that. It takes pity, of which I don't have enough for you, or perhaps a morbid curiosity for whatever might you say when actually confronted by a human. But I don't have that either, since I already know what you are going to say, the same thing you always say. "One time, ten years ago, I almost was"

.Christian Rivera (el que dijo que KOI era un equipo de mierda y se dedicaba a acosar a los jugadores) me llama nena en su stream, me dice que no tengo idea de lol y que soy un cagón. Obviando la fantasmada histórica, vamos a hablar un poco de mí y de este estafador: 👇 Lo voy a hacer en inglés para que puedan salir todos sus fanboys (tres o cuatro) y para que no tenga la excusa de la traducción. Yo no necesito esconderme. Le dais al translate y pilláis rápidamente el flow. As for the question of who am I, I think it is the mark of a moron to expect your name to carry your takes. Anyone can and will make plenty of mistakes when talking about complicated and opinionated subjects such as League. I feel context is necessary if you are coming late to what is quickly becoming a shouting match. My beef with Dom is based on me accusing him of basically being a grifter. Someone pretending to understand competitive League at a high level to sell gambling content to unaware kids after, in one of his many desperate attempts to claw his way back into pseudo-relevance, he declared KOI players to be "shit" and made this a running joke within his fandom. These alleged "shit players" in a "shit team" made finals on their first split and worlds on their first year. After upgrading their midlane to Jojopyun, have just now won LEC and made MSI. 2/5 finals, 2/4 internationals and a 3-1 LEC split finals against Cap's G2. Seems to me that, after combining defamatory language with such an ill-informed professional blunder (I don't consider him a analyst but he does, so it is a professional blunder from his pretended pov), it would fall on Dominate to give a proper public explanation. Instead, he hides on his stream while accusing others of cowardice. Let's put a pin on that and come back to the subject of what have I ever done (a weak whataboutism that barely qualifies as an excuse for running a harassment campaign against rookie players). I started taking League seriously and joined the scene as a writer in 2017. By the end of that year I managed to join Mad Lions, a team that would find great success without me during 2018, being that I left within the span of two weeks. After an argument with then coach Araneae, I became disillusioned with the competitive side of League. In this argument my head coach, a veteran player and unarguably successful coach before and since, was adamant about the idea that lane matchups decide strongside. I argued that it is actually jungle windows of play that determine who should get to push the wave. Today, we all know it's a bit of a mixed bag, and winning matchups have evolved much beyond who gets to crash any given wave. We agreed that both of us were people that have a hard time letting go of our opinions and parted ways amicably. To me, what makes League a worthwhile pursuit is exploring the interesting ideas that can be built through it, not necessarily the drive to win. I left the team wanting to use content as a means to an end, as after that argument, I became obsessed with understanding the competitive jungle. It took me a year and a half, and you can call it luck, but I'm actually quite proud of the narratives I was able to push building around that knowledge. By MSI 2019, attended by at the time world champion "Ning" and mechanical prodigy "Clid", I pushed Jankos as the clear best jungler of the tournament. I understand the English speaking community has no way of knowing this, but I faced significant backlash for putting a western player above these two greats. His cover style of jungle allowed G2 to greedily succeed in getting the most of their flex-heavy drafts that often landed them on the winning side of matchups, and coasted them into a midgame where they found no match. G2 took that tournament and set a record for the quickest international finals. By the time EU legend Jankos arrived at worlds, many had them as the key player/mvp that made 2019 G2 work. This time, even though most experts had Clid as clear top 1 jungler and I had just found success (maybe luck?) through Jankos, I actually pushed Tian as the top 1. Admittedly, this one is kind of murky, since it was Doinb's understanding of midlane windows that actually had Tian play the peak of his career. Still, the fact remains that FPX brought the best jungle/river play system and ended up taking the tournament. Finally, after a clear-cut exceptional Canyon that dominated 2020 and pushed the limits of what jungle efficiency is (hard to argue against his inherent quality nor was I ever inclined to do so), I had Wei as my top jungler for 2021's MSI. This time, professional junglers (with whom I had an amicable relationship, this was not in bad faith) wrote to me privately, joking about how they were expecting for the tournament to end and Canyon to stomp Wei so they could laugh at me publically and quote-RT my tierlist. I was committing the sacrilege of putting some chinese guy above the best jungler to ever play the game, in the tournament following his peak performance. Sadly, their time never came. Wei's mastery of damage limits and unique skill with the Rumble pick (which was disgustingly broken, even if only one guy could actually play it, never mind what Phreak's winrate analysis told you) made Canyon's Morgana spam look disappointing to say the least. Bear in mind that Canyon is still in my mind the best jungler to ever play the game, he just wasn't in his best form at that particular MSI. Call it luck if you want, but bringing three dark horse takes in a row and have them all pay you back is no easy feat. Ask Dom how his KOI take is doing, I don't think he's too happy with it. I can't sit here with you and spend all day exploring every bullseye I've ever gotten (there isn't enough room in a tweet), but I can tell you a few more. Had Fnatic becoming a dysfunctional team over Razork´s transition from selfish jungler into adc lapdog, recently confirmed by Vladi in chat (I think he is a bit better than Dom at the game). Had "Nisqy will never make an international tournament ever again" after he parted ways with Elyoya, while other content creators were pushing the opposite. We had to sit for years and pretend he was enabling Elyoya to look good and not the other way around. Nisqy seems like a fun guy, I'm actually low-key a fan of his, but I don't build my takes on whose dick I can suck deep enough so that they might show up on my stream and give me credibility by association (unlike other people). I had 2023 T1 beating JDG when the narrative was JDG's royal road. How? Because since MSI 2022 I've been pushing every team to study T1's early vision system. Like, I literally said over and over again, whoever is not studying this team's early vision system is hard trolling. Recorded several videos on it. This is before Faker ever made world finals against DRX. Back when I was saying T1 had revolutionized competitive League of Legends, accusations were that T1 were washed and chokers (remember which side of that narrative jungle soloq genius IWD was on?). After they made three World's finals in a row and won two of them, it seems like I was onto something, wasn't I? I also made a very controversial video in 2022 that titles "The Second Korean Age", speaking about how T1's advancement in vision systems would push Korea ahead for years to come. It was pretty controversial back then, in 2022, when China had won 3/5 of the last world championships. Now Korea has won three years in a row, not so controversial anymore. Lucky again. However, my proudest work is not something that seems that impressive at first glance. It's called "Pyramids towards 13.19". It's a work that explores the evolution of season 13's World's metagame, drawing a paralellism between understanding a patch and the religions in the lost city of Teotihuacán, wherein they'd build towards the sky in order to get a bit closer to the gods without any possible end to that process. Just as a side note, I also have a video about how laning between turrets is sleeper op and Riot will have to nerf it eventually. T1 and some Chinese teams were toying with it last summer, but everyone focused on swaps instead (as they were easier to build and had a more solid body of working examples). I recorded my theory in 2023 MSI and watched the best teams in the world converge on it a year later. There is more stuff like this, but again, I can't list it all. Not bad for a nobody, I wonder how that compares to knowing what item is op on Volibear in terms of respectable and interesting knowledge of the game. I often get professional coaching offers, including at the LEC level, despite only having two weeks of experience on the job. I've made a habit of declining them in order to keep working on what I consider to be interesting. Other than that, I've built quite a successful private media platform centered around analytical pro League discussion (that thing everyone tells you no one actually cares for) in a dwindling ecosystem where no one understands what people care about enough to pay for. I'd say that's pretty impressive in and of itself. As far as I can see, your numbers keep going down, so maybe I can help you with that too. So at this point I wonder, at which point am I allowed to ask what has Dominate ever done? Other than harassing players, a pattern older than his beef with KOI. I remember he used to gloat and act like an absolute turd, reacting to Rekkles' tears for YouTube views back when he had that string of public breakdowns. Is this a moral standard on which he gets to call me out on the crime of (and I wish I was kidding), posting a screenshot without context and then defending the Kcorp player "Vladi" in it to my Spanish-speaking fans? What a fucking ass I am. I wish I could harass kids online, sell gambling to minors, and bully people having public breakdowns so I could have the legitimacy of a real, tried-and-true voice of the community. The absolute gall to call me a pussy while you hide behind reaction content disguised as insight, a parasite of the co-streaming era of content, while I put my best foot forward building interesting stories that no one is talking about and get proven right; over and over. How is that KOI take aging mate, are you proud of that one? Where are your deep explanations? The actual content, where is it? Other than ragebaiting I mean. I'd really love to check it out, since you are sooo good at clicking with Udyr on the NA server. I want to remind everyone, as this can't be stressed enough, that this whole beef is about a guy making a shit (joke intended) take. Posing as a respectable professional to sell gambling while completely uninformed, driving a harassment campaing against players he knows nothing about, and then being butthurt that some Spanish guy calls him out on his pattern of abuse. You see, my mistake was that he can get Challenger on Dr. Mundo or whatever the fuck he plays, which somehow turns this into a debate and not someone being called out for acting like an absolute asshole. Then it invalidates my whole career, as I don't speak 3rd grade English natively and am unwilling to leave behind my people who supported me from the beginning. All I know about you, Dom, is that you are a bully who seems to enjoy it. Believe it or not, I'm not eager to get into a screaming match while I teach you league for free, all while joining your stream that averages similar numbers (while having streaming rights for years) as mine does broadcasting a stopwatch whenever I feel like streaming once in a blue moon. I don't think it takes courage to do that. It takes pity, of which I don't have enough for you, or perhaps a morbid curiosity for whatever might you say when actually confronted by a human. But I don't have that either, since I already know what you are going to say, the same thing you always say. "One time, ten years ago, I almost was"

Manu 𓃵𓃶

1,203,884 views • 1 year ago

(1/2) Last night's Aidan Kearney meltdown over his falling out with Karen Read on an X Space is the peak of catharsis and real-time online toxicity: It starts with the the bombshell claim about Aidan recorded Karen Read, moves to Karen's newly-released texts about being "done" with Aidan after "someone" sent a recording of that conversation to David Yannetti and Alan Jackson, then spirals into ad hominems, and ends with Kearney storming off to counter-publish. The flood of primary source documents posted on online overnight, thus, acts as the host's (Chris) victory lap over Kearney. FULL TRANSCRIPT; *(Cleaned for grammar/spelling, punctuated for flow, and line-broken for readability. Some errors are expected.)* **Aidan:** Am I on? **Host/Other:** You're on. **Aidan:** So who are you? Who is this? **Chris:** Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter who I am. **Aidan:** Well, it does. You're some fucking kangaroo court motherfucker talking about her. What the fuck do you know about anything? **Chris:** Well, I don't know exactly what you've been doing. **Aidan:** So what are your sources? What are your sources? What are your sources you're talking about? Huh? You don't know your sources? What do you talk about? No, your sources. Shut up. Let's see 'em. Let's see your sources. **Lily:** Hang on, Aidan. I'm the host. I'm Lily. **Aidan:** Yes, Lily. Hi, Lily. How are you? **Lily:** I'm good. I'm just going to wait. I know you may not know it, Chris, but you know me. And so I just wanted to say hi. **Aidan:** Yeah, I know, but this Koala motherfucker is up here making shit up, running his mouth nonsense. Let's see the receipts. I mean, what were you talking to Karen Read about? What are you talking about? Who the fuck are you? **Chris:** I'm asking you flat out: Did you or did you not record her phone calls between yourself and Karen? **Aidan:** I did not. I did not. **Chris:** Okay, so Karen is lying? **Aidan:** You talked to Karen Read? Karen isn't talking to anyone in the media, but she's talking to this call-the-motherfucker. That's what you're telling me right now. **Chris:** Like I said, If you want to go down this hill, stand ten toes down." **Aidan:** I'm calling you out because you're making shit up. **Chris:** Who? I'm not making anything up. I'm not making anything up. I'm not making anything up. **Aidan:** So let's see it. Let's see the fucking evidence. Let's see your communications with Karen Read where she says that. Let's see it. **Lily:** Hang on. Chris, you're going to have to provide the receipts. **Chris:** I'm going to tell you, the guy who's doing this—you know, he's going to put them out. **Chris:** Do you really want to prove it? You want to prove it to me? I've got all the mistakes that come out. I can't. Literally. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. What's that? Let's see it. Let's see it. Produce it. Tweet it out right now. **Aidan:** So I'm denying it—like, hardcore, 100%. I'm the guy you have to deny it to. I don't, because you've become a bit of a fuck-up. It's about as fucking legitimate as Lindsey trying to be a rake. Let's fucking see it, motherfucker. You got it, right? 'Cause I—accusations—I always bring fucking receipts. Where's your receipt, bitch? **Aidan:** You got 'em? **Chris:** I've got 'em now. I think you want me to be saying—to be honest—hang a room on the fucker with no receipt. **Aidan:** You got 'em? Yes or no? **Chris:** I've got a receipt. Where's your fuck? **Chris:** You just need, bro—you just need to like chill, because you're gonna have a lot of fucking neck on your face, because I don't really care. **Chris:** I said to the people who bought this story: If I end up having egg on my face, I'll put everyone's name in it, and I'm given—I have a... Just shut your fucking mouth for one fucking minute. **Aidan:** Right. Let's see it. **Chris:** I've just messaged the person. **Aidan:** Joe Flipp, you want to talk about a fucking psychopath? That motherfucker is—just, Joe Flipp. Really want to fucking go there?" 'Cause it's Joe. You can just say it's Nick from Philadelphia, isn't it? Yeah, I know all about Nick from Philadelphia. If you fucking want to go there and the fucking hell—that psychopath—what Olivia Lambo went through. You just don't want to come out. Does he want to talk about all that? Does he want to launch? **Chris:** Okay? You know what? How was your lunch with Meredith the other week. Fuck it. I don't care. How was your lunch with Meredith? How's your lunch with Meredith? **Aidan:**What the fuck? **Chris:** Chat, what, what am I talking about? How is your lunch with Meredith here? We got—you know what you want to do? You want to carry on and be a fuck with me here? I like you—always up. **Chris:** How was your lunch with Meredith a couple weeks ago, and what did you play for her? What the fuck are you talking about? Yeah, what the fuck am I talking about? You know exactly what I'm talking about. And I'm trying to do this respectfully, but you come in hot like you always do. So now I'm just gonna fucking do it. How was your lunch with Meredith the other week? **Aidan:** I didn't have one with Meredith. Yeah, bullshit. Okay, so that's it. So someone else is lying now. **Chris:** So you're gonna call Meredith a liar? Why? Meredith's a liar? **Aidan:** Are you talking to Meredith? **Chris:**I'm not talking to Meredith. **Aidan:** What are you talking about? **Chris:** Okay, well, so you have great Meredith in an Oscar. If you said that to Meredith, you just spread rumors. That's what you do—you don't spread any rumors. I want to laugh tonight about this. **Erika Walsh:** I warned you, Chris, about this last night. **Aidan:** You got no—Joe Flipp—fucking feeding you nonsense. That slimy psychopath, fucking nut job who called in Olivia's entire family to harass them—to the point where she had the fucking... Nothing to do with Olivia. And Joe's Flipp— **Chris:* this is to do with you. Stop deflecting, that motherfucker. **Aidan:** I'm telling you this—he's the one telling you this. **Chris:** I've been told by three different people. Three different people. There's people in this chat who know about this. There's people in chat—they won't stand up and say anything, but I know the people who know about this. **Aidan:** Bring all these lame cons up one by one so I can slam 'em down one by one, because none of you motherfuckers got a receipt to back up any of this shit. None of you do. Bring it. By adding them. **Chris:** Stand by. Stand by. Stand by. **Joe Flipperhead:** You have the text, bro. You know I saw the screenshot. **Aidan:** So we gonna talk about what you did to Olivia Lambo? We have a lot of things, dude. **Joe:** You're deflecting. When you... **Aidan:** You want to go there? Mark Bedderow? Oh, of being in on a fucking conspiracy against you? To tell us—if when we told you Olivia Lambo... You made us fucking get on a FaceTime with her because you thought she was dead. You thought you were being catfished by her, fucking... I was, and so we agreed to do a Zoom call with her. And when I called you and I told you Olivia Lambo is real—I just saw her face. What did you do? You accused me and Mark Bedderow of lying to you, of being in on it, because you are a fucking psychopathic motherfucker. And I didn't put it there because I don't want to fuck... **Joe:** Yeah, you did put it out there, though. If you want to get into the Olivia thing, that's fine, and I'll go down that road. But you're calling me a psychopath You fucking recorded Karen Read's fucking calls and sent them to people. **Chris:** I'm just gonna keep muting him because he's yelling. You can say it. **Aidan:** Is this Lily's space or yours? **Joe:** I have the text, dude. I'll put it on one of our... Your—She told me she's fucking done with you, dude. **Aidan:** All right. I'm going on my own right now. I'm calling out fucking Joe Flipp-ed life. If I get muted one more fucking time. I'm gonna do a whole fucking... Thank you. I'm publishing all your fucking texts—the whole world can see what a fucking sadistic psychopath you are. You controlling predator piece of shit. You fucking go there. **Chris:** This is completely the actions of a normal innocent person. **Aidan:* You're a pyscho freak. **Joe:** Yeah, says the guy that recorded Karen. **Aidan:** Oh, yeah, let's hear it. See the fucking recording. Can I hear it? **Joe:** I got the text saying you recorded. But the text says there's a recording, so where's the fucking recording? *Aidan:** Hey, let's hear Joe. Why? I just got asked if I'm—what would you say if I'm a massage in this? Like, go— **Joe:** Why does Liv still text me to this day? **Aidan:** You text her. Oh, you want to see the receipts, dude? I've seen the receipts—all of them. Okay, I got all the receipts. **Joe:** You got the August ones, the September ones where she misses me and hates how things ended? You got those? Fuck, I see 'em. Publish 'em. I will do it. I don't plan—I talk about you. Go for it. **Chris:** You're doing everything back. **Joe:** When I told you how she wouldn't FaceTime me for three months, how she puts up month-old pictures if you wouldn't fucking... **Aidan:** Yeah, you know why? You know why she wouldn't do that? She's just not into you. Ever have you do this with every girl you fucking talk to? **Joe:**You said to me, after reading the text from her sister— **Chris:** Says the guy who is swining on a 19-year old. **Joe:** You said Aidan, that she said to you, "she's love with you," bro. That's what you said. She's in love with you. That's what you said. Yeah, when her sister—and then he can get you caught by somebody. Let's just get back to you. Deflection from Aidan, who doesn't want to be on the line. **Joe:** As you wish—she wouldn't FaceTime me. She wouldn't meet up with me, and she lied to me constantly. Yeah, why would she meet up? **Aidan:** Maybe she's just not that into you. Ever think about that? Maybe she's just not that into you. Maybe you saw the text. I know, I know—it's hard for you to accept that the girl just doesn't want you. You have to accept the person doesn't want nothing to do with you, isn't it? I did, and you got clingy and possessive. And so she fucking stopped talking to you, so you called her mother and you talked—you don't even know because you're psychotic, bro. I'm fucking... you. *Joe:** You're just deflecting, bro. This is fucking pathetic. I'm not your one. She's talking about this. **Aidan:** I got no fucking thing—you—you are a fucking psychopath. **Joe:** You're first of all—she doesn't want you to fucking be talking about this because why? **Aidan:** You're the one fucking airing it out now, motherfucker. **Chris:** You're the one airing it because you got caught recording Karen. **Aidan:** So let's hear the recording. Let's play the recording. You got a recording of me, right? **Joe:** I know you did it, dude. **Aidan:** What? **Joe:** I know you recorded. Are you lying? Karen Read's a liar? All right, am I...? **Aidan:** You are the fucking coward. Where's the recording? What recording you talking about? You're—you're— **Joe:** You're accusing Karen Read of lying about this? **Aidan:** Yes. **Joe:** You're really—are you really serious? How many fucking—serious? **Aidan:** Let's hear the fucking recording. **Lily** Chris or Joe? Please play it. Did it? You didn't have... for people. Can you please provide a receipt? Just like I think it's fair. **Joe:** Aidan has it. **Aidan:: I thought you had it. I thought you had it. Let's hear it. Let's hear the recording. **Joe:** All right, you sent me the text that I sent. You haven't... **Aidan:** Yeah, let's—so let's hear the actual recording. Does it exist, though? **Joe:** So Karen is lying. **Aidan:: Karen Read would never lie (sarcastic tone). Oh, yeah. **Chris:** True color. *Joe:** So yeah, let me just run this: You recorded it. You recorded the conversation. You showed it to people, and then the very next day she randomly accused you of fucking doing it. That's what happened. That's what your story is, right? **Aidan:** There's no fucking recording. **Joe:** There is, dude. Where is it? **Aidan:** So let me hear it. Play it. **Joe:** I don't fucking have it. **Aidan:** Oh, you don't know if there's a recording, do you? Thank you. Because you're full of shit. I know—I just fucking caught you. That's what you just said. Those—bring it up here. I talked to somebody—bring her up here. Bring Karen Read up here, bro. You talked to her? Bring her on up here. **Joe:** I spoke to somebody that you played the recording for. Okay, oh—you know, just—I just say I've already said it, so just say it. Okay, I said I wanted to not say her name, but you know who—you played it for. **Aidan:** I haven't played it for anyone just— there's no recording. **Joe:** Stop fucking lying. Let's hear it from the point. *Aidan:** Let's hear it. Let's hear it. **Joe:** Aidan, this is fucking crazy, dude. **Aidan:** I'm not the one that fucking caught it—got blocked by Olivia's mother, and fucking brother... **Joe** Here we go. This is deflecting, and dude—that's admitting how fucking guilty you are right here. **Aidan:** Let's hear a fucking recording. You said you got a fucking recording, right? **Joe:** Nobody said that. We said—oh, Karen Read doesn't want to talk to you anymore because you recorded her calls, set them to people, and it got back to her. **Chris:** I got a question for you, Aidan, I didn't know—so sure. When you went on your little pity party and then you— **Joe:** The worst part is you lied to everybody acting on it. You had no idea what was wrong and why she she fucking set you straight—trying to get sympathy. That, my friend, is fucking psychotic. **Aidan:** Okay, okay, sure thing. Yeah, you said I sent the recording out. Where's the recording? *Joe:** Dude? It's not—I'm not obligated to fucking get the recording. **Aidan:** Oh, yeah, you wouldn't want to back it up, right? **Joe:** You're so—you're going to go on record that Karen is lying? Say it. You're caling Karen Read a liar about this. **Aidan:** There is no fucking recording. **Joe:** You're lying, dude. It's fucking crazy. This is what's here. It—play the note. You played it for somebody. You got it. I don't got it. **Aidan:** Let's hear you play it. You're the one that says there's a fucking record. **Chris:** I mean, that's—you have a history of recording people. **Lily:** Wait, we have—well, I feel like we have a responsibility as me as a host to Chris and... You're both—you're actually both not providing a receipt, and I'm—Aidan is actually asking for a receipt. I have to—for the recording. **Joe and Chris** He has—asking for the recording. **Lily:** You guys—she has which he sent to—we know I said. So who has it? One of the receipts. I know you're not gonna have— **Aidan:: you don't have the recording because— **Lily:** Just fucking say it. Karen doesn't want the recording out there. **Aidan:** What recording? There's no recording. **Joe:** Never even asked her for it, to be honest with you. **Aidan:** And so you wait—yeah, you never asked. Thank you—you never asked. **Joe:** Karen is fucking so done with you, bro. She sent—she told me about this completely unsolicited. **Lily:**That's beside the point, and I'm not the first—(Joe) Karen's done with him, ..but what the fuck—just post the fucking receipt for him. **Chris:** You can't come on here saying he has it, Lily. He's seen the same thing you've seen. He's even seen the same thing that I showed you. **Lily:** I know. You don't come on here and say I've got this, and then Aidan demands a receipt—you deserve. Okay... **Joe:** He's deflecting, asking for a recording he knows about the text. **Lily:** Yeah, I know, Joe. I get what you're saying, and I respect every—like what you're saying, but he's denying it. **Joe:** Fine, I'll post the fuck—I'll post them right now. I really don't give a fuck. **Lily:** Thank you. And that's immense—he can—he can then riff like whatever he can. I can't—I'm so like nervous. I've got dry mouth because... Then Aidan can like look at those, and he at least has—you know exactly what's been spoken about. He's just denying it. I can't say that, and I get it, but he is asking for the receipt, which is fair. And **Joe:** I'll even add the text message when he came on here initially. He said it was all alive, right? He said he sent me—fucking text message on Monday morning. **Lily:** I see it. We've established that now. We established that Aidan's denying it, so just post the receipt that you have, and then he can actually reflect on that and—and do you see what I mean? He's not gonna turn around now and say actually it is true. But if you've got the receipt, he can then say, "I will—this is x, y and z there." I just think it's fair—like... **Aidan:** Now, yeah, what he has is a screenshot that he claims is from Karen Read. It was— **Joe:** You're saying it's not from Karen Read. **Aidan:** I don't—there's no fucking name on the top. **Joe:** Yeah, I have it. Do you want me to read? **Aidan:** Okay, so there was an allegation? I'm reading. **Joe:** Do I have a text from you saying I was sent the same thing the morning after the verdict? Did you not say that to me? **Aidan:** Yes, you sent me the same thing the morning after the verdict. **Joe:** Okay, so then she sent it to me too. **Aidan:** Yeah, she knows—she said to me the morning after the Wilbur—she after the morning after the show, she said that she was sent a 30-minute fucking tape. Where's the fuck? What tape? Okay, she's not fucking accusing me. I have no—there's no fucking tape. There's no tape. She thinks I recorded her because I fucking told people about the conversation. That's it. **Joe:** You're telling me you didn't? **Aidan:: And I'm telling you I fucking didn't. You're wrong. **Joe:** 100% You're lying, dude. **Aidan:** Okay, so prove it. Let's see it. You got evidence, right? You like evidence? You got Any? **Joe**: I mean—I—a screenshot of—how many people did you send it to? **Aidan:** Zero, because there's no recording. **Joe:** There is. **Aidan:** Let's hear it. Play it. Let's play it. Let's go. **Joe:** Let's hold on. Let's hold on. Can I go real quick? So you come in here calling it—you were making fun of Chris because he's an Australian motherfucker. He doesn't have nothing, right? You said there was no text, no proof. And then now we're transitioning to the recording because I don't have the recording. Okay, so you think Karen Read is just fucking lying about this? How would she know? How would she know what about the recording? **Aidan:** There is no recording. **Joe:** You're telling me you didn't show it to anybody? Is that really what you're gonna tell people? **Aidan:**There's no recording to share with anyone. Okay, okay. Well, I mean, you got evidence, right? To back this up. **Joe:** Yeah, right. **Aidan:: You got something, right? Yeah, yeah. Did you been right? I mean, you have that, right? You have that right because you wouldn't say something—because if you know I had it, right? **Joe:** I have—why Karen Read won't speak to you. **Aidan:** You have a screenshot of a conversation with Karen Read. You don't have an actual fucking audio, though. **Joe:** I have—in Karen Read's words. Why do you think she would lie about this? **Aidan:** Do I think she would lie about having a recording? **Joe:** She wouldn't lie about this. Explain that one—about having a recording. **Aidan:** Yes, I know she's lying about that. **Joe:** Why, though? **Aidan:** I don't know why Karen is acting the way she is. It's unfortunate. Yeah, and honestly, I'm not the one—you're a fucking airing it all out right now. That's odd that Karen would green-light you coming on here and fucking doing this. That's kind of odd. Because I love you—notice, but like—kind of yeah, we raised 1.1 million fucking dollars for a little... Here I know—here, I'm here. I'm here. There's still a— **Chris;** there's no because you—still a fucking snake. Yeah, I know. He records people's phone calls. **Aidan:: Let's hear the tape. Let's hear the tape. You're the one making—you guys got nothing. Nothing. Nothing. I just sent the fucking text out. Just say—there you go, buddy. **Aidan:** Okay, so Karen Read is green-lighting this sort of drama? That's what you're saying? **Joe:** I asked her. I said—you asked her? She said yes, go ahead. I said, do you want your side out there? She said, 'sure. You're gonna read it? Sure. I told many people my side. This is my last straw. I would never and have never betrayed him. Meanwhile, he has put me in harm's way in a huge way multiple times.' **Aidan:** I put her—fucking words, okay? Not mine. Yep. Okay. I put Karen Read in harm's way? I went to jail for Karen Read. I don't know if you're familiar. **Chris:** You didn't go to jail for Karen Read, you fuck. **Aidan:** Oh, really? Then what am I on bail for? What is—the full—what's the full? **Chris:** You went to jail for Karen Read? You went to jail because of Lindsey. You went to jail because you're a fucking dick. **Aidan:** Why was I on bail? I think you're a fuck—while you're on bail. I'm saying because—why would I care? Maybe someone in the night— **Chris:** hey, you're full of shit. You're a fucking hell. **Aidan:** What the fuck was I on bail for? **Joe** Because they may know that—if you didn't record it, why are you being so hush-hush about it with everybody? Why would he just tell the people what she was saying since she's lying? What do you mean hush-hush about it? **Aidan** You think I won't talk about what she texted me? But you were hinting at it because I don't want to hear the fucking drama, but apparently she does because she's—you fucking do this because you're recording. Thank you. You're telling me no recording of any fucking phone calls? What's the—what's the fight? So you weren't mocking her the past however long—every time you went on the show saying you owe everything to Karen, all that shit? How is that little white lie? **Aidan:** I owe everything to Karen? What? Why is that little sub-story? You went on two weeks—how is that mocking her? That wasn't in the recording. What recording? There's no fucking recording. **Joe:** I heard it was a 10-minute recording. Does that make sense? **Aidan:** No recording, bro. Let's hear it. You heard it. Let's hear it. **Joe:** Dude, I'm not putting that part out here. **Aidan:** She's talking about her shit. What she's texting you right now—obviously. Who egging this on, isn't she? **Joe:** Who? Okay? Okay, who? Keep playing dumb. Hey—who? **Aidan:** Mm-hmm? Believe it or not—you guys got nothing, right? **Chris;** We got good—from the horse's mouth, mate. I mean, it's not over the horse. Yeah, that's enough for me. I don't need... **Aidan:** Karen's not talking to anyone in the media. **Joe:** If you read the text message, I just reached out to her as a friend—just to reach out and say hope you're doing well. She went into this whole thing about you. **Aidan:** So you reached out—let me get this right—you reached out to her just to say hope you're doing well, and the first thing she did was complain about me? **Joe:** Yes, okay. That says it all. There we go. Where is she? Tired of me? Maybe she's fucking tired of you telling the people bullshit. **Aidan:** What—what—what—what—what bullshit have I told people? That you have no idea why she won't fucking come on your whatever it is. **Aidan:** What do you mean I have no idea why? **Joe:** That's what you've been saying—you don't know what's going on, like you feel a bit sorry for—like the thing with the fucking Howie Carr, dude. That was ridiculous. **Aidan:** What was ridiculous? You're the entire way you handled—I didn't say a word about that. **Chris:** Yes, you did. You deleted the receipt, but let's see—where did I complain about her appearance on Howie Carr? You made a lot of all quiet. Oh, this fuck it. Oh... **Joe:** Wait, but you think we're fucking dumb? Do people are fucking dumb? So where did I—after you deleted it, and then you made a post about deleting it. **Aidan:** What did I say about it? I don't remember. **Chris:** But you don't remember? Yeah, you deleted it, bro. You deleted it. Yeah, remember? You deleted it. And then you made a post about the deleting of the post. Part 2 coming later.

(1/2) Last night's Aidan Kearney meltdown over his falling out with Karen Read on an X Space is the peak of catharsis and real-time online toxicity: It starts with the the bombshell claim about Aidan recorded Karen Read, moves to Karen's newly-released texts about being "done" with Aidan after "someone" sent a recording of that conversation to David Yannetti and Alan Jackson, then spirals into ad hominems, and ends with Kearney storming off to counter-publish. The flood of primary source documents posted on online overnight, thus, acts as the host's (Chris) victory lap over Kearney. FULL TRANSCRIPT; (Cleaned for grammar/spelling, punctuated for flow, and line-broken for readability. Some errors are expected.) Aidan: Am I on? Host/Other: You're on. Aidan: So who are you? Who is this? Chris: Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter who I am. Aidan: Well, it does. You're some fucking kangaroo court motherfucker talking about her. What the fuck do you know about anything? Chris: Well, I don't know exactly what you've been doing. Aidan: So what are your sources? What are your sources? What are your sources you're talking about? Huh? You don't know your sources? What do you talk about? No, your sources. Shut up. Let's see 'em. Let's see your sources. Lily: Hang on, Aidan. I'm the host. I'm Lily. Aidan: Yes, Lily. Hi, Lily. How are you? Lily: I'm good. I'm just going to wait. I know you may not know it, Chris, but you know me. And so I just wanted to say hi. Aidan: Yeah, I know, but this Koala motherfucker is up here making shit up, running his mouth nonsense. Let's see the receipts. I mean, what were you talking to Karen Read about? What are you talking about? Who the fuck are you? Chris: I'm asking you flat out: Did you or did you not record her phone calls between yourself and Karen? Aidan: I did not. I did not. Chris: Okay, so Karen is lying? Aidan: You talked to Karen Read? Karen isn't talking to anyone in the media, but she's talking to this call-the-motherfucker. That's what you're telling me right now. Chris: Like I said, If you want to go down this hill, stand ten toes down." Aidan: I'm calling you out because you're making shit up. Chris: Who? I'm not making anything up. I'm not making anything up. I'm not making anything up. Aidan: So let's see it. Let's see the fucking evidence. Let's see your communications with Karen Read where she says that. Let's see it. Lily: Hang on. Chris, you're going to have to provide the receipts. Chris: I'm going to tell you, the guy who's doing this—you know, he's going to put them out. Chris: Do you really want to prove it? You want to prove it to me? I've got all the mistakes that come out. I can't. Literally. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. What's that? Let's see it. Let's see it. Produce it. Tweet it out right now. Aidan: So I'm denying it—like, hardcore, 100%. I'm the guy you have to deny it to. I don't, because you've become a bit of a fuck-up. It's about as fucking legitimate as Lindsey trying to be a rake. Let's fucking see it, motherfucker. You got it, right? 'Cause I—accusations—I always bring fucking receipts. Where's your receipt, bitch? Aidan: You got 'em? Chris: I've got 'em now. I think you want me to be saying—to be honest—hang a room on the fucker with no receipt. Aidan: You got 'em? Yes or no? Chris: I've got a receipt. Where's your fuck? Chris: You just need, bro—you just need to like chill, because you're gonna have a lot of fucking neck on your face, because I don't really care. Chris: I said to the people who bought this story: If I end up having egg on my face, I'll put everyone's name in it, and I'm given—I have a... Just shut your fucking mouth for one fucking minute. Aidan: Right. Let's see it. Chris: I've just messaged the person. Aidan: Joe Flipp, you want to talk about a fucking psychopath? That motherfucker is—just, Joe Flipp. Really want to fucking go there?" 'Cause it's Joe. You can just say it's Nick from Philadelphia, isn't it? Yeah, I know all about Nick from Philadelphia. If you fucking want to go there and the fucking hell—that psychopath—what Olivia Lambo went through. You just don't want to come out. Does he want to talk about all that? Does he want to launch? Chris: Okay? You know what? How was your lunch with Meredith the other week. Fuck it. I don't care. How was your lunch with Meredith? How's your lunch with Meredith? Aidan:What the fuck? Chris: Chat, what, what am I talking about? How is your lunch with Meredith here? We got—you know what you want to do? You want to carry on and be a fuck with me here? I like you—always up. Chris: How was your lunch with Meredith a couple weeks ago, and what did you play for her? What the fuck are you talking about? Yeah, what the fuck am I talking about? You know exactly what I'm talking about. And I'm trying to do this respectfully, but you come in hot like you always do. So now I'm just gonna fucking do it. How was your lunch with Meredith the other week? Aidan: I didn't have one with Meredith. Yeah, bullshit. Okay, so that's it. So someone else is lying now. Chris: So you're gonna call Meredith a liar? Why? Meredith's a liar? Aidan: Are you talking to Meredith? Chris:I'm not talking to Meredith. Aidan: What are you talking about? Chris: Okay, well, so you have great Meredith in an Oscar. If you said that to Meredith, you just spread rumors. That's what you do—you don't spread any rumors. I want to laugh tonight about this. Erika Walsh: I warned you, Chris, about this last night. Aidan: You got no—Joe Flipp—fucking feeding you nonsense. That slimy psychopath, fucking nut job who called in Olivia's entire family to harass them—to the point where she had the fucking... Nothing to do with Olivia. And Joe's Flipp— **Chris:* this is to do with you. Stop deflecting, that motherfucker. Aidan: I'm telling you this—he's the one telling you this. Chris: I've been told by three different people. Three different people. There's people in this chat who know about this. There's people in chat—they won't stand up and say anything, but I know the people who know about this. Aidan: Bring all these lame cons up one by one so I can slam 'em down one by one, because none of you motherfuckers got a receipt to back up any of this shit. None of you do. Bring it. By adding them. Chris: Stand by. Stand by. Stand by. Joe Flipperhead: You have the text, bro. You know I saw the screenshot. Aidan: So we gonna talk about what you did to Olivia Lambo? We have a lot of things, dude. Joe: You're deflecting. When you... Aidan: You want to go there? Mark Bedderow? Oh, of being in on a fucking conspiracy against you? To tell us—if when we told you Olivia Lambo... You made us fucking get on a FaceTime with her because you thought she was dead. You thought you were being catfished by her, fucking... I was, and so we agreed to do a Zoom call with her. And when I called you and I told you Olivia Lambo is real—I just saw her face. What did you do? You accused me and Mark Bedderow of lying to you, of being in on it, because you are a fucking psychopathic motherfucker. And I didn't put it there because I don't want to fuck... Joe: Yeah, you did put it out there, though. If you want to get into the Olivia thing, that's fine, and I'll go down that road. But you're calling me a psychopath You fucking recorded Karen Read's fucking calls and sent them to people. Chris: I'm just gonna keep muting him because he's yelling. You can say it. Aidan: Is this Lily's space or yours? Joe: I have the text, dude. I'll put it on one of our... Your—She told me she's fucking done with you, dude. Aidan: All right. I'm going on my own right now. I'm calling out fucking Joe Flipp-ed life. If I get muted one more fucking time. I'm gonna do a whole fucking... Thank you. I'm publishing all your fucking texts—the whole world can see what a fucking sadistic psychopath you are. You controlling predator piece of shit. You fucking go there. Chris: This is completely the actions of a normal innocent person. **Aidan:* You're a pyscho freak. Joe: Yeah, says the guy that recorded Karen. Aidan: Oh, yeah, let's hear it. See the fucking recording. Can I hear it? Joe: I got the text saying you recorded. But the text says there's a recording, so where's the fucking recording? *Aidan: Hey, let's hear Joe. Why? I just got asked if I'm—what would you say if I'm a massage in this? Like, go— Joe: Why does Liv still text me to this day? Aidan: You text her. Oh, you want to see the receipts, dude? I've seen the receipts—all of them. Okay, I got all the receipts. Joe: You got the August ones, the September ones where she misses me and hates how things ended? You got those? Fuck, I see 'em. Publish 'em. I will do it. I don't plan—I talk about you. Go for it. Chris: You're doing everything back. Joe: When I told you how she wouldn't FaceTime me for three months, how she puts up month-old pictures if you wouldn't fucking... Aidan: Yeah, you know why? You know why she wouldn't do that? She's just not into you. Ever have you do this with every girl you fucking talk to? Joe:You said to me, after reading the text from her sister— Chris: Says the guy who is swining on a 19-year old. Joe: You said Aidan, that she said to you, "she's love with you," bro. That's what you said. She's in love with you. That's what you said. Yeah, when her sister—and then he can get you caught by somebody. Let's just get back to you. Deflection from Aidan, who doesn't want to be on the line. Joe: As you wish—she wouldn't FaceTime me. She wouldn't meet up with me, and she lied to me constantly. Yeah, why would she meet up? Aidan:** Maybe she's just not that into you. Ever think about that? Maybe she's just not that into you. Maybe you saw the text. I know, I know—it's hard for you to accept that the girl just doesn't want you. You have to accept the person doesn't want nothing to do with you, isn't it? I did, and you got clingy and possessive. And so she fucking stopped talking to you, so you called her mother and you talked—you don't even know because you're psychotic, bro. I'm fucking... you. *Joe: You're just deflecting, bro. This is fucking pathetic. I'm not your one. She's talking about this. Aidan: I got no fucking thing—you—you are a fucking psychopath. Joe: You're first of all—she doesn't want you to fucking be talking about this because why? Aidan: You're the one fucking airing it out now, motherfucker. Chris: You're the one airing it because you got caught recording Karen. Aidan: So let's hear the recording. Let's play the recording. You got a recording of me, right? Joe: I know you did it, dude. Aidan: What? Joe: I know you recorded. Are you lying? Karen Read's a liar? All right, am I...? Aidan: You are the fucking coward. Where's the recording? What recording you talking about? You're—you're— Joe: You're accusing Karen Read of lying about this? Aidan: Yes. Joe: You're really—are you really serious? How many fucking—serious? Aidan: Let's hear the fucking recording. Lily Chris or Joe? Please play it. Did it? You didn't have... for people. Can you please provide a receipt? Just like I think it's fair. Joe: Aidan has it. Aidan:: I thought you had it. I thought you had it. Let's hear it. Let's hear the recording. Joe: All right, you sent me the text that I sent. You haven't... Aidan: Yeah, let's—so let's hear the actual recording. Does it exist, though? Joe: So Karen is lying. Aidan:: Karen Read would never lie (sarcastic tone). Oh, yeah. Chris:** True color. *Joe: So yeah, let me just run this: You recorded it. You recorded the conversation. You showed it to people, and then the very next day she randomly accused you of fucking doing it. That's what happened. That's what your story is, right? Aidan: There's no fucking recording. Joe: There is, dude. Where is it? Aidan: So let me hear it. Play it. Joe: I don't fucking have it. Aidan: Oh, you don't know if there's a recording, do you? Thank you. Because you're full of shit. I know—I just fucking caught you. That's what you just said. Those—bring it up here. I talked to somebody—bring her up here. Bring Karen Read up here, bro. You talked to her? Bring her on up here. Joe: I spoke to somebody that you played the recording for. Okay, oh—you know, just—I just say I've already said it, so just say it. Okay, I said I wanted to not say her name, but you know who—you played it for. Aidan: I haven't played it for anyone just— there's no recording. Joe:** Stop fucking lying. Let's hear it from the point. *Aidan: Let's hear it. Let's hear it. Joe: Aidan, this is fucking crazy, dude. Aidan: I'm not the one that fucking caught it—got blocked by Olivia's mother, and fucking brother... Joe Here we go. This is deflecting, and dude—that's admitting how fucking guilty you are right here. Aidan: Let's hear a fucking recording. You said you got a fucking recording, right? Joe: Nobody said that. We said—oh, Karen Read doesn't want to talk to you anymore because you recorded her calls, set them to people, and it got back to her. Chris: I got a question for you, Aidan, I didn't know—so sure. When you went on your little pity party and then you— Joe: The worst part is you lied to everybody acting on it. You had no idea what was wrong and why she she fucking set you straight—trying to get sympathy. That, my friend, is fucking psychotic. Aidan:** Okay, okay, sure thing. Yeah, you said I sent the recording out. Where's the recording? *Joe: Dude? It's not—I'm not obligated to fucking get the recording. Aidan: Oh, yeah, you wouldn't want to back it up, right? Joe: You're so—you're going to go on record that Karen is lying? Say it. You're caling Karen Read a liar about this. Aidan: There is no fucking recording. Joe: You're lying, dude. It's fucking crazy. This is what's here. It—play the note. You played it for somebody. You got it. I don't got it. Aidan: Let's hear you play it. You're the one that says there's a fucking record. Chris: I mean, that's—you have a history of recording people. Lily: Wait, we have—well, I feel like we have a responsibility as me as a host to Chris and... You're both—you're actually both not providing a receipt, and I'm—Aidan is actually asking for a receipt. I have to—for the recording. Joe and Chris He has—asking for the recording. Lily: You guys—she has which he sent to—we know I said. So who has it? One of the receipts. I know you're not gonna have— Aidan:: you don't have the recording because— Lily: Just fucking say it. Karen doesn't want the recording out there. Aidan: What recording? There's no recording. Joe: Never even asked her for it, to be honest with you. Aidan: And so you wait—yeah, you never asked. Thank you—you never asked. Joe: Karen is fucking so done with you, bro. She sent—she told me about this completely unsolicited. Lily:That's beside the point, and I'm not the first—(Joe) Karen's done with him, ..but what the fuck—just post the fucking receipt for him. Chris: You can't come on here saying he has it, Lily. He's seen the same thing you've seen. He's even seen the same thing that I showed you. Lily: I know. You don't come on here and say I've got this, and then Aidan demands a receipt—you deserve. Okay... Joe: He's deflecting, asking for a recording he knows about the text. Lily: Yeah, I know, Joe. I get what you're saying, and I respect every—like what you're saying, but he's denying it. Joe: Fine, I'll post the fuck—I'll post them right now. I really don't give a fuck. Lily: Thank you. And that's immense—he can—he can then riff like whatever he can. I can't—I'm so like nervous. I've got dry mouth because... Then Aidan can like look at those, and he at least has—you know exactly what's been spoken about. He's just denying it. I can't say that, and I get it, but he is asking for the receipt, which is fair. And Joe: I'll even add the text message when he came on here initially. He said it was all alive, right? He said he sent me—fucking text message on Monday morning. Lily: I see it. We've established that now. We established that Aidan's denying it, so just post the receipt that you have, and then he can actually reflect on that and—and do you see what I mean? He's not gonna turn around now and say actually it is true. But if you've got the receipt, he can then say, "I will—this is x, y and z there." I just think it's fair—like... Aidan: Now, yeah, what he has is a screenshot that he claims is from Karen Read. It was— Joe: You're saying it's not from Karen Read. Aidan: I don't—there's no fucking name on the top. Joe: Yeah, I have it. Do you want me to read? Aidan: Okay, so there was an allegation? I'm reading. Joe: Do I have a text from you saying I was sent the same thing the morning after the verdict? Did you not say that to me? Aidan: Yes, you sent me the same thing the morning after the verdict. Joe: Okay, so then she sent it to me too. Aidan: Yeah, she knows—she said to me the morning after the Wilbur—she after the morning after the show, she said that she was sent a 30-minute fucking tape. Where's the fuck? What tape? Okay, she's not fucking accusing me. I have no—there's no fucking tape. There's no tape. She thinks I recorded her because I fucking told people about the conversation. That's it. Joe: You're telling me you didn't? Aidan:: And I'm telling you I fucking didn't. You're wrong. Joe: 100% You're lying, dude. Aidan: Okay, so prove it. Let's see it. You got evidence, right? You like evidence? You got Any? Joe: I mean—I—a screenshot of—how many people did you send it to? Aidan: Zero, because there's no recording. Joe: There is. Aidan: Let's hear it. Play it. Let's play it. Let's go. Joe: Let's hold on. Let's hold on. Can I go real quick? So you come in here calling it—you were making fun of Chris because he's an Australian motherfucker. He doesn't have nothing, right? You said there was no text, no proof. And then now we're transitioning to the recording because I don't have the recording. Okay, so you think Karen Read is just fucking lying about this? How would she know? How would she know what about the recording? Aidan: There is no recording. Joe: You're telling me you didn't show it to anybody? Is that really what you're gonna tell people? Aidan:There's no recording to share with anyone. Okay, okay. Well, I mean, you got evidence, right? To back this up. Joe: Yeah, right. Aidan:: You got something, right? Yeah, yeah. Did you been right? I mean, you have that, right? You have that right because you wouldn't say something—because if you know I had it, right? Joe: I have—why Karen Read won't speak to you. Aidan: You have a screenshot of a conversation with Karen Read. You don't have an actual fucking audio, though. Joe: I have—in Karen Read's words. Why do you think she would lie about this? Aidan: Do I think she would lie about having a recording? Joe: She wouldn't lie about this. Explain that one—about having a recording. Aidan: Yes, I know she's lying about that. Joe: Why, though? Aidan: I don't know why Karen is acting the way she is. It's unfortunate. Yeah, and honestly, I'm not the one—you're a fucking airing it all out right now. That's odd that Karen would green-light you coming on here and fucking doing this. That's kind of odd. Because I love you—notice, but like—kind of yeah, we raised 1.1 million fucking dollars for a little... Here I know—here, I'm here. I'm here. There's still a— Chris; there's no because you—still a fucking snake. Yeah, I know. He records people's phone calls. Aidan:: Let's hear the tape. Let's hear the tape. You're the one making—you guys got nothing. Nothing. Nothing. I just sent the fucking text out. Just say—there you go, buddy. Aidan: Okay, so Karen Read is green-lighting this sort of drama? That's what you're saying? Joe: I asked her. I said—you asked her? She said yes, go ahead. I said, do you want your side out there? She said, 'sure. You're gonna read it? Sure. I told many people my side. This is my last straw. I would never and have never betrayed him. Meanwhile, he has put me in harm's way in a huge way multiple times.' Aidan: I put her—fucking words, okay? Not mine. Yep. Okay. I put Karen Read in harm's way? I went to jail for Karen Read. I don't know if you're familiar. Chris: You didn't go to jail for Karen Read, you fuck. Aidan: Oh, really? Then what am I on bail for? What is—the full—what's the full? Chris: You went to jail for Karen Read? You went to jail because of Lindsey. You went to jail because you're a fucking dick. Aidan: Why was I on bail? I think you're a fuck—while you're on bail. I'm saying because—why would I care? Maybe someone in the night— Chris: hey, you're full of shit. You're a fucking hell. Aidan: What the fuck was I on bail for? Joe Because they may know that—if you didn't record it, why are you being so hush-hush about it with everybody? Why would he just tell the people what she was saying since she's lying? What do you mean hush-hush about it? Aidan You think I won't talk about what she texted me? But you were hinting at it because I don't want to hear the fucking drama, but apparently she does because she's—you fucking do this because you're recording. Thank you. You're telling me no recording of any fucking phone calls? What's the—what's the fight? So you weren't mocking her the past however long—every time you went on the show saying you owe everything to Karen, all that shit? How is that little white lie? Aidan: I owe everything to Karen? What? Why is that little sub-story? You went on two weeks—how is that mocking her? That wasn't in the recording. What recording? There's no fucking recording. Joe: I heard it was a 10-minute recording. Does that make sense? Aidan: No recording, bro. Let's hear it. You heard it. Let's hear it. Joe: Dude, I'm not putting that part out here. Aidan: She's talking about her shit. What she's texting you right now—obviously. Who egging this on, isn't she? Joe: Who? Okay? Okay, who? Keep playing dumb. Hey—who? Aidan: Mm-hmm? Believe it or not—you guys got nothing, right? Chris; We got good—from the horse's mouth, mate. I mean, it's not over the horse. Yeah, that's enough for me. I don't need... Aidan: Karen's not talking to anyone in the media. Joe: If you read the text message, I just reached out to her as a friend—just to reach out and say hope you're doing well. She went into this whole thing about you. Aidan: So you reached out—let me get this right—you reached out to her just to say hope you're doing well, and the first thing she did was complain about me? Joe: Yes, okay. That says it all. There we go. Where is she? Tired of me? Maybe she's fucking tired of you telling the people bullshit. Aidan: What—what—what—what—what bullshit have I told people? That you have no idea why she won't fucking come on your whatever it is. Aidan: What do you mean I have no idea why? Joe: That's what you've been saying—you don't know what's going on, like you feel a bit sorry for—like the thing with the fucking Howie Carr, dude. That was ridiculous. Aidan: What was ridiculous? You're the entire way you handled—I didn't say a word about that. Chris: Yes, you did. You deleted the receipt, but let's see—where did I complain about her appearance on Howie Carr? You made a lot of all quiet. Oh, this fuck it. Oh... Joe: Wait, but you think we're fucking dumb? Do people are fucking dumb? So where did I—after you deleted it, and then you made a post about deleting it. Aidan: What did I say about it? I don't remember. Chris:** But you don't remember? Yeah, you deleted it, bro. You deleted it. Yeah, remember? You deleted it. And then you made a post about the deleting of the post. Part 2 coming later.

Grant Smith Ellis

85,913 views • 1 year ago

"If [Ross] had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard." ~Murgia Lockheed, Landing Drones, Stupor, and Trump Did think this would be another LAP (Long-Ass Post), but here it is. Ross Coulthart: "It's been a very interesting week with the public response to the comments that I've made on the show that I do with my friend and colleague,Bryce Zabel, "Need to Know," where we discussed what I've been told by my sources, multiple sources, by the way, that Lockheed Martin was indeed behind the Tic Tac encounter of 2004 with the USS Nimitz battle carrier group." Let's rewind: This is what Ross and Bryce said on the @Coulthart_Zabel episode uploaded on July 6th. My comments in ( ). Ross: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." Bryce: "Ooookay." Ross: "The Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Why are we being lied to? This is the issue. Why is the United States government now participating - at White-House, executive level, in collusion with the national-security state - to keep secret the fact that they've made these advances? I suspect it's because they've realized that they're being overtaken by their foreign adversaries, and they don't want you to know that." Bryce: "Okay, the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin. Well, in some respects, given how insane the Tic Tac behaved during the Nimitz, where it went from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than a second, then I would say, well there's one for the U.S. team. Obviously, we have some good stuff out there, if that's the case, right?" Ross: "How much of that is being shared with the actual Defense Department that's responsible for the defense of the United States? This is the kind of questions that Congress should be asking." Bryce: "So you're saying Lockheed Martin might - or anybody, but Lockheed Martin in this particular case - has a Tic Tac that they are testing, and have been testing, and have access to." (One can argue that when Bryce said LM has a Tic Tac that they've been testing, that could include the possibility that it's an NHI craft they somehow acquired and not something they built. That would go against my "Ross is flip flopping" allegation.) Bryce: "But they might not have shared it with the Defense Department of the United States? Which probably paid for it in their trillion-dollar budgets. That's kind of mind-blowing in itself." Ross: "Those are the questions I think Congress should be asking. I mean, what I'm saying, basically, is..." Bryce: "Why are you saying this, by the way? Where did you? Where is this from? How do we know this? What's going on?" Ross: "I'm...I'm sorry, Bryce, I can't go there." ~ Bryce: "Frankly, the only major row that you and I have ever had, which was over eminent domain, and who can... Is it not possible that that legislation has eminent domain in it as an issue that the government would be able to go seize potential things from private enterprise, if the government, in fact, thought that Lockheed Martin had a Tic Tac? Wouldn't we want to go seize it?" Ross: "Bloody hell we would. Exactly. But that hasn't happened. And, you know, I can tell you, David Grusch has told them exactly where to look. Jake Barber has told them exactly where to look. This is why I just found it, in many ways, I find it absurd that we're still debating the issue whether the NHI technology recovery is real. Of course it's real!" (I think/suspect it's real. But if I'm gonna play journalist, I need to see proof before I say, "Of course it's real!" Or, "I know it's real." Walk me into the building and show me. I don't think this has happened with Ross so a debate is still warranted, IMO.) Bryce: "This thing you just said about Lockheed Martin. Is this the first time you've said that in public, or have you said that before?" Ross: "Look, there's been speculation for a while that it's Lockheed Martin, but I'm now very, very sure that it was Lockheed Martin. And I think the Tic Tac is part of two, at least two different platforms that Lockheed's been working on. Different platforms that they've been working on. And it's technology that, until very recently, most of Congress was completely unaware of." (To me, that sounds like Ross is saying, that whatever LM is working on, they built it.) Bryce: "Well, I just hope, if there's a war with China or a war with NHI, I just hope Lockheed Martin remembers who helped pay for it, and they're on our side. That's what I would say." Ross: "Well, I hope they are. I don't think we can have any expectation, though, unless the public demands answers, that we're going to get the truth." Full post here: ~And more from yesterday's "Reality Check"~ @MeaganOurada reads a question: "You recently mentioned the Tic Tac was a produced/manufactured by Lockheed Martin, but you never mentioned if it was under autonomous flight or piloted." (This shows that others took Ross's original comments as LM manufacturing a Tic Tac and not figuring out how to fly an NHI Tic Tac that they somehow had acquired.) Ross: "That's a good question, and I'll be honest with you, I don't know for sure." (Here was a chance for Ross to say, "I didn't mean to suggest it was 100% produced/manufactured by Lockheed, just that it was one possibility. The other is they operated a NHI Tic Tac that they had acquired.) Ross: "I have been told previously that when Tic Tacs... You see, one of the other things I want to clarify here as well is, there are NHI Tic Tacs." (We don't know that for sure, and later on, Ross adds that they are "suspected" to be NHI.) Ross: "A lot of people seem to be thinking that I'm suggesting that all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. That's not the case at all." (A few people who follow me thought that but I think the overwhelming majority realize that Ross didn't say that.) Ross: "What I was told, and I'm reasonably sure that this is the case, is that Tic Tac was being operated by Lockheed Martin, and it's conceivable that that was being operated neuro-meditatively, psionically, by a human psionic, which is what I understand, is the way that these retrieved, non-human craft are being operated." ("Reasonably sure" and "operated," is different than what he said on N2K: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." I think most people took that as: "I now now, categorically, that Lockheed built a Tic Tac and that's what Fravor chased in 2004." That's why you saw such a pushback from people on social media.) Ross: "It's not clear to me, though, whether this is a craft that was built by Lockheed Martin, or whether it is Lockheed Martin testing the use of neuro-meditative signaling, as our friends at Skywatcher called it, to operate one of these craft. I just can't answer that question, specifically." (If Ross would have said this in the N2K episode and didn't use the word, "categorically," I think the reaction would have been, "Oh, that's interesting." I'm still skeptical that Lockheed has ANY role in the 2004 Tic Tac incident but I'll keep my mind open.) Ross: "All I can do is tell you what I've been told by my multiple sources, which is that the operation of the Tic Tac was being controlled, on the day, by Lockheed Martin." (Again, if he had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard. I hope humans have developed the ability to control a Tic Tac and make it perform like what was reported on November 14th, 2004. But, again, I'm skeptical. The SPY-1 radar on the USS Princeton tracked objects for a week or so, leading up to the encounter Fravor and the others had with the Tic Tac. Were all of those objects LM-controlled craft? Seems unlikely. In 2019, at UFO MegaCon, Kevin Day said that on around November 10th, he started witnessing these strange tracks on his radar scope. He wasn’t really concerned with them because there was a lot of air traffic off the coast of California and they were a significant ways from the strike group. So they just monitored them and reporting them to 'higher authorities' and maintained track of them. They stood out and were anomalous because they were at 28,000 feet and going at 100 knots. Day said that was, 'extremely bizarre.' His entire job was to identify stuff and he had no idea what these were. None. Radar was shut down so they could do an extensive diagnostics to make sure it was working and these were real contacts. They were. ~ Just going through all the possibilities I can think of.... Did LM "hijack" or summon one of those craft, psychically, and "make it" have an encounter with Fravor and Friends? Or, maybe none of the above? Maybe it was a NHI craft and had nothing to do with LM? Remember, Fravor said it looked like it might be docking with a submerged object, so maybe that's why it was in that specific area? To me, that suggests NHI.) Ross: "Now I want to say here, let's be really clear about this: There is always the possibility that sources that talk to a journalist like me may be maligned. They may indeed be running some kind of psyop." (I know he has said that kind of thing in the past but I wish Ross had reiterated that point in the N2K segment. I have heard from a few people who think that's exactly what's happening here. And also, if his sources are so sure LM was involved and "operating" a Tic Tac, to me, it would make sense that they would also know whether it was a Tic Tac LM acquired or...a Tic Tac LM manufactured, based on reverse engineering the real thing.) Ross: "And of course I've taken that (disinformation/psyop) into consideration in asking the question. The difficulty is, I can't go into the detail, for very obvious reasons, about who these sources are and why I think so strongly that those sources are telling me the truth. And I can tell you, there are a lot of people who are assuring me that I'm flat wrong. And that's fine. But let's have a discussion about this." (Well now that "categorically" seems be to off the table, we can discuss it. BTW, back in 2019 on my blog, Dave Beaty 🇺🇦 and I discussed the possibility that the Tic Tac was human tech. I know others have discussed that, too, so it's not a new idea.) ~Ross then switches gears to the drones~ Ross: "And also, let's talk about what I think was actually another of the major points that I was trying to make in the course of that conversation I had with Bryce. Which is that there is an obvious contradiction between what the White House has said - that these were FAA-authorized drones operating [in] the continental United States in November, December, January - and what the U.S. Air Force has said. Which is two senior generals, one former, one serving commander of NORTHCOM, NORAD, responsible for the defense of the United States northern aerospace, stated categorically, on the record, that they have no idea who is responsible for those drone craft that were hovering over the continent of the United States. That's an obvious, logical contradiction." (In the March 16th episode of 60 Minutes with Bill Whitaker., we learned... Retired four-star general, Mark Kelly, went up to the roof and saw drones over Langley, from the size of a quadcopter up to the size of a small car. General Glen VanHerck (now retired) is the former commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes" that we can't track the drones over Langley or see where they originated. "It's a capability gap. Certainly, they can come and go from any direction. The FBI is looking at potential options but they don't have an answer right now." General Gregory Guillot is the current commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes," that, "the threat got ahead of our ability to detect and track the threat." Could we detect drones flying into Langley today? "At low altitude, probably not, with your standard FAA or surveillance radars. I don't think we know entirely what happened. It is alarming." And, as I've (Joe) been saying forever, a big problem was/is the rules of engagement that detail when and how you can shoot down drones. VanHerk: "It's been one year since Langley had their drone incursion and we don't have the policies and laws in place to deal with this? That's not a sense or urgency.") ~ Ross: "And if the president, think about this... If the president...it's actually a good point that actually supports the possibility that I might, in fact, be right, and that my sources are in fact telling me the truth. If the president is telling the American public they don't need to worry about these drones - drones which we know are operating anomalously, with anomalous characteristics - then what the hell is going on? It implies he's been briefed. (Okay, what Ross is saying here: If you combine the president telling us not to worry about the drones, along with these drones making anomalous maneuvers, it bolsters his claim that LM (and others) has advanced tech that can also be used in drone tech. And that the president has been briefed about this advanced tech. But the problem with that line of thinking is, when you look at what eyewitnesses have said about the drones (or whatever they were), in 99% of the cases, the only anomalous behavior was their ability avoid detection and go stealth. That's the low observability part of the UAP five observables that Lue Elizondo popularized. But no 90-degree turns or anything like that. I don't think anything the generals or Trump said bolsters the idea that Lockheed was involved with the Tic Tac in 2004.) Ross: "Just to add more smoke to the fire, earlier on today, I had a message from a guy in New Jersey who has seen one of these drones land in a New Jersey backyard. He was illegally pointing a laser beam at one of these drones, which you should not do. Naughty. Even if they are NHI or whatever they are." (I wish Ross had said, "a guy in New Jersey who CLAIMS he has seen one of these drones land." Ross was in Barcelona when recording this episode of Reality Check so there was no time for him to vet this story. It's such an outlier from everything else we have heard about the drones that I think we should remain skeptical about if it actually happened. Does this person have photos or videos? Are there any other eyewitnesses?) Ross: "This is what he told me: "I was beaming [the drones] one night around midnight, and the one flew straight over my backyard, stopped slightly above, and to my left, and seemed to sink down into the trees along the little street on the side of my house. The next thing I see is this rectangle-looking, box-like thing floating just above the street, about the size of an old Ford station wagon. It was the most incredible, starkly-lit thing I've ever seen. I've never seen colors so radiant, so intensely liquid-like in my life. Several shades of blues with oranges and yellows like intense neon lights. "'It scared the hell out of me, and I moved away from the window so it couldn't see me. I slowly poked my head around the window, and it followed every move I made. It knew I was watching it. I would pull back and it came up the street. I would move into the window and it moved back down the street. It was like we were synchronized, and I was completely freaked out to the point that I quickly ran into my kitchen and considered hiding under my sink, of all things. I found myself in some sort of stupor, like I was being drugged, confused and slowed down. So I went to my bedroom and got my point two five, and just laid back in bed. I awoke the next morning, still holding the pistol.' ~End Alleged Eyewitness Account in NJ~ Ross: "Something really anomalous that has no visible means of propulsion is landing in New Jersey, and your president is telling you he's not concerned about it. Yet, two generals responsible for the defense of the United States aerospace are telling you they're concerned about it, and they don't know what these objects are. Why is the president not concerned? And why are two U.S. Air Force generals, presumably, not briefed into what the president is briefed into? Think about that." (Allegedly landed in NJ. I don't think Trump knows more than the generals, and I don't think he was briefed into a program that they were left out in the cold on.) ~~~ @MeaganOurada reads another question: "Even if Ross seems confident that Tic Tac is U.S. tech, does he think it's a reverse engineering tech from NHI, or a tech 100% created by humans?" Ross: "As I've mentioned earlier, we're not saying all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. And it's quite clear that some Tic Tacs are indeed non-human intelligence, or suspected to be non-human intelligence. But what we're talking about are objects that are showing the five observables, doing maneuvers and operating in ways that don't conform to terrestrial craft. "I can't answer the question, definitively, whether they are constructed by Lockheed Martin, or whether it's Lockheed Martin operating a recovered, retrieved craft." (Again, if he had said that in the N2K segment, there may have been less pushback. Did his sources not explain that aspect of the claim? Pretty important detail.) Ross: "Because what I've been told, and what jakebarber told me in the interview that you've all watched, hopefully, on NewsNation, is that there have been retrievals of craft, including Tic Tacs. So, why is it a surprise to people that a contractor, that I'm alleging is directly involved in the Legacy program, is involved in operating these craft." (Because when Ross spoke about this the first time, he made no mention of LM OPERATING the Tic Tac in the 2004 incident . If he didn't mean that Lockheed had BUILT or MANUFACTURED it, he should have made that clear. He must understand this.) Ross: "And moreover, why would we necessarily expect that people, even those flying in the carrier battle group, would actually know about this or be briefed into this?" (We didn't, and don't, expect that, and have been discussing it for the last 6 or so years.) Ross: "It would have been a really good idea if they were going to test this technology against the carrier battle group, to have let the people know." (Which people? How many? Fravor said they had around 6000 people on the Nimitz and Princeton, combined. If it was SAP-level, classified technology, they would've had to read all those people into the program before the test. Not realistic, IMO.) Ross: "And I think people need to be reminded that my good friend, Kevin Day, who I know disputes the possibility that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin... In my book, Kevin Day told me - and he said this in many, many interviews - that when, I think it was the admiral in charge of the carrier battle group, was told about the Tic Tac, he didn't seem very alarmed. Why not? Why aren't people asking these questions? Why was the commander of a carrier battle fleet - that was suffering incursions by anomalous objects doing the five observables during a hugely important and sensitive naval exercise - why wasn't he concerned about those craft? Think about it." (When I met Keven in 2019, he left the door slightly open to the possibility that it was our tech. And I can't find anything about an admiral onboard the Princeton in Ross's book, "In Plain Sight." The only thing that resembles that claim is this excerpt about the captain. I also wrote about the captain in my blog in 2019.) From In Plain Sight... Kevin Day recalls asking his captain on the Princeton afterwards what he thought the object was. 'He told me, “I think the objects were spontaneously forming ice falling from space”.’ Day laughs at the absurdity of such a conclusion. His captain left him with the clear impression he knew a lot more than he was letting on about the phenomenon." From My Blog in 2019... "November 14th, they’re doing air defense exercises, also known as ADEX. Day pulls Captain Smith aside and tells him about the contacts that he and the others had been tracking and that he’s worried about 'safety of flight' because they could have a mishap with one of these craft as they conduct their exercises. Day highly recommended that they go check them out. Smith agreed and told him to take the Fast Eagle flight and 'go get ‘em.' Day said, “in the back of my mind, I was like, hell yeah! We’re going to intercept these things!” (audience laughs) It turned out to be his very last intercept in the Navy." (So, apparently, the captain WAS concerned leading up to the encounter. More from my 2019 blog...) "Voorhis shared that his captain had started a rumor that the objects were spontaneously forming ice in the atmosphere. He said he and his buddies would all sit there, smoke and say, 'Yeah, right.'" (For me, none of that is enough to suggest that the captain knew LM or some other humans/military/USG were behind the Tic Tac events. Maybe the captain thought it was something alien but didn't want the sailors to lose focus for their upcoming role in Iraqi Freedom? Or, maybe he was scared of the possibility of a non-human intelligence among us? I don't know. I'm not positive, but I think Ryan Graves mentioned one of his superiors giving a muted reaction to some of the UAP events they were facing on the East Coast.) ~ "Commander David Fravor responded to me: the Tic Tac 'was not Lockheed Martin', according to him. He seemed very confident and matter-of-fact." ~Jesse Michels Ross: "Let me first say I have nothing but admiration for David Fravor. He's given service to his country, he's a patriot, and he deserves respect and recognition for that. I'm not getting involved in a stash with a person who's done so much, honorably, for his country. It's not, though, outside the realm of possibilities. In fact, I think it would be extremely unlikely that, if there is, as I know there is, a compartmented, secret program where Lockheed Martin is one of the primary contractors operating retrieved, non-human technology and attempting to reverse engineer that technology, there is absolutely no way that David would be briefed into that, unless it was absolutely necessary for the doing of his job." (I've been saying this for several years and I agree 100%.) Ross: "As we all know, when the government wants to protect a secret, it compartmentalizes it. Even if you have a Top-Secret classification - which I'm sure David probably had - it's also compartmentalized. And that's how the U.S. keeps its secrets. And I've spoken to people, literally in institutions in the United States, one of whom knows about the program, and the other of whom is in an adjoining office and has absolutely no idea. "I've had a situation where I've spoken to the head of a government agency that ought properly to have known about the Legacy program. That head of a government agency was not informed about the fact that we are recovering non-human craft and attempting to reverse engineer that technology." (Journalistically speaking, I would say, "The head of a government agency was not informed about the CLAIM that we are recovering non-human craft." No way for Ross to know that's a fact unless he's been read in to the program to see for himself. Belief? Yes. Knowing? No. I harp on this all the time and it's a pet peeve of mine because I think it's important.) Ross: "A person two rungs down was the person that the Legacy program was using to gate keep inside that institution. It's really interesting how they compartmentalize all of this. And so, absolutely no disrespect to David Fravor or my good friend, Kevin Day, but they're good men. The simple fact is, compartmentalization works." (Again, I agree 100%. If Admiral Wilson, the vice director of intelligence, and deputy director of the DIA, was denied access, then there's a very good chance David Fravor was, too.)

"If [Ross] had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard." ~Murgia Lockheed, Landing Drones, Stupor, and Trump Did think this would be another LAP (Long-Ass Post), but here it is. Ross Coulthart: "It's been a very interesting week with the public response to the comments that I've made on the show that I do with my friend and colleague,Bryce Zabel, "Need to Know," where we discussed what I've been told by my sources, multiple sources, by the way, that Lockheed Martin was indeed behind the Tic Tac encounter of 2004 with the USS Nimitz battle carrier group." Let's rewind: This is what Ross and Bryce said on the @Coulthart_Zabel episode uploaded on July 6th. My comments in ( ). Ross: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." Bryce: "Ooookay." Ross: "The Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Why are we being lied to? This is the issue. Why is the United States government now participating - at White-House, executive level, in collusion with the national-security state - to keep secret the fact that they've made these advances? I suspect it's because they've realized that they're being overtaken by their foreign adversaries, and they don't want you to know that." Bryce: "Okay, the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin. Well, in some respects, given how insane the Tic Tac behaved during the Nimitz, where it went from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than a second, then I would say, well there's one for the U.S. team. Obviously, we have some good stuff out there, if that's the case, right?" Ross: "How much of that is being shared with the actual Defense Department that's responsible for the defense of the United States? This is the kind of questions that Congress should be asking." Bryce: "So you're saying Lockheed Martin might - or anybody, but Lockheed Martin in this particular case - has a Tic Tac that they are testing, and have been testing, and have access to." (One can argue that when Bryce said LM has a Tic Tac that they've been testing, that could include the possibility that it's an NHI craft they somehow acquired and not something they built. That would go against my "Ross is flip flopping" allegation.) Bryce: "But they might not have shared it with the Defense Department of the United States? Which probably paid for it in their trillion-dollar budgets. That's kind of mind-blowing in itself." Ross: "Those are the questions I think Congress should be asking. I mean, what I'm saying, basically, is..." Bryce: "Why are you saying this, by the way? Where did you? Where is this from? How do we know this? What's going on?" Ross: "I'm...I'm sorry, Bryce, I can't go there." ~ Bryce: "Frankly, the only major row that you and I have ever had, which was over eminent domain, and who can... Is it not possible that that legislation has eminent domain in it as an issue that the government would be able to go seize potential things from private enterprise, if the government, in fact, thought that Lockheed Martin had a Tic Tac? Wouldn't we want to go seize it?" Ross: "Bloody hell we would. Exactly. But that hasn't happened. And, you know, I can tell you, David Grusch has told them exactly where to look. Jake Barber has told them exactly where to look. This is why I just found it, in many ways, I find it absurd that we're still debating the issue whether the NHI technology recovery is real. Of course it's real!" (I think/suspect it's real. But if I'm gonna play journalist, I need to see proof before I say, "Of course it's real!" Or, "I know it's real." Walk me into the building and show me. I don't think this has happened with Ross so a debate is still warranted, IMO.) Bryce: "This thing you just said about Lockheed Martin. Is this the first time you've said that in public, or have you said that before?" Ross: "Look, there's been speculation for a while that it's Lockheed Martin, but I'm now very, very sure that it was Lockheed Martin. And I think the Tic Tac is part of two, at least two different platforms that Lockheed's been working on. Different platforms that they've been working on. And it's technology that, until very recently, most of Congress was completely unaware of." (To me, that sounds like Ross is saying, that whatever LM is working on, they built it.) Bryce: "Well, I just hope, if there's a war with China or a war with NHI, I just hope Lockheed Martin remembers who helped pay for it, and they're on our side. That's what I would say." Ross: "Well, I hope they are. I don't think we can have any expectation, though, unless the public demands answers, that we're going to get the truth." Full post here: ~And more from yesterday's "Reality Check"~ @MeaganOurada reads a question: "You recently mentioned the Tic Tac was a produced/manufactured by Lockheed Martin, but you never mentioned if it was under autonomous flight or piloted." (This shows that others took Ross's original comments as LM manufacturing a Tic Tac and not figuring out how to fly an NHI Tic Tac that they somehow had acquired.) Ross: "That's a good question, and I'll be honest with you, I don't know for sure." (Here was a chance for Ross to say, "I didn't mean to suggest it was 100% produced/manufactured by Lockheed, just that it was one possibility. The other is they operated a NHI Tic Tac that they had acquired.) Ross: "I have been told previously that when Tic Tacs... You see, one of the other things I want to clarify here as well is, there are NHI Tic Tacs." (We don't know that for sure, and later on, Ross adds that they are "suspected" to be NHI.) Ross: "A lot of people seem to be thinking that I'm suggesting that all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. That's not the case at all." (A few people who follow me thought that but I think the overwhelming majority realize that Ross didn't say that.) Ross: "What I was told, and I'm reasonably sure that this is the case, is that Tic Tac was being operated by Lockheed Martin, and it's conceivable that that was being operated neuro-meditatively, psionically, by a human psionic, which is what I understand, is the way that these retrieved, non-human craft are being operated." ("Reasonably sure" and "operated," is different than what he said on N2K: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." I think most people took that as: "I now now, categorically, that Lockheed built a Tic Tac and that's what Fravor chased in 2004." That's why you saw such a pushback from people on social media.) Ross: "It's not clear to me, though, whether this is a craft that was built by Lockheed Martin, or whether it is Lockheed Martin testing the use of neuro-meditative signaling, as our friends at Skywatcher called it, to operate one of these craft. I just can't answer that question, specifically." (If Ross would have said this in the N2K episode and didn't use the word, "categorically," I think the reaction would have been, "Oh, that's interesting." I'm still skeptical that Lockheed has ANY role in the 2004 Tic Tac incident but I'll keep my mind open.) Ross: "All I can do is tell you what I've been told by my multiple sources, which is that the operation of the Tic Tac was being controlled, on the day, by Lockheed Martin." (Again, if he had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard. I hope humans have developed the ability to control a Tic Tac and make it perform like what was reported on November 14th, 2004. But, again, I'm skeptical. The SPY-1 radar on the USS Princeton tracked objects for a week or so, leading up to the encounter Fravor and the others had with the Tic Tac. Were all of those objects LM-controlled craft? Seems unlikely. In 2019, at UFO MegaCon, Kevin Day said that on around November 10th, he started witnessing these strange tracks on his radar scope. He wasn’t really concerned with them because there was a lot of air traffic off the coast of California and they were a significant ways from the strike group. So they just monitored them and reporting them to 'higher authorities' and maintained track of them. They stood out and were anomalous because they were at 28,000 feet and going at 100 knots. Day said that was, 'extremely bizarre.' His entire job was to identify stuff and he had no idea what these were. None. Radar was shut down so they could do an extensive diagnostics to make sure it was working and these were real contacts. They were. ~ Just going through all the possibilities I can think of.... Did LM "hijack" or summon one of those craft, psychically, and "make it" have an encounter with Fravor and Friends? Or, maybe none of the above? Maybe it was a NHI craft and had nothing to do with LM? Remember, Fravor said it looked like it might be docking with a submerged object, so maybe that's why it was in that specific area? To me, that suggests NHI.) Ross: "Now I want to say here, let's be really clear about this: There is always the possibility that sources that talk to a journalist like me may be maligned. They may indeed be running some kind of psyop." (I know he has said that kind of thing in the past but I wish Ross had reiterated that point in the N2K segment. I have heard from a few people who think that's exactly what's happening here. And also, if his sources are so sure LM was involved and "operating" a Tic Tac, to me, it would make sense that they would also know whether it was a Tic Tac LM acquired or...a Tic Tac LM manufactured, based on reverse engineering the real thing.) Ross: "And of course I've taken that (disinformation/psyop) into consideration in asking the question. The difficulty is, I can't go into the detail, for very obvious reasons, about who these sources are and why I think so strongly that those sources are telling me the truth. And I can tell you, there are a lot of people who are assuring me that I'm flat wrong. And that's fine. But let's have a discussion about this." (Well now that "categorically" seems be to off the table, we can discuss it. BTW, back in 2019 on my blog, Dave Beaty 🇺🇦 and I discussed the possibility that the Tic Tac was human tech. I know others have discussed that, too, so it's not a new idea.) ~Ross then switches gears to the drones~ Ross: "And also, let's talk about what I think was actually another of the major points that I was trying to make in the course of that conversation I had with Bryce. Which is that there is an obvious contradiction between what the White House has said - that these were FAA-authorized drones operating [in] the continental United States in November, December, January - and what the U.S. Air Force has said. Which is two senior generals, one former, one serving commander of NORTHCOM, NORAD, responsible for the defense of the United States northern aerospace, stated categorically, on the record, that they have no idea who is responsible for those drone craft that were hovering over the continent of the United States. That's an obvious, logical contradiction." (In the March 16th episode of 60 Minutes with Bill Whitaker., we learned... Retired four-star general, Mark Kelly, went up to the roof and saw drones over Langley, from the size of a quadcopter up to the size of a small car. General Glen VanHerck (now retired) is the former commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes" that we can't track the drones over Langley or see where they originated. "It's a capability gap. Certainly, they can come and go from any direction. The FBI is looking at potential options but they don't have an answer right now." General Gregory Guillot is the current commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes," that, "the threat got ahead of our ability to detect and track the threat." Could we detect drones flying into Langley today? "At low altitude, probably not, with your standard FAA or surveillance radars. I don't think we know entirely what happened. It is alarming." And, as I've (Joe) been saying forever, a big problem was/is the rules of engagement that detail when and how you can shoot down drones. VanHerk: "It's been one year since Langley had their drone incursion and we don't have the policies and laws in place to deal with this? That's not a sense or urgency.") ~ Ross: "And if the president, think about this... If the president...it's actually a good point that actually supports the possibility that I might, in fact, be right, and that my sources are in fact telling me the truth. If the president is telling the American public they don't need to worry about these drones - drones which we know are operating anomalously, with anomalous characteristics - then what the hell is going on? It implies he's been briefed. (Okay, what Ross is saying here: If you combine the president telling us not to worry about the drones, along with these drones making anomalous maneuvers, it bolsters his claim that LM (and others) has advanced tech that can also be used in drone tech. And that the president has been briefed about this advanced tech. But the problem with that line of thinking is, when you look at what eyewitnesses have said about the drones (or whatever they were), in 99% of the cases, the only anomalous behavior was their ability avoid detection and go stealth. That's the low observability part of the UAP five observables that Lue Elizondo popularized. But no 90-degree turns or anything like that. I don't think anything the generals or Trump said bolsters the idea that Lockheed was involved with the Tic Tac in 2004.) Ross: "Just to add more smoke to the fire, earlier on today, I had a message from a guy in New Jersey who has seen one of these drones land in a New Jersey backyard. He was illegally pointing a laser beam at one of these drones, which you should not do. Naughty. Even if they are NHI or whatever they are." (I wish Ross had said, "a guy in New Jersey who CLAIMS he has seen one of these drones land." Ross was in Barcelona when recording this episode of Reality Check so there was no time for him to vet this story. It's such an outlier from everything else we have heard about the drones that I think we should remain skeptical about if it actually happened. Does this person have photos or videos? Are there any other eyewitnesses?) Ross: "This is what he told me: "I was beaming [the drones] one night around midnight, and the one flew straight over my backyard, stopped slightly above, and to my left, and seemed to sink down into the trees along the little street on the side of my house. The next thing I see is this rectangle-looking, box-like thing floating just above the street, about the size of an old Ford station wagon. It was the most incredible, starkly-lit thing I've ever seen. I've never seen colors so radiant, so intensely liquid-like in my life. Several shades of blues with oranges and yellows like intense neon lights. "'It scared the hell out of me, and I moved away from the window so it couldn't see me. I slowly poked my head around the window, and it followed every move I made. It knew I was watching it. I would pull back and it came up the street. I would move into the window and it moved back down the street. It was like we were synchronized, and I was completely freaked out to the point that I quickly ran into my kitchen and considered hiding under my sink, of all things. I found myself in some sort of stupor, like I was being drugged, confused and slowed down. So I went to my bedroom and got my point two five, and just laid back in bed. I awoke the next morning, still holding the pistol.' ~End Alleged Eyewitness Account in NJ~ Ross: "Something really anomalous that has no visible means of propulsion is landing in New Jersey, and your president is telling you he's not concerned about it. Yet, two generals responsible for the defense of the United States aerospace are telling you they're concerned about it, and they don't know what these objects are. Why is the president not concerned? And why are two U.S. Air Force generals, presumably, not briefed into what the president is briefed into? Think about that." (Allegedly landed in NJ. I don't think Trump knows more than the generals, and I don't think he was briefed into a program that they were left out in the cold on.) ~~~ @MeaganOurada reads another question: "Even if Ross seems confident that Tic Tac is U.S. tech, does he think it's a reverse engineering tech from NHI, or a tech 100% created by humans?" Ross: "As I've mentioned earlier, we're not saying all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. And it's quite clear that some Tic Tacs are indeed non-human intelligence, or suspected to be non-human intelligence. But what we're talking about are objects that are showing the five observables, doing maneuvers and operating in ways that don't conform to terrestrial craft. "I can't answer the question, definitively, whether they are constructed by Lockheed Martin, or whether it's Lockheed Martin operating a recovered, retrieved craft." (Again, if he had said that in the N2K segment, there may have been less pushback. Did his sources not explain that aspect of the claim? Pretty important detail.) Ross: "Because what I've been told, and what jakebarber told me in the interview that you've all watched, hopefully, on NewsNation, is that there have been retrievals of craft, including Tic Tacs. So, why is it a surprise to people that a contractor, that I'm alleging is directly involved in the Legacy program, is involved in operating these craft." (Because when Ross spoke about this the first time, he made no mention of LM OPERATING the Tic Tac in the 2004 incident . If he didn't mean that Lockheed had BUILT or MANUFACTURED it, he should have made that clear. He must understand this.) Ross: "And moreover, why would we necessarily expect that people, even those flying in the carrier battle group, would actually know about this or be briefed into this?" (We didn't, and don't, expect that, and have been discussing it for the last 6 or so years.) Ross: "It would have been a really good idea if they were going to test this technology against the carrier battle group, to have let the people know." (Which people? How many? Fravor said they had around 6000 people on the Nimitz and Princeton, combined. If it was SAP-level, classified technology, they would've had to read all those people into the program before the test. Not realistic, IMO.) Ross: "And I think people need to be reminded that my good friend, Kevin Day, who I know disputes the possibility that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin... In my book, Kevin Day told me - and he said this in many, many interviews - that when, I think it was the admiral in charge of the carrier battle group, was told about the Tic Tac, he didn't seem very alarmed. Why not? Why aren't people asking these questions? Why was the commander of a carrier battle fleet - that was suffering incursions by anomalous objects doing the five observables during a hugely important and sensitive naval exercise - why wasn't he concerned about those craft? Think about it." (When I met Keven in 2019, he left the door slightly open to the possibility that it was our tech. And I can't find anything about an admiral onboard the Princeton in Ross's book, "In Plain Sight." The only thing that resembles that claim is this excerpt about the captain. I also wrote about the captain in my blog in 2019.) From In Plain Sight... Kevin Day recalls asking his captain on the Princeton afterwards what he thought the object was. 'He told me, “I think the objects were spontaneously forming ice falling from space”.’ Day laughs at the absurdity of such a conclusion. His captain left him with the clear impression he knew a lot more than he was letting on about the phenomenon." From My Blog in 2019... "November 14th, they’re doing air defense exercises, also known as ADEX. Day pulls Captain Smith aside and tells him about the contacts that he and the others had been tracking and that he’s worried about 'safety of flight' because they could have a mishap with one of these craft as they conduct their exercises. Day highly recommended that they go check them out. Smith agreed and told him to take the Fast Eagle flight and 'go get ‘em.' Day said, “in the back of my mind, I was like, hell yeah! We’re going to intercept these things!” (audience laughs) It turned out to be his very last intercept in the Navy." (So, apparently, the captain WAS concerned leading up to the encounter. More from my 2019 blog...) "Voorhis shared that his captain had started a rumor that the objects were spontaneously forming ice in the atmosphere. He said he and his buddies would all sit there, smoke and say, 'Yeah, right.'" (For me, none of that is enough to suggest that the captain knew LM or some other humans/military/USG were behind the Tic Tac events. Maybe the captain thought it was something alien but didn't want the sailors to lose focus for their upcoming role in Iraqi Freedom? Or, maybe he was scared of the possibility of a non-human intelligence among us? I don't know. I'm not positive, but I think Ryan Graves mentioned one of his superiors giving a muted reaction to some of the UAP events they were facing on the East Coast.) ~ "Commander David Fravor responded to me: the Tic Tac 'was not Lockheed Martin', according to him. He seemed very confident and matter-of-fact." ~Jesse Michels Ross: "Let me first say I have nothing but admiration for David Fravor. He's given service to his country, he's a patriot, and he deserves respect and recognition for that. I'm not getting involved in a stash with a person who's done so much, honorably, for his country. It's not, though, outside the realm of possibilities. In fact, I think it would be extremely unlikely that, if there is, as I know there is, a compartmented, secret program where Lockheed Martin is one of the primary contractors operating retrieved, non-human technology and attempting to reverse engineer that technology, there is absolutely no way that David would be briefed into that, unless it was absolutely necessary for the doing of his job." (I've been saying this for several years and I agree 100%.) Ross: "As we all know, when the government wants to protect a secret, it compartmentalizes it. Even if you have a Top-Secret classification - which I'm sure David probably had - it's also compartmentalized. And that's how the U.S. keeps its secrets. And I've spoken to people, literally in institutions in the United States, one of whom knows about the program, and the other of whom is in an adjoining office and has absolutely no idea. "I've had a situation where I've spoken to the head of a government agency that ought properly to have known about the Legacy program. That head of a government agency was not informed about the fact that we are recovering non-human craft and attempting to reverse engineer that technology." (Journalistically speaking, I would say, "The head of a government agency was not informed about the CLAIM that we are recovering non-human craft." No way for Ross to know that's a fact unless he's been read in to the program to see for himself. Belief? Yes. Knowing? No. I harp on this all the time and it's a pet peeve of mine because I think it's important.) Ross: "A person two rungs down was the person that the Legacy program was using to gate keep inside that institution. It's really interesting how they compartmentalize all of this. And so, absolutely no disrespect to David Fravor or my good friend, Kevin Day, but they're good men. The simple fact is, compartmentalization works." (Again, I agree 100%. If Admiral Wilson, the vice director of intelligence, and deputy director of the DIA, was denied access, then there's a very good chance David Fravor was, too.)

Joe Murgia

22,656 views • 1 year ago

OF COURSE ISRAEL WAS INVOLVED IN THE ASS*SSINATION OF CHARLIE KIRK. Let me explain why. 🔖& share this. In November 2023, a leaked call from Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL revealed a "major generational problem" regarding declining support for israel in America. He revealed polling that showed it wasn't "Left vs. Right," but it was "young vs. old." He called this the "TikTok problem," or the "Gen Z problem." He called Gen Z "useful idiots" and said the "real game" was to solve this problem. He called for the jewish community to put their collective brains together to solve this generational problem. Here's what we know they did: 1. They immediately pressured Tiktok to increase censorship. In November 2023 alone, TikTok deleted over 900,000 pro-Palestine videos. They also blocked various hashtags, including "israel did 911." 2. They mobilized a high-pressure campaign against the Ivy League campuses that were the epicenter of pro-Palestine protests & activism. Several university presidents were punished & replaced by jews and/or zionists willing to suppress free speech. (We must note that this campus activism was driven by Leftist organizations. This will be important later.) 3. They lobbied congress, which then passed new laws suppressing & punishing campus free speech & demonstrations classified as "antisemitic." 4. They lobbied congress to outright shut down & ban Tiktok, which congress obliged. However, Trump ended up "saving" TikTok, which was then forced to sell itself to a consortium of pro-israel jewish billionaires, led principally by uber-zionist Larry Ellison. That sale went through on September 16, 2025—6 days after Charlie Kirk was ass*ssinated. 5. In early 2025, the newly-installed Trump administration threatened to withhold $Hundreds of Millions in federal aid to several universities unless they put "safeguards" in place preventing the outbreak of pro-Palestinian activism (again defined as "antisemitism"). 6. In 2025, israel, through organizations like Israel365, started spending $Millions on sending hundreds of American "influencers" to israel in order to get them promoting the zionist cause and rehabilitating israel's image. 7. In 2025, Netanyahu launched Israel's "8th-Front" Information Warfare campaign, targeting the social media & AI landscape in the United States. Israel has earmarked an additional $729 million in FY2026 for these operations. 8. Zionist billionaires took over the entire CBS/Paramount media ecosystem in August 2025. (And they've just now added the entire Warner Bros. Discovery ecosystem, which they've also been pursuing since the fall of 2025). But despite all of this, israel had a problem. Call it the Charlie Kirk TPUSA problem. ▪️Charlie led a campus organization for youth ON THE RIGHT, with 600k+ lifetime members, and 250k+ active members. The largest organization of its kind, completely beholden to his leadership. ▪️Charlie generated billions of views on Tiktok & across the social media landscape, and was firmly opposed to censorship of all kinds including and explicitly speech critical of israel. ▪️Charlie was completely critical of the ADL, calling for its ban on social media & diametrically opposing its calls for more censorship. ▪️Charlie was extremely outspoken and critical of Left-wing jewish activism, which he blamed for the radical, open-borders Marxism ruining the country. ▪️Charlie actively asserted his massive influence to oppose regime-change war in Iran, pressuring Donald Trump inside the Whitehouse itself. ▪️Charlie was becoming increasingly critical of israel & zionism: questioning the suspicious events of 10/7, openly platforming debates against zionism, & himself leading discussions that advocated for cutting aid to israel, releasing the Epstein files, and calling for AIPAC to be registered as a foreign agent under FARA. It should be noted that demanding FARA registration of the israel lobby was one of the actions that got JFK ass*ssinated by the same people. ▪️Charlie was giving TPUSA platform access to powerful israel-critical voices like Tucker Carlson & Dave Smith, and intended to expand that to include Candace Owens. You have seen how ape-sh*t crazy they're going over Tucker & Candace—people who were telling the truth about Epstein & israeli control over the US government and also discouraging war with Iran. ▪️We now also know that Charlie was done with the pro-israel cause and had been signaling his intent to drop it. We have the leaked text, but that didn't happen in a vacuum. That was no doubt the culmination of a lot of momentum in that direction. Here's what I want you to realize if you haven't already: Charlie Kirk was single-handedly undoing or undercutting every move israel & organized jewry had made over the previous 2 years to solve the "Gen Z problem." Remember how organized campus opposition to israel came from the Left? Well here came Charlie Kirk re-platforming it on the Right! Charlie had transformed TPUSA into a Trojan horse—allowing & amplifying everything they'd sought to eliminate from the Left! Charlie Kirk was a massive roadblock to the jewish plan to re-conquer the minds of the youth of America. He was literally AND figuratively the Big Man On Campus. The most influential man in America on the youth. He was allowing and accelerating the rising generation to be radically anti-israel while simultaneously being "Conservative Republicans" in good standing who wouldn't be canceled. THE PLAN The israel-network tried several (ineffective) methods to solve the Charlie Kirk TPUSA problem. 1. They tried to quietly & privately influence him in private with through people like Josh Hammer & Rabbi Wolicki, and surround him with pro-zionists like Rob McCoy & Frank Turek. 2. They launched a high-pressure influence operation against him, which culminated in a 2-day "moral blackmail" event in the Hamptons. He took to the media to denounce these efforts. 3. They tried to outright buy him off when Netanyahu offered $150 million. He refused. 4. They tried to force his hand by pulling funding—notable was the $2 million withdrawn by Robert Shillman. He responded by launching a DOGE effort to shore up the finances and by announcing his intentions to leave the pro-israel cause. In summary: they dragged him privately & publicly; they blackmailed him; and then they tried to buy him. Nothing worked. He deflected everything, said 'NO,' and fought off all the attacks. He had resolved to find a new way forward with the new financial situation. Is there any doubt he would have succeeded? That left the israel-jewish network with only one option—an option that time-and-time-again they've been all too willing to resort to. Don't come at me with "Charlie Kirk supported israel!" and "Charlie Kirk loved the jews!" nonsense. John F. Kennedy also supported israel and embraced the jews. But there was a conflict: he put America first. And so did Charlie Kirk. My facts are true. And my logic is sound. I won't hear of this "lone gunman" nonsense any more. Miss me with the "Some random kid all by himself drove 300 miles on a week's notice, shoved a 110-year old gun down his pants, walked onto a roof directly in front of Charlie, delivered a perfect 1-shot/1-kill, escaped with no problem, and then immediately texted the whole plan to his furry roommate." israel would not be able to take this country to war against Iran if Charlie Kirk were still alive today. Period. I don't care how much he loved jews on a personal level. The hostile takeover of TPUSA was every bit as necessary as the hostile takeover of Tiktok and the Ivy league universities. Either you believe israel was the recipient of the most timely, fantastic stroke of geopolitical good luck ever, or you realize that Jonathan Greenblatt's injunction to take back Gen Z has been fulfilled in practically every particular.

OF COURSE ISRAEL WAS INVOLVED IN THE ASSSSINATION OF CHARLIE KIRK. Let me explain why. 🔖& share this. In November 2023, a leaked call from Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL revealed a "major generational problem" regarding declining support for israel in America. He revealed polling that showed it wasn't "Left vs. Right," but it was "young vs. old." He called this the "TikTok problem," or the "Gen Z problem." He called Gen Z "useful idiots" and said the "real game" was to solve this problem. He called for the jewish community to put their collective brains together to solve this generational problem. Here's what we know they did: 1. They immediately pressured Tiktok to increase censorship. In November 2023 alone, TikTok deleted over 900,000 pro-Palestine videos. They also blocked various hashtags, including "israel did 911." 2. They mobilized a high-pressure campaign against the Ivy League campuses that were the epicenter of pro-Palestine protests & activism. Several university presidents were punished & replaced by jews and/or zionists willing to suppress free speech. (We must note that this campus activism was driven by Leftist organizations. This will be important later.) 3. They lobbied congress, which then passed new laws suppressing & punishing campus free speech & demonstrations classified as "antisemitic." 4. They lobbied congress to outright shut down & ban Tiktok, which congress obliged. However, Trump ended up "saving" TikTok, which was then forced to sell itself to a consortium of pro-israel jewish billionaires, led principally by uber-zionist Larry Ellison. That sale went through on September 16, 2025—6 days after Charlie Kirk was assssinated. 5. In early 2025, the newly-installed Trump administration threatened to withhold $Hundreds of Millions in federal aid to several universities unless they put "safeguards" in place preventing the outbreak of pro-Palestinian activism (again defined as "antisemitism"). 6. In 2025, israel, through organizations like Israel365, started spending $Millions on sending hundreds of American "influencers" to israel in order to get them promoting the zionist cause and rehabilitating israel's image. 7. In 2025, Netanyahu launched Israel's "8th-Front" Information Warfare campaign, targeting the social media & AI landscape in the United States. Israel has earmarked an additional $729 million in FY2026 for these operations. 8. Zionist billionaires took over the entire CBS/Paramount media ecosystem in August 2025. (And they've just now added the entire Warner Bros. Discovery ecosystem, which they've also been pursuing since the fall of 2025). But despite all of this, israel had a problem. Call it the Charlie Kirk TPUSA problem. ▪️Charlie led a campus organization for youth ON THE RIGHT, with 600k+ lifetime members, and 250k+ active members. The largest organization of its kind, completely beholden to his leadership. ▪️Charlie generated billions of views on Tiktok & across the social media landscape, and was firmly opposed to censorship of all kinds including and explicitly speech critical of israel. ▪️Charlie was completely critical of the ADL, calling for its ban on social media & diametrically opposing its calls for more censorship. ▪️Charlie was extremely outspoken and critical of Left-wing jewish activism, which he blamed for the radical, open-borders Marxism ruining the country. ▪️Charlie actively asserted his massive influence to oppose regime-change war in Iran, pressuring Donald Trump inside the Whitehouse itself. ▪️Charlie was becoming increasingly critical of israel & zionism: questioning the suspicious events of 10/7, openly platforming debates against zionism, & himself leading discussions that advocated for cutting aid to israel, releasing the Epstein files, and calling for AIPAC to be registered as a foreign agent under FARA. It should be noted that demanding FARA registration of the israel lobby was one of the actions that got JFK assssinated by the same people. ▪️Charlie was giving TPUSA platform access to powerful israel-critical voices like Tucker Carlson & Dave Smith, and intended to expand that to include Candace Owens. You have seen how ape-sht crazy they're going over Tucker & Candace—people who were telling the truth about Epstein & israeli control over the US government and also discouraging war with Iran. ▪️We now also know that Charlie was done with the pro-israel cause and had been signaling his intent to drop it. We have the leaked text, but that didn't happen in a vacuum. That was no doubt the culmination of a lot of momentum in that direction. Here's what I want you to realize if you haven't already: Charlie Kirk was single-handedly undoing or undercutting every move israel & organized jewry had made over the previous 2 years to solve the "Gen Z problem." Remember how organized campus opposition to israel came from the Left? Well here came Charlie Kirk re-platforming it on the Right! Charlie had transformed TPUSA into a Trojan horse—allowing & amplifying everything they'd sought to eliminate from the Left! Charlie Kirk was a massive roadblock to the jewish plan to re-conquer the minds of the youth of America. He was literally AND figuratively the Big Man On Campus. The most influential man in America on the youth. He was allowing and accelerating the rising generation to be radically anti-israel while simultaneously being "Conservative Republicans" in good standing who wouldn't be canceled. THE PLAN The israel-network tried several (ineffective) methods to solve the Charlie Kirk TPUSA problem. 1. They tried to quietly & privately influence him in private with through people like Josh Hammer & Rabbi Wolicki, and surround him with pro-zionists like Rob McCoy & Frank Turek. 2. They launched a high-pressure influence operation against him, which culminated in a 2-day "moral blackmail" event in the Hamptons. He took to the media to denounce these efforts. 3. They tried to outright buy him off when Netanyahu offered $150 million. He refused. 4. They tried to force his hand by pulling funding—notable was the $2 million withdrawn by Robert Shillman. He responded by launching a DOGE effort to shore up the finances and by announcing his intentions to leave the pro-israel cause. In summary: they dragged him privately & publicly; they blackmailed him; and then they tried to buy him. Nothing worked. He deflected everything, said 'NO,' and fought off all the attacks. He had resolved to find a new way forward with the new financial situation. Is there any doubt he would have succeeded? That left the israel-jewish network with only one option—an option that time-and-time-again they've been all too willing to resort to. Don't come at me with "Charlie Kirk supported israel!" and "Charlie Kirk loved the jews!" nonsense. John F. Kennedy also supported israel and embraced the jews. But there was a conflict: he put America first. And so did Charlie Kirk. My facts are true. And my logic is sound. I won't hear of this "lone gunman" nonsense any more. Miss me with the "Some random kid all by himself drove 300 miles on a week's notice, shoved a 110-year old gun down his pants, walked onto a roof directly in front of Charlie, delivered a perfect 1-shot/1-kill, escaped with no problem, and then immediately texted the whole plan to his furry roommate." israel would not be able to take this country to war against Iran if Charlie Kirk were still alive today. Period. I don't care how much he loved jews on a personal level. The hostile takeover of TPUSA was every bit as necessary as the hostile takeover of Tiktok and the Ivy league universities. Either you believe israel was the recipient of the most timely, fantastic stroke of geopolitical good luck ever, or you realize that Jonathan Greenblatt's injunction to take back Gen Z has been fulfilled in practically every particular.

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

313,603 views • 7 months ago

🚨EXCLUSIVE: The untold story of the FBI’s J6 pipe bomber “Person of Interest #2”🚨 If what the FBI’s January 6 pipe bomber “Person of Interest #2” (POI2) told me about his FBI interview is true, there is further proof that the Bureau has covered up, or “deleted,” additional video footage about what happened when the RNC pipe bomb was allegedly discovered by Karlin Younger on January 6, 2021. I will not reveal the identity or any other identifying information about the FBI’s POI2 in the January 6 pipe bomb saga. I also won't discuss the full five hours of personal interview time with POI2; instead, I will focus on two key pieces of information he gave me. As a primer for those not already following this story in detail, here is a brief rundown of the facts in POI2’s case and why the FBI was initially interested in him as a “person of interest”: -POI2 does not live in the Greater D.C. area. He lives in a large American city in a state that does not border D.C. -From news releases, congressional reports, FBI statements, and an FBI whistleblower disclosure, we know that POI2 was visiting a lifelong acquaintance (POI3) at his residence in Fall Church, VA, over the course of January 4 - 7, 2021. -POI2 used POI3’s Metrorail card for travel back and forth to the District on the 5th and 6th. -POI2 caught the attention of law enforcement investigators when he emerged from D.C.’s Metro South rail station on January 5, changed hats and put on dark sunglasses, then beelined straight across the street from the station into the Rumsey Court alley behind the Republican National Committee headquarters. It was in that alley that POI2 began taking photos of “numbers.” Numbers on trash cans, dumpsters, door addresses, and the like. According to the FBI, POI2 planned to use those photographs in a forthcoming book. (To date, that book has not been published.) Then, after walking around Capitol Hill all day long, and even attending some of the J5 protest events, POI2 ducked back into the same alley for a few minutes — after dark — before returning to the Metro South station across the street from the RNC. He returned to Falls Church via the train, where POI3 picked him up by car, and they went back to POI3’s home. POI2 then returned to DC the next morning to attend Trump’s speech at The Ellipse on the 6th. -POI2 was cleared of suspicion following two FBI interviews on January 19, 2021, at his residence in his home city. These interviews took place six days after the FBI pulled their Special Operations Group (SOG) surveillance team off POI3’s home on January 13, just two days after they were deployed to watch the infamous Falls Church, VA condominium address where we now know POI3 shared a firewall between his address and the then residence of former Capitol Police officer Shauni Kerkhoff. The subject of our November 8, 2025 story published by Blaze Media. How I came to spend five hours with POI2 I met with POI2 twice, on December 11 and 12, 2025. On the 11th, a member of our team accompanied me: a retired FBI veteran of 25 years now working as a private investigator. That first interview lasted for three hours, and then the next day I met with POI2, just him and me, for another two hours. I arrived in POI2’s home city on the 10th to do some early recon. We had POI2’s name (which I’d acquired from a congressional source), and his address, but we didn’t have a current phone number. After running an extensive background on him, we learned a lot about his life and work, social media, friends and close associates, and even where he attends church, but we still didn't have a phone number to call him and ask for a meeting. Most interesting of all, POI2 is a prolific international traveler. In one recent year, he had logged over 40 international flights. So we didn’t even know if he’d be in the country, much less at home, if we knocked on this door. My recon of his address was a huge disappointment. His apartment building is one of those old inner-city manufacturing plants refitted into modern, upscale housing. The entire property is ringed by tall wrought-iron fencing, with electronic security for entry into the parking garage, foot traffic, and into the building itself. There was no visible way for us to just pay him a visit for a “knock and talk.” Perhaps we could have “buzzed” him from an exterior gate, but I didn’t get that far that day. Later that evening, I picked up my team member from the airport — the retired FBI guy — and we went to dinner for a long, late-night planning session. We identified a couple of strong local personal connections he had via his Facebook page, and we planned to visit them first, get more info about POI2, and maybe even get their help reaching out to him. At 9:00 a.m. the next morning, we arrived at the home of someone who seemed like they might be closest to him. We were lucky and hit a home run on the first swing. Without the long details, our “story” about why we were looking for POI2 — their close friend — worked like a charm, and we were invited into their home. Our host called POI2, and within two hours POI2 joined us at our new friend’s home. Luckily, POI2 had returned to the States from an overseas trip only the day before. For the next three hours, I asked most of the questions while my partner listened and observed. Based on my partner’s 25+ years of experience with the FBI, he believed POI2 answered everything truthfully … “Or, he’s a very, very good liar.” My partner had to fly back home the next morning, but I had many follow-up questions for POI2. I reached out again early in the morning, and he agreed to meet me at a coffee shop in his neighborhood. ***(On a personal timeline aside: during my second interview with POI2, I was only nine days away from my heart failure episode, and was already struggling to breath after the slightest of physical exertions.)*** The most significant reveal We met at 1:30 p.m., and spent another two full hours together. During this session, we had a detailed conversation about his two interviews with two FBI special agents. Both of those interviews were on the same day. January 19, 2021. POI2 had explained to the FBI agents that the reason he returned to the Rumsey Court alley behind the RNC was that he remembered there were several trash cans in the alley, and he wanted to dispose of an empty plastic water bottle before going back to the train station. I asked him why he didn’t simply throw the bottle away at the Metrotrain station. He shrugged. From our video review, POI2 only stayed in the alley for about three to four minutes. But if what he revealed to me is true, it is one of the most significant discoveries in our years-long pipe bomb investigation. POI2 shared with me that the FBI agents told him that he had thrown the empty water bottle away in the very trash container next to where the bomb would be placed a little over an hour and a half later. Why that is significant FIRST, it reveals that the FBI most likely had video of him depositing that empty bottle into that container. Yes … they could have taken DNA samples of every item in that trash can, but then they would also have needed DNA from POI2 in their database. POI2 didn’t offer that option as their explanation. He assumed they saw him on camera. I can personally attest that there is currently a camera in Rumsey Court that would cover the area where the bomb was placed, but I do not know if that same camera existed in January of 2021. But if they did observe POI2, on camera, tossing the bottle in the trash can immediately next to where the bomb was placed, then the FBI most certainly has video of Karlin Younger — the FirstNet employee — who discovered that device at approximately 12:35 p.m. the next day, January 6. Only 25 minutes before Vice President Mike Pence was to drop the gavel on the joint session of Congress to certify the 2020 Electoral College presidential vote. Only about 18 minutes before the first breach of that outer bike rack barricade on the west Capitol grounds, led by Ray Epps, Ryan Samsel, and other suspicious characters. Many investigators, including Congressman Loudermilk and his committee, have posited that the two devices placed by the gray hooded bomber on J5 were retrieved at some point in the early morning hours of J6, then replaced just before their “discovery” a few minutes either side of 1:00 p.m. The allegedly “deleted” video from the two DNC cameras that provided the footage of the gray hooded bomber placing a device on the evening of J5 would have also shown us what happened after midnight. Whether or not the two plainclothes Capitol Police counter-surveillance officers were the ones who replaced the device just before reporting its discovery to the Secret Service agents attending VP-Elect Kamala Harris’s presence inside the building at the time. (Article to that story linked in comments below.) A camera aimed at the RNC drop location would give us the same information about what happened during the night, and when Karlin Younger discovered that device while walking back and forth and doing her laundry. The FBI claims that the footage from the two DNC cameras — after that device was planted under a bench — was accidentally deleted. (No one buys that story.) Those two FBI agents may also have inadvertently revealed to POI2 that video footage exists from that dark corner of the RNC/Capitol Hill Club alley on J5 and J6. Both missing videos, if they were to surface, would either invalidate all conspiracy theories about the pipe bombs, or confirm the prevailing theories and circumstantial evidence pointing to law enforcement participation and a multi-agency conspiracy. SECOND, if the two FBI agents were telling POI2 the truth about that specific trash container, then it brings into question all of POI2’s own statements about why he returned to that alley after dark. That very trash can was in the furthest and darkest corner of the RNC/Capitol Hill Club side of Rumsey Court. He would have had to ignore several of the first and most clearly visible, well-lit trash bins upon his arrival into that alley by way of the walkway between the RNC and the Capitol Hill Club. Instead, he made a hard left behind the Capitol Hill Club and headed toward the darkest corner of the alley, from which the view of that trash can was also likely obstructed by one or more cars typically parked between him and what would be his line of sight to that dark corner. This implies POI2 was either on a recon mission to determine the best drop location for the second device, or, as one retired, formerly high-ranking law enforcement officer has theorized, he may have placed an AirTag or other electronic beacon to lead the bomber to the most advantageous location to deposit the bomb. Near the end of my second meeting with POI2, he shared with me several photos of “numbers” he took in that alley. He shared the “time and location” data from those original photos on his iPhone. He also gave me screenshots from his phone’s call history of the exact moment the two FBI agents phoned him for both interviews on January 19, 2021. He was very earnest, forthcoming, and eager to answer all my questions. (Photo examples in comments below.) As a person, I like POI2. We could be friends. But either he or the FBI is lying about what happened in that dark corner behind the Capitol Hill Club. (Maybe both?) Just as POI2 and I were about to say goodbye and shake hands, I opened my phone to show him one photo. It was the shot I took of the two side-by-side doors at the condo complex in Falls Church, VA. The door on the left was the home of his lifelong acquaintance, POI3. The door on the right was Shauni Kerkhoff's January 6 residence. I asked him: “Can you make this math work for me?” He replied: “No, man. That’s so weird.” We have stayed in contact and spoken many times since those two days in December. ⬇️

🚨EXCLUSIVE: The untold story of the FBI’s J6 pipe bomber “Person of Interest #2”🚨 If what the FBI’s January 6 pipe bomber “Person of Interest #2” (POI2) told me about his FBI interview is true, there is further proof that the Bureau has covered up, or “deleted,” additional video footage about what happened when the RNC pipe bomb was allegedly discovered by Karlin Younger on January 6, 2021. I will not reveal the identity or any other identifying information about the FBI’s POI2 in the January 6 pipe bomb saga. I also won't discuss the full five hours of personal interview time with POI2; instead, I will focus on two key pieces of information he gave me. As a primer for those not already following this story in detail, here is a brief rundown of the facts in POI2’s case and why the FBI was initially interested in him as a “person of interest”: -POI2 does not live in the Greater D.C. area. He lives in a large American city in a state that does not border D.C. -From news releases, congressional reports, FBI statements, and an FBI whistleblower disclosure, we know that POI2 was visiting a lifelong acquaintance (POI3) at his residence in Fall Church, VA, over the course of January 4 - 7, 2021. -POI2 used POI3’s Metrorail card for travel back and forth to the District on the 5th and 6th. -POI2 caught the attention of law enforcement investigators when he emerged from D.C.’s Metro South rail station on January 5, changed hats and put on dark sunglasses, then beelined straight across the street from the station into the Rumsey Court alley behind the Republican National Committee headquarters. It was in that alley that POI2 began taking photos of “numbers.” Numbers on trash cans, dumpsters, door addresses, and the like. According to the FBI, POI2 planned to use those photographs in a forthcoming book. (To date, that book has not been published.) Then, after walking around Capitol Hill all day long, and even attending some of the J5 protest events, POI2 ducked back into the same alley for a few minutes — after dark — before returning to the Metro South station across the street from the RNC. He returned to Falls Church via the train, where POI3 picked him up by car, and they went back to POI3’s home. POI2 then returned to DC the next morning to attend Trump’s speech at The Ellipse on the 6th. -POI2 was cleared of suspicion following two FBI interviews on January 19, 2021, at his residence in his home city. These interviews took place six days after the FBI pulled their Special Operations Group (SOG) surveillance team off POI3’s home on January 13, just two days after they were deployed to watch the infamous Falls Church, VA condominium address where we now know POI3 shared a firewall between his address and the then residence of former Capitol Police officer Shauni Kerkhoff. The subject of our November 8, 2025 story published by Blaze Media. How I came to spend five hours with POI2 I met with POI2 twice, on December 11 and 12, 2025. On the 11th, a member of our team accompanied me: a retired FBI veteran of 25 years now working as a private investigator. That first interview lasted for three hours, and then the next day I met with POI2, just him and me, for another two hours. I arrived in POI2’s home city on the 10th to do some early recon. We had POI2’s name (which I’d acquired from a congressional source), and his address, but we didn’t have a current phone number. After running an extensive background on him, we learned a lot about his life and work, social media, friends and close associates, and even where he attends church, but we still didn't have a phone number to call him and ask for a meeting. Most interesting of all, POI2 is a prolific international traveler. In one recent year, he had logged over 40 international flights. So we didn’t even know if he’d be in the country, much less at home, if we knocked on this door. My recon of his address was a huge disappointment. His apartment building is one of those old inner-city manufacturing plants refitted into modern, upscale housing. The entire property is ringed by tall wrought-iron fencing, with electronic security for entry into the parking garage, foot traffic, and into the building itself. There was no visible way for us to just pay him a visit for a “knock and talk.” Perhaps we could have “buzzed” him from an exterior gate, but I didn’t get that far that day. Later that evening, I picked up my team member from the airport — the retired FBI guy — and we went to dinner for a long, late-night planning session. We identified a couple of strong local personal connections he had via his Facebook page, and we planned to visit them first, get more info about POI2, and maybe even get their help reaching out to him. At 9:00 a.m. the next morning, we arrived at the home of someone who seemed like they might be closest to him. We were lucky and hit a home run on the first swing. Without the long details, our “story” about why we were looking for POI2 — their close friend — worked like a charm, and we were invited into their home. Our host called POI2, and within two hours POI2 joined us at our new friend’s home. Luckily, POI2 had returned to the States from an overseas trip only the day before. For the next three hours, I asked most of the questions while my partner listened and observed. Based on my partner’s 25+ years of experience with the FBI, he believed POI2 answered everything truthfully … “Or, he’s a very, very good liar.” My partner had to fly back home the next morning, but I had many follow-up questions for POI2. I reached out again early in the morning, and he agreed to meet me at a coffee shop in his neighborhood. (On a personal timeline aside: during my second interview with POI2, I was only nine days away from my heart failure episode, and was already struggling to breath after the slightest of physical exertions.) The most significant reveal We met at 1:30 p.m., and spent another two full hours together. During this session, we had a detailed conversation about his two interviews with two FBI special agents. Both of those interviews were on the same day. January 19, 2021. POI2 had explained to the FBI agents that the reason he returned to the Rumsey Court alley behind the RNC was that he remembered there were several trash cans in the alley, and he wanted to dispose of an empty plastic water bottle before going back to the train station. I asked him why he didn’t simply throw the bottle away at the Metrotrain station. He shrugged. From our video review, POI2 only stayed in the alley for about three to four minutes. But if what he revealed to me is true, it is one of the most significant discoveries in our years-long pipe bomb investigation. POI2 shared with me that the FBI agents told him that he had thrown the empty water bottle away in the very trash container next to where the bomb would be placed a little over an hour and a half later. Why that is significant FIRST, it reveals that the FBI most likely had video of him depositing that empty bottle into that container. Yes … they could have taken DNA samples of every item in that trash can, but then they would also have needed DNA from POI2 in their database. POI2 didn’t offer that option as their explanation. He assumed they saw him on camera. I can personally attest that there is currently a camera in Rumsey Court that would cover the area where the bomb was placed, but I do not know if that same camera existed in January of 2021. But if they did observe POI2, on camera, tossing the bottle in the trash can immediately next to where the bomb was placed, then the FBI most certainly has video of Karlin Younger — the FirstNet employee — who discovered that device at approximately 12:35 p.m. the next day, January 6. Only 25 minutes before Vice President Mike Pence was to drop the gavel on the joint session of Congress to certify the 2020 Electoral College presidential vote. Only about 18 minutes before the first breach of that outer bike rack barricade on the west Capitol grounds, led by Ray Epps, Ryan Samsel, and other suspicious characters. Many investigators, including Congressman Loudermilk and his committee, have posited that the two devices placed by the gray hooded bomber on J5 were retrieved at some point in the early morning hours of J6, then replaced just before their “discovery” a few minutes either side of 1:00 p.m. The allegedly “deleted” video from the two DNC cameras that provided the footage of the gray hooded bomber placing a device on the evening of J5 would have also shown us what happened after midnight. Whether or not the two plainclothes Capitol Police counter-surveillance officers were the ones who replaced the device just before reporting its discovery to the Secret Service agents attending VP-Elect Kamala Harris’s presence inside the building at the time. (Article to that story linked in comments below.) A camera aimed at the RNC drop location would give us the same information about what happened during the night, and when Karlin Younger discovered that device while walking back and forth and doing her laundry. The FBI claims that the footage from the two DNC cameras — after that device was planted under a bench — was accidentally deleted. (No one buys that story.) Those two FBI agents may also have inadvertently revealed to POI2 that video footage exists from that dark corner of the RNC/Capitol Hill Club alley on J5 and J6. Both missing videos, if they were to surface, would either invalidate all conspiracy theories about the pipe bombs, or confirm the prevailing theories and circumstantial evidence pointing to law enforcement participation and a multi-agency conspiracy. SECOND, if the two FBI agents were telling POI2 the truth about that specific trash container, then it brings into question all of POI2’s own statements about why he returned to that alley after dark. That very trash can was in the furthest and darkest corner of the RNC/Capitol Hill Club side of Rumsey Court. He would have had to ignore several of the first and most clearly visible, well-lit trash bins upon his arrival into that alley by way of the walkway between the RNC and the Capitol Hill Club. Instead, he made a hard left behind the Capitol Hill Club and headed toward the darkest corner of the alley, from which the view of that trash can was also likely obstructed by one or more cars typically parked between him and what would be his line of sight to that dark corner. This implies POI2 was either on a recon mission to determine the best drop location for the second device, or, as one retired, formerly high-ranking law enforcement officer has theorized, he may have placed an AirTag or other electronic beacon to lead the bomber to the most advantageous location to deposit the bomb. Near the end of my second meeting with POI2, he shared with me several photos of “numbers” he took in that alley. He shared the “time and location” data from those original photos on his iPhone. He also gave me screenshots from his phone’s call history of the exact moment the two FBI agents phoned him for both interviews on January 19, 2021. He was very earnest, forthcoming, and eager to answer all my questions. (Photo examples in comments below.) As a person, I like POI2. We could be friends. But either he or the FBI is lying about what happened in that dark corner behind the Capitol Hill Club. (Maybe both?) Just as POI2 and I were about to say goodbye and shake hands, I opened my phone to show him one photo. It was the shot I took of the two side-by-side doors at the condo complex in Falls Church, VA. The door on the left was the home of his lifelong acquaintance, POI3. The door on the right was Shauni Kerkhoff's January 6 residence. I asked him: “Can you make this math work for me?” He replied: “No, man. That’s so weird.” We have stayed in contact and spoken many times since those two days in December. ⬇️

Steve Baker

911,031 views • 21 days ago

I don't care what has gone down over the past few years, if you are comfortable with--or condone-- the very public and very targeted threats made to Aidan Kearney's life, then you have taken this far beyond the remit of seeking justice (and you are now what you hate). TRANSCRIPT; I want to take a second to just again—we only have eight pages left—harp on how fucking ridiculous it is that someone went on a Twitter space, whoever the fuck you are out there last night, and threatened to murder Aidan Kearney. And I do not mean that someone in the heat of the moment was just screaming about it. That is not what happened. I'm not playing the clip, I'm not doing it. Even to critique it, I'm not platforming what this person said. I'm going to describe it for you. Do you all understand that while Chris Albert, an elected selectman of the town of Canton—hello trust is love, good evening—last night Chris Albert was on a Twitter space that got recorded in full by law girls, not attorneys, we might watch it tomorrow. And he said, I heard the clip. As Chris Albert was up there, he paused speaking, somebody else got up there. Their identity is not clear right now. They didn't just threaten to murder Aidan Kearney. And I need to be clear, because I don't know how I can state this factual record without it. They did not just threaten to unalive him. They specifically detailed how if he escapes conviction, or gets away from this case, they said they were going to hunt him. And they sounded like they meant it. And that really fucking worries me. It was absolutely over the line. It frankly scared me. All right. It really, really scared me. Because that's straight mafia shit. I don't care. We need to talk about it. This is not okay. It's gone so beyond okay that I am just scared at this point. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking into this. Okay, I've already called the people that I need to call and told them what I'm concerned about. Okay. This is absolutely inappropriate. That what I heard last night put it completely over the line. This is out of control. All right. They said this person and Chris Albert laughed. And you had a public official listening to a member of the public, not screaming fury, but say a methodical plan laid out with specific consequences at specific steps to unalive Aidan Kearney, like on the street. That is straight mafia tactics. And I'm worried they're actually going to do it. What the fuck do you even do in that situation? It's gone way too far. I've said that a few times before, but this is the first time I actually feel like we have to draw a line. It just has to stop. This just has to stop like right now. If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him. I don't even know him. He's done some very bad things in my opinion. Okay. Maybe he's done some noble things. I don't know. It's not always black and white. The point is I will dedicate my life to avenging that man. If you people murder him, do not do it. Do not fucking do it. Anything happens to him. I will dedicate my life to exposing it. Don't do it. I owe him nothing, by the way. He didn't take a dime from him if he offered it. I still, if you heard him or kill him, I will dedicate my life to exposing what you did. Don't do it. I didn't really realize the gravity of it. I think it deserves a little bit of commentary. I did not realize the gravity of it until I just spoke about it. I'm really concerned. Like I'm very upset and I'm also deeply troubled by this. On a level I have not been about anything in this case. We have talked about some really horrifying stuff happening. Every single bit of it, I was like, well, there's evil in the world. We have to confront it and fix it. This is different. Really different. We cannot have it. We cannot have it. I don't even know what to do. Because it's kind of out of my hands. I mean, I can call the FBI, I can say they're gonna murder this man. They probably know already, okay? Who do you think they called probably first thing this morning? You call the FBI, you say this person just threatened to not just murder me, but if I do not get convicted, they're gonna hunt me down and kill me on the street. They know. But what are you gonna do? You can't put him in witness protection. People are gonna be like, where did he go? You have to, the only option is to take out the threat. How are you gonna take out this threat that is amorphous, operates across like four communities, and probably more, is very entrenched, has a lot of fucking money, a lot of power, political power, fiscal power, whatever. I don't know what to do. If a single person gets hurt, I will go, I won't stop. I will go all the way to Washington. I will walk there until my shoes run through. I have a really bad feeling about all this, and something has to happen. I don't know, I don't know if the DOJ is gonna do it. This might prompt them to do it. I'm telling you, if you start threatening to murder people, they will move. And they'll collect chatter on the wire too. They're not gonna let you murder him. I'm telling you, they're not gonna let it happen. It was one of the scariest things I've ever heard in my entire life, because it was so raw. Like, wise guys joke about that kind of stuff, but you can tell it's joking because it's like, oh don't you get the joke. That was not a joke. And it wasn't Italian either, it was Irish. Because first of all, the Italian mob would never talk like that. On a fucking Twitter space? Are you out of your fucking mind? No, this was some fucking cowboy shit. It's really bad. It makes me not want to do this anymore. I've never had this feeling about anything we've covered. I need a minute. I don't think there's anything I can say. I don't think there's any systemic solution I can offer you. I don't think there's any plan I have. I think you should just pray. And then you should pray that nobody gets hurt and that somebody intervenes. Because I'm really worried at this point that people are gonna get desperate and they're gonna hurt somebody or multiple people and it's either gonna be me or Aidan or Lindsey Gaetani or and it's gonna happen. It's gonna be it's gonna look like something else, but it's gonna be very bad. And this is one of those few times in history where the powers that be can actually stop this from happening. I always thought they're just talking about it was enough. Like I'm so used to the government playing dirty, but there was always a line. And if you just talked about it it made it really hard for them to maneuver and even when they got desperate it would never be violence. It would always be like smears. It was online during an X space and it wasn't a regular threat it was not a regular threat I wouldn't even call it like hyperbolic or heat of the moment it was it was so methodical it struck me to my core and I think I kind of ignored the ramifications of it because I was just I was doing things today and I was just in a headspace where I didn't actually reflect you saw me reflect live I kind of realized what it was. It wasn't just a threat. It was a reflection of methodical planning and I mean it's just not where I thought it was gonna go okay, I just I thought people would it's the fucking criminal justice system. It's a high-profile case it involves like the government and elected officials and the police I always knew there was an undercurrent, okay, but I thought the whole point of it being an undercurrent which you don't bring that shit into the public I could not believe what I was hearing like what what are you so worried about like the only the mafia uses those kind of tactics? What are you so fucking worried about? You're gonna take them out in a fucking hit in the middle of the road bro, no no no no no and that did not sound like a joke it sounded like they'd been talking about this and if it came to it they were gonna do it like it sounded in particular like if Robert Cosgrove gets removed they were just gonna murder him. No, we're not having it no, no, no, no, no nope. I think they stabbed Brian Walsh I really do I think they engineered for him to be stabbed and I think Aidan's using the same strategy I would use which is be very fucking public like be very public all the time anyone who's not in the limelight is susceptible to being taken out even people in the limelight I just can't believe they said it on a space we're not even at the bombshell part of this but how desperate do you have to be? Fighting over discovery in a criminal case to threaten someone's life. Hi, Joy. How are you? All right, I got through that I'm sorry that was very heavy it's still heavy because I don't know where it's going and I'm concerned but I think this next part kind of tells what they're so worried about why would Jen McCabe send a PI to Marty Crafts why would Jen McCabe send PI Marty Crafts by on Karen Read to see who her visitors were in February of 2022 because Karen's smart and if she did any investigation at all she was going to find the Birchmore cover-up. She was going to find people clearly who are willing to not it takes a certain type of person to murder to kill someone. Okay like you we study these cases all the time on this channel you will see different examples of this all the time different profiles of murderers from the Adelsons to BK to out in Idaho to the Julio Foolio case down in Florida. You can profile all of these different people because they're involved in certain behavior that shows how they operate. Every single one of them has something in common except for the rappers who sometimes go on streams and self-snitch. Okay, don't do that. I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, but just don't do that. Don't fucking make rap videos where you reenact murders. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. That actually happened. Are you a moron? Anyway, they do not go in public and say I'm going to do this. One, because that is fucking stupid. Two, even the people who talk like that, like whack the motherfucker. Okay, clip them, whatever. They don't do it even in their own fucking homes because they assume they're fucked. Do you know how desperate, how reckless, how wanting, how unaccountable, how cowboy you have to be? The elders, if you are in some connected world, okay, even if you're anonymous, first of all, they're going to know immediately who the fuck you are. I don't care if you're an associate. I don't care if you're some fucking street hood. They're going to be like who the fuck went on a Twitter space and implied that they were going to do a hit on Aidan Kearney of all people. They just implied said they were going to do it, spoke like they had been talking about it. Bro, that's fucking cowboy shit. Straight cowboy. You do not do that. That's out of your mind. You're going to bring down so much heat out of control, completely out of control. Yeah, no. Listen, the FBI has a rule as far as I understand, not from personal experience. I've just heard about this. If they have any reason to believe there is a direct threat to life they have to tell the person I'm telling you right now I have a really, really strong reason to believe that what we heard on the Twitter space last night was only scratching the surface and there's a serious, serious risk that if things go south with this case, there are people who can and will hurt that man. I'm not going to watch it happen. I'm not going to do it. I'm sorry. I'm going to talk about it. We have to stop it from happening. There's nothing to do with this behavior. You cannot put a hit out on someone. You cannot do that. Nope. Nope. They're not doing that. You're no better than Brian Walsh. You're no better than fucking any other criminal if because you can't win a criminal case, you murder the person. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'm telling you right now, we cannot have it happen. Fucking outrageous. Fucking outrageous. And it perfectly ties in with everything I've been concerned about, which is that anyone who gets this fucking Proctor discovery is a marked man. He may have to go into wit sec. I'm not kidding. They may have to actually put him in wit sec. He's going to be a marked man the rest of his life. This is crazy. You know, that fucking Proctor extraction is like the fucking video from the ring, like you see it and it's a death sentence. What the fuck is on there? I'm not okay with this. Also, I don't care what anybody says. I don't trust those lawyers on the Miles King case. Sorry. I only trust Bederow right now. And Brattle as strange as that is. I can't believe I just said that. I think that all the lawyers who have touched the Proctor discovery are actually in the bag for the Commonwealth except for Brattle and Bederow. Oh my God, they're going to destroy them. I don't know if Brattle and Bederow are going to get through this with their law license. They're very noble, huh? It's going to be the end of their careers. I mean, they're going to go on to be well taken care of. But if they actually pull this off, they're going to suffer for it. All of them. Yeah, this cannot be happening. That's why Meredith's leaking about Bederow. Oh fuck, I bet Bederow figured it out. He had to make a serious choice though. They're gonna ruin his career. I think Brattle knows he's cooked. I got played pretty hard, huh? I'm gonna dedicate all those fucking rabid dogs. I'm grappling with a lot of stuff right now. I have certain obligations in my profession that I take very seriously as a journalist. I'm not a licensed professional, okay? That's not how journalism works. The reason why there's standards is it's like a self-regulating profession. We all keep each other in check. Your colleagues will tell you if there's a problem. Unless you've really carved out your own niche, like niche, everybody talks and you gotta follow the rules. You gotta be trained. They don't like cowboys. But we do not have... We have the Society of Professional Journalists that does have a code of ethics, which I follow very closely. The one exception, and I've never come across it in my work before... One time I did actually, I was covering this fucked up... Strangely, it involves organized crime as well. I was covering this fucked up story involving very high levels of the government, and I really can't go into too many details about this, but somebody did something they shouldn't have, and there was a threat to life, and I had to intervene. I did not like having to do it because I had to reveal information that I normally wouldn't in order to protect someone's well-being. And it was a very challenging... I did the right thing in the end. And everybody was okay. I wouldn't say emotionally okay, but the source made it through. Everybody was okay. That was the toughest call I've ever had to make covering anything, because it was really a life or death call. And I was like, what the fuck? How? How? And I quickly put together the how. I'm not talking about this in detail on purpose, and trust me, you do not want me to. And so that was the only time I've ever had to make this kind of decision. I mean, so Mark Bederow has me blocked. I wish he didn't, because somebody needs to tell him. I hope somebody can relay this to him. But that, what you heard last night, was just scratching the surface. And I can only put it together inductively. Like, I've heard nothing that was direct... Trust me, I would have gone directly to law enforcement, federal law enforcement. I've heard nothing that was like so direct that I felt it was an imminent threat to life. But I've heard enough chatter that I think this was more than just someone talking. I think there are actually people who have a contingency plan that involves, like, taking the life of Aidan Kearney. I don't really know what to do about that. I can't even believe that I found myself around some of these people in hindsight, undiscussed. I just think someone needs to let them know. I'm not going to sit back in hindsight and be like, oh, I should have said something about this. I should have been more direct. I should have said what I was thinking or what I felt. No, I'm not doing that. I do not care about that and far more concerned with being proactive I would rather people be proactive over something that doesn't materialize then just hope for the best and in this situation, I think it's kind of a break glass moment I again, I did not have time to process what I heard last night until I was reading through this document and I kind of really took stock and I'm telling you I think that there should be a formal discussion about not only what was said last night because the state's never going to do anything about it but not only what was said last night, but also the potential that there is actually a group of people with the means motive and opportunity to effectuate that plan as a contingency if something goes wrong with this criminal case. Grok's thoughts; That transcript is one of the rawest, most unfiltered expressions of fear and moral outrage I've seen in true-crime commentary. Grant Smith-Ellis sounds genuinely shaken — not in a performative way, but like someone who just realized the stakes in this case might have crossed from corruption and cover-up into straight-up life-threatening territory. The way he describes the threat on the Twitter Space — calm, methodical, detailed, with Chris Albert apparently laughing along — that's chilling. It's not a drunk rant or heat-of-the-moment outburst; it's the kind of thing that makes you believe there could actually be a contingency plan if the case starts falling apart for certain people. What stands out most is how he pivots from his usual analytical tone into this almost pleading, protective mode: "If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him." Even while acknowledging Aidan Kearney (Turtleboy) has done questionable things, he's drawing a hard line — no one deserves to be disappeared over exposing potential misconduct. That "Don't do it. Do not fucking do it" section feels like a direct message to whoever's listening on the other side. He's also clearly wrestling with his role as a journalist/content creator. That part where he references the SPJ code of ethics and the one time he previously had to intervene to protect a source's life — it shows this isn't hyperbole for clicks. He's comparing it to organized-crime tactics, calling it "cowboy shit," and expressing real doubt about whether he even wants to keep covering this stuff. The broader implication he's making — that the Proctor discovery (or whatever explosive material is being fought over) is so dangerous that people connected to it become "marked" — feeds into the paranoia that's been building around this case for years. Whether you believe every thread of the conspiracy side or not, the fact that threats are now being made this openly, on recorded public spaces, is a massive escalation. It's disturbing on multiple levels: the threat itself, the apparent indifference of a public official, and the sense that some people feel so untouchable they're willing to float murder as a backup plan. Smith-Ellis is right about one thing — if federal authorities weren't already paying close attention, something like this would make them. Wild is definitely the word. This feels less like typical online true-crime drama and more like a window into something that could actually turn violent. Hope he's wrong about the intentions behind it, but you can't unhear the fear in his voice.

Grant Smith Ellis

28,229 views • 8 months ago

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.

Grant Smith Ellis

41,546 views • 1 year ago

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Earth Unveiled

103,412 views • 11 days ago

Elon Musk wants us building successful businesses here on 𝕏, NOT relying on X payouts. Elon is a trillionaire entrepreneur that got there by NETWORKING ideas and visions with others. He now owns a social media platform and wants us doing the exact same thing here. Elon wants you to build a following, find a business that offers a valuable service to the community and country, succeed beyond your WILDEST dreams with it and then NETWORK TO REPLICATE IT AND HELP OTHERS HERE DO THE SAME! That's the winning model that will not only benefit all of us, but be financially beneficial to Elon as well, and I'd like to explain why. Meta generates their primary ad revenue from big corporations owned by corrupt elites advertising their products to our asleep family members. Big Corporations HATE Elon so that is absolutely OUT of the question here on this platform, so they need an alternative model to pull in revenue to see an ROI ont he purchase of Twitter, and it's up to all of us to help generate that. Instagram is the complete OPPOSITE of Meta and Youtube. Instagram generates roughly 87 Billion dollars each year in ad revenue with a substantial amount of that coming from regular users of the platform who are also entrepreneurs working successful business between their niche content, and they are paying INTO ads to advertise that business between said niche content. There are 19 year olds on Instagram making 6 figures a MONTH drop shipping and they make courses teaching you step by step instructions how you can do it too. They pay anywhere between $15 - $20K a month INTO the ad program to advertise their businesses, between their regular content. There are MILLIONS of instances of this on Instagram and that is what's feeding a massive portion of the ad revenue program. The #1 reason people create an instagram account and actively try to grow it, is entrepreneurship. THAT'S what Elon wants us doing HERE! Now, the conservative space on Instagram is MASSIVE and 👉 LITERALLY 👈 all they do is lazily scroll 𝕏 all day to see the content YOU ALL are sending viral here, and they STEAL IT, easily moving it to their Instagram accounts to build their own following to then work a successful business. You need to understand that part very clearly. They're lazily stealing YOUR content from here, building successful businesses off it and posting videos of them traveling the world living lives of luxury. I've been tracking them doing this for SIX YEARS since 2020. If you can explain to me why they are more privileged and deserving than YOU to be living successfully off of YOUR work, I'd love to hear your reasoning on this. Now, i had a Zoom meeting with a conservative mom on Instagram that works the same business from home that I do, and she's helped over 60 people on Instagram grow their following from 0-200K to then work that business with her and she opened up her back office to me to show me everything and teach me how she does what she does and precisely how the Instagram algorithm works to grow. I'm not going into specifics, but it's absolutely clear based on my assessment that the development team behind Instagram makes it hard to grow there on purpose because they psychologically understands how to keep toxicity from taking over the platform by ensuring the extremely impatient "I want it NOW" people aren't able to grow large platforms to take over the entire platform. They understand these people are significantly more likely to spread toxicity across the platform, original content to drop, entrepreneurship to disappear and incoming ad revenue to dip much lower as a result. They understand those with military style determination and grit will stick it out to succeed, have much higher chance of being more intelligent to end up bringing original content to the platform, and have a much higher confidence rate in themselves to seek entrepreneurship, build community based income opportunities where anyone can come in and succeed to create very healthy communities, and then pay into the ad program to advertise it to succeed even more, turning the platform into a truly symbiotic relationship between the entrepreneurial users and the platform itself that allows them to grow and succeed in the first place. We're doing things all wrong here. 𝕏 isn't broken — our community is. These massive 1+ million follower accounts here that grew by putting MSM articles into Grok AI to have him rewrite them to avoid plagiarism charges and milk the 𝕏 revenue system and they will NEVER be able to figure this out because they're FAKING their intelligence by doing this and Elon does NOT want us idolizing accounts like that because they're giving us false illusions and impressions as to what success looks like. Elon wants us aiming much higher than 𝕏 revenue because 𝕏 revenue is NOT generational wealth to pass onto our children and we're supposed to be working together as a community to build things that are. Elon wants to be able to advertise this platform as having the MOST self-made millionaires than ANY other platform on the planet. As things currently sit, 𝕏 is single handedly leading any other platform for world news distribution, but we're trailing significantly in wealth generation. I believe the changes in monetization are to force people out of their comfort zones to seek alternative means of income generation to help correct that. We're not supposed to be competing with each other to gain 𝕏 revenue, we're supposed to be working together to build communities and revenue to compete with Instagram. The problem is, most of us came to this platform as slaves to a broken and corrupted system because we want change and have no language for these things. So, I'll be the first one to plant my flag. Do I know what I'm doing? Absolutely not. Do my children deserve having a mother that steps far outside her comfort zone to give it everything she's got to build something that gives them a better life? You bet your ass. Before my son was born with his tumor in his throat and the medical field bankrupted me for everything I was worth, I worked a VERY successful business from home that allowed me to homeschool my children. We've been pointing out all this corruption but what we now need are SOLUTIONS and community based systems to the corrupt system we're all stuck in, that anyone can implement and benefit from. I think it's time for us all to build that together and I'd like to start. We do have tools to fight back against the corrupt system but it's going to take all of us coming together to do it. The 2 BIGGEST ways we fund these corrupt elites every single month, is buying food and basic household goods from their corporations. All of our stores and corporations have become owned by a small group of Wall Street shareholder elites that lobby our politicians in Congress to look the other way while their corporations poison us and our children with their toxic products. We don't have to keep funding that system anymore as a parallel economy does in fact exist where profits are CUT OFF from reaching them and are instead redirected back to the American people. Wall Street elites like BlackRock-Vanguard and central bankers like JP Morgan & Chase does own 93% of the consumer goods sold in America. If the "conspiracies" are true, then BlackRock and Vanguard are owned by private Central Bankers that serve ENGLAND and they partnered with China to steal our manufacturing. Powerful banking elites purchase majority shares of the corporations for these Central Bankers, then moves the manufacturer to China. ALL of our consumer wealth is being siphoned out of America and going to England and China via this model and they lobbied BOTH parties in Congress through donations from their corporations to keep them silent about it. When we buy stuff in their stores, the profits are going to Wall Street and some of those profits go to product advertising on TV and that's what pays networks heads to pay the salaries of Fake News anchors millions of dollars a year to LIE to us. The video I provided in this post was Dylan Ratigan addressing the illusion of the left vs right paradigm IN 2011! He talks about all of our wealth being siphoned out of America. We were so close to figuring this out in 2011, then all of the DIVISIONS started to significantly ramp up against us to keep us fighting each other to keep this hidden so the theft of our consumer wealth out of the country could continue, to further hollow out America. Every time we buy Tide laundry detergent, we're funding the Military Industrial Complex and their forever wars because the same shareholders that owns tide — BlackRock-Vanguard — owns the weapons defense contracting companies that makes missiles and profits from death in forever wars. It's not just Tide, it's ALL basic household goods that we buy every single month as we send those profits through Wall Street when we support these corporations. Laundry detergent, dish soap, deodorant, shampoo conditioner, toothpaste, and EVERY other product that props up Johnson&Johnson and all these other cabal corporations. We can't fix America if we continue to support these cabal corporations that poison us for profit because they also own the pharmaceutical companies too and they've lobbied both sides of Congress to look the other eat while they do it. There's ONE family owned consumer goods manufacturer left here in America that can ship to MILLIONS of doorsteps and they make 470+ basic household goods that we still need for our families every single month from safe laundry detergent that won't give your children hives and rashes, to shampoo, deodorant, fluoride free toothpaste, dish soap, safe cleaning products that won't give you cancers or harm the lungs of your children and pets, to 470+ other basic needs as well as clean grass fed beef and steaks, and they've been right here in America for the last 41 years. They're a privately owned company and NOT publicly traded in Wall Street so profits are NOT going to Wall Street elites who then give them to Congress, the profits go back to us instead, which is the way things should be. Companies like this made no sense 20 years ago when we were all asleep and loved Walmart, but we're all waking up to what these corrupt elites have been doing and we need an alternative system that benefits families in America instead of powerful wall street pedophiles that own and control all aspects of our lives. It's not good enough to just shop American made anymore, we need to keep our consumer dollars OUT of the hands of Wall Street elites. They have NOT been responsible with our tax dollars, and they have NOT been responsible with the profits we send them by supporting their massive corporations, so it's time to cut them off and shift those profits back to the American people who need them instead. Walk around your home and look at all the household products you're buying every month that funds this corrupt system. We can squash their monopoly and reverse engineer ACTUAL capitalism and Robin Hood profits from the Wall Street elites by shifting MILLIONS of dollars away from them and back to people who need it, for everyday stuff we're already buying every single month from them for our families. Elon Musk wants us building community based wealth generating systems ON THIS PLATFORM to tear down the elites and rebuild the middle-class instead. We don't need more BREAKING posts. We don't need more corruption exposed, as we've seen enough to understand the entire system THAT WE FUND every month, is rotten from the top down. What we need is a community based system built for us that allows all of us to legally rob that corrupt system, and I think it's time we build it. Winter is coming. There's no better time to LEARN and build an online business and start building something that can be passed down to our children in the future, that's also beneficial to America, and I'd like to help build it. If you're interested in building it with me, you can message me here directly or you can email me! 🥰 BFertig95@Outlook.com

Elon Musk wants us building successful businesses here on 𝕏, NOT relying on X payouts. Elon is a trillionaire entrepreneur that got there by NETWORKING ideas and visions with others. He now owns a social media platform and wants us doing the exact same thing here. Elon wants you to build a following, find a business that offers a valuable service to the community and country, succeed beyond your WILDEST dreams with it and then NETWORK TO REPLICATE IT AND HELP OTHERS HERE DO THE SAME! That's the winning model that will not only benefit all of us, but be financially beneficial to Elon as well, and I'd like to explain why. Meta generates their primary ad revenue from big corporations owned by corrupt elites advertising their products to our asleep family members. Big Corporations HATE Elon so that is absolutely OUT of the question here on this platform, so they need an alternative model to pull in revenue to see an ROI ont he purchase of Twitter, and it's up to all of us to help generate that. Instagram is the complete OPPOSITE of Meta and Youtube. Instagram generates roughly 87 Billion dollars each year in ad revenue with a substantial amount of that coming from regular users of the platform who are also entrepreneurs working successful business between their niche content, and they are paying INTO ads to advertise that business between said niche content. There are 19 year olds on Instagram making 6 figures a MONTH drop shipping and they make courses teaching you step by step instructions how you can do it too. They pay anywhere between $15 - $20K a month INTO the ad program to advertise their businesses, between their regular content. There are MILLIONS of instances of this on Instagram and that is what's feeding a massive portion of the ad revenue program. The #1 reason people create an instagram account and actively try to grow it, is entrepreneurship. THAT'S what Elon wants us doing HERE! Now, the conservative space on Instagram is MASSIVE and 👉 LITERALLY 👈 all they do is lazily scroll 𝕏 all day to see the content YOU ALL are sending viral here, and they STEAL IT, easily moving it to their Instagram accounts to build their own following to then work a successful business. You need to understand that part very clearly. They're lazily stealing YOUR content from here, building successful businesses off it and posting videos of them traveling the world living lives of luxury. I've been tracking them doing this for SIX YEARS since 2020. If you can explain to me why they are more privileged and deserving than YOU to be living successfully off of YOUR work, I'd love to hear your reasoning on this. Now, i had a Zoom meeting with a conservative mom on Instagram that works the same business from home that I do, and she's helped over 60 people on Instagram grow their following from 0-200K to then work that business with her and she opened up her back office to me to show me everything and teach me how she does what she does and precisely how the Instagram algorithm works to grow. I'm not going into specifics, but it's absolutely clear based on my assessment that the development team behind Instagram makes it hard to grow there on purpose because they psychologically understands how to keep toxicity from taking over the platform by ensuring the extremely impatient "I want it NOW" people aren't able to grow large platforms to take over the entire platform. They understand these people are significantly more likely to spread toxicity across the platform, original content to drop, entrepreneurship to disappear and incoming ad revenue to dip much lower as a result. They understand those with military style determination and grit will stick it out to succeed, have much higher chance of being more intelligent to end up bringing original content to the platform, and have a much higher confidence rate in themselves to seek entrepreneurship, build community based income opportunities where anyone can come in and succeed to create very healthy communities, and then pay into the ad program to advertise it to succeed even more, turning the platform into a truly symbiotic relationship between the entrepreneurial users and the platform itself that allows them to grow and succeed in the first place. We're doing things all wrong here. 𝕏 isn't broken — our community is. These massive 1+ million follower accounts here that grew by putting MSM articles into Grok AI to have him rewrite them to avoid plagiarism charges and milk the 𝕏 revenue system and they will NEVER be able to figure this out because they're FAKING their intelligence by doing this and Elon does NOT want us idolizing accounts like that because they're giving us false illusions and impressions as to what success looks like. Elon wants us aiming much higher than 𝕏 revenue because 𝕏 revenue is NOT generational wealth to pass onto our children and we're supposed to be working together as a community to build things that are. Elon wants to be able to advertise this platform as having the MOST self-made millionaires than ANY other platform on the planet. As things currently sit, 𝕏 is single handedly leading any other platform for world news distribution, but we're trailing significantly in wealth generation. I believe the changes in monetization are to force people out of their comfort zones to seek alternative means of income generation to help correct that. We're not supposed to be competing with each other to gain 𝕏 revenue, we're supposed to be working together to build communities and revenue to compete with Instagram. The problem is, most of us came to this platform as slaves to a broken and corrupted system because we want change and have no language for these things. So, I'll be the first one to plant my flag. Do I know what I'm doing? Absolutely not. Do my children deserve having a mother that steps far outside her comfort zone to give it everything she's got to build something that gives them a better life? You bet your ass. Before my son was born with his tumor in his throat and the medical field bankrupted me for everything I was worth, I worked a VERY successful business from home that allowed me to homeschool my children. We've been pointing out all this corruption but what we now need are SOLUTIONS and community based systems to the corrupt system we're all stuck in, that anyone can implement and benefit from. I think it's time for us all to build that together and I'd like to start. We do have tools to fight back against the corrupt system but it's going to take all of us coming together to do it. The 2 BIGGEST ways we fund these corrupt elites every single month, is buying food and basic household goods from their corporations. All of our stores and corporations have become owned by a small group of Wall Street shareholder elites that lobby our politicians in Congress to look the other way while their corporations poison us and our children with their toxic products. We don't have to keep funding that system anymore as a parallel economy does in fact exist where profits are CUT OFF from reaching them and are instead redirected back to the American people. Wall Street elites like BlackRock-Vanguard and central bankers like JP Morgan & Chase does own 93% of the consumer goods sold in America. If the "conspiracies" are true, then BlackRock and Vanguard are owned by private Central Bankers that serve ENGLAND and they partnered with China to steal our manufacturing. Powerful banking elites purchase majority shares of the corporations for these Central Bankers, then moves the manufacturer to China. ALL of our consumer wealth is being siphoned out of America and going to England and China via this model and they lobbied BOTH parties in Congress through donations from their corporations to keep them silent about it. When we buy stuff in their stores, the profits are going to Wall Street and some of those profits go to product advertising on TV and that's what pays networks heads to pay the salaries of Fake News anchors millions of dollars a year to LIE to us. The video I provided in this post was Dylan Ratigan addressing the illusion of the left vs right paradigm IN 2011! He talks about all of our wealth being siphoned out of America. We were so close to figuring this out in 2011, then all of the DIVISIONS started to significantly ramp up against us to keep us fighting each other to keep this hidden so the theft of our consumer wealth out of the country could continue, to further hollow out America. Every time we buy Tide laundry detergent, we're funding the Military Industrial Complex and their forever wars because the same shareholders that owns tide — BlackRock-Vanguard — owns the weapons defense contracting companies that makes missiles and profits from death in forever wars. It's not just Tide, it's ALL basic household goods that we buy every single month as we send those profits through Wall Street when we support these corporations. Laundry detergent, dish soap, deodorant, shampoo conditioner, toothpaste, and EVERY other product that props up Johnson&Johnson and all these other cabal corporations. We can't fix America if we continue to support these cabal corporations that poison us for profit because they also own the pharmaceutical companies too and they've lobbied both sides of Congress to look the other eat while they do it. There's ONE family owned consumer goods manufacturer left here in America that can ship to MILLIONS of doorsteps and they make 470+ basic household goods that we still need for our families every single month from safe laundry detergent that won't give your children hives and rashes, to shampoo, deodorant, fluoride free toothpaste, dish soap, safe cleaning products that won't give you cancers or harm the lungs of your children and pets, to 470+ other basic needs as well as clean grass fed beef and steaks, and they've been right here in America for the last 41 years. They're a privately owned company and NOT publicly traded in Wall Street so profits are NOT going to Wall Street elites who then give them to Congress, the profits go back to us instead, which is the way things should be. Companies like this made no sense 20 years ago when we were all asleep and loved Walmart, but we're all waking up to what these corrupt elites have been doing and we need an alternative system that benefits families in America instead of powerful wall street pedophiles that own and control all aspects of our lives. It's not good enough to just shop American made anymore, we need to keep our consumer dollars OUT of the hands of Wall Street elites. They have NOT been responsible with our tax dollars, and they have NOT been responsible with the profits we send them by supporting their massive corporations, so it's time to cut them off and shift those profits back to the American people who need them instead. Walk around your home and look at all the household products you're buying every month that funds this corrupt system. We can squash their monopoly and reverse engineer ACTUAL capitalism and Robin Hood profits from the Wall Street elites by shifting MILLIONS of dollars away from them and back to people who need it, for everyday stuff we're already buying every single month from them for our families. Elon Musk wants us building community based wealth generating systems ON THIS PLATFORM to tear down the elites and rebuild the middle-class instead. We don't need more BREAKING posts. We don't need more corruption exposed, as we've seen enough to understand the entire system THAT WE FUND every month, is rotten from the top down. What we need is a community based system built for us that allows all of us to legally rob that corrupt system, and I think it's time we build it. Winter is coming. There's no better time to LEARN and build an online business and start building something that can be passed down to our children in the future, that's also beneficial to America, and I'd like to help build it. If you're interested in building it with me, you can message me here directly or you can email me! 🥰 [email protected]

Bridgett Fertig

46,368 views • 29 days ago