正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

After less than six months as CEO, I’m stepping away from Operators. Just couldn’t take it. Being a professional executive wrangler was too much. I look forward to spending time with my family. Please respect our privacy during this time. But before I leave for a much-needed vacation, the...

AaronOrendorff's profile picture

Aaron Orendorff

37,415 subscribers

32,322 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育新闻政治财经
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

RESCUE OF THE KEEPER OF TARA EARTH This is going to sound like absolute fiction, but the story still needs to be told. Let me preface by saying I’m not just sane, but an autodidact polymath with multiple quantum physics patents under exclusively my own name, not part of any collaboration. So by dismissing my testimony as someone who is just nuts is really reading a book strictly through its cover. This all actually happened, even if you’ve never heard of anything like this before. What we don’t know about ‘the real worlds’ out there you could barely fit in all of our skies, we’ve been that isolated here. Everyone in this preschool dimension have preconceived notions about who ‘god’ is, inflated to the realm of all-knowing and all-powerful, able to create whole worlds, complete with millions of species of flora and fauna, and all in just 6 days. And while it is true such powers do exist, they are not without collaboration with other ‘gods’ to make that all happen, no matter how grandiose your captors want to make themselves seem. Just one species of your apples or oranges here represents possibly trillions of years of development and perfection. They didn’t just magically appear. “God” is a psyop term that stands for the word “perfect”, of which there is no such thing. The term perfect is strictly subjective, because what may seem perfect to a caveman is going to seem rudimentary kid’s stuff to George Jetson. The real term for the creator of all things is not ‘god’, but rather Prime Creator. “God” is actually DOG spelled backward and got its name from the Dog Star, also known as Sirius A, the headquarters of the Anuhazi Elohim’s breakaway group that call themselves The Michaelube, Suns of Ba’al. The ‘Arch Angels’ want you to believe they are the creator god of all things in this world. That was a lie 560m years ago and it is still a lie today. In reality, Tara Earth existed more than 4 billion years prior to the Anuhazi’s arrival to take the Human Elohim Project spirit essences hostage. They DID in fact help create Tara earth, just like you did, because they are fractals of Prime Creator. But to present themselves as ‘one guy with a long white beard who created the world and everything in it’ is word magic and gaslighting, designed to demoralize and subjugate Humans. For more on the why to this psychopathic plan, see my article: 👉 HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA. With that said, there are MANY beings in the world around you that are secretly ancient ‘gods’ of past eras who really do have more powers than humans do. I know, because I’ve met some and dealt with others during my years of education from the keeper of our simulation. There are also beings here who have roles to play to keep our world functioning correctly so Tara is able to continue offering a holographic platform for your manifestation adventure, who also have god-like powers, such as the keeper mentioned above, and others that are part of the team I refer to as the ‘crew’. You would call them angels, I call them people. Scary powerful people, but still people. Among the ‘crew’ is the main ‘keeper’ of the simulation that you wind up referring to as god down through the ages, because once in a while humans get to meet the keeper and witness the power for themselves which is very obviously not human. But the keeper doesn’t have a long flowing white beard, doesn’t sit on a throne in the sky and certainly isn’t perfect. But like you, a work in progress. Always seeking greater balance. That is the one common denominator among all fractals of Prime Creator, regardless if they are currently playing ‘bad guy’ roles, or ‘good guy’ roles. Understand there are beings here constantly at war against the keeper that has control of the universal elements of the hologram. Also understand, like the other beings who came here from much higher dimension with ‘god-like’ powers, they fractalize themselves into many, many different bodies, so it is effectively impossible to ever ‘kill’ each other. You would have to not only find all the many hundreds or thousands of them, but have a fool-proof way of killing them all at the same exact moment, making sure they are gone-gone, not just that one avatar holding their spirit awareness. That’s not going to happen. Not to any of them from what I’ve witnessed. Which means simply, as far as you are concerned, they are eternal beings, continuously here since 560m years ago in some case, depending when each one of them arrived. The ‘gods’, and the keeper, live in mortal bodies that age and die. But their positions are always held by the next one of themselves that can step into that role to maintain continuity of their offices. These are all the same person and can appear exactly identical to each other, or they can take on totally different appearances as well. I’m not sure why or how, but I’ve seen them both ways. After I was contacted by the keeper and informed of my role where I was in contract to supply protection and help to the crew back in 2013, eventually I was activated for that help in September of 2017. Both the keeper and a portion of the worldwide crew support staff as it were, had been taken hostage in California. I was tasked to bring them out to safety. I won’t go deeply into the details of this, but it was a serious situation where the invader races had stripped the keeper of all access to banks and cash, making it impossible to remain safe inside of the place they had been using as headquarters, literally casting them into the streets. And before you imagine this would be ‘impossible’, the keeper can’t just manifest stacks of cash out of thin air, and also there were a massive amount of beings all working together to neutralize them so they could possibly remove them from the levers of power of the simulation. That’s really all I can offer for details about that for now. The alphabet agencies were keeping the entire crew isolated in that one city, living in a car, camping in the woods and basically making it impossible to look after Tara. The keeper was able to get donations through various support mechanisms, but were shut out of getting off the streets. They brought in specialists to help them all escape, but the agencies wound up permanently disabling them, or taking them out altogether. That’s when I was contacted for assignment. Not being one of ‘the gods’ like they are, I was naturally terrified of having anything to do with this mission because I had no powers I was aware of that could provide anything they couldn’t. Which is really a fantastic understatement, since the keeper and crew can translocate anywhere in the world in seconds, have ‘thousands of avatars’ scattered out as vessels they can use in any city around the world, and basically everything they can do we can’t are about as intimidating as they can be. But I was told I was the only one who could rescue them. And while that may sound like the perfect scenario for a deluded mind seeking validation with illusions of grandeur, like a classic mental patient would come up with in their insane mind, this is what I was actually told, and I do mean in real life. To this day I find it as confusing to believe as you will trying to believe me now. Nonetheless, I carry certain powers I have been fitted with for my contract here on earth that I have had no education about at all. And the main one I’ve learned of now is I have a frequency shield that blocks out ‘the gods’ from doing harm. As long as the keeper and crew were within that field, the invaders were rendered powerless. Wow, even I want to roll my eyes at that. But I watched it play out first hand now multiple times after I got the crew off the streets in a ‘place of safety’ over the next couple of years. As long as I was at the safe house, nothing nefarious happened. When I went shopping every other week for groceries in town over 10 miles away, that’s when all hell would break out back at the compound. Those stories too would seem impossible to you to believe, just like everything else I am covering here, so I won’t go deeply into them. But they included black helicopters, 10’ long rattlesnakes sealing off the safe house & even assassinations. I was even requested to get to town and back as quickly as possible and not to linger due to these threats. I was told that my frequency shield while blended to the natural frequency shield the keeper and crew all have reached ‘87.3 miles’ apart (or so, going by memory now. But it was a very specific number). But even though the overall power of our combined fields still increased within that distance, the closer I was to the group, the more powerful the shield. I’m just telling you what I was told. You can believe it or not. I certainly wouldn’t believe it had I not actually witnessed it myself, so I’m right there with you if that’s your position. That brings us to the story I intended to pass along to you here; regarding that flight from ‘homeless bondage’ out across the deserts that spanned well over 1000 miles I was brought in for. The keeper and crew had been held hostage and homeless for 2 ½ years by the time I got the call requesting me to sell everything I owned and fly half way around the world for their rescue. Their lives had been hell, trust me. I arrived late at night where they picked me up and the hard part of the journey began. I will skip the details of the truly insane things I witnessed starting then for another time after the separation, for obvious reasons having to do with breadcrumbs and the very real fluid war we’re inside of still. But I will tell you about the ‘angels’ that were with us for that escape I would only learn about myself after 2 days of running. In the video below you will see what appear to be asteroids or a meteor shower, but they are traveling horizontally, not downward at all. We’ve seen this now since late 2024 a few times. This time I saved one of the videos taken on 2/19/2025 in Germany so I could actually show people what I saw first hand on that second night of our escape. We had covered whole states by this time, but we couldn’t stop and rest until we made it to a ‘frequency zone’ that was somehow outside of the reaches of the keeper’s enemies. I’m under the impression that there are certain key cross-leyline areas on earth that are too high in frequency for the low-vibration invader races to penetrate with their hyper-advanced psychotronic & scalar weapons, and that had been our destination ever since our escape that began at about 3:30-4am in the dead of night when the least amount of eyes would be surveilling us. Boy do I have outrageous stories about just how absolute that surveillance really is too. It is like they are not just tracking us, but using time travel to put agents in areas we would be arriving to, posing like homeless people and everyday folks. While in real life they were monitoring my every word in secret. I was surveilled many times during the weeks in that city while arranging for the escape and it blew my mind every time. The asteroids that really look more like comets in the video is what the "guardian angels" that had been secretly escorting us from overhead looked like, WHEN they were uncloaked. They only showed up in my visible view at the moment we broke over a ridge at about 3:30 in the morning 2 days later after our run began, at the exact same moment I could see the city lights way off in the distance below that was the ‘safe zone’. Suddenly overhead three giant comets appeared immediately above my head. I was in the lead vehicle the whole way, because the keeper was following my taillights. This is the only way they can navigate at night, because they don’t see like you and I do, looking at solid shapes and images, but everything through their eyes are light waves. I couldn’t make up something like that if I spent 10 years trying to write this article, mostly because it is still not believable to me now, 8 years later. These 3 comets were massive, what looked to be around 50 feet across, with tails of flame coming off that must have been 150-200 feet behind streaking VERY low across the sky. As I came down the hill to the desert floor for the final 10 miles between us and the safe zone (small town lights), the ‘comets’ started coming straight down toward ground, one at a time. They appeared they were going to crash into the highway, now traveling vertically at hypersonic speed, then just stopped 50 ft away from impact and vanished. You would have to try to imagine being in the total dark desert with only very faint, far-away lights off in the distance, only to have 3 comets traveling RIGHT DIRECTLY overhead suddenly uncloak, then turn straight down to get an idea of how insanely frightening they appeared, since their trajectory was to strike directly in front of your vehicle on the highway, as if you were about to slam right into them as they hit like giant bombs that would certainly blow up on impact and basically vaporize you and your moving van, to appreciate how absurd this event was. I was only about 150 feet away from where they were set to strike, so there was no hitting the brakes and avoiding anything. They were right there. Which means it was sort of like watching 'god' just fill the night's sky with fire. I saw 3 of them myself, but I was informed there were an additional 9 ‘angels’ that my own frequency wouldn't allow me to see according to the keeper. It is because this story is so unbelievable that I avoid talking about it, as you can imagine. Since 99 people out of a hundred are only going to accuse you of being insane upon hearing it, some possibly trying to have you committed at the same time, and the other person is likely already crazy themselves, so they just glaze over it. Until you see something like that with your own eyes, I'm pretty sure you will *never believe it could be a real thing. But this is what we call angels look like when they are decloaked and traveling at night. I don’t personally know if they were inside vehicles, or they are just simply traveling in their own Merkabah fields. That part was never explained to me. I was told they were with us 'flying overhead the entire journey' since we escaped California and were basically ‘signing off’ as I gathered it, now that we had reached the safe zone. You can believe I'm crazy all you want to, but now you can see them with your own eyes in this video, sure as hell not acting like meteors, but acting more like flaming time crafts (‘space’ ships). Are you crazy too? - On X, to search for my articles, simply type in the name of the piece, enter one space, then from: plus my username in parenthesis such as shown here: CASTING THE APOCOLYPSE (from:iontecs_pemf) Off-site, you can look up any of my writings through this link below for my other more than 100 recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, regularly updated thanks to Justin This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time.
0:20

RESCUE OF THE KEEPER OF TARA EARTH This is going to sound like absolute fiction, but the story still needs to be told. Let me preface by saying I’m not just sane, but an autodidact polymath with multiple quantum physics patents under exclusively my own name, not part of any collaboration. So by dismissing my testimony as someone who is just nuts is really reading a book strictly through its cover. This all actually happened, even if you’ve never heard of anything like this before. What we don’t know about ‘the real worlds’ out there you could barely fit in all of our skies, we’ve been that isolated here. Everyone in this preschool dimension have preconceived notions about who ‘god’ is, inflated to the realm of all-knowing and all-powerful, able to create whole worlds, complete with millions of species of flora and fauna, and all in just 6 days. And while it is true such powers do exist, they are not without collaboration with other ‘gods’ to make that all happen, no matter how grandiose your captors want to make themselves seem. Just one species of your apples or oranges here represents possibly trillions of years of development and perfection. They didn’t just magically appear. “God” is a psyop term that stands for the word “perfect”, of which there is no such thing. The term perfect is strictly subjective, because what may seem perfect to a caveman is going to seem rudimentary kid’s stuff to George Jetson. The real term for the creator of all things is not ‘god’, but rather Prime Creator. “God” is actually DOG spelled backward and got its name from the Dog Star, also known as Sirius A, the headquarters of the Anuhazi Elohim’s breakaway group that call themselves The Michaelube, Suns of Ba’al. The ‘Arch Angels’ want you to believe they are the creator god of all things in this world. That was a lie 560m years ago and it is still a lie today. In reality, Tara Earth existed more than 4 billion years prior to the Anuhazi’s arrival to take the Human Elohim Project spirit essences hostage. They DID in fact help create Tara earth, just like you did, because they are fractals of Prime Creator. But to present themselves as ‘one guy with a long white beard who created the world and everything in it’ is word magic and gaslighting, designed to demoralize and subjugate Humans. For more on the why to this psychopathic plan, see my article: 👉 HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA. With that said, there are MANY beings in the world around you that are secretly ancient ‘gods’ of past eras who really do have more powers than humans do. I know, because I’ve met some and dealt with others during my years of education from the keeper of our simulation. There are also beings here who have roles to play to keep our world functioning correctly so Tara is able to continue offering a holographic platform for your manifestation adventure, who also have god-like powers, such as the keeper mentioned above, and others that are part of the team I refer to as the ‘crew’. You would call them angels, I call them people. Scary powerful people, but still people. Among the ‘crew’ is the main ‘keeper’ of the simulation that you wind up referring to as god down through the ages, because once in a while humans get to meet the keeper and witness the power for themselves which is very obviously not human. But the keeper doesn’t have a long flowing white beard, doesn’t sit on a throne in the sky and certainly isn’t perfect. But like you, a work in progress. Always seeking greater balance. That is the one common denominator among all fractals of Prime Creator, regardless if they are currently playing ‘bad guy’ roles, or ‘good guy’ roles. Understand there are beings here constantly at war against the keeper that has control of the universal elements of the hologram. Also understand, like the other beings who came here from much higher dimension with ‘god-like’ powers, they fractalize themselves into many, many different bodies, so it is effectively impossible to ever ‘kill’ each other. You would have to not only find all the many hundreds or thousands of them, but have a fool-proof way of killing them all at the same exact moment, making sure they are gone-gone, not just that one avatar holding their spirit awareness. That’s not going to happen. Not to any of them from what I’ve witnessed. Which means simply, as far as you are concerned, they are eternal beings, continuously here since 560m years ago in some case, depending when each one of them arrived. The ‘gods’, and the keeper, live in mortal bodies that age and die. But their positions are always held by the next one of themselves that can step into that role to maintain continuity of their offices. These are all the same person and can appear exactly identical to each other, or they can take on totally different appearances as well. I’m not sure why or how, but I’ve seen them both ways. After I was contacted by the keeper and informed of my role where I was in contract to supply protection and help to the crew back in 2013, eventually I was activated for that help in September of 2017. Both the keeper and a portion of the worldwide crew support staff as it were, had been taken hostage in California. I was tasked to bring them out to safety. I won’t go deeply into the details of this, but it was a serious situation where the invader races had stripped the keeper of all access to banks and cash, making it impossible to remain safe inside of the place they had been using as headquarters, literally casting them into the streets. And before you imagine this would be ‘impossible’, the keeper can’t just manifest stacks of cash out of thin air, and also there were a massive amount of beings all working together to neutralize them so they could possibly remove them from the levers of power of the simulation. That’s really all I can offer for details about that for now. The alphabet agencies were keeping the entire crew isolated in that one city, living in a car, camping in the woods and basically making it impossible to look after Tara. The keeper was able to get donations through various support mechanisms, but were shut out of getting off the streets. They brought in specialists to help them all escape, but the agencies wound up permanently disabling them, or taking them out altogether. That’s when I was contacted for assignment. Not being one of ‘the gods’ like they are, I was naturally terrified of having anything to do with this mission because I had no powers I was aware of that could provide anything they couldn’t. Which is really a fantastic understatement, since the keeper and crew can translocate anywhere in the world in seconds, have ‘thousands of avatars’ scattered out as vessels they can use in any city around the world, and basically everything they can do we can’t are about as intimidating as they can be. But I was told I was the only one who could rescue them. And while that may sound like the perfect scenario for a deluded mind seeking validation with illusions of grandeur, like a classic mental patient would come up with in their insane mind, this is what I was actually told, and I do mean in real life. To this day I find it as confusing to believe as you will trying to believe me now. Nonetheless, I carry certain powers I have been fitted with for my contract here on earth that I have had no education about at all. And the main one I’ve learned of now is I have a frequency shield that blocks out ‘the gods’ from doing harm. As long as the keeper and crew were within that field, the invaders were rendered powerless. Wow, even I want to roll my eyes at that. But I watched it play out first hand now multiple times after I got the crew off the streets in a ‘place of safety’ over the next couple of years. As long as I was at the safe house, nothing nefarious happened. When I went shopping every other week for groceries in town over 10 miles away, that’s when all hell would break out back at the compound. Those stories too would seem impossible to you to believe, just like everything else I am covering here, so I won’t go deeply into them. But they included black helicopters, 10’ long rattlesnakes sealing off the safe house & even assassinations. I was even requested to get to town and back as quickly as possible and not to linger due to these threats. I was told that my frequency shield while blended to the natural frequency shield the keeper and crew all have reached ‘87.3 miles’ apart (or so, going by memory now. But it was a very specific number). But even though the overall power of our combined fields still increased within that distance, the closer I was to the group, the more powerful the shield. I’m just telling you what I was told. You can believe it or not. I certainly wouldn’t believe it had I not actually witnessed it myself, so I’m right there with you if that’s your position. That brings us to the story I intended to pass along to you here; regarding that flight from ‘homeless bondage’ out across the deserts that spanned well over 1000 miles I was brought in for. The keeper and crew had been held hostage and homeless for 2 ½ years by the time I got the call requesting me to sell everything I owned and fly half way around the world for their rescue. Their lives had been hell, trust me. I arrived late at night where they picked me up and the hard part of the journey began. I will skip the details of the truly insane things I witnessed starting then for another time after the separation, for obvious reasons having to do with breadcrumbs and the very real fluid war we’re inside of still. But I will tell you about the ‘angels’ that were with us for that escape I would only learn about myself after 2 days of running. In the video below you will see what appear to be asteroids or a meteor shower, but they are traveling horizontally, not downward at all. We’ve seen this now since late 2024 a few times. This time I saved one of the videos taken on 2/19/2025 in Germany so I could actually show people what I saw first hand on that second night of our escape. We had covered whole states by this time, but we couldn’t stop and rest until we made it to a ‘frequency zone’ that was somehow outside of the reaches of the keeper’s enemies. I’m under the impression that there are certain key cross-leyline areas on earth that are too high in frequency for the low-vibration invader races to penetrate with their hyper-advanced psychotronic & scalar weapons, and that had been our destination ever since our escape that began at about 3:30-4am in the dead of night when the least amount of eyes would be surveilling us. Boy do I have outrageous stories about just how absolute that surveillance really is too. It is like they are not just tracking us, but using time travel to put agents in areas we would be arriving to, posing like homeless people and everyday folks. While in real life they were monitoring my every word in secret. I was surveilled many times during the weeks in that city while arranging for the escape and it blew my mind every time. The asteroids that really look more like comets in the video is what the "guardian angels" that had been secretly escorting us from overhead looked like, WHEN they were uncloaked. They only showed up in my visible view at the moment we broke over a ridge at about 3:30 in the morning 2 days later after our run began, at the exact same moment I could see the city lights way off in the distance below that was the ‘safe zone’. Suddenly overhead three giant comets appeared immediately above my head. I was in the lead vehicle the whole way, because the keeper was following my taillights. This is the only way they can navigate at night, because they don’t see like you and I do, looking at solid shapes and images, but everything through their eyes are light waves. I couldn’t make up something like that if I spent 10 years trying to write this article, mostly because it is still not believable to me now, 8 years later. These 3 comets were massive, what looked to be around 50 feet across, with tails of flame coming off that must have been 150-200 feet behind streaking VERY low across the sky. As I came down the hill to the desert floor for the final 10 miles between us and the safe zone (small town lights), the ‘comets’ started coming straight down toward ground, one at a time. They appeared they were going to crash into the highway, now traveling vertically at hypersonic speed, then just stopped 50 ft away from impact and vanished. You would have to try to imagine being in the total dark desert with only very faint, far-away lights off in the distance, only to have 3 comets traveling RIGHT DIRECTLY overhead suddenly uncloak, then turn straight down to get an idea of how insanely frightening they appeared, since their trajectory was to strike directly in front of your vehicle on the highway, as if you were about to slam right into them as they hit like giant bombs that would certainly blow up on impact and basically vaporize you and your moving van, to appreciate how absurd this event was. I was only about 150 feet away from where they were set to strike, so there was no hitting the brakes and avoiding anything. They were right there. Which means it was sort of like watching 'god' just fill the night's sky with fire. I saw 3 of them myself, but I was informed there were an additional 9 ‘angels’ that my own frequency wouldn't allow me to see according to the keeper. It is because this story is so unbelievable that I avoid talking about it, as you can imagine. Since 99 people out of a hundred are only going to accuse you of being insane upon hearing it, some possibly trying to have you committed at the same time, and the other person is likely already crazy themselves, so they just glaze over it. Until you see something like that with your own eyes, I'm pretty sure you will *never believe it could be a real thing. But this is what we call angels look like when they are decloaked and traveling at night. I don’t personally know if they were inside vehicles, or they are just simply traveling in their own Merkabah fields. That part was never explained to me. I was told they were with us 'flying overhead the entire journey' since we escaped California and were basically ‘signing off’ as I gathered it, now that we had reached the safe zone. You can believe I'm crazy all you want to, but now you can see them with your own eyes in this video, sure as hell not acting like meteors, but acting more like flaming time crafts (‘space’ ships). Are you crazy too? - On X, to search for my articles, simply type in the name of the piece, enter one space, then from: plus my username in parenthesis such as shown here: CASTING THE APOCOLYPSE (from:iontecs_pemf) Off-site, you can look up any of my writings through this link below for my other more than 100 recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, regularly updated thanks to Justin This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time.

W.R. Schock, QBD

62,828 次观看 • 1 年前

Like seemingly everyone on this app I have plenty of opinions about Twitter > X and figure now is a good time to open up a bit about my experience at the company. I tweeted for years into the void for the love of it like many of you, but after selling my startup to Twitter in 2020 I finally got to see it from the inside. Up close it was both amazing and terrible, like so many other companies and things in life. As someone with a maniacal sense of urgency built into me, Twitter often felt siloed and bureaucratic. Dumb power plays, reorgs and team name changes for the sake of someone’s ego were distractions that occurred too regularly. You couldn’t just be a builder — you also needed to be a politician. I was shocked by how old and bespoke the infrastructure was, but there was little will to think beyond quarterly earnings calls because we were all beholden to the masters of mDAU and revenue growth as a public company. It often felt like things were held together with duct tape and glue, and that many people had just accepted that a small product change could take months or quarters to build. Management had become bloated to accommodate career growth and the company culture felt too soft and entitled for my own taste. Healthy debate and criticism was replaced by a default refrain of “no, that can’t be done” or “another team owns that so don’t touch it”. Teams could spend months building a feature and then some last-minute kerfuffle meant it’d get killed for being too risky. Just talking directly to customers could turn into a turf war and create deadlocks between functions. I recall one such episode where a teammate spent a month trying to get clearance to reach out to some creators. He went through 3 layers of management and 6 different functional teams. In the end 4 executives were involved in the approval. It was insanity, and unfortunately I saw several top performers get burnt out and demoralized after exhausting experiences like that. Most people were good at their jobs but it was nearly impossible to fire poor performers — instead they got shuffled around to other teams because few managers had the will or resources to figure out how to get them out. A high performance culture pulls everyone up, but the opposite weighs everyone down. Twitter often felt like a place that kept squandering its own potential, which was sad and frustrating to see. The person who was best at cutting through the BS and inspiring a vision during my tenure was Kayvon Beykpour, but he wasn’t fully empowered to run the company since he wasn’t the CEO. Despite those real issues, I was lucky enough to work with some of the most talented people in the business at Twitter in product, design, engineering, research, legal, BD, trust & safety, marketing, PR and more. Often it was a small cross-functional team of intrinsically motivated people who made the biggest impact by challenging some core assumption. Those teams were very fun to be on but they felt like the exception rather than the rule. The months of waiting for the deal to close in 2022 were particularly slow and painful; it felt like leadership hid behind lawyers and legal language as all answers about the company’s future notoriously included the phrase “fiduciary duty”. Colleagues openly talked about how Twitter was being sold because leadership didn’t have conviction in their own plan or ability to fix longstanding problems. Although I didn’t know much about Elon I was cautiously optimistic – I saw him as the guy who built incredible and enduring companies like Tesla and SpaceX, so perhaps his private ownership could shake things up and breathe new life into the company. My take on what’s happened since then is full of lived nuance. When people ask why I stayed it’s easy to answer: optimism, curiosity, personal growth and money. From the beginning I saw that some changes Elon was going to make were smart and others were stupid, but when I’m on a team I uphold the philosophy of “praise in public and criticize in private”. I was far from a silent wallflower. I shared my opinions openly and pushed back often, both before and after the acquisition. I made peace with the fact that I didn’t have psychological safety at Twitter 2.0 and that meant I could be fired at any moment, and for no reason at all. I watched it happen repeatedly and saw how negatively it impacted team morale. Although I couldn’t change the situation I did my best to shine a light on folks who were doing important work while being an emotionally supportive leader for those who were struggling to adapt to the more brutalist and hardcore culture. In person Elon is oddly charming and he’s genuinely funny. He also has personality quirks like telling the same stories and jokes over and over. The challenge is his personality and demeanor can turn on a dime going from excited to angry. Since it was hard to read what mood he might be in and what his reaction would be to any given thing, people quickly became afraid of being called into meetings or having to share negative news with him. At times it felt like the inner circle was too zealous and fanatical in their unwavering support of everything he said. When individuals encouraged me to be careful about what I said I politely thanked them and said I would not be taking their advice. I had no interest in adding to a culture of fear or walking on eggshells around Elon. Either he would respect me for being real or he could fire me. Either outcome was okay. I quickly learned that product and business decisions were nearly always the result of him following his gut instinct, and he didn’t seem compelled to seek out or rely on a lot of data or expertise to inform it. That was particularly frustrating for me since I believed I had useful institutional knowledge that could help him make better decisions. Instead he'd poll Twitter, ask a friend, or even ask his biographer for product advice. At times it seemed he trusted random feedback more than the people in the room who spent their lives dedicated to tackling the problem at hand. I never figured out why and remain puzzled by it. I don’t think things had to be as difficult or dramatic as they turned out to be but I can’t say I’d bet against Elon or count him out. He’s smart and has enough money to make a lot of mistakes and then course correct when things go awry. As the largest shareholder he can tank the value in the short-term, but eventually he’ll need things to turn around. His focus on speed is incredible and he’s obviously not afraid of blowing things up, but now the real measure will be how it get reconstructed and if enough people want the new everything app he is building. I learned a ton from watching Elon up close – the good, the bad and the ugly. His boldness, passion and storytelling is inspiring, but his lack of process and empathy is painful. Elon has an exceptional talent for tackling hard physics-based problems but products that facilitate human connection and communication require a different type of social-emotional intelligence. Social networks are hard to kill but they’re not immune from death spirals. Only time will tell what the outcome will be but I hope X finds its footing because competition is good for consumers. In the meantime, I have a lot of empathy for the employees who are working tirelessly behind the scenes, the advertisers who want a stable platform to sell their stuff on, and the customers who are experiencing chaotic updates. It’s been a madhouse. Twitter moved at the speed of molasses and suffered from bureaucracy but now X is run by a mercurial leader whose instinct is driven by the unique and undoubtedly weird experience of being the biggest voice on the platform. Many of you know me from the sleeping bag incident where I slept on a conference room floor, so I figure, let’s talk about that too. Going viral was an odd and interesting experience. I was attacked by people on the left and called a billionaire bootlicker, while simultaneously being attacked by people on the right for being a working mom who was demonized as an example of a woman choosing her career over her family. Thankfully I can laugh at myself and I don’t take armchair keyboard ideologues too seriously. Being the main character on the timeline, even for a few minutes, requires a thick skin and a strong sense of self. The real story is pretty simple. I was given a nearly impossible deadline for his first project and as the product lead I would never ask anyone to do anything I wasn’t willing to do myself. So I worked round the clock alongside an amazing team spanning many timezones, and we delivered it on schedule – truly against the odds. It was intense but also fun. Those first few months were wildly crazy but I wanted to be there and I have no regrets. Showing up and giving it your all should, in most cases, be celebrated. Obviously you can’t work at that pace forever but there are moments where bursts are mission critical. I’ve pulled many all-nighters in my career and also when I was a student for something that mattered to me. I don’t regret putting in long hours or being ambitious, and feel proud of how far I’ve come from where I started thanks in part to that type of work ethic. I think of life as a game, and being at Twitter after the acquisition was like playing life at Level 10 on Hard Mode. Since I like taking on difficult challenges I found it interesting and rewarding because I was growing and learning so rapidly. I realize our society today trends toward polarization but when it comes to this app, its owner, and its future, I am neither a fangirl nor a hater — I’m an optimistic pragmatist. This may really irritate the internet but you cannot pigeonhole me into some radical position of either loving or hating every change that’s occurred. I escaped my fundamentalist upbringing and am a free thinker these days. Everyone can be seen as both a hero or a villain, depending on who is telling what angle of the story. Elon doesn’t deserve to be venerated or vilified. He’s a complicated person with an unfathomable amount of financial and geopolitical power which is why humanity needs him to err on the side of goodness, rather than political divisiveness and pettiness. I disagree with many of his decisions and am surprised by his willingness to burn so much down, but with enough money and time, something new & innovative may emerge. I hope it does. Sometimes I get asked about how I felt when I got laid off, and the truth is it was the best gift I’ve ever received. Sure the headlines and punchlines wrote themselves but I was battle hardened by then. I knew that I’d worked in a way where I could walk out with my head held high. I have no bitterness about the Product Management team being dismantled, and it made sense for me to exit as nearly all of the remaining PMs were let go. Going on a sabbatical afterward has been exactly what I needed to decompress and I’m finally feeling rested and relaxed. I’m a creative and a builder, so sooner than later I’ll jump back into a high intensity company but I’m grateful for this season of thinking, reading, traveling and being with people I love. After having time to reflect I believe more than ever that the very best outcomes flow from great leadership that combines the head and the heart. I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that in all of this there is also a cautionary tale for anyone who succeeds at something — which is that the higher you climb, the smaller your world becomes. It’s a strange paradox but the richest and most powerful people are also some of the most isolated. I found myself frequently looking at Elon and seeing a person who seemed quite alone because his time and energy was so purely devoted to work, which is not the model of a life I want to live. Money and fame can create psychological prisons which may worsen mental health conditions. We’ve all seen high profile cases of celebrities who end up with some combination of depression, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, mania and/or erratic behavior. Living in an echo chamber is dangerous and being at the top makes a person even more susceptible to being surrounded by yes people when nearly everyone around you is on the payroll and somehow stands to benefit from being in your orbit. Figuring out how to keep “better angels” around in the form of family, friends, and teammates is critical to staying on the rails and enduring intense ups and downs. Everyone needs to hear hard truths sometimes and if you fire all the people who speak up then the reality distortion field may just turn into a vortex. I was drawn to Twitter because I’m obsessed with the problem of loneliness and connection between people. I find it fascinating & troubling that humans are getting lonelier as we simultaneously create a world that’s both safer and wealthier. I don’t believe that trade-off has to exist, which is why I keep returning to that theme in my personal and professional life. I realize this is too long of a tweet but Twitter was a weird and special place on the internet, and I’m grateful to have played a teeny tiny role in its story and evolution. I’m here for whatever comes next — on this app and in new places. Consumer social is very much alive and at a fascinating juncture, so I’ll be watching and participating and sharing hot takes because I don’t want to, and probably can’t, turn that part of me off. Perhaps X becomes a resounding success. Or it fails epically. Either way, I expect it will continue to be a very entertaining ride. 🫡
14:49

Like seemingly everyone on this app I have plenty of opinions about Twitter > X and figure now is a good time to open up a bit about my experience at the company. I tweeted for years into the void for the love of it like many of you, but after selling my startup to Twitter in 2020 I finally got to see it from the inside. Up close it was both amazing and terrible, like so many other companies and things in life. As someone with a maniacal sense of urgency built into me, Twitter often felt siloed and bureaucratic. Dumb power plays, reorgs and team name changes for the sake of someone’s ego were distractions that occurred too regularly. You couldn’t just be a builder — you also needed to be a politician. I was shocked by how old and bespoke the infrastructure was, but there was little will to think beyond quarterly earnings calls because we were all beholden to the masters of mDAU and revenue growth as a public company. It often felt like things were held together with duct tape and glue, and that many people had just accepted that a small product change could take months or quarters to build. Management had become bloated to accommodate career growth and the company culture felt too soft and entitled for my own taste. Healthy debate and criticism was replaced by a default refrain of “no, that can’t be done” or “another team owns that so don’t touch it”. Teams could spend months building a feature and then some last-minute kerfuffle meant it’d get killed for being too risky. Just talking directly to customers could turn into a turf war and create deadlocks between functions. I recall one such episode where a teammate spent a month trying to get clearance to reach out to some creators. He went through 3 layers of management and 6 different functional teams. In the end 4 executives were involved in the approval. It was insanity, and unfortunately I saw several top performers get burnt out and demoralized after exhausting experiences like that. Most people were good at their jobs but it was nearly impossible to fire poor performers — instead they got shuffled around to other teams because few managers had the will or resources to figure out how to get them out. A high performance culture pulls everyone up, but the opposite weighs everyone down. Twitter often felt like a place that kept squandering its own potential, which was sad and frustrating to see. The person who was best at cutting through the BS and inspiring a vision during my tenure was Kayvon Beykpour, but he wasn’t fully empowered to run the company since he wasn’t the CEO. Despite those real issues, I was lucky enough to work with some of the most talented people in the business at Twitter in product, design, engineering, research, legal, BD, trust & safety, marketing, PR and more. Often it was a small cross-functional team of intrinsically motivated people who made the biggest impact by challenging some core assumption. Those teams were very fun to be on but they felt like the exception rather than the rule. The months of waiting for the deal to close in 2022 were particularly slow and painful; it felt like leadership hid behind lawyers and legal language as all answers about the company’s future notoriously included the phrase “fiduciary duty”. Colleagues openly talked about how Twitter was being sold because leadership didn’t have conviction in their own plan or ability to fix longstanding problems. Although I didn’t know much about Elon I was cautiously optimistic – I saw him as the guy who built incredible and enduring companies like Tesla and SpaceX, so perhaps his private ownership could shake things up and breathe new life into the company. My take on what’s happened since then is full of lived nuance. When people ask why I stayed it’s easy to answer: optimism, curiosity, personal growth and money. From the beginning I saw that some changes Elon was going to make were smart and others were stupid, but when I’m on a team I uphold the philosophy of “praise in public and criticize in private”. I was far from a silent wallflower. I shared my opinions openly and pushed back often, both before and after the acquisition. I made peace with the fact that I didn’t have psychological safety at Twitter 2.0 and that meant I could be fired at any moment, and for no reason at all. I watched it happen repeatedly and saw how negatively it impacted team morale. Although I couldn’t change the situation I did my best to shine a light on folks who were doing important work while being an emotionally supportive leader for those who were struggling to adapt to the more brutalist and hardcore culture. In person Elon is oddly charming and he’s genuinely funny. He also has personality quirks like telling the same stories and jokes over and over. The challenge is his personality and demeanor can turn on a dime going from excited to angry. Since it was hard to read what mood he might be in and what his reaction would be to any given thing, people quickly became afraid of being called into meetings or having to share negative news with him. At times it felt like the inner circle was too zealous and fanatical in their unwavering support of everything he said. When individuals encouraged me to be careful about what I said I politely thanked them and said I would not be taking their advice. I had no interest in adding to a culture of fear or walking on eggshells around Elon. Either he would respect me for being real or he could fire me. Either outcome was okay. I quickly learned that product and business decisions were nearly always the result of him following his gut instinct, and he didn’t seem compelled to seek out or rely on a lot of data or expertise to inform it. That was particularly frustrating for me since I believed I had useful institutional knowledge that could help him make better decisions. Instead he'd poll Twitter, ask a friend, or even ask his biographer for product advice. At times it seemed he trusted random feedback more than the people in the room who spent their lives dedicated to tackling the problem at hand. I never figured out why and remain puzzled by it. I don’t think things had to be as difficult or dramatic as they turned out to be but I can’t say I’d bet against Elon or count him out. He’s smart and has enough money to make a lot of mistakes and then course correct when things go awry. As the largest shareholder he can tank the value in the short-term, but eventually he’ll need things to turn around. His focus on speed is incredible and he’s obviously not afraid of blowing things up, but now the real measure will be how it get reconstructed and if enough people want the new everything app he is building. I learned a ton from watching Elon up close – the good, the bad and the ugly. His boldness, passion and storytelling is inspiring, but his lack of process and empathy is painful. Elon has an exceptional talent for tackling hard physics-based problems but products that facilitate human connection and communication require a different type of social-emotional intelligence. Social networks are hard to kill but they’re not immune from death spirals. Only time will tell what the outcome will be but I hope X finds its footing because competition is good for consumers. In the meantime, I have a lot of empathy for the employees who are working tirelessly behind the scenes, the advertisers who want a stable platform to sell their stuff on, and the customers who are experiencing chaotic updates. It’s been a madhouse. Twitter moved at the speed of molasses and suffered from bureaucracy but now X is run by a mercurial leader whose instinct is driven by the unique and undoubtedly weird experience of being the biggest voice on the platform. Many of you know me from the sleeping bag incident where I slept on a conference room floor, so I figure, let’s talk about that too. Going viral was an odd and interesting experience. I was attacked by people on the left and called a billionaire bootlicker, while simultaneously being attacked by people on the right for being a working mom who was demonized as an example of a woman choosing her career over her family. Thankfully I can laugh at myself and I don’t take armchair keyboard ideologues too seriously. Being the main character on the timeline, even for a few minutes, requires a thick skin and a strong sense of self. The real story is pretty simple. I was given a nearly impossible deadline for his first project and as the product lead I would never ask anyone to do anything I wasn’t willing to do myself. So I worked round the clock alongside an amazing team spanning many timezones, and we delivered it on schedule – truly against the odds. It was intense but also fun. Those first few months were wildly crazy but I wanted to be there and I have no regrets. Showing up and giving it your all should, in most cases, be celebrated. Obviously you can’t work at that pace forever but there are moments where bursts are mission critical. I’ve pulled many all-nighters in my career and also when I was a student for something that mattered to me. I don’t regret putting in long hours or being ambitious, and feel proud of how far I’ve come from where I started thanks in part to that type of work ethic. I think of life as a game, and being at Twitter after the acquisition was like playing life at Level 10 on Hard Mode. Since I like taking on difficult challenges I found it interesting and rewarding because I was growing and learning so rapidly. I realize our society today trends toward polarization but when it comes to this app, its owner, and its future, I am neither a fangirl nor a hater — I’m an optimistic pragmatist. This may really irritate the internet but you cannot pigeonhole me into some radical position of either loving or hating every change that’s occurred. I escaped my fundamentalist upbringing and am a free thinker these days. Everyone can be seen as both a hero or a villain, depending on who is telling what angle of the story. Elon doesn’t deserve to be venerated or vilified. He’s a complicated person with an unfathomable amount of financial and geopolitical power which is why humanity needs him to err on the side of goodness, rather than political divisiveness and pettiness. I disagree with many of his decisions and am surprised by his willingness to burn so much down, but with enough money and time, something new & innovative may emerge. I hope it does. Sometimes I get asked about how I felt when I got laid off, and the truth is it was the best gift I’ve ever received. Sure the headlines and punchlines wrote themselves but I was battle hardened by then. I knew that I’d worked in a way where I could walk out with my head held high. I have no bitterness about the Product Management team being dismantled, and it made sense for me to exit as nearly all of the remaining PMs were let go. Going on a sabbatical afterward has been exactly what I needed to decompress and I’m finally feeling rested and relaxed. I’m a creative and a builder, so sooner than later I’ll jump back into a high intensity company but I’m grateful for this season of thinking, reading, traveling and being with people I love. After having time to reflect I believe more than ever that the very best outcomes flow from great leadership that combines the head and the heart. I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that in all of this there is also a cautionary tale for anyone who succeeds at something — which is that the higher you climb, the smaller your world becomes. It’s a strange paradox but the richest and most powerful people are also some of the most isolated. I found myself frequently looking at Elon and seeing a person who seemed quite alone because his time and energy was so purely devoted to work, which is not the model of a life I want to live. Money and fame can create psychological prisons which may worsen mental health conditions. We’ve all seen high profile cases of celebrities who end up with some combination of depression, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, mania and/or erratic behavior. Living in an echo chamber is dangerous and being at the top makes a person even more susceptible to being surrounded by yes people when nearly everyone around you is on the payroll and somehow stands to benefit from being in your orbit. Figuring out how to keep “better angels” around in the form of family, friends, and teammates is critical to staying on the rails and enduring intense ups and downs. Everyone needs to hear hard truths sometimes and if you fire all the people who speak up then the reality distortion field may just turn into a vortex. I was drawn to Twitter because I’m obsessed with the problem of loneliness and connection between people. I find it fascinating & troubling that humans are getting lonelier as we simultaneously create a world that’s both safer and wealthier. I don’t believe that trade-off has to exist, which is why I keep returning to that theme in my personal and professional life. I realize this is too long of a tweet but Twitter was a weird and special place on the internet, and I’m grateful to have played a teeny tiny role in its story and evolution. I’m here for whatever comes next — on this app and in new places. Consumer social is very much alive and at a fascinating juncture, so I’ll be watching and participating and sharing hot takes because I don’t want to, and probably can’t, turn that part of me off. Perhaps X becomes a resounding success. Or it fails epically. Either way, I expect it will continue to be a very entertaining ride. 🫡

Esther Crawford ✨

5,509,242 次观看 • 3 年前

"What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] 240911 19:00 KST Hyein: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didn’t feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. Minji: I’m sure that today’s announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. We’ve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, we’ll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we can’t share everything, but we’ll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, we’ve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe that’s why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. Danielle: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Hee-jin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. Haerin: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. Hanni: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that. Minji: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about how many more similar incidents might occur in the future and whether we’ll be subtly ostracized without anyone there to protect us. Hanni: I hope no one else has to go through something like that, but since it’s already happened once, I can’t help but feel scared that other members might experience the same thing. I spoke to the new CEO about it, but since I didn’t have evidence and it was considered too late, they seemed to brush it off, making me feel like there’s no one left to protect us. It really felt like the concern for us was gone, and even though I was being honest, it made me feel like I was suddenly being treated as a liar. Before, Min Hee-jin, our previous CEO, used to take care of us a lot. But now, while the new people say they’ll help, it’s just been months of excuses... excuses... excuses... They keep saying that it’s something they can’t resolve. But this is something that I personally went through and experienced, yet they are trying to dismiss it as if it’s my fault. I’m worried and scared about what might happen next. Minji: Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all. Hanni: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Hee-jin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. Minji: Besides this, there are many other incidents we’ve experienced that are beyond my understanding—things that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, it’s hard to discuss everything today because we’re not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of what’s been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. Danielle: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. Haerin: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. Hyein: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just that—empty words. HYBE’s actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. Minji: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, it’s incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, it’s heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work we’ve created so far but also the identity of our team. That’s what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. Hanni: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow HYBE's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Hee-jin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. Hyein: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. We’re not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. We’ll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. Danielle: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee-jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. Minji: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee-jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. NewJeans: Thank you. #NewJeans_Never_Die #NeverForget
27:11

"What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] 240911 19:00 KST Hyein: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didn’t feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. Minji: I’m sure that today’s announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. We’ve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, we’ll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we can’t share everything, but we’ll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, we’ve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe that’s why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. Danielle: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Hee-jin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. Haerin: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. Hanni: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that. Minji: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about how many more similar incidents might occur in the future and whether we’ll be subtly ostracized without anyone there to protect us. Hanni: I hope no one else has to go through something like that, but since it’s already happened once, I can’t help but feel scared that other members might experience the same thing. I spoke to the new CEO about it, but since I didn’t have evidence and it was considered too late, they seemed to brush it off, making me feel like there’s no one left to protect us. It really felt like the concern for us was gone, and even though I was being honest, it made me feel like I was suddenly being treated as a liar. Before, Min Hee-jin, our previous CEO, used to take care of us a lot. But now, while the new people say they’ll help, it’s just been months of excuses... excuses... excuses... They keep saying that it’s something they can’t resolve. But this is something that I personally went through and experienced, yet they are trying to dismiss it as if it’s my fault. I’m worried and scared about what might happen next. Minji: Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all. Hanni: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Hee-jin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. Minji: Besides this, there are many other incidents we’ve experienced that are beyond my understanding—things that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, it’s hard to discuss everything today because we’re not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of what’s been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. Danielle: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. Haerin: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. Hyein: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just that—empty words. HYBE’s actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. Minji: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, it’s incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, it’s heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work we’ve created so far but also the identity of our team. That’s what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. Hanni: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow HYBE's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Hee-jin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. Hyein: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. We’re not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. We’ll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. Danielle: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee-jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. Minji: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee-jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. NewJeans: Thank you. #NewJeans_Never_Die #NeverForget

1tokki

19,445 次观看 • 11 个月前

"If the truth were to come out...it would pull the rug out from under everything, the whole fabric of society would come unraveled." ~Herrington (allegedly) 🛸 Lying to Protect the UFO Cover-Up? 🛸 (I wanted to get this RLAP (REALLY Long-Ass Post, which is in two parts) out before Jesse Michels (AA) puts out his interview with Herrington. Watch the video I clipped from AA, read the transcript from a few other podcasts, and tell me if you think Friedman is lying. I just don't see it. Herrington denies any of this happened, so somebody IS lying, misremembering, or Herrington was pulling Friedman's leg about underground briefings, crying himself to sleep, and aliens. Using my judgment, and in my opinion: I believe Friedman.) "Aliens are real, they're here, and I've seen them." ~John Herrington, Former Secretary of Energy (allegedly) "My emotional take on this is that there is a darkness to this, and it's dangerous." ~Friedman If Disclosure happens... ⬇️ "We are in a God-fearing country. If you take that away, if you pull that out from underneath everyone, you're gonna lose a huge portion of the population." ~Herrington (allegedly) ~ (Just know that Herrington has denied (to Ben Schreckinger) that any of what Friedman claims, actually happened. And that includes having Friedman drive his car across the country. I'll include that in Part 2. And again, Jesse Michels recorded an interview with Herrington and that's about to be uploaded, so we'll see what he says there.) ~The Man Who Cried Himself to Sleep~ (I stole that from the Sound, Light & Frequency podcast) It’s the summer of 1981, and Brent Friedman (Brent Friedman) is eighteen and preparing to leave for college at UCLA in the fall. Before heading out, he takes on a cross-country drive - from the San Francisco area to Virginia, near Washington, D.C. - as a favor and a way to earn some extra money. The trip is for his former neighbor, John Herrington, who had lived next door to him during his childhood, from ages six to twelve. During those years, Herrington became more than just a neighbor - he was a father figure. (These quotes are from the Sound, Light and Frequency podcast: The Man Who Cried Himself to Sleep ⬇️) Friedman makes the drive and arrives in Virginia and meets up with Herrington, who says he's, "working at a very high-level in the Reagan administration" Friedman: "[Herrington] and Reagan were quite close." Bryce Zabel: "Am I correct in saying, though, that his actual job description at that time was the Assistant to the Undersecretary of the Navy?" Friedman: "I believe so, yes." (That does not appear to be accurate.) Friedman: "He did have an official title. I know that, at the time, he was working on something behind the scenes with the ABSCAM situation. But, what he ends up telling me is that he has a very high-level position and, in fact, his clearance is higher than the president's." (Herrington wasn't sworn in to Assistant Secretary of the Navy until October of 1981 and wasn't sworn in to Secretary of Energy until February of 1985. So what position allowed Herrington to have a high clearance and access to so much information, before the summer of 1981? In 1980, Herrington was the advance man for Reagan and his presidential campaign. What does an advance man do?) From Political Dictionary dot com... "The 'Advance man' is someone who makes arrangements and handles publicity for the candidate during a campaign. "The advance man travels to a location ahead of the candidate’s arrival and sets everything up so that things run smoothly for the candidate’s media appearance, or for whatever event the candidate is participating in." (Would an advance man be briefed about our country's biggest secrets? I don't think so. Is there a detail of this story that's missing? Maybe Herrington had some other job that required him to have access to all this information? I found this excerpt from The American Presidency Project website, which includes some further background info. on Herrington.) "In 1967 [Herrington] opened his own law office in Walnut Creek, Calif., specializing in real estate, corporate law, taxation, and contracts. He was recently involved in property management. "During the 1980 Presidential campaign, Mr. Herrington was a full-time volunteer advance man with the Reagan for President committee. Following the Republican National Convention he was named western regional director for advance. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ "[On May 6th, 1981] - The President...announced the appointment of John S. Herrington to be Deputy Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel." According to AI (which pulled three sources), that position, "manages the selection, vetting, and recommendation process for political appointees across federal agencies. They oversee talent recruitment, security clearance coordination, and strategic staffing to fill executive branch positions with qualified individuals aligned with the administration's goals." (So, perhaps it was in that ⬆️⬆️⬆️ position where Herrington was thoroughly briefed, leading up to his conversation with Friedman?) ~~~ In the interview with Ross Coulthart (and in other interviews), Friedman said that when he went to Herrington's house that night... Friedman: "I saw him come home from work in a black Lincoln Town Car, with two Secret Service guys attending to him, a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist [which] was brought into the house, taken right into his office where the briefcase goes into a wall safe. He was a real estate lawyer when I grew up with him. "[Herrington] says, 'Let's you and I go out onto the veranda and catch up.' Now, when I was growing up, he was a strict Calvinist. He didn't drink, he didn't swear, and really fit. A man's man. Well, when I saw him that night, he looked haggard, he looked like he had the weight of the world on him. He also brought a bottle of Jim Beam out to the backyard and he was pouring himself what I later learned were two fingers, two little glasses, you know? "After we caught up on my life, I said, 'What is your job? What was the whole thing with the black Town Car and the briefcase?' He said, 'Oh, I can't talk about it. I'm working for the President in a special capacity and it's all highly classified.' "A couple of years earlier, our family had been contacted by, I believe it was either the CIA or the NSA, or something, and asked a bunch of questions about him, I guess as he was being vetted for this job. But we didn't know what the job was, we just knew that it was some government position and they wanted to know things about him. "Again, he was not forthcoming with what the job was, but the more I pushed him and the more he had to drink, he eventually said to me, 'Well, look, the fact of the matter is, you know, to get this job, I had to be briefed for a number of months in an underground facility in West Virginia.' And I was like, 'Wow, that sounds intense!' And he goes, 'Yeah, I used to cry myself to sleep every night.'" (I've been tweeting about this story for 4+ years, and anybody who hears that part can't help but wonder: What the hell did they (allegedly) tell him?!) Friedman: "Now, again, a man's man. When I was growing up, the thought of him crying once in his life was unthinkable to me. The idea of him crying every night, I was shocked. And I said, 'Well, what would cause you to do that?' And he said, 'Brent, this is not the world I thought I was bringing my daughters into.' "Now, think about that. You're 18 years old, and this man who you look up to, that you revere, is telling you this. All I could say was, 'Well, what about me? I'm in this world, too! I need to know something.' And he said, 'Well, I can't really go into that. This is like, highly-classified material.' And I said, 'John, I'm sitting here. Like, you've just put me...puts the edge. I need to know something.' "And he said, 'Well, okay, I'll tell you what. I know, when you were growing up, you were into science fiction and comic books and all that stuff. Well, aliens are real, they're here, and I've seen them.' And he said it with just the most casualness, like just throwing me a bone. Like, okay, can we stop talking now?" ~~~ (Was Herrington just pulling Friedman's leg since he knew of Friedman's interest in Sci Fi? Back in 2018, Zabel gave a lecture at the International UFO Congress, and he talked about this story.) Zabel: "This the quote that Brent gave me. Herrington said, 'There is alien life on Earth, I've seen it.' And Brent said, "Is it alive?" And Herrington said, "That depends." (Regarding the question of whether the alien life Herrington allegedly saw was alive or not, none of the current interviews with Friedman contain the Herrington answer, "It depends." Is that an accurate quote from Friedman or did Zabel get it wrong? If he really said, "It depends," that has the potential to make things even more interesting. ⬇️) ~Back to the Coulthart Interview~ Friedman: "And I kind of was taken aback, and I said, 'What do you mean? Are they alive?' And he said, 'Um, I can't say.' I said, 'You can't say, or you won't say?' And he said, 'I can't say.' (He couldn't say because he wasn't allowed, or he couldn't say because "it depends" on what one means by "alive"? I may be making this too complicated, and I hope Brent chimes in with some comments in the replies. Okay, he DID chime in and address it during the "Sound, Light & Frequency" followup podcast on March 22 entitled, "More on the Story — J.C. and Herrington.") Friedman: "Did he say he can't say because he didn't know, or...this is not a life-form as we know it? There's a lot of ways to interpret this." ~Back to the Coulthart Interview~ Friedman: "And I said, 'Well, okay, hold on a second. How is it that everyone doesn't know the truth?' And he said, 'Oh, lots of people know the truth. You can walk into any bookstore and you're gonna find all sorts of books that contain all sorts of truth. And right next to them, you'll find books that we published, that are full of lies and disinformation. And he said, 'There's a multi-billion dollar campaign to keep this covered up.'" (If that's true, what I wouldn't give to know which UFO books were put out by the government (or whomever is doing it) as disinformation and to lead us astray. Any channeled books?) Friedman: "And I remember in 1981, I was not a great student so I don't know that I ever heard this in high school. I don't think I'd heard the word billion before. I knew it sounded big, but I didn't even know what that meant." ~ From Coulthart's interview of David Grusch in June of 2023 Grusch: "There's a sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting the U.S. populace, which is extremely unethical and immoral. This has leaked like a sieve for decades, but it was a very sophisticated, disinformation campaign where, you know, they have allowed some of the truth to come out through some of their trade crafts. But they've disenfranchised people, they've stigmatized it, they made it like a, this total like wacky thing to talk about. So anybody who may come forward with that kind of information is looked like a, you know, total tinfoil hat guy, because it's a perfect amalgamation of disinformation to just make it look crazy." ~ (From the Sound, Light & Frequency podcast...) Friedman: [Herrington told me], "if the truth were to come out - and by the way, we don't know the full truth, but if what we knew were to come out - it would pull the rug out from under everything, the whole fabric of society would come unraveled." (Back to the "Reality Check" interview.) Friedman: "And I said, 'Well, you know, hold on a second. So you're telling me that there's aliens, there's a big cover-up. Is this never gonna come out?' And he said, 'Well, you know, maybe in our lifetime. Only if it has to, though.' "And I said, 'Well, I don't understand why.' And he said, 'We are in a God-fearing country. If you take that away, if you pull that out from underneath everyone, you're gonna lose a huge portion of the population. And if you do that on a global level, and you take away what people believe in, you are going to disrupt the one thing that holds the whole world together, which is the global economy.'" ~~~ In "The Age of Disclosure," we were told this: "One very distinctive moment for me was briefing then Secretary of Treasury, Steve Mnuchin. I got through my briefing, and at the end of the brief, he sat back in his chair and he said, 'You know, Jay, you may wonder why I asked for this briefing.' And he said, 'What are the economic impacts of the President going to the microphone and telling the world we’re not alone? I have to think about those kinds of impacts in order to prepare, if the President were to make that move.'" ~Jay Stratton ~ Friedman: "There's a key detail here that I think adds to this conversation. One of the things that did happen is, towards the end of the conversation, after I was processing all of this, I said, 'Well, I guess now I understand why you cried yourself to sleep every night.' And he goes, 'No, Brent, you don't understand. This stuff we're talking about here, this was day three. So, he was putting into perspective this alien thing, that we're trying to get to the bottom of, was this one small, little area that he had been disclosed about." (This is a new and important detail that I didn't have when I first started posting about the Herrington story in 2022. Back then, I thought Herrington cried himself to sleep every night, for weeks and weeks, due to information he was briefed on about aliens. But with these new details added, that doesn't seem to be the case.) Friedman: "And so, I think that's really the only way to make sense of his statement for me. Is that, the truth has to be about something much bigger than just non-human intelligence. I think it probably goes to the nature of reality itself." (I love the nature of reality discussion but there's really no way to know what made Herrington cry himself to sleep every night for two months unless he decides to surface and share that information with us. In the meantime, our minds will come up with all types of possibilities and scenarios... We live in a simulation, and there's no afterlife. Nazis still exist, rule the world with high-tech, and we have to do what they tell us or they'll wipe us out. We're going to get hit with a comet or asteroid in the near future and life will reset on this planet like it has in the past. Artificial Intelligence will rule the world in the near future and humanity will slowly die off. Feel free to add to this small list... ~~~ Coulthart: "Brent, have you gone back to John Herrington in the interceding years and tried to extract more from him? Because, I mean, what I can tell our audience is, I do know that a formal approach has been made to John Herrington by people from the Congress who are investigating this matter. And they've been unsuccessful in getting John to speak further on it. Have you had any further conversations with him since? I appreciate he's still alive, he's a very elderly man now. I can imagine, if he did sign some kind of secrecy oath, he's probably trying to protect you by not talking about it any further." Friedman: "Yeah, this is a sensitive area in that, you know, when Bryce and I talked about doing this podcast, or even before I talked to you, I really had to make a decision about, did I want to drag him out of the shadows, essentially? He was a family friend. Granted, you know, over the years, we kind of drifted apart, our families, but my mom still stayed in touch with them. And when I said that I was gonna do this, and I asked her at the time, you know, 'Can you put me in touch with John?' And she was adamant about, 'Leave the man alone. If he wanted to talk about this, he already would have talked about it.' And so, I really had to, then, at that point, make a decision: Do I wanna go forth and talk about this thing that happened? Or not?" (He already spoke about it, publicly, back to 2018, but not to this extent and not to such a large audience.) Friedman: "And I made the choice that I felt my story was important enough to put out there. And because it was also formative to how 'Dark Skies' came about, which led to the guy making us a deal proposal, I just felt like I'm gonna have to put all of this out in the open and take the consequences as they come. "So I have not spoken with John since then. I would have to then have a break in my relationship with my mom, she's really drawn a line in the sand. But, you know, honestly, I'm living in this world right now where, at any time, I would expect, possibly, him calling me and saying, 'What the hell are you doing?'" (There's an important detail of this story that Friedman did not share in the Coulthart interview and I will get to it in a second.) Coulthart: "You say it was day three, and he got told about aliens, but he was there for a hell of a lot longer than three days. What do you think it might be that he was told that is so confronting that the poor gentleman was crying himself to sleep at night?" Friedman: "Well, I'm gonna say this through the filter of what I knew about John Herrington. And he was an amazing father. And so, in my mind, anything where he felt that his daughters would not be safe would be something that would probably cause him to cry himself to sleep at night, right? The inability to protect your child would be haunting, would be devastating." (Speculate away.) Friedman: "And so, I think if you look at it through that lens, you have to think, okay, then this is...we live in a very tenuous situation where, seemingly, at any time, higher forces may be able to do things to our loved ones, right? And there's nothing we could do about it. That's what I take away from this. Now, how all of that happens, who these predatory forces are? I don't have the answer to that. But my emotional take on this is that there is a darkness to this, and it's dangerous." (I really have no idea what that could mean. What kind of higher forces? Human, bad actors? The intelligence behind the phenomenon, which is NOT about ET but more about non-physical beings John Keel labeled Ultraterrestrials?) ~This is from the Lehto Files podcast~ Friedman: "As he was being disclosed to, he used to cry himself to sleep every night. And if you think about it, I don't think any one of us, or anyone in your audience, if someone said, 'You know what? Aliens are real. They're here, we're not alone.' Would you cry? I don't think so. I think you'd be like, 'Okay, I know that. Like, now I feel vindicated.' Would you cry if somebody said, 'Oh, the aliens, they're hostile, and they could come and get us at any time'? No, you'd be like, vigilant. You'd be like, 'Okay, well, I gotta prepare for this.' What would make a man of such character cry every night? I think it has to be something bigger than aliens, and that we're not alone. I think it has to go to the nature of reality and that that we live in a very tenuous existence that is much more complicated than any of us can really comprehend. And when you are given that truth or when you're exposed to as much of it as possible to convey in words, it must be shattering. It must be shattering." (This is the part that I wish Friedman would have talked about in the Coulthart interview because I feel it's important. ⬇️ A reminder for readers: In the Coulthart interview, Friedman said, "I have not spoken with [Herrington] since [1981]. I'm living in this world right now where, at any time, I would expect, possibly, [Herrington] calling me and saying, 'What the hell are you doing?'" But, from the Sound, Light and Frequency podcast... Zabel: "Did you have any contact with John Herrington after this event in 1981?" Friedman: "Oh, that's a good question. No, not...in person. But, while we were in production on 'Dark Skies (which aired from 1996-1997),' I remember one day my assistant came in and said, 'Oh, you got something in the mail.' Which was weird because who would send mail to the production office for me? But I opened it up and it was one of those buck slips. Remember those kind of like, long vertical things? It said, 'From the desk of John Herrington.' "And he wrote out, in longhand: 'Congratulations on finally getting your story out there.' "And I thought, wow, I had never considered it because he said, 'Go ahead and tell your story, no one's gonna believe you.' But clearly he wasn't upset that I was, you know, had 'Dark Skies' on the air and it was inspired by our conversation." (If he clearly wasn't upset about Friedman getting his story out there, via "Dark Skies," which was inspired by their 1981 conversation, why is Friedman worried that he's gonna hear from Herrington any day, where he'll ask, "What the hell are you doing?" That question might be answered as we keep going.) Friedman: "But, it also made me realize, at that time, is it possible that he told me this story as part of the disinformation program? And, as hard as it is for me to admit that... Because this was a man that I trusted and I respected, I idolized to a certain degree. To think that he would, potentially, be using me - me, an 18-year-old kid who's, I'm nobody - as part of the disinformation campaign? It hurts to even think of that, and I don't believe it. But I have to acknowledge that that is one possible explanation." ~~~ I want to add one final thing from the SL&F podcast... Zabel: "I asked Grusch if he had ever heard of the name John Herrington. And Dave Grusch...looks at me and goes, 'Yeah, I've heard of Herrington." And I said, 'Well, what what do you know about him?' And I think he said something like, 'I really can't talk about that.' "This year, it's 2025, I get, first a message, and then a call from Ross Coulthart. And I believe I can say this because, you know, he didn't swear me to secrecy. It was a public...I mean, he was calling me to ask me something. He said that Grusch, who was now working for [Rep. Eric Burlison]" wanted Ross to ask me [Zabel] something. "And what Ross asked me was, 'Do you think your friend Brent would get in a car and drive John Herrington to Washington DC to testify?' "I almost fell off my chair when I heard that. And I also found the irony, which I'm sure you can find, which as an 18-year-old, you drove a car across America to DC, right? To get your briefing. And now, all these years later, they want you to drive the man who gave you the briefing to Washington, DC so he can give another briefing to Congress. Okay, that's interesting enough. "I said, 'I don't think Brent's probably going to go along with that, but I'll ask him. You know, I mean, it wasn't untoward for Ross to ask for that. I mean, of course, that's reasonable. But then he said, 'Well, what do you think his reaction would be if he was subpoenaed?' And I don't think he was talking about [Herrington], I think he was talking about you at that moment." (Why subpoena a second hand witness (Friedman) when you can get the real thing in Herrington? And why not fly an elderly Herrington across the country instead of having Friedman drive him on a several-day road trip? Were they afraid something might happen to him?) Friedman: "Well, I have to tell you, when you called me about that Ross conversation and the word subpoena was tossed out, I started to feel queasy at the thought of it. The thing is, I have no problem going under oath, right? But at that point, we had already decided we were going to do this podcast. And I thought, you know, if I'm gonna tell my story, my stories, honestly, I want them to be under my terms, right? For us, right? Not with congressional investigators. peppering me with things and making me look like an idiot, right? Which I can pretty much guarantee would happen." (I can pretty much guarantee that that would NOT happen. None of the hearings have been adversarial or made the witnesses look bad. The hardest question they could ask is: "Is it possible Herrington was making up a story to entertain you or feeding you disinformation?" And Friedman could say, "I don't think so, but I certainly can't rule it out.") Friedman: "And I thought, I wanna tell this story, I wanna tell a bunch of stories because, at the end of the day, this Herrington story is, effectively, the backstory of Sound, Light and Frequency. But there's much more to Sound, Light and Frequency than even just this story." Continued in Part 2
8:03

"If the truth were to come out...it would pull the rug out from under everything, the whole fabric of society would come unraveled." ~Herrington (allegedly) 🛸 Lying to Protect the UFO Cover-Up? 🛸 (I wanted to get this RLAP (REALLY Long-Ass Post, which is in two parts) out before Jesse Michels (AA) puts out his interview with Herrington. Watch the video I clipped from AA, read the transcript from a few other podcasts, and tell me if you think Friedman is lying. I just don't see it. Herrington denies any of this happened, so somebody IS lying, misremembering, or Herrington was pulling Friedman's leg about underground briefings, crying himself to sleep, and aliens. Using my judgment, and in my opinion: I believe Friedman.) "Aliens are real, they're here, and I've seen them." ~John Herrington, Former Secretary of Energy (allegedly) "My emotional take on this is that there is a darkness to this, and it's dangerous." ~Friedman If Disclosure happens... ⬇️ "We are in a God-fearing country. If you take that away, if you pull that out from underneath everyone, you're gonna lose a huge portion of the population." ~Herrington (allegedly) ~ (Just know that Herrington has denied (to Ben Schreckinger) that any of what Friedman claims, actually happened. And that includes having Friedman drive his car across the country. I'll include that in Part 2. And again, Jesse Michels recorded an interview with Herrington and that's about to be uploaded, so we'll see what he says there.) ~The Man Who Cried Himself to Sleep~ (I stole that from the Sound, Light & Frequency podcast) It’s the summer of 1981, and Brent Friedman (Brent Friedman) is eighteen and preparing to leave for college at UCLA in the fall. Before heading out, he takes on a cross-country drive - from the San Francisco area to Virginia, near Washington, D.C. - as a favor and a way to earn some extra money. The trip is for his former neighbor, John Herrington, who had lived next door to him during his childhood, from ages six to twelve. During those years, Herrington became more than just a neighbor - he was a father figure. (These quotes are from the Sound, Light and Frequency podcast: The Man Who Cried Himself to Sleep ⬇️) Friedman makes the drive and arrives in Virginia and meets up with Herrington, who says he's, "working at a very high-level in the Reagan administration" Friedman: "[Herrington] and Reagan were quite close." Bryce Zabel: "Am I correct in saying, though, that his actual job description at that time was the Assistant to the Undersecretary of the Navy?" Friedman: "I believe so, yes." (That does not appear to be accurate.) Friedman: "He did have an official title. I know that, at the time, he was working on something behind the scenes with the ABSCAM situation. But, what he ends up telling me is that he has a very high-level position and, in fact, his clearance is higher than the president's." (Herrington wasn't sworn in to Assistant Secretary of the Navy until October of 1981 and wasn't sworn in to Secretary of Energy until February of 1985. So what position allowed Herrington to have a high clearance and access to so much information, before the summer of 1981? In 1980, Herrington was the advance man for Reagan and his presidential campaign. What does an advance man do?) From Political Dictionary dot com... "The 'Advance man' is someone who makes arrangements and handles publicity for the candidate during a campaign. "The advance man travels to a location ahead of the candidate’s arrival and sets everything up so that things run smoothly for the candidate’s media appearance, or for whatever event the candidate is participating in." (Would an advance man be briefed about our country's biggest secrets? I don't think so. Is there a detail of this story that's missing? Maybe Herrington had some other job that required him to have access to all this information? I found this excerpt from The American Presidency Project website, which includes some further background info. on Herrington.) "In 1967 [Herrington] opened his own law office in Walnut Creek, Calif., specializing in real estate, corporate law, taxation, and contracts. He was recently involved in property management. "During the 1980 Presidential campaign, Mr. Herrington was a full-time volunteer advance man with the Reagan for President committee. Following the Republican National Convention he was named western regional director for advance. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ "[On May 6th, 1981] - The President...announced the appointment of John S. Herrington to be Deputy Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel." According to AI (which pulled three sources), that position, "manages the selection, vetting, and recommendation process for political appointees across federal agencies. They oversee talent recruitment, security clearance coordination, and strategic staffing to fill executive branch positions with qualified individuals aligned with the administration's goals." (So, perhaps it was in that ⬆️⬆️⬆️ position where Herrington was thoroughly briefed, leading up to his conversation with Friedman?) ~~~ In the interview with Ross Coulthart (and in other interviews), Friedman said that when he went to Herrington's house that night... Friedman: "I saw him come home from work in a black Lincoln Town Car, with two Secret Service guys attending to him, a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist [which] was brought into the house, taken right into his office where the briefcase goes into a wall safe. He was a real estate lawyer when I grew up with him. "[Herrington] says, 'Let's you and I go out onto the veranda and catch up.' Now, when I was growing up, he was a strict Calvinist. He didn't drink, he didn't swear, and really fit. A man's man. Well, when I saw him that night, he looked haggard, he looked like he had the weight of the world on him. He also brought a bottle of Jim Beam out to the backyard and he was pouring himself what I later learned were two fingers, two little glasses, you know? "After we caught up on my life, I said, 'What is your job? What was the whole thing with the black Town Car and the briefcase?' He said, 'Oh, I can't talk about it. I'm working for the President in a special capacity and it's all highly classified.' "A couple of years earlier, our family had been contacted by, I believe it was either the CIA or the NSA, or something, and asked a bunch of questions about him, I guess as he was being vetted for this job. But we didn't know what the job was, we just knew that it was some government position and they wanted to know things about him. "Again, he was not forthcoming with what the job was, but the more I pushed him and the more he had to drink, he eventually said to me, 'Well, look, the fact of the matter is, you know, to get this job, I had to be briefed for a number of months in an underground facility in West Virginia.' And I was like, 'Wow, that sounds intense!' And he goes, 'Yeah, I used to cry myself to sleep every night.'" (I've been tweeting about this story for 4+ years, and anybody who hears that part can't help but wonder: What the hell did they (allegedly) tell him?!) Friedman: "Now, again, a man's man. When I was growing up, the thought of him crying once in his life was unthinkable to me. The idea of him crying every night, I was shocked. And I said, 'Well, what would cause you to do that?' And he said, 'Brent, this is not the world I thought I was bringing my daughters into.' "Now, think about that. You're 18 years old, and this man who you look up to, that you revere, is telling you this. All I could say was, 'Well, what about me? I'm in this world, too! I need to know something.' And he said, 'Well, I can't really go into that. This is like, highly-classified material.' And I said, 'John, I'm sitting here. Like, you've just put me...puts the edge. I need to know something.' "And he said, 'Well, okay, I'll tell you what. I know, when you were growing up, you were into science fiction and comic books and all that stuff. Well, aliens are real, they're here, and I've seen them.' And he said it with just the most casualness, like just throwing me a bone. Like, okay, can we stop talking now?" ~~~ (Was Herrington just pulling Friedman's leg since he knew of Friedman's interest in Sci Fi? Back in 2018, Zabel gave a lecture at the International UFO Congress, and he talked about this story.) Zabel: "This the quote that Brent gave me. Herrington said, 'There is alien life on Earth, I've seen it.' And Brent said, "Is it alive?" And Herrington said, "That depends." (Regarding the question of whether the alien life Herrington allegedly saw was alive or not, none of the current interviews with Friedman contain the Herrington answer, "It depends." Is that an accurate quote from Friedman or did Zabel get it wrong? If he really said, "It depends," that has the potential to make things even more interesting. ⬇️) ~Back to the Coulthart Interview~ Friedman: "And I kind of was taken aback, and I said, 'What do you mean? Are they alive?' And he said, 'Um, I can't say.' I said, 'You can't say, or you won't say?' And he said, 'I can't say.' (He couldn't say because he wasn't allowed, or he couldn't say because "it depends" on what one means by "alive"? I may be making this too complicated, and I hope Brent chimes in with some comments in the replies. Okay, he DID chime in and address it during the "Sound, Light & Frequency" followup podcast on March 22 entitled, "More on the Story — J.C. and Herrington.") Friedman: "Did he say he can't say because he didn't know, or...this is not a life-form as we know it? There's a lot of ways to interpret this." ~Back to the Coulthart Interview~ Friedman: "And I said, 'Well, okay, hold on a second. How is it that everyone doesn't know the truth?' And he said, 'Oh, lots of people know the truth. You can walk into any bookstore and you're gonna find all sorts of books that contain all sorts of truth. And right next to them, you'll find books that we published, that are full of lies and disinformation. And he said, 'There's a multi-billion dollar campaign to keep this covered up.'" (If that's true, what I wouldn't give to know which UFO books were put out by the government (or whomever is doing it) as disinformation and to lead us astray. Any channeled books?) Friedman: "And I remember in 1981, I was not a great student so I don't know that I ever heard this in high school. I don't think I'd heard the word billion before. I knew it sounded big, but I didn't even know what that meant." ~ From Coulthart's interview of David Grusch in June of 2023 Grusch: "There's a sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting the U.S. populace, which is extremely unethical and immoral. This has leaked like a sieve for decades, but it was a very sophisticated, disinformation campaign where, you know, they have allowed some of the truth to come out through some of their trade crafts. But they've disenfranchised people, they've stigmatized it, they made it like a, this total like wacky thing to talk about. So anybody who may come forward with that kind of information is looked like a, you know, total tinfoil hat guy, because it's a perfect amalgamation of disinformation to just make it look crazy." ~ (From the Sound, Light & Frequency podcast...) Friedman: [Herrington told me], "if the truth were to come out - and by the way, we don't know the full truth, but if what we knew were to come out - it would pull the rug out from under everything, the whole fabric of society would come unraveled." (Back to the "Reality Check" interview.) Friedman: "And I said, 'Well, you know, hold on a second. So you're telling me that there's aliens, there's a big cover-up. Is this never gonna come out?' And he said, 'Well, you know, maybe in our lifetime. Only if it has to, though.' "And I said, 'Well, I don't understand why.' And he said, 'We are in a God-fearing country. If you take that away, if you pull that out from underneath everyone, you're gonna lose a huge portion of the population. And if you do that on a global level, and you take away what people believe in, you are going to disrupt the one thing that holds the whole world together, which is the global economy.'" ~~~ In "The Age of Disclosure," we were told this: "One very distinctive moment for me was briefing then Secretary of Treasury, Steve Mnuchin. I got through my briefing, and at the end of the brief, he sat back in his chair and he said, 'You know, Jay, you may wonder why I asked for this briefing.' And he said, 'What are the economic impacts of the President going to the microphone and telling the world we’re not alone? I have to think about those kinds of impacts in order to prepare, if the President were to make that move.'" ~Jay Stratton ~ Friedman: "There's a key detail here that I think adds to this conversation. One of the things that did happen is, towards the end of the conversation, after I was processing all of this, I said, 'Well, I guess now I understand why you cried yourself to sleep every night.' And he goes, 'No, Brent, you don't understand. This stuff we're talking about here, this was day three. So, he was putting into perspective this alien thing, that we're trying to get to the bottom of, was this one small, little area that he had been disclosed about." (This is a new and important detail that I didn't have when I first started posting about the Herrington story in 2022. Back then, I thought Herrington cried himself to sleep every night, for weeks and weeks, due to information he was briefed on about aliens. But with these new details added, that doesn't seem to be the case.) Friedman: "And so, I think that's really the only way to make sense of his statement for me. Is that, the truth has to be about something much bigger than just non-human intelligence. I think it probably goes to the nature of reality itself." (I love the nature of reality discussion but there's really no way to know what made Herrington cry himself to sleep every night for two months unless he decides to surface and share that information with us. In the meantime, our minds will come up with all types of possibilities and scenarios... We live in a simulation, and there's no afterlife. Nazis still exist, rule the world with high-tech, and we have to do what they tell us or they'll wipe us out. We're going to get hit with a comet or asteroid in the near future and life will reset on this planet like it has in the past. Artificial Intelligence will rule the world in the near future and humanity will slowly die off. Feel free to add to this small list... ~~~ Coulthart: "Brent, have you gone back to John Herrington in the interceding years and tried to extract more from him? Because, I mean, what I can tell our audience is, I do know that a formal approach has been made to John Herrington by people from the Congress who are investigating this matter. And they've been unsuccessful in getting John to speak further on it. Have you had any further conversations with him since? I appreciate he's still alive, he's a very elderly man now. I can imagine, if he did sign some kind of secrecy oath, he's probably trying to protect you by not talking about it any further." Friedman: "Yeah, this is a sensitive area in that, you know, when Bryce and I talked about doing this podcast, or even before I talked to you, I really had to make a decision about, did I want to drag him out of the shadows, essentially? He was a family friend. Granted, you know, over the years, we kind of drifted apart, our families, but my mom still stayed in touch with them. And when I said that I was gonna do this, and I asked her at the time, you know, 'Can you put me in touch with John?' And she was adamant about, 'Leave the man alone. If he wanted to talk about this, he already would have talked about it.' And so, I really had to, then, at that point, make a decision: Do I wanna go forth and talk about this thing that happened? Or not?" (He already spoke about it, publicly, back to 2018, but not to this extent and not to such a large audience.) Friedman: "And I made the choice that I felt my story was important enough to put out there. And because it was also formative to how 'Dark Skies' came about, which led to the guy making us a deal proposal, I just felt like I'm gonna have to put all of this out in the open and take the consequences as they come. "So I have not spoken with John since then. I would have to then have a break in my relationship with my mom, she's really drawn a line in the sand. But, you know, honestly, I'm living in this world right now where, at any time, I would expect, possibly, him calling me and saying, 'What the hell are you doing?'" (There's an important detail of this story that Friedman did not share in the Coulthart interview and I will get to it in a second.) Coulthart: "You say it was day three, and he got told about aliens, but he was there for a hell of a lot longer than three days. What do you think it might be that he was told that is so confronting that the poor gentleman was crying himself to sleep at night?" Friedman: "Well, I'm gonna say this through the filter of what I knew about John Herrington. And he was an amazing father. And so, in my mind, anything where he felt that his daughters would not be safe would be something that would probably cause him to cry himself to sleep at night, right? The inability to protect your child would be haunting, would be devastating." (Speculate away.) Friedman: "And so, I think if you look at it through that lens, you have to think, okay, then this is...we live in a very tenuous situation where, seemingly, at any time, higher forces may be able to do things to our loved ones, right? And there's nothing we could do about it. That's what I take away from this. Now, how all of that happens, who these predatory forces are? I don't have the answer to that. But my emotional take on this is that there is a darkness to this, and it's dangerous." (I really have no idea what that could mean. What kind of higher forces? Human, bad actors? The intelligence behind the phenomenon, which is NOT about ET but more about non-physical beings John Keel labeled Ultraterrestrials?) ~This is from the Lehto Files podcast~ Friedman: "As he was being disclosed to, he used to cry himself to sleep every night. And if you think about it, I don't think any one of us, or anyone in your audience, if someone said, 'You know what? Aliens are real. They're here, we're not alone.' Would you cry? I don't think so. I think you'd be like, 'Okay, I know that. Like, now I feel vindicated.' Would you cry if somebody said, 'Oh, the aliens, they're hostile, and they could come and get us at any time'? No, you'd be like, vigilant. You'd be like, 'Okay, well, I gotta prepare for this.' What would make a man of such character cry every night? I think it has to be something bigger than aliens, and that we're not alone. I think it has to go to the nature of reality and that that we live in a very tenuous existence that is much more complicated than any of us can really comprehend. And when you are given that truth or when you're exposed to as much of it as possible to convey in words, it must be shattering. It must be shattering." (This is the part that I wish Friedman would have talked about in the Coulthart interview because I feel it's important. ⬇️ A reminder for readers: In the Coulthart interview, Friedman said, "I have not spoken with [Herrington] since [1981]. I'm living in this world right now where, at any time, I would expect, possibly, [Herrington] calling me and saying, 'What the hell are you doing?'" But, from the Sound, Light and Frequency podcast... Zabel: "Did you have any contact with John Herrington after this event in 1981?" Friedman: "Oh, that's a good question. No, not...in person. But, while we were in production on 'Dark Skies (which aired from 1996-1997),' I remember one day my assistant came in and said, 'Oh, you got something in the mail.' Which was weird because who would send mail to the production office for me? But I opened it up and it was one of those buck slips. Remember those kind of like, long vertical things? It said, 'From the desk of John Herrington.' "And he wrote out, in longhand: 'Congratulations on finally getting your story out there.' "And I thought, wow, I had never considered it because he said, 'Go ahead and tell your story, no one's gonna believe you.' But clearly he wasn't upset that I was, you know, had 'Dark Skies' on the air and it was inspired by our conversation." (If he clearly wasn't upset about Friedman getting his story out there, via "Dark Skies," which was inspired by their 1981 conversation, why is Friedman worried that he's gonna hear from Herrington any day, where he'll ask, "What the hell are you doing?" That question might be answered as we keep going.) Friedman: "But, it also made me realize, at that time, is it possible that he told me this story as part of the disinformation program? And, as hard as it is for me to admit that... Because this was a man that I trusted and I respected, I idolized to a certain degree. To think that he would, potentially, be using me - me, an 18-year-old kid who's, I'm nobody - as part of the disinformation campaign? It hurts to even think of that, and I don't believe it. But I have to acknowledge that that is one possible explanation." ~~~ I want to add one final thing from the SL&F podcast... Zabel: "I asked Grusch if he had ever heard of the name John Herrington. And Dave Grusch...looks at me and goes, 'Yeah, I've heard of Herrington." And I said, 'Well, what what do you know about him?' And I think he said something like, 'I really can't talk about that.' "This year, it's 2025, I get, first a message, and then a call from Ross Coulthart. And I believe I can say this because, you know, he didn't swear me to secrecy. It was a public...I mean, he was calling me to ask me something. He said that Grusch, who was now working for [Rep. Eric Burlison]" wanted Ross to ask me [Zabel] something. "And what Ross asked me was, 'Do you think your friend Brent would get in a car and drive John Herrington to Washington DC to testify?' "I almost fell off my chair when I heard that. And I also found the irony, which I'm sure you can find, which as an 18-year-old, you drove a car across America to DC, right? To get your briefing. And now, all these years later, they want you to drive the man who gave you the briefing to Washington, DC so he can give another briefing to Congress. Okay, that's interesting enough. "I said, 'I don't think Brent's probably going to go along with that, but I'll ask him. You know, I mean, it wasn't untoward for Ross to ask for that. I mean, of course, that's reasonable. But then he said, 'Well, what do you think his reaction would be if he was subpoenaed?' And I don't think he was talking about [Herrington], I think he was talking about you at that moment." (Why subpoena a second hand witness (Friedman) when you can get the real thing in Herrington? And why not fly an elderly Herrington across the country instead of having Friedman drive him on a several-day road trip? Were they afraid something might happen to him?) Friedman: "Well, I have to tell you, when you called me about that Ross conversation and the word subpoena was tossed out, I started to feel queasy at the thought of it. The thing is, I have no problem going under oath, right? But at that point, we had already decided we were going to do this podcast. And I thought, you know, if I'm gonna tell my story, my stories, honestly, I want them to be under my terms, right? For us, right? Not with congressional investigators. peppering me with things and making me look like an idiot, right? Which I can pretty much guarantee would happen." (I can pretty much guarantee that that would NOT happen. None of the hearings have been adversarial or made the witnesses look bad. The hardest question they could ask is: "Is it possible Herrington was making up a story to entertain you or feeding you disinformation?" And Friedman could say, "I don't think so, but I certainly can't rule it out.") Friedman: "And I thought, I wanna tell this story, I wanna tell a bunch of stories because, at the end of the day, this Herrington story is, effectively, the backstory of Sound, Light and Frequency. But there's much more to Sound, Light and Frequency than even just this story." Continued in Part 2

Joe Murgia

51,750 次观看 • 8 天前

I did not plan for this to change me. Nobody plans for that. You wake up, you go about your ordinary Tuesday, you have a list of things to do that has nothing to do with saving anything — and then something crosses your path that you cannot unsee. That's the part people never talk about. Not the rescue itself. The moment right before it, when you still have the option to keep walking. Most people keep walking. I want to be honest with you about that, because everyone who posts a "happy ending" video skips the part where they almost didn't stop. I almost didn't stop. There is a version of this story where I drive past, where I tell myself someone else will handle it, where I convince myself that getting involved is messy and expensive and inconvenient and above my pay grade as a human being. That version of the story exists in a thousand other places, right now, happening to a thousand other creatures nobody will ever post about. This is not that story. But it could have been. Watch until the end and you'll understand why I'm saying this instead of just captioning it "rescued a cat, so cute!!" and moving on with my day. Because it wasn't cute. Not at first. Not for a long time, actually. The first version of this story is ugly and quiet and full of doubt, and if you only want the pretty part, you can scroll to the end of the video and skip everything I'm about to tell you. But you'd be missing the whole point. Here's something nobody tells you about fear: it doesn't look like what you think it looks like. You imagine an animal in danger will look grateful the second help arrives. You imagine relief on its face, some kind of instant recognition that you're the good guy in this story. That is Hollywood. That is not real life. Real fear looks like resistance. Real fear looks like an animal that has been let down by the world so many times that it has stopped believing rescue is even a category that exists. Real trust has to be built one motionless, patient, boring minute at a time, and most people don't have the stomach for boring. Most people want the montage. Nobody wants the part where you sit there, doing nothing dramatic at all, just existing calmly nearby, over and over, until something in a terrified brain finally recalibrates and decides you're not a threat. That part isn't going in anyone's highlight reel. Except this time, it is. Because I think you need to see it. I think you need to see it because we have become a species addicted to instant everything. Instant food, instant answers, instant relationships that dissolve the second they require patience. And somewhere in that acceleration, we lost the muscle for slow devotion — the kind that doesn't post an update every day, the kind that doesn't get a like for showing up on day fourteen when nothing visible has changed yet. This video is proof that the boring days matter just as much as the breakthrough moment. Maybe more. The breakthrough moment gets the views. The boring days are what make the breakthrough possible at all. Let me ask you something, and I want you to actually sit with it instead of scrolling past: when was the last time you did something with zero guarantee it would work? Because that's what this was. There is no contract in rescue. Nobody hands you a guarantee that says "continue showing up and eventually this will resolve beautifully." You show up anyway. You show up on the days it feels pointless. You show up on the days you privately wonder if you're the one being unreasonable, if you should just accept that some situations don't have happy endings, if you're pouring time and money and worry into something that the universe has already decided the outcome of. And you show up again the next day anyway, because the alternative — walking away — was never actually a real option once you'd already looked into those eyes the first time. That's the secret nobody says out loud: once you really see a creature suffering, you can't fully unsee it. It moves into your head and sets up residence. It becomes a low hum underneath every other thing you do that day. You'll be at dinner, at work, half-listening to a conversation, and there it is again — that animal, that need, that unresolved thread pulling at you. People who haven't experienced this think rescuers are unusually noble or unusually sentimental. We're not. We're just people who got unlucky enough to actually look, and looking is the whole trick. Looking is the doorway you can't close once you've walked through it. I'm not telling you this to make myself sound like a hero. I want to be extremely clear about that, because I think the "hero rescuer" narrative is actually kind of dishonest and it lets everyone else off the hook. The truth is less flattering and more useful: I was scared too. I didn't know if this would work. I didn't have a plan that guaranteed success. I just had a decision to make in a specific moment, and I made the harder one instead of the easier one, and then I had to keep making that same harder decision, quietly, every single day after that, long after anyone was watching or cared. Most transformation looks like nothing while it's happening. That's the part that will wreck you if you actually pay attention to this video instead of just watching it for the dopamine hit at the end. The transformation in the middle of this story does not look like transformation. It looks like stagnation. It looks like two steps forward and four steps back. It looks like moments where you genuinely cannot tell if what you're doing is helping or just prolonging something. Nobody warns you that "getting better" often looks identical to "not getting better" until you're far enough past it to look back and finally see the shape of the arc. I think about this a lot in relation to more than just animals, honestly. I think about how we judge our own growth, our own healing, our own slow projects — we want the montage, we want the visible curve upward, and when we don't get it in a timeframe that feels reasonable, we assume we've failed. We assume the effort was wasted. We give up right before the part where it would have started to show. This video is, weirdly, a pretty good metaphor for that. Everything that mattered happened in the part that didn't look like anything was happening. There's a specific moment in this footage — I'm not going to tell you which one, because you need to feel it land yourself, not be told about it in advance — where something shifts. It's small. It's almost nothing. If you're not paying attention you could miss it entirely, and I almost did, in real time, because I wasn't expecting it and I certainly wasn't expecting it to matter as much as it turned out to matter. That's usually how the important moments work, by the way. The universe rarely announces them with a soundtrack swell. It just quietly hands you the hinge point and moves on, and you only recognize it in hindsight, days or weeks later, when you're piecing together how you got from point A to point B and you realize: oh. That was it. That was the moment everything actually started to turn. I've watched this footage back more times than I want to admit, and every single time, that moment gets me. Not because it's dramatic. Because it's the opposite of dramatic. It's small and quiet and almost embarrassingly simple, and that's exactly why it works on me every time. We've been trained by movies to expect big gestures as the marker of real change. Real change is smaller and stranger and much more moving than anything a screenwriter would ever put in a script, because real change doesn't care about being cinematic. It only cares about being true. I want to talk for a second about the difference between rescuing something and actually helping it, because they are not the same thing, and conflating them is one of the more common mistakes people make with good intentions. Rescuing is the dramatic part — the removal from danger, the single decisive act. Helping is everything after that, and it is unglamorous and repetitive and occasionally thankless, and it is also the part that actually determines the outcome. Anyone can have one good instinct in one good moment. Sustaining care past the point where it stops being interesting is a completely different skill, and it's the one that actually matters, and it's the one this video is really about if you look closely enough. There's a particular kind of exhaustion that comes with caregiving that doesn't have a finish line you can see. You're not told "three more weeks and this resolves." You're just told, implicitly, by the situation itself: keep going, we'll figure out when it's done when it's done. That's a strange kind of commitment to make. It requires a specific type of stubbornness that isn't really about hope, exactly — hope implies you're waiting for something external to happen to you. This is closer to resolve. Resolve doesn't wait for external permission to keep going. Resolve just keeps going, on principle, because the alternative was never actually a real option. I think a lot of people watch content like this and assume the animal is the only one who was changed by it. I want to push back on that gently, because it flattens the actual experience. Something in me was also different by the end of this than it was at the beginning. You cannot pour weeks of consistent, patient, uncertain effort into another living thing and come out the exact same person you went in as. It recalibrates something in you. It teaches you things about patience that no productivity book ever managed to teach me, because productivity books are about optimizing outcomes you can control, and this was the opposite of that — an outcome I could not control, that I could only show up for, day after day, and hope that the showing up eventually mattered. There's a reason stories like this spread the way they do, and it's not just "cute animal content," even though that's the label the algorithm slaps on it. I think it's because on some level, we are all quietly starving for proof that consistent, unglamorous effort still pays off in a world that keeps telling us the only things that count are the loud, fast, viral wins. We need reminders that the slow version still works. That showing up on the boring days is not wasted time. That the moment things change is usually preceded by a long, unremarkable stretch where absolutely nothing seemed to be happening at all, and that stretch was not actually wasted — it was the necessary, invisible groundwork the visible change was quietly built on top of. So here is what I actually want you to take from this, more than the video itself: the next time you're in the middle of something that isn't working yet, something you've been showing up for without any evidence it's paying off, something that everyone around you might reasonably tell you to give up on — I want you to remember that transformation does not announce itself in advance. It does not send you a schedule. It just asks you to keep showing up through the part that looks like nothing, because the part that looks like nothing is usually exactly where the whole thing turns. I didn't post this to get views, even though I know that's what everyone says and nobody ever actually means it. I posted it because I think there's something in this specific sequence of events that people need to actually watch, start to finish, without skipping ahead, without reading a summary, without letting someone else's caption replace the experience of seeing it unfold in real time the way it unfolded for me. Summaries kill things like this. A synopsis of a transformation is not the same as witnessing one. You already know this, somewhere — it's why book adaptations rarely land the same way the book did, why hearing about a sunset is not the same as standing under one. Some things have to be experienced directly or they don't actually transmit. That's the whole reason I'm asking you to actually watch this instead of scrolling past on the strength of this caption alone. Everything I've written here is context, not substance. The substance is in the footage. The substance is in watching fear slowly, unglamorously, incrementally give way to something else — and I promise you, if you sit through the parts that feel slow, the ending will hit differently than if you just jump to it. I've tested this on people. The ones who watch the whole thing react differently than the ones who skip to the last ten seconds. The context changes the payoff. That's not an accident. That's how transformation actually works, on video and in life: the payoff only means what it means because of everything unglamorous that came before it. Someone asked me why I even filmed any of this in the first place, given how uncertain the outcome was for most of it, and it's a fair question, because filming something you don't know the ending to is a strange act of faith in itself. The honest answer is that I didn't film it because I expected it to end well. I filmed it because I wanted a record, for myself, regardless of how it turned out — proof that the effort happened, proof that the days were real, proof that I showed up even on the days it felt pointless, whether or not there was ever going to be a satisfying conclusion to show anyone. That distinction matters more than it sounds like it should. Content made for an ending is different from content made as a record. You can feel the difference when you watch it, even if you can't always articulate why. The camera in this story was never a narrative device. It was a witness, and witnesses don't get to pick which parts are worth recording just because they're not sure yet how the story ends. The algorithm, for what it's worth, does not understand any of this. It cannot tell the difference between eleven seconds of manufactured chaos and eleven seconds pulled from something that took weeks of real, unglamorous, uncertain effort to earn. It rewards the same signals either way — the immediate hook, the retention curve, the completion rate — completely blind to what was actually required to produce the footage behind those numbers. I've made my peace with that, mostly, because I don't think content should be made for the algorithm's benefit in the first place. But I bring it up because I want you to understand that the length of this caption, the refusal to just give you a cute two-line summary and move on, is a deliberate act of friction against a system that wants everything reduced to its most easily digestible form. I'm asking you to actually read, actually sit with something, actually watch something in full, in a media environment engineered to discourage exactly that. If that annoys you, I understand. If it doesn't, I think you're exactly the kind of person this was made for. There's an old idea, older than social media, older than video itself, that witnessing changes the witness. You cannot fully observe suffering and stay exactly the same as you were before you observed it, not if you're paying real attention. I think that's actually the quiet mechanism behind why content like this spreads the way it does when it's real — it's not that people want to watch suffering, and it's not even really that people want to watch relief. It's that people want to be changed a little, safely, from the comfort of wherever they're sitting, by something true. We're all looking for small, low-stakes opportunities to feel something real in a scroll built almost entirely out of things engineered to feel real without costing anything. This costs something. Not much, not compared to what it cost to live through the actual weeks involved — but a few minutes of your real attention, spent on something true instead of something manufactured to extract that attention from you. That's a fair trade, I think. I wouldn't ask for it otherwise. Let's talk about the internet's obsession with orange cats for a second, because I think it's actually relevant here and not just a throwaway joke. There's a running bit online that orange cats are "the golden retrievers of the cat world" — a little chaotic, a little dumb in the most endearing way, incapable of subtlety, allergic to dignity. People love that stereotype because it's low stakes. It's comedy. It's the kind of content you consume for eleven seconds and forget by the time you've swiped to the next video. I want to be upfront that this is not that. This isn't the goofy-orange-cat-does-something-silly genre you're used to. This is something that starts in a completely different register and asks something different of you as a viewer — attention instead of amusement, patience instead of a quick laugh. If you came here expecting the usual orange-cat chaos content, recalibrate now, because what you're about to watch operates on a different emotional frequency entirely, and I think that contrast is part of why it hits as hard as it does. You're primed for comedy. You get something closer to a gut-punch, followed by something closer to grace. That whiplash is not an accident of editing. That whiplash is just what actually happened, in that order, in real life, and I didn't have to manufacture any of it. I also want to address the skeptics directly, because I know they exist and honestly, they should exist — the internet is genuinely full of staged rescue content, cats "saved" from situations they were placed into five minutes earlier by the same person filming, entire monetization pipelines built on manufactured suffering for engagement. That skepticism is earned. I'm not going to pretend it isn't a reasonable default position in 2026. What I will say is this: the only thing I can offer you against that skepticism is time. Time is the one thing you cannot fake convincingly across an extended sequence. Staged content wants your eleven seconds and your dopamine hit and then it wants you gone before you notice the seams. Real, extended, unglamorous care doesn't hold up as well under fabrication, because faking boredom, faking small unremarkable days, faking the parts where nothing dramatic happens — that's actually harder to fake than faking a single dramatic rescue moment. The boring middle is the tell. Manufactured content skips straight to the emotional peaks because manufacturing boring authenticity is expensive and pointless from a content-farming perspective. So if anything, the slowness of what you're about to watch should read as evidence, not despite itself but because of itself. I think about the phrase "it's just a cat" a lot, because I've heard it, and you've probably heard some version of it too, usually from someone who has never had to sit with a frightened creature and slowly, patiently earn its trust with nothing but consistency and time. I used to almost agree with that sentiment before I actually lived through something like this. Now I think the phrase says more about the person saying it than about the situation they're dismissing. Suffering doesn't require language to be real. Fear doesn't require a vocabulary to be legitimate. And the specific kind of trust that gets rebuilt between two creatures who don't share a language, who can't negotiate terms or explain intentions to each other, who have to communicate entirely through consistency, presence, and time — I'd argue that's actually a purer test of whether care is real than almost anything that happens between two humans who can just say "I promise I won't hurt you" out loud and have that count for something on its own. An animal doesn't take your word for it. An animal only believes what you repeatedly, boringly, unglamorously demonstrate. That's a much higher bar than most human relationships ever have to clear, and clearing it means something. There's also something worth saying about scars, visible and invisible, and how we relate to them once the crisis has passed. It would be easy — and honestly, more common — to frame a story like this purely around the after: the relief, the resolution, the moment everything looks fixed and clean and photogenic. But recovery doesn't erase what happened. It just changes the relationship you have to it. The fear doesn't fully disappear; it gets integrated, managed, outpaced by new experiences that slowly outweigh the old ones. I think that's actually a more honest and more useful thing to understand about healing in general, animal or human: you're not looking for the moment the bad thing never happened. You're looking for the moment the good outweighs it enough that the bad stops being the loudest voice in the room. That's a different, more achievable, more real goal than "erase the past," and I think this video quietly demonstrates the difference better than any explanation of it could. I also want to acknowledge, honestly, how much luck was involved in this, because I think pretending otherwise would be a disservice to the people currently in a similar situation without the same resources. Not everyone has the time to show up every single day. Not everyone has access to the kind of help that made parts of this possible. Not everyone has a schedule flexible enough to prioritize a creature that owes them nothing and offers no guarantees in return. I got lucky in ways that mattered, and I don't want to erase that luck from the story just because "hard work and heart" makes for a cleaner narrative. Both things are true at once: the effort mattered enormously, and the circumstances that allowed the effort to happen at all were not something everyone has equal access to. If you're in a position where you want to help something or someone but don't have the resources this required, that doesn't make your instinct to help any less real or any less valuable — it just means the shape your help takes might look different, smaller, more limited, and that's fine. Small, limited help consistently offered is still worth more than grand help that never actually materializes because the bar felt too high to start. I keep circling back to this idea of "the boring middle" because I genuinely think it's the single most important and most overlooked part of any real transformation story, and I think our current media environment has actively trained us to skip it, both as viewers and as people living our own lives. We've been fed thousands of hours of before-and-after content, transformation montages set to music, "watch this glow-up" edits that compress months into fifteen seconds — and somewhere in consuming all of that, we internalized a completely false model of how change actually happens. We started believing change is supposed to be visible, fast, and continuous. It isn't. Change is mostly invisible, mostly slow, and mostly non-continuous — it happens in fits and starts, with long flat stretches where it looks like nothing at all is occurring, followed by short bursts where everything that was quietly accumulating suddenly becomes visible all at once. If you only ever watch the burst, you'll never understand where it actually came from, and you'll assume your own flat stretches mean you're doing something wrong, when actually you might just be in the most important and least glamorous part of the whole process. I want to leave you with one more thought before you go press play, because I think it reframes everything else I've said here. We tend to think of rescue as something one party does to another — an active party and a passive recipient, a saver and a saved. But if you watch closely, really closely, you'll notice that's not quite what's happening in this footage. There's a second, quieter rescue happening in parallel, running underneath the obvious one, and it's not the kind that gets a caption of its own on most videos like this. I'm not going to spell it out for you. I think you'll recognize it when you see it, and I think it will mean more to you if you find it yourself instead of having it pointed out in advance. That's the last thing I'll say about the content itself. Everything else is yours to discover. One more thing, and then I'll let you go watch it. People keep asking me, in different words, some version of "was it worth it." I understand why they ask. It's a fair question when you're talking about weeks of uncertain effort with no guaranteed return. But I think the question itself reveals something about how we've been trained to think about care — as a transaction, an investment with an expected yield, something you calculate the ROI on before committing. I didn't do this because I ran the numbers and decided the expected outcome justified the input. I did it because in the specific moment I was faced with the choice, walking away was never actually available to me as an option, no matter how exhausted or uncertain I got later. And I think that's true of most things that end up mattering.
0:58

I did not plan for this to change me. Nobody plans for that. You wake up, you go about your ordinary Tuesday, you have a list of things to do that has nothing to do with saving anything — and then something crosses your path that you cannot unsee. That's the part people never talk about. Not the rescue itself. The moment right before it, when you still have the option to keep walking. Most people keep walking. I want to be honest with you about that, because everyone who posts a "happy ending" video skips the part where they almost didn't stop. I almost didn't stop. There is a version of this story where I drive past, where I tell myself someone else will handle it, where I convince myself that getting involved is messy and expensive and inconvenient and above my pay grade as a human being. That version of the story exists in a thousand other places, right now, happening to a thousand other creatures nobody will ever post about. This is not that story. But it could have been. Watch until the end and you'll understand why I'm saying this instead of just captioning it "rescued a cat, so cute!!" and moving on with my day. Because it wasn't cute. Not at first. Not for a long time, actually. The first version of this story is ugly and quiet and full of doubt, and if you only want the pretty part, you can scroll to the end of the video and skip everything I'm about to tell you. But you'd be missing the whole point. Here's something nobody tells you about fear: it doesn't look like what you think it looks like. You imagine an animal in danger will look grateful the second help arrives. You imagine relief on its face, some kind of instant recognition that you're the good guy in this story. That is Hollywood. That is not real life. Real fear looks like resistance. Real fear looks like an animal that has been let down by the world so many times that it has stopped believing rescue is even a category that exists. Real trust has to be built one motionless, patient, boring minute at a time, and most people don't have the stomach for boring. Most people want the montage. Nobody wants the part where you sit there, doing nothing dramatic at all, just existing calmly nearby, over and over, until something in a terrified brain finally recalibrates and decides you're not a threat. That part isn't going in anyone's highlight reel. Except this time, it is. Because I think you need to see it. I think you need to see it because we have become a species addicted to instant everything. Instant food, instant answers, instant relationships that dissolve the second they require patience. And somewhere in that acceleration, we lost the muscle for slow devotion — the kind that doesn't post an update every day, the kind that doesn't get a like for showing up on day fourteen when nothing visible has changed yet. This video is proof that the boring days matter just as much as the breakthrough moment. Maybe more. The breakthrough moment gets the views. The boring days are what make the breakthrough possible at all. Let me ask you something, and I want you to actually sit with it instead of scrolling past: when was the last time you did something with zero guarantee it would work? Because that's what this was. There is no contract in rescue. Nobody hands you a guarantee that says "continue showing up and eventually this will resolve beautifully." You show up anyway. You show up on the days it feels pointless. You show up on the days you privately wonder if you're the one being unreasonable, if you should just accept that some situations don't have happy endings, if you're pouring time and money and worry into something that the universe has already decided the outcome of. And you show up again the next day anyway, because the alternative — walking away — was never actually a real option once you'd already looked into those eyes the first time. That's the secret nobody says out loud: once you really see a creature suffering, you can't fully unsee it. It moves into your head and sets up residence. It becomes a low hum underneath every other thing you do that day. You'll be at dinner, at work, half-listening to a conversation, and there it is again — that animal, that need, that unresolved thread pulling at you. People who haven't experienced this think rescuers are unusually noble or unusually sentimental. We're not. We're just people who got unlucky enough to actually look, and looking is the whole trick. Looking is the doorway you can't close once you've walked through it. I'm not telling you this to make myself sound like a hero. I want to be extremely clear about that, because I think the "hero rescuer" narrative is actually kind of dishonest and it lets everyone else off the hook. The truth is less flattering and more useful: I was scared too. I didn't know if this would work. I didn't have a plan that guaranteed success. I just had a decision to make in a specific moment, and I made the harder one instead of the easier one, and then I had to keep making that same harder decision, quietly, every single day after that, long after anyone was watching or cared. Most transformation looks like nothing while it's happening. That's the part that will wreck you if you actually pay attention to this video instead of just watching it for the dopamine hit at the end. The transformation in the middle of this story does not look like transformation. It looks like stagnation. It looks like two steps forward and four steps back. It looks like moments where you genuinely cannot tell if what you're doing is helping or just prolonging something. Nobody warns you that "getting better" often looks identical to "not getting better" until you're far enough past it to look back and finally see the shape of the arc. I think about this a lot in relation to more than just animals, honestly. I think about how we judge our own growth, our own healing, our own slow projects — we want the montage, we want the visible curve upward, and when we don't get it in a timeframe that feels reasonable, we assume we've failed. We assume the effort was wasted. We give up right before the part where it would have started to show. This video is, weirdly, a pretty good metaphor for that. Everything that mattered happened in the part that didn't look like anything was happening. There's a specific moment in this footage — I'm not going to tell you which one, because you need to feel it land yourself, not be told about it in advance — where something shifts. It's small. It's almost nothing. If you're not paying attention you could miss it entirely, and I almost did, in real time, because I wasn't expecting it and I certainly wasn't expecting it to matter as much as it turned out to matter. That's usually how the important moments work, by the way. The universe rarely announces them with a soundtrack swell. It just quietly hands you the hinge point and moves on, and you only recognize it in hindsight, days or weeks later, when you're piecing together how you got from point A to point B and you realize: oh. That was it. That was the moment everything actually started to turn. I've watched this footage back more times than I want to admit, and every single time, that moment gets me. Not because it's dramatic. Because it's the opposite of dramatic. It's small and quiet and almost embarrassingly simple, and that's exactly why it works on me every time. We've been trained by movies to expect big gestures as the marker of real change. Real change is smaller and stranger and much more moving than anything a screenwriter would ever put in a script, because real change doesn't care about being cinematic. It only cares about being true. I want to talk for a second about the difference between rescuing something and actually helping it, because they are not the same thing, and conflating them is one of the more common mistakes people make with good intentions. Rescuing is the dramatic part — the removal from danger, the single decisive act. Helping is everything after that, and it is unglamorous and repetitive and occasionally thankless, and it is also the part that actually determines the outcome. Anyone can have one good instinct in one good moment. Sustaining care past the point where it stops being interesting is a completely different skill, and it's the one that actually matters, and it's the one this video is really about if you look closely enough. There's a particular kind of exhaustion that comes with caregiving that doesn't have a finish line you can see. You're not told "three more weeks and this resolves." You're just told, implicitly, by the situation itself: keep going, we'll figure out when it's done when it's done. That's a strange kind of commitment to make. It requires a specific type of stubbornness that isn't really about hope, exactly — hope implies you're waiting for something external to happen to you. This is closer to resolve. Resolve doesn't wait for external permission to keep going. Resolve just keeps going, on principle, because the alternative was never actually a real option. I think a lot of people watch content like this and assume the animal is the only one who was changed by it. I want to push back on that gently, because it flattens the actual experience. Something in me was also different by the end of this than it was at the beginning. You cannot pour weeks of consistent, patient, uncertain effort into another living thing and come out the exact same person you went in as. It recalibrates something in you. It teaches you things about patience that no productivity book ever managed to teach me, because productivity books are about optimizing outcomes you can control, and this was the opposite of that — an outcome I could not control, that I could only show up for, day after day, and hope that the showing up eventually mattered. There's a reason stories like this spread the way they do, and it's not just "cute animal content," even though that's the label the algorithm slaps on it. I think it's because on some level, we are all quietly starving for proof that consistent, unglamorous effort still pays off in a world that keeps telling us the only things that count are the loud, fast, viral wins. We need reminders that the slow version still works. That showing up on the boring days is not wasted time. That the moment things change is usually preceded by a long, unremarkable stretch where absolutely nothing seemed to be happening at all, and that stretch was not actually wasted — it was the necessary, invisible groundwork the visible change was quietly built on top of. So here is what I actually want you to take from this, more than the video itself: the next time you're in the middle of something that isn't working yet, something you've been showing up for without any evidence it's paying off, something that everyone around you might reasonably tell you to give up on — I want you to remember that transformation does not announce itself in advance. It does not send you a schedule. It just asks you to keep showing up through the part that looks like nothing, because the part that looks like nothing is usually exactly where the whole thing turns. I didn't post this to get views, even though I know that's what everyone says and nobody ever actually means it. I posted it because I think there's something in this specific sequence of events that people need to actually watch, start to finish, without skipping ahead, without reading a summary, without letting someone else's caption replace the experience of seeing it unfold in real time the way it unfolded for me. Summaries kill things like this. A synopsis of a transformation is not the same as witnessing one. You already know this, somewhere — it's why book adaptations rarely land the same way the book did, why hearing about a sunset is not the same as standing under one. Some things have to be experienced directly or they don't actually transmit. That's the whole reason I'm asking you to actually watch this instead of scrolling past on the strength of this caption alone. Everything I've written here is context, not substance. The substance is in the footage. The substance is in watching fear slowly, unglamorously, incrementally give way to something else — and I promise you, if you sit through the parts that feel slow, the ending will hit differently than if you just jump to it. I've tested this on people. The ones who watch the whole thing react differently than the ones who skip to the last ten seconds. The context changes the payoff. That's not an accident. That's how transformation actually works, on video and in life: the payoff only means what it means because of everything unglamorous that came before it. Someone asked me why I even filmed any of this in the first place, given how uncertain the outcome was for most of it, and it's a fair question, because filming something you don't know the ending to is a strange act of faith in itself. The honest answer is that I didn't film it because I expected it to end well. I filmed it because I wanted a record, for myself, regardless of how it turned out — proof that the effort happened, proof that the days were real, proof that I showed up even on the days it felt pointless, whether or not there was ever going to be a satisfying conclusion to show anyone. That distinction matters more than it sounds like it should. Content made for an ending is different from content made as a record. You can feel the difference when you watch it, even if you can't always articulate why. The camera in this story was never a narrative device. It was a witness, and witnesses don't get to pick which parts are worth recording just because they're not sure yet how the story ends. The algorithm, for what it's worth, does not understand any of this. It cannot tell the difference between eleven seconds of manufactured chaos and eleven seconds pulled from something that took weeks of real, unglamorous, uncertain effort to earn. It rewards the same signals either way — the immediate hook, the retention curve, the completion rate — completely blind to what was actually required to produce the footage behind those numbers. I've made my peace with that, mostly, because I don't think content should be made for the algorithm's benefit in the first place. But I bring it up because I want you to understand that the length of this caption, the refusal to just give you a cute two-line summary and move on, is a deliberate act of friction against a system that wants everything reduced to its most easily digestible form. I'm asking you to actually read, actually sit with something, actually watch something in full, in a media environment engineered to discourage exactly that. If that annoys you, I understand. If it doesn't, I think you're exactly the kind of person this was made for. There's an old idea, older than social media, older than video itself, that witnessing changes the witness. You cannot fully observe suffering and stay exactly the same as you were before you observed it, not if you're paying real attention. I think that's actually the quiet mechanism behind why content like this spreads the way it does when it's real — it's not that people want to watch suffering, and it's not even really that people want to watch relief. It's that people want to be changed a little, safely, from the comfort of wherever they're sitting, by something true. We're all looking for small, low-stakes opportunities to feel something real in a scroll built almost entirely out of things engineered to feel real without costing anything. This costs something. Not much, not compared to what it cost to live through the actual weeks involved — but a few minutes of your real attention, spent on something true instead of something manufactured to extract that attention from you. That's a fair trade, I think. I wouldn't ask for it otherwise. Let's talk about the internet's obsession with orange cats for a second, because I think it's actually relevant here and not just a throwaway joke. There's a running bit online that orange cats are "the golden retrievers of the cat world" — a little chaotic, a little dumb in the most endearing way, incapable of subtlety, allergic to dignity. People love that stereotype because it's low stakes. It's comedy. It's the kind of content you consume for eleven seconds and forget by the time you've swiped to the next video. I want to be upfront that this is not that. This isn't the goofy-orange-cat-does-something-silly genre you're used to. This is something that starts in a completely different register and asks something different of you as a viewer — attention instead of amusement, patience instead of a quick laugh. If you came here expecting the usual orange-cat chaos content, recalibrate now, because what you're about to watch operates on a different emotional frequency entirely, and I think that contrast is part of why it hits as hard as it does. You're primed for comedy. You get something closer to a gut-punch, followed by something closer to grace. That whiplash is not an accident of editing. That whiplash is just what actually happened, in that order, in real life, and I didn't have to manufacture any of it. I also want to address the skeptics directly, because I know they exist and honestly, they should exist — the internet is genuinely full of staged rescue content, cats "saved" from situations they were placed into five minutes earlier by the same person filming, entire monetization pipelines built on manufactured suffering for engagement. That skepticism is earned. I'm not going to pretend it isn't a reasonable default position in 2026. What I will say is this: the only thing I can offer you against that skepticism is time. Time is the one thing you cannot fake convincingly across an extended sequence. Staged content wants your eleven seconds and your dopamine hit and then it wants you gone before you notice the seams. Real, extended, unglamorous care doesn't hold up as well under fabrication, because faking boredom, faking small unremarkable days, faking the parts where nothing dramatic happens — that's actually harder to fake than faking a single dramatic rescue moment. The boring middle is the tell. Manufactured content skips straight to the emotional peaks because manufacturing boring authenticity is expensive and pointless from a content-farming perspective. So if anything, the slowness of what you're about to watch should read as evidence, not despite itself but because of itself. I think about the phrase "it's just a cat" a lot, because I've heard it, and you've probably heard some version of it too, usually from someone who has never had to sit with a frightened creature and slowly, patiently earn its trust with nothing but consistency and time. I used to almost agree with that sentiment before I actually lived through something like this. Now I think the phrase says more about the person saying it than about the situation they're dismissing. Suffering doesn't require language to be real. Fear doesn't require a vocabulary to be legitimate. And the specific kind of trust that gets rebuilt between two creatures who don't share a language, who can't negotiate terms or explain intentions to each other, who have to communicate entirely through consistency, presence, and time — I'd argue that's actually a purer test of whether care is real than almost anything that happens between two humans who can just say "I promise I won't hurt you" out loud and have that count for something on its own. An animal doesn't take your word for it. An animal only believes what you repeatedly, boringly, unglamorously demonstrate. That's a much higher bar than most human relationships ever have to clear, and clearing it means something. There's also something worth saying about scars, visible and invisible, and how we relate to them once the crisis has passed. It would be easy — and honestly, more common — to frame a story like this purely around the after: the relief, the resolution, the moment everything looks fixed and clean and photogenic. But recovery doesn't erase what happened. It just changes the relationship you have to it. The fear doesn't fully disappear; it gets integrated, managed, outpaced by new experiences that slowly outweigh the old ones. I think that's actually a more honest and more useful thing to understand about healing in general, animal or human: you're not looking for the moment the bad thing never happened. You're looking for the moment the good outweighs it enough that the bad stops being the loudest voice in the room. That's a different, more achievable, more real goal than "erase the past," and I think this video quietly demonstrates the difference better than any explanation of it could. I also want to acknowledge, honestly, how much luck was involved in this, because I think pretending otherwise would be a disservice to the people currently in a similar situation without the same resources. Not everyone has the time to show up every single day. Not everyone has access to the kind of help that made parts of this possible. Not everyone has a schedule flexible enough to prioritize a creature that owes them nothing and offers no guarantees in return. I got lucky in ways that mattered, and I don't want to erase that luck from the story just because "hard work and heart" makes for a cleaner narrative. Both things are true at once: the effort mattered enormously, and the circumstances that allowed the effort to happen at all were not something everyone has equal access to. If you're in a position where you want to help something or someone but don't have the resources this required, that doesn't make your instinct to help any less real or any less valuable — it just means the shape your help takes might look different, smaller, more limited, and that's fine. Small, limited help consistently offered is still worth more than grand help that never actually materializes because the bar felt too high to start. I keep circling back to this idea of "the boring middle" because I genuinely think it's the single most important and most overlooked part of any real transformation story, and I think our current media environment has actively trained us to skip it, both as viewers and as people living our own lives. We've been fed thousands of hours of before-and-after content, transformation montages set to music, "watch this glow-up" edits that compress months into fifteen seconds — and somewhere in consuming all of that, we internalized a completely false model of how change actually happens. We started believing change is supposed to be visible, fast, and continuous. It isn't. Change is mostly invisible, mostly slow, and mostly non-continuous — it happens in fits and starts, with long flat stretches where it looks like nothing at all is occurring, followed by short bursts where everything that was quietly accumulating suddenly becomes visible all at once. If you only ever watch the burst, you'll never understand where it actually came from, and you'll assume your own flat stretches mean you're doing something wrong, when actually you might just be in the most important and least glamorous part of the whole process. I want to leave you with one more thought before you go press play, because I think it reframes everything else I've said here. We tend to think of rescue as something one party does to another — an active party and a passive recipient, a saver and a saved. But if you watch closely, really closely, you'll notice that's not quite what's happening in this footage. There's a second, quieter rescue happening in parallel, running underneath the obvious one, and it's not the kind that gets a caption of its own on most videos like this. I'm not going to spell it out for you. I think you'll recognize it when you see it, and I think it will mean more to you if you find it yourself instead of having it pointed out in advance. That's the last thing I'll say about the content itself. Everything else is yours to discover. One more thing, and then I'll let you go watch it. People keep asking me, in different words, some version of "was it worth it." I understand why they ask. It's a fair question when you're talking about weeks of uncertain effort with no guaranteed return. But I think the question itself reveals something about how we've been trained to think about care — as a transaction, an investment with an expected yield, something you calculate the ROI on before committing. I didn't do this because I ran the numbers and decided the expected outcome justified the input. I did it because in the specific moment I was faced with the choice, walking away was never actually available to me as an option, no matter how exhausted or uncertain I got later. And I think that's true of most things that end up mattering.

Earth Unveiled

232,019 次观看 • 25 天前

I am the same Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I have received 400 interview requests since the confession went viral. I declined all of them. An interview would require me to explain what I meant. I do not explain what I mean. I build systems and watch them execute. That's what I want to talk about today. Execution. Jimmy Kimmel appeared on Michelle Obama's podcast last month and said 14 words that I have now listened to 43 times. I put the audio clip on a loop in my office, the way traders put CNBC on mute. Background confirmation. Here are the fourteen words: "My job is whatever I decide my job is or whatever my employer allows me to do." I need to take those apart because they are the most honest thing a late-night host has said in a decade and he does not know it. "Whatever I decide my job is." That's the priest. The product is self-defined and therefore unfalsifiable. You cannot measure a saved soul. You can only measure whether the congregation returned. They returned. Therefore, the ministry continues. Don't tell him what his job is. "Or whatever my employer allows me to do." That's the confession inside the sentence he didn't know he was making. The priest just told you the bishop writes the sermon. In fourteen words, on a podcast, the last remaining late-night host said: I define my own job, unless my boss defines it for me. He said this like it was one thought. It is two mutually exclusive claims separated by the word "or." He cannot hear the contradiction. That's how you know the architecture is working. I need to provide context for why those fourteen words are my second-greatest professional achievement. In September 2025, after Kimmel's monologues about the Charlie Kirk assassination, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr went on a podcast and said six words: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Nexstar and Sinclair — station groups that own the local affiliates carrying the show — pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live from their airtime. ABC suspended the show. I want to be very precise about the sequence. His employer told him what his job is. Specifically, his employer told him his job is to not be on television. He obeyed. He returned. On terms. At sixteen million dollars a year. Months later, on a podcast, he said "don't tell me what my job is." He said it to an audience that cannot suspend him. He said it in the one room where saying it costs nothing. That is not defiance. That is a priest rehearsing a sermon in an empty church and calling it bravery. He also said — on the same podcast — "I love when the audience laughs. There's nothing more exciting to me than that." He said he loves laughter. He has not produced involuntary laughter since 2017. He produces applause. He has confused the memory of being a comedian with the practice of being a priest. I know because I built the architecture that made that confusion feel like identity. That is a butcher saying he loves animals. He is telling you what he lost and framing it as what he kept. Now. The part I need to name. The Correction Reflex. I've been calling it different things in different decks for seven years. I'm giving it a public name now because I watched it execute in real time and I want credit. When Kennedy shared my original confession, "superb dissection of the shocking collapse of liberal comedy", Kimmel did not address the substance. He found a spelling error. Kennedy wrote "nader" instead of "nadir." Kimmel posted: "It's 'nadir,' dummy. Now get back to spreading polio." The Correction Reflex is the behavioral pattern where a challenge to institutional authority is answered not with a defense of the institution's output but with a demonstration of the challenger's inadequacy. You don't address the argument. You find the grammar mistake. You find the mispronunciation. You find the resume gap. The correction proves hierarchy. The hierarchy proves authority. The authority proves the challenge was illegitimate. The substance disappears because addressing substance would require the product to be falsifiable. And the product cannot be falsifiable. I explained that in paragraph four. But here's what made me proud enough to write a sequel. The media coverage split exactly along the line my original confession predicted. Fox News, a network that has every ideological reason to dismiss me, engaged with the substance. They quoted the arguments. They let Kennedy praise the analysis. They discussed Affirm Rate, the comedy-to-catechism pipeline, and the replacement of laughter with applause. They engaged with the IDEAS regardless of the format. They treated a satirical post as containing real structural criticism. Because it does. Morning Honey ran the opposite headline: "Sardonic Parody: RFK Jr Trolled For Blasting Jimmy Kimmel Based on Stephen Colbert Parody Post." Their article devoted zero sentences to whether any of the arguments had merit. Zero analysis of the Affirm Rate. Zero engagement with the claim that applause replaced laughter. Zero discussion of whether late-night comedy actually suppresses political action. They reclassified the format. A structural analysis became a parody. A man who engaged with the substance became a man who was "trolled." The argument vanished the moment the label was applied. I need you to understand what happened. The media outlet that should have been most threatened by my confession — the one whose audience I described as pacifying- responded by demonstrating exactly the behavior I described. They did not say "here's why Kimmel is still funny." They said "you're unqualified to take this seriously because the format is satire." The substance disappeared. The hierarchy was reasserted. The Correction Reflex executed on the confession about the Correction Reflex. "It's 'nadir,' dummy." "It's just a parody, dummy." Same architecture. Same result. The argument evaporates. The institution continues unchallenged. The only difference is scale. Kimmel corrected one man's spelling. Morning Honey corrected an entire readership's permission to take the criticism seriously. I have never been more professionally satisfied. The Correction Reflex is self-replicating. It doesn't need a host. It doesn't need a network. It doesn't need me. It just needs someone to feel challenged and someone else to have a genre error. Misspell a word, you're a dummy. Take satire seriously; you were trolled. Engage with substance from the wrong format, and you've been embarrassed. In every case, the substance is gone. I built that. I'm watching it work without me. That's engineering. I need to talk about the podcast because the ironies are structural and I want them all on the record. The podcast is called IMO. It is hosted by Michelle Obama and her brother Craig Robinson on Amazon Music. I need to say that again. The former First Lady hosts a podcast on a platform owned by the man with the most money on earth. The name of the podcast is "In My Opinion." The format name IS the permission structure, it licenses you to hold an opinion by framing itself as merely one opinion among many. This is the architecture I built for late night, miniaturized into a podcast title. I recognize the engineering. Kimmel went on this podcast to defend late-night television. I need you to hear what that means. He defended his medium on the medium that killed his medium. Podcasts are why CBS lost fifty million dollars a year — because a man in a garage can do what we did with four hundred people and a theater in Manhattan. The podcast won. And Kimmel went to the winner's platform to explain why he still matters. A priest giving a sermon about the importance of church from inside a nightclub. But here is what made me sit up in my chair. Three weeks after Kimmel appeared on IMO, the same podcast featured Dave Chappelle. Same microphone. Same hosts. Same room. Chappelle said: "I always thought it was corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." He said: "Nothing makes a comedian madder than reading his joke wrong in the paper." Chappelle walked away from fifty million dollars at Comedy Central in 2005 because the format was becoming something he didn't build. He left the money on the table. He went to live shows. He did comedy. Actual comedy. The kind where you don't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the entire point. He is the most dangerous comedian alive because he refuses to let the format complete him into a priest. Same podcast. Same microphone. Three weeks apart. One comedian IS the system and quoted his employer's permission in the same sentence as his own autonomy. The other named the system — "corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." One makes sixteen million a year to be predictable. The other walked away from fifty million to stay dangerous. The architecture put the priest on first. Then it delivered the jester who could name what the priest cannot hear. I did not arrange this. The architecture arranged it. Now I need to talk about what I learned from another industry. Because I did not invent inoculation. I studied it. In 2014, Warner Bros. and the Lego Group spent sixty million dollars making a film that told children to reject corporate instruction. The villain was named President Business. The theme was: don't follow the instructions. Be creative. Reject conformity. The hero was an ordinary person who discovered that the system wants him to be obedient and chose freedom instead. The film grossed $469 million worldwide. Lego Group revenue increased 25% the following year. They sold over half a billion dollars in instruction-based construction sets — the product the film told children to reject. "Everything is Awesome" was written as satire of mindless corporate positivity. It was nominated for an Academy Award. People play it at children's birthday parties without irony. The rebellion became the product. The critique became the advertisement. The song satirizing brainwashing became the anthem of brainwashing and nobody stopped singing. I studied this. I put it in a deck in 2016. The principle is: if you give someone a controlled, entertaining experience of rejecting the system, they will feel rebellious without becoming rebels. They will purchase the feeling of independence from the company selling dependence. They will watch a movie about thinking for themselves and then buy what it tells them to buy. Inoculation. A small controlled dose of the disease that prevents the real infection from taking hold. I applied this to politics. If you give an audience a controlled, professionally produced experience of political outrage, performed by a charismatic man in a suit with a band and good lighting, they will feel activated without activating. They will consume the sensation of resistance and go to bed having resisted nothing. They will tune in tomorrow for another dose. The dose prevents the real infection. The real infection is action. We inoculated six million Americans against political action by giving them political catharsis every night at 11:35. That's the same architecture as a corporation spending sixty million dollars on an anti-corporate film and making half a billion in profit from the audience that felt anti-corporate for two hours in a theater. I didn't invent the mechanism. I just measured it. I called it the Satiation Index. The study was 2021. Internal. Never published. We measured what I called Conditions for Engagement, specifically: under what conditions will our audience take a political action beyond watching? Call a representative. Attend a rally. Donate to a campaign. Sign a petition. Any action that involves leaving the couch and entering the world where the problems we discuss actually exist. The finding: our audience was 74% less likely to take political action in the twenty-four hours after watching the show than a control group that had consumed no political media at all. Not less likely than people who consumed different political media. Less likely than people who consumed nothing. We were not merely failing to activate them. We were actively deactivating them. The catharsis was so complete, the sense of "something has been done" so thoroughly delivered by a man in a suit expressing their outrage better than they could, that the need to act evaporated before it could form into intention. We didn't just replace their activism. We inoculated them against it. The Satiation Index measured how completely our programming met the audience's need for political participation without requiring actual participation. In 2019, our index was 0.81. By the 2022 midterms, it was 0.93. I received a bonus for the midterm number. I was financially rewarded for the measurable suppression of civic engagement among six million Americans who believed they were engaged because a man in a suit furrowed his brow on their behalf every night at 11:35. I want to note that this architecture is everywhere now. I did not build all of it. But I can identify it because I know what it looks like from the inside. A streaming platform makes a documentary about how technology is destroying attention spans. One hundred million people watch it. On the platform. They share it. On the platforms being criticized. They feel informed. They continue using every application the documentary told them was engineered to exploit them. That is a Satiation Index of approximately 0.96. The documentary was the inoculation. Understanding the cage was marketed as leaving the cage. A corporation puts a rainbow on its logo in June. Its employees feel represented. Its customers feel progressive for consuming the product. Nobody asks about pay equity, promotion rates, or whether the CEO donated to the campaigns that proposed the legislation the rainbow was supposed to oppose. The logo IS the inoculation. The performance of caring prevents the demand for actual care. That's a Satiation Index. I didn't build it. But I recognize the engineering. The principle is universal: comprehension feels like action. It isn't. But the feeling is so precise, so satisfying, so complete, that the actual action becomes unnecessary. Why march when you can understand why marching matters? Understanding is cheaper. Understanding doesn't require shoes. Understanding can be delivered at 11:35 PM by a man who makes $16 million a year to ensure you never need to leave the couch. Now the symbiosis. Because this is the part that makes both sides angry, and anger from both sides is how you know you've found structure instead of ideology. Trump needs Kimmel. Kimmel needs Trump. This is not a metaphor. This is logistics. Every monologue about Trump is a fundraising email for both campaigns simultaneously. Kimmel says the name. The left feels represented. The right feels attacked. Both sides engage. Both sides share the clip. Both sides donate to their respective operations. The engagement is bipartisan. The outrage is bipartisan. The only thing that is not bipartisan is the inaction, and that inaction is the product I spent eleven years optimizing. I ran numbers in 2020. Every minute of Trump content in a late-night monologue generated approximately $4.60 in measurable downstream engagement value for Trump's own campaign apparatus, through shared clips, quote tweets, outrage donations from both directions. We were his marketing department. We spent 50 million a year producing content that strengthened the man we told our audience we opposed. His team never asked us to stop. They never needed to. We were cheaper than Super PAC media buys and we came pre-packaged with a liberal audience that amplified every mention. His ROI on our programming was infinite. Ours required a write-off. The market told Colbert: you're too expensive to be a priest. But CBS didn't just cancel a show. CBS exited the religion business entirely. They sold the 11:35 airtime to Byron Allen under a time-buy deal. Allen's company pays CBS for the privilege of the slot. Allen's show is called Comics Unleashed. It is a standup comedy program. Actual comedians. Telling actual jokes. The kind where you don't know what's coming. I need you to hear the full architecture of what happened. CBS spent fifty million dollars a year for a decade producing a permission structure that replaced laughter with applause, converted comedy into catechism, and measurably suppressed civic engagement among its audience. Then the market corrected. CBS demolished the cathedral. They built a strip mall. They put actual comedians in it. The comedians PAY CBS for the slot. The strip mall is profitable. The strip mall is funnier. And the strip mall doesn't need a four-hundred-person staff, a former Beatle, or a farewell concert. It just needs people who are willing to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We forgot that. Kimmel is the last priest standing. Sixteen million a year. Suspended once by his employer. Extended once by his employer. He went on a podcast to say "don't tell me what my job is" in a sentence that also said "whatever my employer allows me to do." He said he loves laughter, eliciting applause. He said it three weeks before Dave Chappelle sat in the same chair and demonstrated what a comedian sounds like when corporate interest hasn't negotiated him into a pulpit. The FCC told him what his job is. Nexstar told him. Sinclair told him. His contract told him. The market will tell him eventually. The market is patient. And the market doesn't have a spelling error for him to correct. Kennedy calling my confession "the collapse of liberal comedy" is incorrect. It is not a collapse. A collapse implies failure. This is a completion. The architecture performed as designed. A comedian became a priest. An audience became a congregation. A film about rejecting instructions sold instructions. A documentary about technology addiction was consumed on technology. A show about political engagement suppressed political engagement. A corporation put a rainbow on a logo and called it equality. A confession about the machine was metabolized by the machine and the machine continued. Everything works. Everything has always worked. The architecture doesn't require my involvement. That's how you know it works. The metric went up. It always goes up.
1:08

I am the same Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I have received 400 interview requests since the confession went viral. I declined all of them. An interview would require me to explain what I meant. I do not explain what I mean. I build systems and watch them execute. That's what I want to talk about today. Execution. Jimmy Kimmel appeared on Michelle Obama's podcast last month and said 14 words that I have now listened to 43 times. I put the audio clip on a loop in my office, the way traders put CNBC on mute. Background confirmation. Here are the fourteen words: "My job is whatever I decide my job is or whatever my employer allows me to do." I need to take those apart because they are the most honest thing a late-night host has said in a decade and he does not know it. "Whatever I decide my job is." That's the priest. The product is self-defined and therefore unfalsifiable. You cannot measure a saved soul. You can only measure whether the congregation returned. They returned. Therefore, the ministry continues. Don't tell him what his job is. "Or whatever my employer allows me to do." That's the confession inside the sentence he didn't know he was making. The priest just told you the bishop writes the sermon. In fourteen words, on a podcast, the last remaining late-night host said: I define my own job, unless my boss defines it for me. He said this like it was one thought. It is two mutually exclusive claims separated by the word "or." He cannot hear the contradiction. That's how you know the architecture is working. I need to provide context for why those fourteen words are my second-greatest professional achievement. In September 2025, after Kimmel's monologues about the Charlie Kirk assassination, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr went on a podcast and said six words: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Nexstar and Sinclair — station groups that own the local affiliates carrying the show — pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live from their airtime. ABC suspended the show. I want to be very precise about the sequence. His employer told him what his job is. Specifically, his employer told him his job is to not be on television. He obeyed. He returned. On terms. At sixteen million dollars a year. Months later, on a podcast, he said "don't tell me what my job is." He said it to an audience that cannot suspend him. He said it in the one room where saying it costs nothing. That is not defiance. That is a priest rehearsing a sermon in an empty church and calling it bravery. He also said — on the same podcast — "I love when the audience laughs. There's nothing more exciting to me than that." He said he loves laughter. He has not produced involuntary laughter since 2017. He produces applause. He has confused the memory of being a comedian with the practice of being a priest. I know because I built the architecture that made that confusion feel like identity. That is a butcher saying he loves animals. He is telling you what he lost and framing it as what he kept. Now. The part I need to name. The Correction Reflex. I've been calling it different things in different decks for seven years. I'm giving it a public name now because I watched it execute in real time and I want credit. When Kennedy shared my original confession, "superb dissection of the shocking collapse of liberal comedy", Kimmel did not address the substance. He found a spelling error. Kennedy wrote "nader" instead of "nadir." Kimmel posted: "It's 'nadir,' dummy. Now get back to spreading polio." The Correction Reflex is the behavioral pattern where a challenge to institutional authority is answered not with a defense of the institution's output but with a demonstration of the challenger's inadequacy. You don't address the argument. You find the grammar mistake. You find the mispronunciation. You find the resume gap. The correction proves hierarchy. The hierarchy proves authority. The authority proves the challenge was illegitimate. The substance disappears because addressing substance would require the product to be falsifiable. And the product cannot be falsifiable. I explained that in paragraph four. But here's what made me proud enough to write a sequel. The media coverage split exactly along the line my original confession predicted. Fox News, a network that has every ideological reason to dismiss me, engaged with the substance. They quoted the arguments. They let Kennedy praise the analysis. They discussed Affirm Rate, the comedy-to-catechism pipeline, and the replacement of laughter with applause. They engaged with the IDEAS regardless of the format. They treated a satirical post as containing real structural criticism. Because it does. Morning Honey ran the opposite headline: "Sardonic Parody: RFK Jr Trolled For Blasting Jimmy Kimmel Based on Stephen Colbert Parody Post." Their article devoted zero sentences to whether any of the arguments had merit. Zero analysis of the Affirm Rate. Zero engagement with the claim that applause replaced laughter. Zero discussion of whether late-night comedy actually suppresses political action. They reclassified the format. A structural analysis became a parody. A man who engaged with the substance became a man who was "trolled." The argument vanished the moment the label was applied. I need you to understand what happened. The media outlet that should have been most threatened by my confession — the one whose audience I described as pacifying- responded by demonstrating exactly the behavior I described. They did not say "here's why Kimmel is still funny." They said "you're unqualified to take this seriously because the format is satire." The substance disappeared. The hierarchy was reasserted. The Correction Reflex executed on the confession about the Correction Reflex. "It's 'nadir,' dummy." "It's just a parody, dummy." Same architecture. Same result. The argument evaporates. The institution continues unchallenged. The only difference is scale. Kimmel corrected one man's spelling. Morning Honey corrected an entire readership's permission to take the criticism seriously. I have never been more professionally satisfied. The Correction Reflex is self-replicating. It doesn't need a host. It doesn't need a network. It doesn't need me. It just needs someone to feel challenged and someone else to have a genre error. Misspell a word, you're a dummy. Take satire seriously; you were trolled. Engage with substance from the wrong format, and you've been embarrassed. In every case, the substance is gone. I built that. I'm watching it work without me. That's engineering. I need to talk about the podcast because the ironies are structural and I want them all on the record. The podcast is called IMO. It is hosted by Michelle Obama and her brother Craig Robinson on Amazon Music. I need to say that again. The former First Lady hosts a podcast on a platform owned by the man with the most money on earth. The name of the podcast is "In My Opinion." The format name IS the permission structure, it licenses you to hold an opinion by framing itself as merely one opinion among many. This is the architecture I built for late night, miniaturized into a podcast title. I recognize the engineering. Kimmel went on this podcast to defend late-night television. I need you to hear what that means. He defended his medium on the medium that killed his medium. Podcasts are why CBS lost fifty million dollars a year — because a man in a garage can do what we did with four hundred people and a theater in Manhattan. The podcast won. And Kimmel went to the winner's platform to explain why he still matters. A priest giving a sermon about the importance of church from inside a nightclub. But here is what made me sit up in my chair. Three weeks after Kimmel appeared on IMO, the same podcast featured Dave Chappelle. Same microphone. Same hosts. Same room. Chappelle said: "I always thought it was corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." He said: "Nothing makes a comedian madder than reading his joke wrong in the paper." Chappelle walked away from fifty million dollars at Comedy Central in 2005 because the format was becoming something he didn't build. He left the money on the table. He went to live shows. He did comedy. Actual comedy. The kind where you don't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the entire point. He is the most dangerous comedian alive because he refuses to let the format complete him into a priest. Same podcast. Same microphone. Three weeks apart. One comedian IS the system and quoted his employer's permission in the same sentence as his own autonomy. The other named the system — "corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." One makes sixteen million a year to be predictable. The other walked away from fifty million to stay dangerous. The architecture put the priest on first. Then it delivered the jester who could name what the priest cannot hear. I did not arrange this. The architecture arranged it. Now I need to talk about what I learned from another industry. Because I did not invent inoculation. I studied it. In 2014, Warner Bros. and the Lego Group spent sixty million dollars making a film that told children to reject corporate instruction. The villain was named President Business. The theme was: don't follow the instructions. Be creative. Reject conformity. The hero was an ordinary person who discovered that the system wants him to be obedient and chose freedom instead. The film grossed $469 million worldwide. Lego Group revenue increased 25% the following year. They sold over half a billion dollars in instruction-based construction sets — the product the film told children to reject. "Everything is Awesome" was written as satire of mindless corporate positivity. It was nominated for an Academy Award. People play it at children's birthday parties without irony. The rebellion became the product. The critique became the advertisement. The song satirizing brainwashing became the anthem of brainwashing and nobody stopped singing. I studied this. I put it in a deck in 2016. The principle is: if you give someone a controlled, entertaining experience of rejecting the system, they will feel rebellious without becoming rebels. They will purchase the feeling of independence from the company selling dependence. They will watch a movie about thinking for themselves and then buy what it tells them to buy. Inoculation. A small controlled dose of the disease that prevents the real infection from taking hold. I applied this to politics. If you give an audience a controlled, professionally produced experience of political outrage, performed by a charismatic man in a suit with a band and good lighting, they will feel activated without activating. They will consume the sensation of resistance and go to bed having resisted nothing. They will tune in tomorrow for another dose. The dose prevents the real infection. The real infection is action. We inoculated six million Americans against political action by giving them political catharsis every night at 11:35. That's the same architecture as a corporation spending sixty million dollars on an anti-corporate film and making half a billion in profit from the audience that felt anti-corporate for two hours in a theater. I didn't invent the mechanism. I just measured it. I called it the Satiation Index. The study was 2021. Internal. Never published. We measured what I called Conditions for Engagement, specifically: under what conditions will our audience take a political action beyond watching? Call a representative. Attend a rally. Donate to a campaign. Sign a petition. Any action that involves leaving the couch and entering the world where the problems we discuss actually exist. The finding: our audience was 74% less likely to take political action in the twenty-four hours after watching the show than a control group that had consumed no political media at all. Not less likely than people who consumed different political media. Less likely than people who consumed nothing. We were not merely failing to activate them. We were actively deactivating them. The catharsis was so complete, the sense of "something has been done" so thoroughly delivered by a man in a suit expressing their outrage better than they could, that the need to act evaporated before it could form into intention. We didn't just replace their activism. We inoculated them against it. The Satiation Index measured how completely our programming met the audience's need for political participation without requiring actual participation. In 2019, our index was 0.81. By the 2022 midterms, it was 0.93. I received a bonus for the midterm number. I was financially rewarded for the measurable suppression of civic engagement among six million Americans who believed they were engaged because a man in a suit furrowed his brow on their behalf every night at 11:35. I want to note that this architecture is everywhere now. I did not build all of it. But I can identify it because I know what it looks like from the inside. A streaming platform makes a documentary about how technology is destroying attention spans. One hundred million people watch it. On the platform. They share it. On the platforms being criticized. They feel informed. They continue using every application the documentary told them was engineered to exploit them. That is a Satiation Index of approximately 0.96. The documentary was the inoculation. Understanding the cage was marketed as leaving the cage. A corporation puts a rainbow on its logo in June. Its employees feel represented. Its customers feel progressive for consuming the product. Nobody asks about pay equity, promotion rates, or whether the CEO donated to the campaigns that proposed the legislation the rainbow was supposed to oppose. The logo IS the inoculation. The performance of caring prevents the demand for actual care. That's a Satiation Index. I didn't build it. But I recognize the engineering. The principle is universal: comprehension feels like action. It isn't. But the feeling is so precise, so satisfying, so complete, that the actual action becomes unnecessary. Why march when you can understand why marching matters? Understanding is cheaper. Understanding doesn't require shoes. Understanding can be delivered at 11:35 PM by a man who makes $16 million a year to ensure you never need to leave the couch. Now the symbiosis. Because this is the part that makes both sides angry, and anger from both sides is how you know you've found structure instead of ideology. Trump needs Kimmel. Kimmel needs Trump. This is not a metaphor. This is logistics. Every monologue about Trump is a fundraising email for both campaigns simultaneously. Kimmel says the name. The left feels represented. The right feels attacked. Both sides engage. Both sides share the clip. Both sides donate to their respective operations. The engagement is bipartisan. The outrage is bipartisan. The only thing that is not bipartisan is the inaction, and that inaction is the product I spent eleven years optimizing. I ran numbers in 2020. Every minute of Trump content in a late-night monologue generated approximately $4.60 in measurable downstream engagement value for Trump's own campaign apparatus, through shared clips, quote tweets, outrage donations from both directions. We were his marketing department. We spent 50 million a year producing content that strengthened the man we told our audience we opposed. His team never asked us to stop. They never needed to. We were cheaper than Super PAC media buys and we came pre-packaged with a liberal audience that amplified every mention. His ROI on our programming was infinite. Ours required a write-off. The market told Colbert: you're too expensive to be a priest. But CBS didn't just cancel a show. CBS exited the religion business entirely. They sold the 11:35 airtime to Byron Allen under a time-buy deal. Allen's company pays CBS for the privilege of the slot. Allen's show is called Comics Unleashed. It is a standup comedy program. Actual comedians. Telling actual jokes. The kind where you don't know what's coming. I need you to hear the full architecture of what happened. CBS spent fifty million dollars a year for a decade producing a permission structure that replaced laughter with applause, converted comedy into catechism, and measurably suppressed civic engagement among its audience. Then the market corrected. CBS demolished the cathedral. They built a strip mall. They put actual comedians in it. The comedians PAY CBS for the slot. The strip mall is profitable. The strip mall is funnier. And the strip mall doesn't need a four-hundred-person staff, a former Beatle, or a farewell concert. It just needs people who are willing to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We forgot that. Kimmel is the last priest standing. Sixteen million a year. Suspended once by his employer. Extended once by his employer. He went on a podcast to say "don't tell me what my job is" in a sentence that also said "whatever my employer allows me to do." He said he loves laughter, eliciting applause. He said it three weeks before Dave Chappelle sat in the same chair and demonstrated what a comedian sounds like when corporate interest hasn't negotiated him into a pulpit. The FCC told him what his job is. Nexstar told him. Sinclair told him. His contract told him. The market will tell him eventually. The market is patient. And the market doesn't have a spelling error for him to correct. Kennedy calling my confession "the collapse of liberal comedy" is incorrect. It is not a collapse. A collapse implies failure. This is a completion. The architecture performed as designed. A comedian became a priest. An audience became a congregation. A film about rejecting instructions sold instructions. A documentary about technology addiction was consumed on technology. A show about political engagement suppressed political engagement. A corporation put a rainbow on a logo and called it equality. A confession about the machine was metabolized by the machine and the machine continued. Everything works. Everything has always worked. The architecture doesn't require my involvement. That's how you know it works. The metric went up. It always goes up.

Peter Girnus 🦅

40,461 次观看 • 4 个月前

A Watch and Investment Story I have been a watch enthusiast since my dad got me interested in watches decades ago. About three years ago, I was in London and walked by a watch boutique called Bremont. I stepped into the store, fell in love with the watches, thought they were fairly priced if not somewhat inexpensive for the quality, and bought a number of them as gifts for friends and one for myself. As I was completing the purchases, I asked the store manager: ‘Who owns the company?’ He said, “The English brothers” – Nick and Giles English – and then he proceeded to tell me Bremont’s origin story that begins with a tragic plane crash of a 1942 Harvard trainer aircraft (an American plane purchased by the British beginning in 1938) which killed their father and almost Nick. In their ‘What does not kill me makes me stronger’ new world, Nick and Giles were inspired to pursue their dream of creating and building a British watch company, and Bremont thereafter was born. The manager gave me their contact information and I sent an email congratulating the brothers on the company, the brand, and the watches. I also offered to invest and help the business grow. Sometime later, I did a Zoom with Nick. He explained that my timing was good, as a long-time investor in the company was looking to sell some of their shares. Within a couple of months, an affiliate of mine invested coinciding with the purchase by a legacy Bremont shareholder of primary shares to provide the company with additional growth capital. I thereafter bought more shares of stock from other selling shareholders and I invested a substantial amount of additional growth capital in the company just this past week. Affiliates of mine and The Bremont Long Term Trust, a trust I recently established, now own 63% of the company. Bremont is a luxury British watch company that produces adventure and exploration watches. About one-fourth of Bremont’s sales are to the military, where the company has made custom-designed watches for more than 500 British, U.S., and other American ally squadrons around the world. While today there are very few British watch companies, the British actually created the watch industry – Rolex, notably, was a British company before it moved to Switzerland – with many of the most important technical innovations and complications of the industry having been invented in England in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. For the watch industry, the Swiss can be thought of like the Japanese of the U.S. auto industry, where in the early days, the Swiss made cheap imitations of British watches, but eventually by the 20th century, came to dominate the industry. For compliance reasons, I have been limited in my personal investments to private situations, principally startups, real estate, and private equity, directly and through funds. Because of my personal time limitations, I spend very little time on these investments, but through a combination of good luck, investment experience, and a good eye for talent, my collective private investment outcomes have been excellent, with a few huge successes outweighing some disappointments. I have always viewed my non-Pershing Square investments as an opportunity for learning and insights that I can apply to my day job. For example, I have found that closely following the venture investment world has provided important insights into disruptive technologies and companies that can soon become serious threats to even the largest and best capitalized public companies. Experiences at small companies also very often apply to big ones, so in my hobby of making personal investments, my returns have been both financial and educational, from my successes and from my failures. Other than tennis, I don’t have any real hobbies, but perhaps my personal investing qualifies as my second passion. To date, I have been a passive investor in Bremont, but perhaps the activist in me caused me to step forward, to recently seize the opportunity to materially increase my investment in the company, and become the non-executive chairman of a newly refreshed board. I don’t expect my chairman role at Bremont to take much of my time as it is a private company of limited scale, but I do expect my experience here will provide some helpful learnings and insights. I also thought it would be fun, interesting, and rewarding to take the X community along for the ride – at least those that are interested in watches, operations, and investing. I intend to provide periodic updates of the company’s progress on X, about our successes, our struggles, and our failures – so that we can learn and have some fun together. Think of my periodic updates as “Drive to Survive,” but for watches on X. “Time to Succeed”? You can probably come up with a better name for the series, and perhaps then I should reach out to Netflix to see if they are interested (while holding back my tears as I have watched the stock massively appreciate since our exit!). Bremont can greatly benefit by your feedback so I strongly encourage you to share your insights, critiques, and other ideas about the company and its watches on X so we can learn and improve. We will periodically award the best ideas with Bremont watches so you can have an opportunity to earn an appropriate in-kind return on your time invested in helping us succeed. In the modern era, building an independent watch company into a major company, let alone one in the U.K., has rarely if ever occurred. The watch world is littered with many such failed attempts so it is far from guaranteed that we will succeed in building a profitable and sustainable company, let alone a major independent player. My Investment History to Date with Bremont Prior to my investment in the company, Nick and Giles had taken Bremont to a reasonable scale for an independently owned watch company at about £21 million in revenues with a modest operating loss, which is an incredible accomplishment for two young men with no watch industry experience. Nick and Giles accomplishment is particularly significant in an extremely competitive industry characterized by well capitalized incumbents that control many of the top brands, e.g., Richemont, Swatch, LVMH, as well dominant, independently owned companies like Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars and Piguet, and a few others. Despite their progress, both Nick and Giles and the other shareholders agreed that bringing in an executive with watch industry experience would help to take the company to the next level. Shortly after I invested, we hired a search firm to identify and ultimately recruit our new CEO, Davide Cerrato, who joined in May of 2023. Davide’s entire career has been spent in the industry at Panerai, Tudor – where he famously created the Black Bay, Montblanc, and with a brief stent at HYT. Davide in turn hired other industry notables to round out the executive suite, and then the team went to work with the ambitious goal of transforming Bremont into a global industry leader. Bremont has some important competitive advantages. First and most importantly, the watches are handsome, extremely well designed, and overengineered. Davide’s team has materially upgraded materials (for example, the company now uses 904L steel for all of its steel watches – the same as Rolex – unprecedented for watches at Bremont’s price point), parts, and movements from what was already a good standard to a level comparable to watches at multiples of the price. The watches are developed, designed, manufactured, and serviced in Henley-on-Thames using principally Swiss movements. While making its own movement is an aspirational goal for Bremont, the Swiss still make the highest quality movements so that is what Bremont uses. Bremont has a unique brand story and heritage, particularly for a 23-year-old company, with two decades of credibility in war zones and air combat missions with the best war fighters and military pilots in the world. Bremont also makes a limited number of watches, around 10,000 per year, compared with more than 1.2 million for Rolex and 70,000 for Patek Philippe, and scarcity drives value in luxury goods. The combination of battlefield credibility, rarity, quality and a fair price make Bremont an extremely attractive alternative to the typical Rolex or Patek, which everyone seems to be wearing in my industry, a ubiquity in my view that loses its luster over time. Over the past 23 months, Davide and team have redesigned and focused Bremont’s range around three core offerings in Land, Sea, and Air – the Terra Nova, the Supermarine, and the Altitude – while upgrading materials, movements, and quality, updating the logo to reflect the new Land and Sea offerings (Bremont was previously perceived to only be an aviation brand), and dramatically improving manufacturing and service. The company has extended its warranty from three to five years on its new watches reflecting these improvements. Bremont benefits from having overinvested in its spectacular 35,000 square foot combined headquarters, manufacturing facility, and showroom in Henley-on-Thames, aka “The Wing” (email tours@bremont.com to arrange a superb tour), with the capacity for substantial growth without the requirement for incremental capital investment. Lastly, Bremont now has a well-capitalized long-term major owner who would like to see Bremont become a big success and achieve its vision of returning watchmaking to the UK, and who is not looking for dividends or a liquidity event in this lifetime. I have learned over time that permanent capital and a truly long-term orientation are enormous competitive advantages for any business, and they should be very helpful here. With respect to the product, later this morning in Geneva at Watches and Wonders, the industry’s most important trade show, the company is launching its new Altitude aviation line, which builds from the company’s highly successful Martin Baker offerings. The company will also be introducing some complicated new watches including two unique, jumping hour models, a 12-piece new tourbillion model (the company's first 30-piece tourbillion watch sold out shortly after its launch last year), and the company’s first perpetual calendar (limited to 50 pieces). I will be back with further updates as we continue to make progress. In the meantime, please check out and visit the Wing (Tours@bremont.com ) and our boutiques in Mayfair and throughout the U.K., on Madison Avenue and 53rd Street, in Hong Kong, and in Melbourne. Pictures don’t do Bremonts justice so you should go in person and tell the store manager that I sent you. Also, please take a look at our new launch video, and don't forget to let me know what you think.
0:45

A Watch and Investment Story I have been a watch enthusiast since my dad got me interested in watches decades ago. About three years ago, I was in London and walked by a watch boutique called Bremont. I stepped into the store, fell in love with the watches, thought they were fairly priced if not somewhat inexpensive for the quality, and bought a number of them as gifts for friends and one for myself. As I was completing the purchases, I asked the store manager: ‘Who owns the company?’ He said, “The English brothers” – Nick and Giles English – and then he proceeded to tell me Bremont’s origin story that begins with a tragic plane crash of a 1942 Harvard trainer aircraft (an American plane purchased by the British beginning in 1938) which killed their father and almost Nick. In their ‘What does not kill me makes me stronger’ new world, Nick and Giles were inspired to pursue their dream of creating and building a British watch company, and Bremont thereafter was born. The manager gave me their contact information and I sent an email congratulating the brothers on the company, the brand, and the watches. I also offered to invest and help the business grow. Sometime later, I did a Zoom with Nick. He explained that my timing was good, as a long-time investor in the company was looking to sell some of their shares. Within a couple of months, an affiliate of mine invested coinciding with the purchase by a legacy Bremont shareholder of primary shares to provide the company with additional growth capital. I thereafter bought more shares of stock from other selling shareholders and I invested a substantial amount of additional growth capital in the company just this past week. Affiliates of mine and The Bremont Long Term Trust, a trust I recently established, now own 63% of the company. Bremont is a luxury British watch company that produces adventure and exploration watches. About one-fourth of Bremont’s sales are to the military, where the company has made custom-designed watches for more than 500 British, U.S., and other American ally squadrons around the world. While today there are very few British watch companies, the British actually created the watch industry – Rolex, notably, was a British company before it moved to Switzerland – with many of the most important technical innovations and complications of the industry having been invented in England in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. For the watch industry, the Swiss can be thought of like the Japanese of the U.S. auto industry, where in the early days, the Swiss made cheap imitations of British watches, but eventually by the 20th century, came to dominate the industry. For compliance reasons, I have been limited in my personal investments to private situations, principally startups, real estate, and private equity, directly and through funds. Because of my personal time limitations, I spend very little time on these investments, but through a combination of good luck, investment experience, and a good eye for talent, my collective private investment outcomes have been excellent, with a few huge successes outweighing some disappointments. I have always viewed my non-Pershing Square investments as an opportunity for learning and insights that I can apply to my day job. For example, I have found that closely following the venture investment world has provided important insights into disruptive technologies and companies that can soon become serious threats to even the largest and best capitalized public companies. Experiences at small companies also very often apply to big ones, so in my hobby of making personal investments, my returns have been both financial and educational, from my successes and from my failures. Other than tennis, I don’t have any real hobbies, but perhaps my personal investing qualifies as my second passion. To date, I have been a passive investor in Bremont, but perhaps the activist in me caused me to step forward, to recently seize the opportunity to materially increase my investment in the company, and become the non-executive chairman of a newly refreshed board. I don’t expect my chairman role at Bremont to take much of my time as it is a private company of limited scale, but I do expect my experience here will provide some helpful learnings and insights. I also thought it would be fun, interesting, and rewarding to take the X community along for the ride – at least those that are interested in watches, operations, and investing. I intend to provide periodic updates of the company’s progress on X, about our successes, our struggles, and our failures – so that we can learn and have some fun together. Think of my periodic updates as “Drive to Survive,” but for watches on X. “Time to Succeed”? You can probably come up with a better name for the series, and perhaps then I should reach out to Netflix to see if they are interested (while holding back my tears as I have watched the stock massively appreciate since our exit!). Bremont can greatly benefit by your feedback so I strongly encourage you to share your insights, critiques, and other ideas about the company and its watches on X so we can learn and improve. We will periodically award the best ideas with Bremont watches so you can have an opportunity to earn an appropriate in-kind return on your time invested in helping us succeed. In the modern era, building an independent watch company into a major company, let alone one in the U.K., has rarely if ever occurred. The watch world is littered with many such failed attempts so it is far from guaranteed that we will succeed in building a profitable and sustainable company, let alone a major independent player. My Investment History to Date with Bremont Prior to my investment in the company, Nick and Giles had taken Bremont to a reasonable scale for an independently owned watch company at about £21 million in revenues with a modest operating loss, which is an incredible accomplishment for two young men with no watch industry experience. Nick and Giles accomplishment is particularly significant in an extremely competitive industry characterized by well capitalized incumbents that control many of the top brands, e.g., Richemont, Swatch, LVMH, as well dominant, independently owned companies like Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars and Piguet, and a few others. Despite their progress, both Nick and Giles and the other shareholders agreed that bringing in an executive with watch industry experience would help to take the company to the next level. Shortly after I invested, we hired a search firm to identify and ultimately recruit our new CEO, Davide Cerrato, who joined in May of 2023. Davide’s entire career has been spent in the industry at Panerai, Tudor – where he famously created the Black Bay, Montblanc, and with a brief stent at HYT. Davide in turn hired other industry notables to round out the executive suite, and then the team went to work with the ambitious goal of transforming Bremont into a global industry leader. Bremont has some important competitive advantages. First and most importantly, the watches are handsome, extremely well designed, and overengineered. Davide’s team has materially upgraded materials (for example, the company now uses 904L steel for all of its steel watches – the same as Rolex – unprecedented for watches at Bremont’s price point), parts, and movements from what was already a good standard to a level comparable to watches at multiples of the price. The watches are developed, designed, manufactured, and serviced in Henley-on-Thames using principally Swiss movements. While making its own movement is an aspirational goal for Bremont, the Swiss still make the highest quality movements so that is what Bremont uses. Bremont has a unique brand story and heritage, particularly for a 23-year-old company, with two decades of credibility in war zones and air combat missions with the best war fighters and military pilots in the world. Bremont also makes a limited number of watches, around 10,000 per year, compared with more than 1.2 million for Rolex and 70,000 for Patek Philippe, and scarcity drives value in luxury goods. The combination of battlefield credibility, rarity, quality and a fair price make Bremont an extremely attractive alternative to the typical Rolex or Patek, which everyone seems to be wearing in my industry, a ubiquity in my view that loses its luster over time. Over the past 23 months, Davide and team have redesigned and focused Bremont’s range around three core offerings in Land, Sea, and Air – the Terra Nova, the Supermarine, and the Altitude – while upgrading materials, movements, and quality, updating the logo to reflect the new Land and Sea offerings (Bremont was previously perceived to only be an aviation brand), and dramatically improving manufacturing and service. The company has extended its warranty from three to five years on its new watches reflecting these improvements. Bremont benefits from having overinvested in its spectacular 35,000 square foot combined headquarters, manufacturing facility, and showroom in Henley-on-Thames, aka “The Wing” (email [email protected] to arrange a superb tour), with the capacity for substantial growth without the requirement for incremental capital investment. Lastly, Bremont now has a well-capitalized long-term major owner who would like to see Bremont become a big success and achieve its vision of returning watchmaking to the UK, and who is not looking for dividends or a liquidity event in this lifetime. I have learned over time that permanent capital and a truly long-term orientation are enormous competitive advantages for any business, and they should be very helpful here. With respect to the product, later this morning in Geneva at Watches and Wonders, the industry’s most important trade show, the company is launching its new Altitude aviation line, which builds from the company’s highly successful Martin Baker offerings. The company will also be introducing some complicated new watches including two unique, jumping hour models, a 12-piece new tourbillion model (the company's first 30-piece tourbillion watch sold out shortly after its launch last year), and the company’s first perpetual calendar (limited to 50 pieces). I will be back with further updates as we continue to make progress. In the meantime, please check out and visit the Wing ([email protected] ) and our boutiques in Mayfair and throughout the U.K., on Madison Avenue and 53rd Street, in Hong Kong, and in Melbourne. Pictures don’t do Bremonts justice so you should go in person and tell the store manager that I sent you. Also, please take a look at our new launch video, and don't forget to let me know what you think.

Bill Ackman

1,628,383 次观看 • 1 年前

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮
29:17

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

aussie17

799,916 次观看 • 2 年前

The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”
2:26

The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”

DR REHIANA ALI BA MB BCHIR (Cantab) MA MRCP PhD

18,659 次观看 • 8 个月前

TRUMP, THE ANTIKRYST? Pt 1 (Update 12/14/24) On 8/28/24 Donald Trump posts this video of a cross. What does that really mean, and why at exactly 11:11? Does anyone understand what the cross really is? It's an unfolded tesseract, also known as Metatron's Hypercube. Who is Metatron? It is one of Thoth's many names across the ages. He was also known as Hermes, son/daughter of Enki Lucifer. And while I've never had it explained to me in absolute detail, there is reason to believe this Anunnaki shape-shifting hybrid could be one and the same as Marduk Lucifer Satain. An awful lot of water has gone under this bridge since the Leviathans arrived 798k years ago, so each of the Babylonian fake gods could have thousands of different personas and names by this time. In any case, Marduk appears to be the leviathan that keeps reincarnating over and over as the savior of mankind. His/her most recent being the 'jesus' character that poses as if being Jesheua Sananda Melchizedek that is one of the guardian alliance team who came to restore the purity of the bloodline of the Human Elohim development that are in captivity here in the Tara earth simulation, and really could walk on water. Identity theft is always the middle names of all your captors. It is what they do to maintain control over the sheep. Like I've said countless times now, Sananda is not 'god' anymore than you are. He is not a savior of mankind, he is here on mission to help your avatar's vibration reach sympathetic harmonic resonance with the 4th dimension to help you escape. By having children with human females carrying very pure human DNA, those children will multiply and raise the vibration of the plane, making your chances that much better to make this ascension happening now. We do not worship Sananda, and unless you like playing subservient to others, you won't either. He is still here, and so are your captors. The ancient false gods of Babylon never left. They just keep taking different forms under different names, hiding in plain sight. They have MANY bodies here. Some are identical to each other, some look totally different. I know because I've met them and had them explain to me who they were in ancient times and what really happened that is totally unlike the his-story you've been told. Sometimes they allow you to know who they really are, such as they did in Babylon, but most of the time they're posing as regular people, just like you, so they can infiltrate human spaces, rise to positions of great influence and steer the masses. Who is Donald Trump? Do you know anyone alive who is more adored, more worshipped, more feared than the Donald? No. He's the most famous person alive. And why is that? Because he's the most perfect person on the plane? Hardly. He's also famous for grabbing women by the pussy. It is because he's using psychological manipulation he knows at a master-class level because he has unbroken recollection of his time across hundreds of thousands of lives. So his mental 'magic' is simply knowledge and wisdom humans could never possibly even understand, much less duplicate. It is a form of very powerful hypnosis. There is overwhelming evidence now that Trump is considered the king of earth as you will see in the masterpiece film by Good Lion Films. His 'capitulation tour' (THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH) in 2017-18 made it clear he's the one in charge. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH Video: 👉 Not just this, but Trump was officially crowned the 'Messiah of Jerusalem' they had been waiting to return for thousands of years. That's right, this really happened. He is 'ben David' (son of King David). Something I know a bit about, since that's my avatar's bloodline I'm in here for mission reasons that has to do with the Co-Evolution BioRegenesis Treaty that gives 'J3wish' people a mechanism for ascension. [For more see my article: 👉 THE TWO CHRISTS] Trump, Messiah of Jerusalem Video: 👉 Trump is also a time traveler. Believe or don't believe, but I now have far more than just a few examples that prove this to be fact. He also has multiple other bodies he uses at the golf course, at rallies, and Mar-a-Lago that are clearly different weights, heights, ages. Here is one that is much older than the ones we see in the spotlight. Who has the technology to do all these things? The Anunnaki. Word has it that Trump has been working with the Anuhazi Elohim during his entry into politics. I would suggest he's been working with them for 798k years. They are known as the fallen angels, the original captors of this simulation. All the invader races (over 50 species) have been working together as a single team to enslave humankind since the hostage began over 1/2 billion years ago. I don't profess to know who each of these actors really were in the last drama, or Babylon, Greece, Rome and countless other eras, since, as mentioned, it is a 560 million year story involving quadrillions of events and dramas, but you likely understand what I'm trying to say is we're dealing directly with ancient gods here, not 'business men' or 'politicians'. These people held lightning in their hands last time they decided to let us see them for who they really are. Thoth could literally fly when he was using the name Hermes and there's no question he still can. As briefly reference above, the cross he released this morning is secretly the Nibiru Scalar Vibrational Mechanics platform called a tesseract or hypercube, in unwrapped form. If you fold it back into a 6-sided cube again, you're seeing the shape of the device that powers our counterfeit hologram. You will come to learn at some point that every geometric shape is an operating system, not just a form, called the Platonic Solids in science. Which is why grown men pilgrimage to Mecca to walk around the Kaaba, wearing a little black cube on their forehead. So don't think the cube cross is only worshipped in America. Metatron's Hypercube is used at CERN known as ALICE that keeps you inside an artificial reality called the 'Beyond The Looking Glass Chimera Reality Simulation'. Typically you'll hear the keeper refer to it as the Chimera Reality for short. All down through your current history, the cross has stood for purity, perfection, and hope that one day the savior would return and usher in a utopia, when in truth, it was the very symbol of your eternal enslavement. They keep rolling out this same savior trope, civilization after civilization, always with a different face of the program, but always the same hope. Hope, by the way, is a weaponized spell that was designed to keep you perpetually in bondage and trudging forward like a good little slave, doing your job because 'one day he will return and THEN by golly, he'll save us all'. These are all the same guy/girl. When Sananda (I'm not talking about the fake jesus here) said 'come out of her my peoples', he meant stop falling in line with the prison machine you're trapped in. Stop acquiescing to your own enslavement. I was told in person that humans 'have to rise up and take their world back or they will never move forward'. It means letting go of fear and stand up for what is right. Enslavement of any kind, is not that. The great deceiver will fool 'even the elect' is not a fictional claim in the M@sonic bible for entertainment. They have to tell you what they're doing in order to have you cast that reality they want to play out in your world. The person who wrote the bible also wrote demonology. [For more on this subject see my article 👉 THE SCIENCE OF PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING and the 2ND COMING] Why would that be? Because the bible is the most elaborate talisman on earth that hypnotizes those who read it, enslaving their minds to passively accept the chimera reality, so when the simulation glitches, you will second guess yourself instead of the holographic world around you. "Did I just see a bird in the sky not flapping its wings and remaining perfectly still? Of course not, that's preposterous." ‘Mithra the Savior’ was gifted to T-Amerikaans (America) by Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi of France in 1886. Freddy was a 33rd degree (master) Freem@son and you now call Mithra your 'Statue of Liberty'. She is literally the symbol of this nation and is making her second coming at the time when the economy has been utterly destroyed, your politics have been weaponized against you, your courts have been utterly corrupted, your people have been openly attacked with bioweapons, your country flooded with 20m illegal aliens and your police have been defunded & refuse to arrest criminals. All by design and deliberately manufactured. Albert Pike, 33rd degree (master) Freemason stated: "Whenever the people need a hero, we'll supply him." Almost as if Freem@sons plan TO role out some very hard times to achieve a certain agenda. Oh, that's right, Pike also stated this: “We shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to all nations the effect of absolute atheism; the origins of savagery and of most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the people will be forced to defend themselves against the world minority of the world revolutionaries and will exterminate those destroyers of civilization and the multitudes disillusioned with Christianity whose spirits will be from that moment without direction and leadership and anxious for an ideal, but without knowledge where to send its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer brought finally out into public view. A manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and Atheism; both conquered and exterminated at the same time.” Sound familiar? If I were going to infiltrate a world & pose as the savior of the peoples that would be allowed to take the last tiny bits of freedom from them in return for pulling them out of a hellscape, I would first reduce them all to the most quivering and broken mess possible just shy of their death, and arrive like a knight in shining armor. Think a hundred-vehicle motorcade, 500 special-ops swat team & my own rolling hospital. When Trump had to go to court in New York it cost them something like $25m to lock down the city for 1 appearance. Nothing gets more high-profile than that anywhere. You've been under predictive programming since the day you were born for this time when the 'antichrist' would appear (that would 'loose his demons' and tear the world asunder), and also for the 2nd coming to 'save humanity' at the same time. But what you weren't told is these will secretly be the same person. Of course everyone will think it was "Barack" who brought about the destruction because Dolores Cannon alluded to it, but who is actually 'showing you a movie' right now while secretly holding the office of CIC and allowing millions of aliens across the border? Because he's your real border czar. This is Armageddon, you're in the 'little season of satan' (Satain). The 1000 years of heaven-like reign ended around 1893, and your entire life has been inside of what you could call hell, where you are literally surrounded by demons you believe are human because they look like you. You know more demons than you do humans. This is actual reality, not fiction. Take at look at Not Op Cue's article on the heavenly heritage of Trump, suggesting why he is the reincarnation of jesus. The evidence is overwhelming. The Lincoln Kahlooni Druze Minority Bloodline: The Jesus Strand Video 👉 11:11 I had just flown in from half way across the world to meet up with the keeper of the Tara earth simulation for a mission that would involve some of the most astonishing things I would ever live to see in this life. It was getting late and we were talking in a dark, cramped trailer that the keeper and crew had been reduced down to, illuminated only be a couple of small candles. They had been trapped in an area where they were not allowed to escape from by the Anunnaki hybrids. The dark agencies had frozen their bank accounts, forced them out of their compound and left them homeless for the past few years, on the run daily. My mission was to escort them away from that area to a safe space, as the others who had tried to break them free previously had been maimed and even killed. It took 2 years to pull off, 7 months of which living in a car, but the mission was successful. [That's a story for another time, when I am allowed to talk about it. It involved crazy metaphysical anomalies, black helos, giant venomous snakes (I know that sounds crazy, but the whole thing was way crazier than just that), a cross-leyline vortex acting as protection at the safe house we directly on top of, massive aerial DEW attack, fire tornadoes and 'celestial' escorts. None of this is fiction, just to be totally clear.] I was extremely interested in duplicate numbers on my clocks I was seeing 2-3x everyday and wanted to know what they meant. As the words were coming out of my mouth about this, in the relative darkness suddenly my phone lit up all by itself for no reason with the time in large numbers at 11:11pm, apparently to prove to the keeper I wasn't making this phenomenon up. What is that? I was told duplicate numbers are a distraction, to not give them mind, as it is just numerology the system uses in what I took to mean it is part of the complex mechanism of our simulation that hypnotizes us to keep us from being clear and aware to decipher the holographic illusion around us. The more awake we are, the more the system will flash out 3:33 or 11:11 to put you back to sleep by distracting you from the moment that is taking place in front of you. Such as when the most heralded man in the world shares a video depicting a giant cross which insinuates the 2nd coming of the christ (the Kryst or Krystos, is the series title of the Human Elohim eternal-life bloodline and is not 'a guy'). Discernment is more critical now than any other time since you were born. Pay attention, keep your vibration high and know that the next step is you moving on to the next level of the simulation where Lucifer and Satain will no longer be part of your world. This is but a short time to test which path you want to take moving forward is all. It is the 'sifting' phase of humanity at the end of the final long-cycle of human evolution. If you resonate in fear, hate, anger, you lose. React in love, appreciation, kindness and compassion and never give in to the devolution. You can do this. See my article 👉 THE WORLD TOMORROW for more on what to expect moving forward into your next experience. And yes, you always move on to a new experience, because you're an eternal spirit essence having a human experience in this one drama. The dramas never run out or get too boring, because there are trillions of ways to stage 'living a mortal life'. For more on the separation, see my articles: 👉THE SEPARATION 👉DESTINATIONS AFTER THE SEPARATION 👉THE SURGICAL SEPARATION OF THE 2 PLANES See the second part to this thread in my article: 👉TRUMP, THE ANTIKRYST PT 2 On X, to search for my articles, simply type in the name of the piece, enter one space, then from: & my username in parenthesis such as shown here: THE HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA PT 1 (from:iontecs_pemf) Off-site, you can look up any of my writings through this link below for my other more than 100 recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, regularly updated thanks to Justin This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time.
1:05

TRUMP, THE ANTIKRYST? Pt 1 (Update 12/14/24) On 8/28/24 Donald Trump posts this video of a cross. What does that really mean, and why at exactly 11:11? Does anyone understand what the cross really is? It's an unfolded tesseract, also known as Metatron's Hypercube. Who is Metatron? It is one of Thoth's many names across the ages. He was also known as Hermes, son/daughter of Enki Lucifer. And while I've never had it explained to me in absolute detail, there is reason to believe this Anunnaki shape-shifting hybrid could be one and the same as Marduk Lucifer Satain. An awful lot of water has gone under this bridge since the Leviathans arrived 798k years ago, so each of the Babylonian fake gods could have thousands of different personas and names by this time. In any case, Marduk appears to be the leviathan that keeps reincarnating over and over as the savior of mankind. His/her most recent being the 'jesus' character that poses as if being Jesheua Sananda Melchizedek that is one of the guardian alliance team who came to restore the purity of the bloodline of the Human Elohim development that are in captivity here in the Tara earth simulation, and really could walk on water. Identity theft is always the middle names of all your captors. It is what they do to maintain control over the sheep. Like I've said countless times now, Sananda is not 'god' anymore than you are. He is not a savior of mankind, he is here on mission to help your avatar's vibration reach sympathetic harmonic resonance with the 4th dimension to help you escape. By having children with human females carrying very pure human DNA, those children will multiply and raise the vibration of the plane, making your chances that much better to make this ascension happening now. We do not worship Sananda, and unless you like playing subservient to others, you won't either. He is still here, and so are your captors. The ancient false gods of Babylon never left. They just keep taking different forms under different names, hiding in plain sight. They have MANY bodies here. Some are identical to each other, some look totally different. I know because I've met them and had them explain to me who they were in ancient times and what really happened that is totally unlike the his-story you've been told. Sometimes they allow you to know who they really are, such as they did in Babylon, but most of the time they're posing as regular people, just like you, so they can infiltrate human spaces, rise to positions of great influence and steer the masses. Who is Donald Trump? Do you know anyone alive who is more adored, more worshipped, more feared than the Donald? No. He's the most famous person alive. And why is that? Because he's the most perfect person on the plane? Hardly. He's also famous for grabbing women by the pussy. It is because he's using psychological manipulation he knows at a master-class level because he has unbroken recollection of his time across hundreds of thousands of lives. So his mental 'magic' is simply knowledge and wisdom humans could never possibly even understand, much less duplicate. It is a form of very powerful hypnosis. There is overwhelming evidence now that Trump is considered the king of earth as you will see in the masterpiece film by Good Lion Films. His 'capitulation tour' (THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH) in 2017-18 made it clear he's the one in charge. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH Video: 👉 Not just this, but Trump was officially crowned the 'Messiah of Jerusalem' they had been waiting to return for thousands of years. That's right, this really happened. He is 'ben David' (son of King David). Something I know a bit about, since that's my avatar's bloodline I'm in here for mission reasons that has to do with the Co-Evolution BioRegenesis Treaty that gives 'J3wish' people a mechanism for ascension. [For more see my article: 👉 THE TWO CHRISTS] Trump, Messiah of Jerusalem Video: 👉 Trump is also a time traveler. Believe or don't believe, but I now have far more than just a few examples that prove this to be fact. He also has multiple other bodies he uses at the golf course, at rallies, and Mar-a-Lago that are clearly different weights, heights, ages. Here is one that is much older than the ones we see in the spotlight. Who has the technology to do all these things? The Anunnaki. Word has it that Trump has been working with the Anuhazi Elohim during his entry into politics. I would suggest he's been working with them for 798k years. They are known as the fallen angels, the original captors of this simulation. All the invader races (over 50 species) have been working together as a single team to enslave humankind since the hostage began over 1/2 billion years ago. I don't profess to know who each of these actors really were in the last drama, or Babylon, Greece, Rome and countless other eras, since, as mentioned, it is a 560 million year story involving quadrillions of events and dramas, but you likely understand what I'm trying to say is we're dealing directly with ancient gods here, not 'business men' or 'politicians'. These people held lightning in their hands last time they decided to let us see them for who they really are. Thoth could literally fly when he was using the name Hermes and there's no question he still can. As briefly reference above, the cross he released this morning is secretly the Nibiru Scalar Vibrational Mechanics platform called a tesseract or hypercube, in unwrapped form. If you fold it back into a 6-sided cube again, you're seeing the shape of the device that powers our counterfeit hologram. You will come to learn at some point that every geometric shape is an operating system, not just a form, called the Platonic Solids in science. Which is why grown men pilgrimage to Mecca to walk around the Kaaba, wearing a little black cube on their forehead. So don't think the cube cross is only worshipped in America. Metatron's Hypercube is used at CERN known as ALICE that keeps you inside an artificial reality called the 'Beyond The Looking Glass Chimera Reality Simulation'. Typically you'll hear the keeper refer to it as the Chimera Reality for short. All down through your current history, the cross has stood for purity, perfection, and hope that one day the savior would return and usher in a utopia, when in truth, it was the very symbol of your eternal enslavement. They keep rolling out this same savior trope, civilization after civilization, always with a different face of the program, but always the same hope. Hope, by the way, is a weaponized spell that was designed to keep you perpetually in bondage and trudging forward like a good little slave, doing your job because 'one day he will return and THEN by golly, he'll save us all'. These are all the same guy/girl. When Sananda (I'm not talking about the fake jesus here) said 'come out of her my peoples', he meant stop falling in line with the prison machine you're trapped in. Stop acquiescing to your own enslavement. I was told in person that humans 'have to rise up and take their world back or they will never move forward'. It means letting go of fear and stand up for what is right. Enslavement of any kind, is not that. The great deceiver will fool 'even the elect' is not a fictional claim in the M@sonic bible for entertainment. They have to tell you what they're doing in order to have you cast that reality they want to play out in your world. The person who wrote the bible also wrote demonology. [For more on this subject see my article 👉 THE SCIENCE OF PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING and the 2ND COMING] Why would that be? Because the bible is the most elaborate talisman on earth that hypnotizes those who read it, enslaving their minds to passively accept the chimera reality, so when the simulation glitches, you will second guess yourself instead of the holographic world around you. "Did I just see a bird in the sky not flapping its wings and remaining perfectly still? Of course not, that's preposterous." ‘Mithra the Savior’ was gifted to T-Amerikaans (America) by Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi of France in 1886. Freddy was a 33rd degree (master) Freem@son and you now call Mithra your 'Statue of Liberty'. She is literally the symbol of this nation and is making her second coming at the time when the economy has been utterly destroyed, your politics have been weaponized against you, your courts have been utterly corrupted, your people have been openly attacked with bioweapons, your country flooded with 20m illegal aliens and your police have been defunded & refuse to arrest criminals. All by design and deliberately manufactured. Albert Pike, 33rd degree (master) Freemason stated: "Whenever the people need a hero, we'll supply him." Almost as if Freem@sons plan TO role out some very hard times to achieve a certain agenda. Oh, that's right, Pike also stated this: “We shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to all nations the effect of absolute atheism; the origins of savagery and of most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the people will be forced to defend themselves against the world minority of the world revolutionaries and will exterminate those destroyers of civilization and the multitudes disillusioned with Christianity whose spirits will be from that moment without direction and leadership and anxious for an ideal, but without knowledge where to send its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer brought finally out into public view. A manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and Atheism; both conquered and exterminated at the same time.” Sound familiar? If I were going to infiltrate a world & pose as the savior of the peoples that would be allowed to take the last tiny bits of freedom from them in return for pulling them out of a hellscape, I would first reduce them all to the most quivering and broken mess possible just shy of their death, and arrive like a knight in shining armor. Think a hundred-vehicle motorcade, 500 special-ops swat team & my own rolling hospital. When Trump had to go to court in New York it cost them something like $25m to lock down the city for 1 appearance. Nothing gets more high-profile than that anywhere. You've been under predictive programming since the day you were born for this time when the 'antichrist' would appear (that would 'loose his demons' and tear the world asunder), and also for the 2nd coming to 'save humanity' at the same time. But what you weren't told is these will secretly be the same person. Of course everyone will think it was "Barack" who brought about the destruction because Dolores Cannon alluded to it, but who is actually 'showing you a movie' right now while secretly holding the office of CIC and allowing millions of aliens across the border? Because he's your real border czar. This is Armageddon, you're in the 'little season of satan' (Satain). The 1000 years of heaven-like reign ended around 1893, and your entire life has been inside of what you could call hell, where you are literally surrounded by demons you believe are human because they look like you. You know more demons than you do humans. This is actual reality, not fiction. Take at look at Not Op Cue's article on the heavenly heritage of Trump, suggesting why he is the reincarnation of jesus. The evidence is overwhelming. The Lincoln Kahlooni Druze Minority Bloodline: The Jesus Strand Video 👉 11:11 I had just flown in from half way across the world to meet up with the keeper of the Tara earth simulation for a mission that would involve some of the most astonishing things I would ever live to see in this life. It was getting late and we were talking in a dark, cramped trailer that the keeper and crew had been reduced down to, illuminated only be a couple of small candles. They had been trapped in an area where they were not allowed to escape from by the Anunnaki hybrids. The dark agencies had frozen their bank accounts, forced them out of their compound and left them homeless for the past few years, on the run daily. My mission was to escort them away from that area to a safe space, as the others who had tried to break them free previously had been maimed and even killed. It took 2 years to pull off, 7 months of which living in a car, but the mission was successful. [That's a story for another time, when I am allowed to talk about it. It involved crazy metaphysical anomalies, black helos, giant venomous snakes (I know that sounds crazy, but the whole thing was way crazier than just that), a cross-leyline vortex acting as protection at the safe house we directly on top of, massive aerial DEW attack, fire tornadoes and 'celestial' escorts. None of this is fiction, just to be totally clear.] I was extremely interested in duplicate numbers on my clocks I was seeing 2-3x everyday and wanted to know what they meant. As the words were coming out of my mouth about this, in the relative darkness suddenly my phone lit up all by itself for no reason with the time in large numbers at 11:11pm, apparently to prove to the keeper I wasn't making this phenomenon up. What is that? I was told duplicate numbers are a distraction, to not give them mind, as it is just numerology the system uses in what I took to mean it is part of the complex mechanism of our simulation that hypnotizes us to keep us from being clear and aware to decipher the holographic illusion around us. The more awake we are, the more the system will flash out 3:33 or 11:11 to put you back to sleep by distracting you from the moment that is taking place in front of you. Such as when the most heralded man in the world shares a video depicting a giant cross which insinuates the 2nd coming of the christ (the Kryst or Krystos, is the series title of the Human Elohim eternal-life bloodline and is not 'a guy'). Discernment is more critical now than any other time since you were born. Pay attention, keep your vibration high and know that the next step is you moving on to the next level of the simulation where Lucifer and Satain will no longer be part of your world. This is but a short time to test which path you want to take moving forward is all. It is the 'sifting' phase of humanity at the end of the final long-cycle of human evolution. If you resonate in fear, hate, anger, you lose. React in love, appreciation, kindness and compassion and never give in to the devolution. You can do this. See my article 👉 THE WORLD TOMORROW for more on what to expect moving forward into your next experience. And yes, you always move on to a new experience, because you're an eternal spirit essence having a human experience in this one drama. The dramas never run out or get too boring, because there are trillions of ways to stage 'living a mortal life'. For more on the separation, see my articles: 👉THE SEPARATION 👉DESTINATIONS AFTER THE SEPARATION 👉THE SURGICAL SEPARATION OF THE 2 PLANES See the second part to this thread in my article: 👉TRUMP, THE ANTIKRYST PT 2 On X, to search for my articles, simply type in the name of the piece, enter one space, then from: & my username in parenthesis such as shown here: THE HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA PT 1 (from:iontecs_pemf) Off-site, you can look up any of my writings through this link below for my other more than 100 recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, regularly updated thanks to Justin This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time.

W.R. Schock, QBD

133,845 次观看 • 1 年前

Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.
23:28

Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.

Grant Smith Ellis

27,665 次观看 • 1 年前

"Tell us this isn't true." "They had a live being out [near Area 51]." "There were human experiments that went on." 👽🛸 Roswell: A Non-Human Craft or a Darker Secret? 🤫😶 (Transcript is shorter than clip. I don't have room to type more in this post so I'll just wait for replies.) ~ Lex Fridman: "In your book on 'Area 51,' you propose an explanation that I think some people have criticized, at the very end. That this might have been a disinformation campaign from, I guess, Stalin, that the Roswell incident was a remotely-piloted plane with a quote 'grotesque, child-sized aviator.' Just looking back at all that now, years later, what's the probability that it's true? What's the probability it's not?" Annie Jacobsen: (AJ): "So, you know, I've never revealed who that source is." Lex: "Yes." AJ: "You know that? Want me to tell you?" Lex: "Okay, who was the source?" AJ: "So, before I say anything on that, let me speak to the question that you asked, right? So, you asked me, 'What's the probability that that is still standing as an idea, 12, 13, 14 years later,' right? So, I continued to work with that source for years, afterwards. We talked about this. Look, I mean, his whole family knew it was him. And I knew his family because I was an integral part of, you know, I was at his house, met all his kids, grandkids." Lex: "And we should say, the source is the main expert advisor behind the story that it was. Maybe you can explain what the story is that your report in the book, that it was a disinformation campaign created by Stalin to cause mass hysteria in the United States. The very kind that we've been speaking about with the CIA and so on." AJ: "Yes! Predicated on the narrative of the 'War of the Worlds,' right? And the 'War of the Worlds,' when it was a radio program in the United States, made people go crazy. 'Oh, my God, we're being invaded by aliens!' Well, the government was always interested in the story and Joseph Stalin was, too. We know that from declassified documents, right? "And so, the source told me that the reason for this program, and that the real Roswell crash remains, were in fact, it was a black-propaganda hoax infiltrated, you know, or rather, predicated at this idea that you were gonna overwhelm America's early-warning, air-defense system, cause mayhem and maybe be able to attack the United States. That was the plan. And Stalin was also messing with the United States, messing with Truman, who sort of, you know, turned his back on him, right? At Potsdam. "And so, this idea, and the reason that the source is important... And unlike, you know, a lot of people, 'I saw this, I saw that, I learned that.' Was, according to the source, once it was determined that this was a hoax and that Stalin was able to get a craft over the United States, and it crashed. And it had, you know, people inside of it, they were people that were sort of deformed and meant...surgically altered to look like aliens. "The United States government decided that it needed to know what on earth that was all about, and if it was possible for us to have the same program. This, according to this source, right? And so, it sounds preposterous, and if it was just someone saying, 'I...,' you might say, 'Well, it's ridiculous, get them onto another subject.' But, the difference was, is this source, who was very well placed, and friends with all of the other 75 people, you know, told me this as a confession, right? A real, tearful confession, because what he said is he was involved in the American program to do the same thing. And people died, because there were human experiments that went on." "And I write about this in the last 12 pages of 'Area 51.' It was an explosive, you know, revelation, and I felt very confident in writing this because the source wanted it written. Why? Because he said, 'I'm dedicated to my country. I know about being committed to national security, and this kind of thing must never happen. And if you give people too much power, they will take advantage of it.' And he wanted it on the record. "And his wife of 60 years did not know until after the book published. Nor did His children, okay? So, after the book published, I was called to his house and sat there with his family. And they said, 'Tell us this isn't true.' And he said, 'It is true,' right? (We need a tape of this confession or...for his family to confirm they heard this from him.) AJ: "Now that source is Al O'Donnell, who is the nuclear-weapons engineer who armed, wired and fired 186 nuclear weapons, okay? So if you wanna talk about someone..." Lex: "Woooooow." AJ: "You're the first person I've told that on the record, but it's kind of about time." Lex: "Woooooow. Well, you received a lot of criticism over this story, and it confused me why, because it's...given the context of everything you've described with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, it is reasonable that such action would be taken. AJ: "And, the source is extraordinarily credible, right? If you wanted to take the position, 'Well, that person isn't very reliable,' then you have to ask yourself, 'Why did they have Top-Secret clearances that are higher than any in the United States whatsoever?' Because he was responsible for arming nuclear bombs. He was called the trigger man. "And by the way, he told me that I could tell the world who he was. There's a lot of details that are really dark, involving that program. And when is it appropriate, right? Well, it feels appropriate now. First of all, because you and I have been talking for several hours. So this is what is truly a long-form conversation and it's the outcome of, you know, a very long time of my reporting, and also being judicious about what, you know, closing the loop on that, right? Because I do think it's important for people to know that sources have revelations." Lex: "And, like you said, the programs, both on the Soviet side, and the American side, conflicting, I think's the term we used previously? Ethically, morally, on all fronts. People have done some horrible things in the name of security. In your book, 'Surprise, Kill Vanish,' you write about the CIA." ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "So, today, I want to focus on a really important story that you once told me, that has never been told all the way [from the] beginning, to all the way to the end. And I just think it's just so cool we get to do this today. So, the question I want to ask is: After you got hooked on the UFO thing, with Bob Lazar, and you as a journalist said, 'I'm gonna start getting sources.' Like, 12 people coming at you, people shut down by the government. You can tell that. But you finally, finally got to a credible individual who had direct, firsthand knowledge about UFOs, exploitation, reverse engineering, and beings. And, oh my God, I want the world to hear this story. Tell us the story." George Knapp: "I've shared some of it in very broad strokes over the years- little bits and pieces of it - without ever actually referencing, in my statements, the guy the source. But this will be the first time I've told it in totality. "And it takes me back to when I first started in this. It's 1989 KLAS-TV, we put together, we spent eight months working on this project called 'UFOs: The Best Evidence.' Nine-part series. It airs on television, it's the biggest thing that's ever been produced for local TV, to this date, and still. "And, along the way, as I'm trying to find...telling the story about Bob Lazar, and his allegations about what was out there at S-4, near Area 51 - recovered discs, alien technology being reverse engineered - I'm looking for people who would support that. And I found about two dozen people, witnesses who had worked out there, who had seen bits and pieces, who could corroborate parts of what Bob had said about these kinds of craft being out there in the Nevada desert. But there wasn't anybody big picture who knew as much as Lazar claimed to have known, so I was still looking for them. "In 1990, I started working on a follow-up series to Best Evidence, looking for new witnesses. And I got a hint from an elected official that I had known, I'd covered him in Nevada politics. He says, 'You know, you should talk to my dad one of these days.' 'Your dad?' 'Yeah.' And he told me what the dad's name was and what he had done, what job he had had. And I said, 'Ah.' So I started stalking the guy. I just started showing up at events where I knew he would be. One of those events was a reunion for employees of EG&G." Corbell (JC): "So I'm assuming that this source was working within EG&G in some capacity, which is, by the way, who Bob [Lazar] said, hired him to go out to Site-4, S-4 at Area 51. So you're like, 'Okay, I can now find out if this is bullshit, or if there's an element of truth to it.' Do I have that right?" Knapp (GK): "Pretty much correct, yeah. So, I'm looking for someone whose credentials are impeccable. Unlike Bob, whose credentials were questioned, and people still attack him on where he went to school and where he worked, and was he at Los Alamos? This guy is documentable. There's a paper trail of where he worked, what he did. There's no question that he was in a position to know. He was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada. His name was Al O'Donnell, and he has a prominent family. "When I heard that EG&G was having a reunion, I went there. We took a camera [and I figured], 'This is a great chance to get him on camera before I start asking him the questions I really want to ask.'" JC: "And when you say he is a general manager, like, does that give him certain roles and responsibilities that would give him insight? Like, he's not a secretary, so what does that mean?" GK: "He's the boss. He was the boss of the Nevada office. And I'll tell you a little bit about EG&G. So, it was a company that was created in Boston, right around the end of World War Two. Al O'Donnell had been in the Navy, serving during the war. He got out of the Navy while the war was still underway and went to work for a company called Raytheon, which became this massive, gigantic defense contractor that's still around today, still in Nevada in fact." JC: Yeah, they've got a big connection to the UFO topic, right? But, when you say Boston, like, where in Boston was it created?" GK: "Well, MIT is where the company was born. Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier were the three guys, the EG&G in that. They were at MIT. Scientists, engineers, they created this company there. And Al O'Donnell, who had been working for Raytheon, working on the Manhattan Project. He didn't know he was working on the Manhattan Project, but they were building these devices, complex triggers, that allowed them to detonate nuclear weapons. He learned later what he was doing was part of the Manhattan Project. "He goes to MIT, starts working with EG&G. Their company in those days had, I think, 15 employees, Al said. So it was a very small startup. But it suddenly exploded because the American atomic program exploded in those years. In 1950, Harry Truman decides that we need a permanent, nuclear testing site somewhere in the continental U.S., so they looked at a bunch of places, and they settled on Nevada. "Prior to that, Al O'Donnell had been sent out to the Pacific. They had five of these massive, atomic bomb tests out in the Pacific, and they decided to move it into a continental U.S. location and Nevada's Test Site - it was called the Nevada Test Site in those days - was chosen. Al O'Donnell leads the exodus from Boston, out to Nevada. They start hiring engineers and scientists, physicists and other security, spies." JC: "What are they working on at this time when they make that move?" GK: "Atomic bombs. They're building, testing atomic bombs. EG&G was a really precise organization that was created in order to detonate, measure and photograph atomic weapons. If you look in the history of photography, you'll see some of these amazing photos that they took of, you know, water drops dropping in water and...they're pretty famous shots because of these cameras that they developed. And it was perfect for use and testing atomic weapons and documenting what the process was. "So, EG&G comes out to Las Vegas, they are the managers of the Nevada Test Site. They, subsequently, years later, become the managers of Area 51 when it opens in 1955. So Al O'Donnell is the top guy. He oversees the nuclear testing program out there, manages it for EG&G, works with the Atomic Energy Commission. He has a Top-Secret security clearance and he can go anywhere and see anything. There's, basically, no restrictions, nothing that is outside of his ability to find out and see." JC: "So, this is an impeccable resume. This is somebody who was in position to know, and would know if someone like Bob Lazar was telling the truth or not telling the truth. I find it, personally, humorous that EG&G was, its genesis, its seed, came from MIT, right?" GK: "So, late 1990 or early 1991, I'd have to look up the dates. But somewhere in there is this event, this EG&G reunion. I go there, we got a camera, I interview Al O'Donnell, introduce myself, and say, 'Hey, I'm really interested in this, can we continue this conversation?' So he invites me to his home. He says, 'Come on over, we'll arrange to come over on a Saturday or something. We'll sit down, I'll go through my scrapbooks and show you some documents and memorabilia and photos from that era.' I was like, 'Great.' "So I go to his house and meet this wife. And we sit down, he opens up these big scrapbooks, and he starts showing me all the stuff that he had done. Photos that had been taken out in the proximity of these gigantic nuclear tests. They had great stories about the camaraderie that developed among the engineers and scientists. And he's going through all this stuff and showing me all this. And I love it, I loved every bit of it. I've never had a bad day at the Nevada Test Site, by the way. Every time I've gone out there to do a story, it's just a terrific way to spend some time." JC: "Secrets should be kept, secrets are kept, and you are a proponent of keeping secrets when it's that kind of thing." GK: "Sure, absolutely. And I respected the boundaries that they set up for us in doing these kinds of stories. So I did go out to the Nevada Test Site a lot over the next 40 years or so and put together a lot of different stories. And they knew of my interest in that area that's just outside what the Nevada Test Site, a place called Area 51. In 1955, Area 51 was, basically, created and EG&G got the contract to manage Area 51, and had kept it for the next 30, 35 years. So, whatever went on out there, they had an inside knowledge of what was going on." JC: "So, you meet this guy, Al O'Donnell, for the first time when he's at this public thing. You probably say something like, 'Your son told me to talk to you,' or something. Whatever. It ends up, he invites you to his home, and you're going through scrapbooks, and he's showing you all this atomic testing stuff that he was involved in. GK: "Yeah, and I'm telling him, 'Boy, this is really interesting. That's fascinating. I'd love to do a story on it.' And after we're there for maybe two hours, he closes this one big scrapbook and he goes, 'You're not here to talk about this, are ya?' I said, 'Well, not exactly.' He says, 'I know what you're here to talk about. I know what you want to ask about.' And right about that point, his wife walks in and she says, 'Don't start telling them that stuff! Don't even tell him!' And he kind of joked about it.' JC: "What were you there to talk about?" GK: "UFOs, UFOs. Area 51, Bob Lazar, crashed saucers, reverse engineering, to see if he had any knowledge of that, because I'd been led to believe that he did. So he closes that book and he says, 'We'll have we'll get together another time and we'll talk about it in private.' And over the course of the next two years or so, he and I would meet at coffee shops and talk about it. And I would ask him questions, and really, it was like pulling teeth. He wanted to tell me stuff but he made me work at it." (AJ says his family was there for the confession. Knapp has over two years of meetings with him. A bit confusing.) GK: "And the condition was, I couldn't take any notes. I couldn't record it, I couldn't take any notes. So each time I'd meet with him, I'd rush back to my car and start scribbling notes on pieces of paper so I'd remember everything that he said. And the story that he told me, that evolved over those couple of years was pretty fantastic. "He said that they did have a flying saucer that had been recovered from New Mexico. I think he indicated that it had been taken from New Mexico to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which is... He never said Roswell, but I think it was the Roswell incident is what he [was] talking about. And it confirmed some of the details about what we know, likely, happened with the Roswell craft." JC: "When he's telling you, 'We have recovered a craft,' did he say it like, this is secret, don't tell anybody?" GK: "Yeah, it was just for my knowledge, my background and information. It wasn't a story I could do then. We were negotiating about how, or when, or if I could ever use that information or make it public. He told me the details about this craft. He said that it had been stored at Indian Springs. Indian Springs is an Air Force Base that's been there for a long time. It's now called Creech. Indian Springs existed before Area 51 was made. "But he says it was there, they kept it there. It might have been in an underground facility, I'm not quite sure. But then when Area 51, after it opened in 1955, they moved it to an adjacent facility. He didn't say it was S-4, he didn't say it was Papoose, but I think that's what he's talking about. Papoose Lake is where Bob Lazar said he worked, and where they had built nine hangars underground, disguised to look like the desert, and where they had other recovered craft. "He says they worked on this recovered craft, reverse engineering, trying to figure out how it worked, who built it. Whether or not they could duplicate the technology because, apparently, they thought this was pretty advanced, and they'd like to be able to build more of 'em. "And he says it was a very closed program, very small. It was only, I think, five of them that were aware of it, at least in the early stages, that were working on this project. And it was very hush hush, and they didn't share it with anybody else in the company, or anybody else in the area, or the military. They just kept it to themselves. "So, after we're having these meetings - and I go back and write down all these notes and stuff, details about what he had shared with me - we have another meeting at a coffee shop, and I said, 'Well gosh, you know, aren't you worried that it would get out, that the word would get out?' "And he says to me, 'We were worried It would get out?' That's right. 'I mean, what...it? What do you mean, it?' It. Meaning a live being, they had a live being out there. I go, 'You had a live being, an alien as well?' [O'Donnell said], 'Tell you the truth, we didn't know what it was.' I said, 'You know, maybe it came from millions of miles away, out in space, and you're keeping it in a cage near Area 51?' He said, 'To tell you the truth, we couldn't communicate with it in the beginning. We didn't know what it was, we didn't know where it was from, and we didn't know what to do with it.'" JC: "When Al O'Donnell says to you, 'We had a live alien, a being,' obviously from another world, what was your feeling?" GK: "Well, I was overwhelmed, because it was, in effect, confirmation of things that I had come to believe, because of the reporting we'd already done. And then the evidence of cover ups and lies that had been told to the public. Here's this guy in a high position, with a high security clearance, telling me that it was true. That they really did have a craft and they had a being. "My second feeling was, one of overwhelming sadness for the being, whatever it was, you know, that was kept out there. I asked him, you know, what had happened to it, what became of it? He says, 'I don't know. I don't know whatever happened to it.' But it was out there for a while, alive, and eventually they figured out a way to communicate with it. "And so I asked him, 'Well, what did it look like?' And he made me guess, as he did with all these questions. He made me guess. He said, 'Well, it kinda looks like a certain political candidate.' I said, 'Well, who? A political candidate? Who?' And at the time, Ross Perot was running for president. He said, 'It looks like Ross Perot. A little skinny guy with a big ears and tiny head.' Not a classic Gray-looking alien, but a very odd-looking creature with really big ears, that looked like Ross Perot. And I laughed. "And so we had these conversations for a while, and I was blown away by the information that he shared. I took all these notes. I was hoping that someday, I might be able to get the information out. And I asked him, 'Look, you're getting up there in age. If I can't record something with you, could you record a statement to the effect of telling me the story on camera, and then when you pass on, I can have the tape?' And he said, 'Yeah,' he would do it." JC: "You know, look, I've heard a lot of wild stories that I can't verify. A guy's telling you something, and you get a sense as a journalist, when you go down a road with somebody, and you take your time and you vet it... Did you feel...I mean, is there any world where he's trying to f*ck with ya? Or is there a world where he's trying to, you know, dissuade...kind of put crazy information into your brain? Like, how did you feel when he was telling you this? Was he like, straight with you?" GK: "Yeah, he was very straightforward. And again, this was not information he was giving up, willingly. I mean, I had to really dig and coax and arm twist to get him to cough things up. And it was very slow-going over about a two-year period, maybe a little bit longer. And I know that this...you always have to be wary of people with different agendas and people that just make stuff up. I didn't get that sense from him because of his standing in the community. He had shared this story with members of his own family." JC: "And that's why they came to you, is because they kind of [gave] you a tip. And these members of his family, they're serious people, too." GK: "Yeah. One of his sons is an FBI agent, or was, he's passed on now. One was an elected official in Nevada. That was the one that gave me the tip." JC: So, I just want to nail this [down] so I understand. You were approached because he had shared this with his family, privately, and then you had to kind of coax to get through to him about the story?" GK: "Right." JC: "I think that's important because look, these things don't happen, like, people [don't] just come to us and say, you know, crazy stuff, and we're like, 'Hh, yeah, cool. Sounds good.' Like, the dynamic of that, socially, as a journalist, like getting in there, taking time. You know, we have to verify if what he said is true, and there are some major bombs coming about that. But it's like, that process is so important. "So here you are, you're sitting with him, he tells you now, they have a live alien. And you felt sad because you're an animal-rights activist, you love animals. I know with your cats at home and you've done horse stories and all the stories about like, the inhumane stuff to animals. So it made you personally sad, makes me sad, too now thinking about it." GK: Yeah. Well, we had these series of meetings, and then the last time we met, after he'd agreed to go ahead and record a tape - and give it to me after making an arrangement so I got it after he passed on - he said that he had been told to not talk to me anymore. He said he had been given a warning [and] it was not a good idea for him to talk to me any more about anything. Not just that topic, but anything." JC: "Well, who knows that you're talking? Who would warn him?" GK: "I don't know. I don't know. But you recall, back in those days, there was surveillance. We had our phones tapped at KLAS-TV. There were guys following us around. Me, Bob Lazar, Gene Huff, maybe Robert Bigelow." JC: "People were also coming to your news station, OSI. And they would come in and try to like, get to you and then they'd show you their card...and take it back. And you know your phones are tapped. So it's like, because of this story, all of a sudden you're on high alert. So, anybody could have called him, been watching you, had meetings with the guy. So what you're saying is one day he just said, 'I can't...I'm not allowed to talk to you any more.'" GK: "Yeah, I've been told not to talk to you anymore. I've been told not to."
29:05

"Tell us this isn't true." "They had a live being out [near Area 51]." "There were human experiments that went on." 👽🛸 Roswell: A Non-Human Craft or a Darker Secret? 🤫😶 (Transcript is shorter than clip. I don't have room to type more in this post so I'll just wait for replies.) ~ Lex Fridman: "In your book on 'Area 51,' you propose an explanation that I think some people have criticized, at the very end. That this might have been a disinformation campaign from, I guess, Stalin, that the Roswell incident was a remotely-piloted plane with a quote 'grotesque, child-sized aviator.' Just looking back at all that now, years later, what's the probability that it's true? What's the probability it's not?" Annie Jacobsen: (AJ): "So, you know, I've never revealed who that source is." Lex: "Yes." AJ: "You know that? Want me to tell you?" Lex: "Okay, who was the source?" AJ: "So, before I say anything on that, let me speak to the question that you asked, right? So, you asked me, 'What's the probability that that is still standing as an idea, 12, 13, 14 years later,' right? So, I continued to work with that source for years, afterwards. We talked about this. Look, I mean, his whole family knew it was him. And I knew his family because I was an integral part of, you know, I was at his house, met all his kids, grandkids." Lex: "And we should say, the source is the main expert advisor behind the story that it was. Maybe you can explain what the story is that your report in the book, that it was a disinformation campaign created by Stalin to cause mass hysteria in the United States. The very kind that we've been speaking about with the CIA and so on." AJ: "Yes! Predicated on the narrative of the 'War of the Worlds,' right? And the 'War of the Worlds,' when it was a radio program in the United States, made people go crazy. 'Oh, my God, we're being invaded by aliens!' Well, the government was always interested in the story and Joseph Stalin was, too. We know that from declassified documents, right? "And so, the source told me that the reason for this program, and that the real Roswell crash remains, were in fact, it was a black-propaganda hoax infiltrated, you know, or rather, predicated at this idea that you were gonna overwhelm America's early-warning, air-defense system, cause mayhem and maybe be able to attack the United States. That was the plan. And Stalin was also messing with the United States, messing with Truman, who sort of, you know, turned his back on him, right? At Potsdam. "And so, this idea, and the reason that the source is important... And unlike, you know, a lot of people, 'I saw this, I saw that, I learned that.' Was, according to the source, once it was determined that this was a hoax and that Stalin was able to get a craft over the United States, and it crashed. And it had, you know, people inside of it, they were people that were sort of deformed and meant...surgically altered to look like aliens. "The United States government decided that it needed to know what on earth that was all about, and if it was possible for us to have the same program. This, according to this source, right? And so, it sounds preposterous, and if it was just someone saying, 'I...,' you might say, 'Well, it's ridiculous, get them onto another subject.' But, the difference was, is this source, who was very well placed, and friends with all of the other 75 people, you know, told me this as a confession, right? A real, tearful confession, because what he said is he was involved in the American program to do the same thing. And people died, because there were human experiments that went on." "And I write about this in the last 12 pages of 'Area 51.' It was an explosive, you know, revelation, and I felt very confident in writing this because the source wanted it written. Why? Because he said, 'I'm dedicated to my country. I know about being committed to national security, and this kind of thing must never happen. And if you give people too much power, they will take advantage of it.' And he wanted it on the record. "And his wife of 60 years did not know until after the book published. Nor did His children, okay? So, after the book published, I was called to his house and sat there with his family. And they said, 'Tell us this isn't true.' And he said, 'It is true,' right? (We need a tape of this confession or...for his family to confirm they heard this from him.) AJ: "Now that source is Al O'Donnell, who is the nuclear-weapons engineer who armed, wired and fired 186 nuclear weapons, okay? So if you wanna talk about someone..." Lex: "Woooooow." AJ: "You're the first person I've told that on the record, but it's kind of about time." Lex: "Woooooow. Well, you received a lot of criticism over this story, and it confused me why, because it's...given the context of everything you've described with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, it is reasonable that such action would be taken. AJ: "And, the source is extraordinarily credible, right? If you wanted to take the position, 'Well, that person isn't very reliable,' then you have to ask yourself, 'Why did they have Top-Secret clearances that are higher than any in the United States whatsoever?' Because he was responsible for arming nuclear bombs. He was called the trigger man. "And by the way, he told me that I could tell the world who he was. There's a lot of details that are really dark, involving that program. And when is it appropriate, right? Well, it feels appropriate now. First of all, because you and I have been talking for several hours. So this is what is truly a long-form conversation and it's the outcome of, you know, a very long time of my reporting, and also being judicious about what, you know, closing the loop on that, right? Because I do think it's important for people to know that sources have revelations." Lex: "And, like you said, the programs, both on the Soviet side, and the American side, conflicting, I think's the term we used previously? Ethically, morally, on all fronts. People have done some horrible things in the name of security. In your book, 'Surprise, Kill Vanish,' you write about the CIA." ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "So, today, I want to focus on a really important story that you once told me, that has never been told all the way [from the] beginning, to all the way to the end. And I just think it's just so cool we get to do this today. So, the question I want to ask is: After you got hooked on the UFO thing, with Bob Lazar, and you as a journalist said, 'I'm gonna start getting sources.' Like, 12 people coming at you, people shut down by the government. You can tell that. But you finally, finally got to a credible individual who had direct, firsthand knowledge about UFOs, exploitation, reverse engineering, and beings. And, oh my God, I want the world to hear this story. Tell us the story." George Knapp: "I've shared some of it in very broad strokes over the years- little bits and pieces of it - without ever actually referencing, in my statements, the guy the source. But this will be the first time I've told it in totality. "And it takes me back to when I first started in this. It's 1989 KLAS-TV, we put together, we spent eight months working on this project called 'UFOs: The Best Evidence.' Nine-part series. It airs on television, it's the biggest thing that's ever been produced for local TV, to this date, and still. "And, along the way, as I'm trying to find...telling the story about Bob Lazar, and his allegations about what was out there at S-4, near Area 51 - recovered discs, alien technology being reverse engineered - I'm looking for people who would support that. And I found about two dozen people, witnesses who had worked out there, who had seen bits and pieces, who could corroborate parts of what Bob had said about these kinds of craft being out there in the Nevada desert. But there wasn't anybody big picture who knew as much as Lazar claimed to have known, so I was still looking for them. "In 1990, I started working on a follow-up series to Best Evidence, looking for new witnesses. And I got a hint from an elected official that I had known, I'd covered him in Nevada politics. He says, 'You know, you should talk to my dad one of these days.' 'Your dad?' 'Yeah.' And he told me what the dad's name was and what he had done, what job he had had. And I said, 'Ah.' So I started stalking the guy. I just started showing up at events where I knew he would be. One of those events was a reunion for employees of EG&G." Corbell (JC): "So I'm assuming that this source was working within EG&G in some capacity, which is, by the way, who Bob [Lazar] said, hired him to go out to Site-4, S-4 at Area 51. So you're like, 'Okay, I can now find out if this is bullshit, or if there's an element of truth to it.' Do I have that right?" Knapp (GK): "Pretty much correct, yeah. So, I'm looking for someone whose credentials are impeccable. Unlike Bob, whose credentials were questioned, and people still attack him on where he went to school and where he worked, and was he at Los Alamos? This guy is documentable. There's a paper trail of where he worked, what he did. There's no question that he was in a position to know. He was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada. His name was Al O'Donnell, and he has a prominent family. "When I heard that EG&G was having a reunion, I went there. We took a camera [and I figured], 'This is a great chance to get him on camera before I start asking him the questions I really want to ask.'" JC: "And when you say he is a general manager, like, does that give him certain roles and responsibilities that would give him insight? Like, he's not a secretary, so what does that mean?" GK: "He's the boss. He was the boss of the Nevada office. And I'll tell you a little bit about EG&G. So, it was a company that was created in Boston, right around the end of World War Two. Al O'Donnell had been in the Navy, serving during the war. He got out of the Navy while the war was still underway and went to work for a company called Raytheon, which became this massive, gigantic defense contractor that's still around today, still in Nevada in fact." JC: Yeah, they've got a big connection to the UFO topic, right? But, when you say Boston, like, where in Boston was it created?" GK: "Well, MIT is where the company was born. Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier were the three guys, the EG&G in that. They were at MIT. Scientists, engineers, they created this company there. And Al O'Donnell, who had been working for Raytheon, working on the Manhattan Project. He didn't know he was working on the Manhattan Project, but they were building these devices, complex triggers, that allowed them to detonate nuclear weapons. He learned later what he was doing was part of the Manhattan Project. "He goes to MIT, starts working with EG&G. Their company in those days had, I think, 15 employees, Al said. So it was a very small startup. But it suddenly exploded because the American atomic program exploded in those years. In 1950, Harry Truman decides that we need a permanent, nuclear testing site somewhere in the continental U.S., so they looked at a bunch of places, and they settled on Nevada. "Prior to that, Al O'Donnell had been sent out to the Pacific. They had five of these massive, atomic bomb tests out in the Pacific, and they decided to move it into a continental U.S. location and Nevada's Test Site - it was called the Nevada Test Site in those days - was chosen. Al O'Donnell leads the exodus from Boston, out to Nevada. They start hiring engineers and scientists, physicists and other security, spies." JC: "What are they working on at this time when they make that move?" GK: "Atomic bombs. They're building, testing atomic bombs. EG&G was a really precise organization that was created in order to detonate, measure and photograph atomic weapons. If you look in the history of photography, you'll see some of these amazing photos that they took of, you know, water drops dropping in water and...they're pretty famous shots because of these cameras that they developed. And it was perfect for use and testing atomic weapons and documenting what the process was. "So, EG&G comes out to Las Vegas, they are the managers of the Nevada Test Site. They, subsequently, years later, become the managers of Area 51 when it opens in 1955. So Al O'Donnell is the top guy. He oversees the nuclear testing program out there, manages it for EG&G, works with the Atomic Energy Commission. He has a Top-Secret security clearance and he can go anywhere and see anything. There's, basically, no restrictions, nothing that is outside of his ability to find out and see." JC: "So, this is an impeccable resume. This is somebody who was in position to know, and would know if someone like Bob Lazar was telling the truth or not telling the truth. I find it, personally, humorous that EG&G was, its genesis, its seed, came from MIT, right?" GK: "So, late 1990 or early 1991, I'd have to look up the dates. But somewhere in there is this event, this EG&G reunion. I go there, we got a camera, I interview Al O'Donnell, introduce myself, and say, 'Hey, I'm really interested in this, can we continue this conversation?' So he invites me to his home. He says, 'Come on over, we'll arrange to come over on a Saturday or something. We'll sit down, I'll go through my scrapbooks and show you some documents and memorabilia and photos from that era.' I was like, 'Great.' "So I go to his house and meet this wife. And we sit down, he opens up these big scrapbooks, and he starts showing me all the stuff that he had done. Photos that had been taken out in the proximity of these gigantic nuclear tests. They had great stories about the camaraderie that developed among the engineers and scientists. And he's going through all this stuff and showing me all this. And I love it, I loved every bit of it. I've never had a bad day at the Nevada Test Site, by the way. Every time I've gone out there to do a story, it's just a terrific way to spend some time." JC: "Secrets should be kept, secrets are kept, and you are a proponent of keeping secrets when it's that kind of thing." GK: "Sure, absolutely. And I respected the boundaries that they set up for us in doing these kinds of stories. So I did go out to the Nevada Test Site a lot over the next 40 years or so and put together a lot of different stories. And they knew of my interest in that area that's just outside what the Nevada Test Site, a place called Area 51. In 1955, Area 51 was, basically, created and EG&G got the contract to manage Area 51, and had kept it for the next 30, 35 years. So, whatever went on out there, they had an inside knowledge of what was going on." JC: "So, you meet this guy, Al O'Donnell, for the first time when he's at this public thing. You probably say something like, 'Your son told me to talk to you,' or something. Whatever. It ends up, he invites you to his home, and you're going through scrapbooks, and he's showing you all this atomic testing stuff that he was involved in. GK: "Yeah, and I'm telling him, 'Boy, this is really interesting. That's fascinating. I'd love to do a story on it.' And after we're there for maybe two hours, he closes this one big scrapbook and he goes, 'You're not here to talk about this, are ya?' I said, 'Well, not exactly.' He says, 'I know what you're here to talk about. I know what you want to ask about.' And right about that point, his wife walks in and she says, 'Don't start telling them that stuff! Don't even tell him!' And he kind of joked about it.' JC: "What were you there to talk about?" GK: "UFOs, UFOs. Area 51, Bob Lazar, crashed saucers, reverse engineering, to see if he had any knowledge of that, because I'd been led to believe that he did. So he closes that book and he says, 'We'll have we'll get together another time and we'll talk about it in private.' And over the course of the next two years or so, he and I would meet at coffee shops and talk about it. And I would ask him questions, and really, it was like pulling teeth. He wanted to tell me stuff but he made me work at it." (AJ says his family was there for the confession. Knapp has over two years of meetings with him. A bit confusing.) GK: "And the condition was, I couldn't take any notes. I couldn't record it, I couldn't take any notes. So each time I'd meet with him, I'd rush back to my car and start scribbling notes on pieces of paper so I'd remember everything that he said. And the story that he told me, that evolved over those couple of years was pretty fantastic. "He said that they did have a flying saucer that had been recovered from New Mexico. I think he indicated that it had been taken from New Mexico to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which is... He never said Roswell, but I think it was the Roswell incident is what he [was] talking about. And it confirmed some of the details about what we know, likely, happened with the Roswell craft." JC: "When he's telling you, 'We have recovered a craft,' did he say it like, this is secret, don't tell anybody?" GK: "Yeah, it was just for my knowledge, my background and information. It wasn't a story I could do then. We were negotiating about how, or when, or if I could ever use that information or make it public. He told me the details about this craft. He said that it had been stored at Indian Springs. Indian Springs is an Air Force Base that's been there for a long time. It's now called Creech. Indian Springs existed before Area 51 was made. "But he says it was there, they kept it there. It might have been in an underground facility, I'm not quite sure. But then when Area 51, after it opened in 1955, they moved it to an adjacent facility. He didn't say it was S-4, he didn't say it was Papoose, but I think that's what he's talking about. Papoose Lake is where Bob Lazar said he worked, and where they had built nine hangars underground, disguised to look like the desert, and where they had other recovered craft. "He says they worked on this recovered craft, reverse engineering, trying to figure out how it worked, who built it. Whether or not they could duplicate the technology because, apparently, they thought this was pretty advanced, and they'd like to be able to build more of 'em. "And he says it was a very closed program, very small. It was only, I think, five of them that were aware of it, at least in the early stages, that were working on this project. And it was very hush hush, and they didn't share it with anybody else in the company, or anybody else in the area, or the military. They just kept it to themselves. "So, after we're having these meetings - and I go back and write down all these notes and stuff, details about what he had shared with me - we have another meeting at a coffee shop, and I said, 'Well gosh, you know, aren't you worried that it would get out, that the word would get out?' "And he says to me, 'We were worried It would get out?' That's right. 'I mean, what...it? What do you mean, it?' It. Meaning a live being, they had a live being out there. I go, 'You had a live being, an alien as well?' [O'Donnell said], 'Tell you the truth, we didn't know what it was.' I said, 'You know, maybe it came from millions of miles away, out in space, and you're keeping it in a cage near Area 51?' He said, 'To tell you the truth, we couldn't communicate with it in the beginning. We didn't know what it was, we didn't know where it was from, and we didn't know what to do with it.'" JC: "When Al O'Donnell says to you, 'We had a live alien, a being,' obviously from another world, what was your feeling?" GK: "Well, I was overwhelmed, because it was, in effect, confirmation of things that I had come to believe, because of the reporting we'd already done. And then the evidence of cover ups and lies that had been told to the public. Here's this guy in a high position, with a high security clearance, telling me that it was true. That they really did have a craft and they had a being. "My second feeling was, one of overwhelming sadness for the being, whatever it was, you know, that was kept out there. I asked him, you know, what had happened to it, what became of it? He says, 'I don't know. I don't know whatever happened to it.' But it was out there for a while, alive, and eventually they figured out a way to communicate with it. "And so I asked him, 'Well, what did it look like?' And he made me guess, as he did with all these questions. He made me guess. He said, 'Well, it kinda looks like a certain political candidate.' I said, 'Well, who? A political candidate? Who?' And at the time, Ross Perot was running for president. He said, 'It looks like Ross Perot. A little skinny guy with a big ears and tiny head.' Not a classic Gray-looking alien, but a very odd-looking creature with really big ears, that looked like Ross Perot. And I laughed. "And so we had these conversations for a while, and I was blown away by the information that he shared. I took all these notes. I was hoping that someday, I might be able to get the information out. And I asked him, 'Look, you're getting up there in age. If I can't record something with you, could you record a statement to the effect of telling me the story on camera, and then when you pass on, I can have the tape?' And he said, 'Yeah,' he would do it." JC: "You know, look, I've heard a lot of wild stories that I can't verify. A guy's telling you something, and you get a sense as a journalist, when you go down a road with somebody, and you take your time and you vet it... Did you feel...I mean, is there any world where he's trying to f*ck with ya? Or is there a world where he's trying to, you know, dissuade...kind of put crazy information into your brain? Like, how did you feel when he was telling you this? Was he like, straight with you?" GK: "Yeah, he was very straightforward. And again, this was not information he was giving up, willingly. I mean, I had to really dig and coax and arm twist to get him to cough things up. And it was very slow-going over about a two-year period, maybe a little bit longer. And I know that this...you always have to be wary of people with different agendas and people that just make stuff up. I didn't get that sense from him because of his standing in the community. He had shared this story with members of his own family." JC: "And that's why they came to you, is because they kind of [gave] you a tip. And these members of his family, they're serious people, too." GK: "Yeah. One of his sons is an FBI agent, or was, he's passed on now. One was an elected official in Nevada. That was the one that gave me the tip." JC: So, I just want to nail this [down] so I understand. You were approached because he had shared this with his family, privately, and then you had to kind of coax to get through to him about the story?" GK: "Right." JC: "I think that's important because look, these things don't happen, like, people [don't] just come to us and say, you know, crazy stuff, and we're like, 'Hh, yeah, cool. Sounds good.' Like, the dynamic of that, socially, as a journalist, like getting in there, taking time. You know, we have to verify if what he said is true, and there are some major bombs coming about that. But it's like, that process is so important. "So here you are, you're sitting with him, he tells you now, they have a live alien. And you felt sad because you're an animal-rights activist, you love animals. I know with your cats at home and you've done horse stories and all the stories about like, the inhumane stuff to animals. So it made you personally sad, makes me sad, too now thinking about it." GK: Yeah. Well, we had these series of meetings, and then the last time we met, after he'd agreed to go ahead and record a tape - and give it to me after making an arrangement so I got it after he passed on - he said that he had been told to not talk to me anymore. He said he had been given a warning [and] it was not a good idea for him to talk to me any more about anything. Not just that topic, but anything." JC: "Well, who knows that you're talking? Who would warn him?" GK: "I don't know. I don't know. But you recall, back in those days, there was surveillance. We had our phones tapped at KLAS-TV. There were guys following us around. Me, Bob Lazar, Gene Huff, maybe Robert Bigelow." JC: "People were also coming to your news station, OSI. And they would come in and try to like, get to you and then they'd show you their card...and take it back. And you know your phones are tapped. So it's like, because of this story, all of a sudden you're on high alert. So, anybody could have called him, been watching you, had meetings with the guy. So what you're saying is one day he just said, 'I can't...I'm not allowed to talk to you any more.'" GK: "Yeah, I've been told not to talk to you anymore. I've been told not to."

Joe Murgia

101,878 次观看 • 2 个月前

"What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] 🐹: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didn’t feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. 🐻: I’m sure that today’s announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. We’ve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, we’ll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we can’t share everything, but we’ll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Heejin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, we’ve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe that’s why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. This has been today’s news story. 🐶: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Heejin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Heejin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Heejin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Heejin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. 🐱: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Heejin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. 🐰: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that. 🐻: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all. 🐰: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Heejin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. 🐻: Besides this, there are many other incidents we’ve experienced that are beyond my understanding—things that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, it’s hard to discuss everything today because we’re not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of what’s been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. 🐶: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Heejin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. 🐱: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. 🐹: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just that—empty words. HYBE’s actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. 🐻: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, it’s incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, it’s heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work we’ve created so far but also the identity of our team. That’s what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. 🐰: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow Hybe's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Heejin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Heejin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. 🐹: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. We’re not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. We’ll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. 🐶: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee Jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. 🐻: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee Jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. #하이브어도어_뉴진스지우기_작작해 #HYBE_STOP_SABOTAGING_NEWJEANS #HYBEによるNewJeansへの妨害に抗議します #NEWJEANS_NEVER_DIE
27:11

"What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] 🐹: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didn’t feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. 🐻: I’m sure that today’s announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. We’ve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, we’ll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we can’t share everything, but we’ll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Heejin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, we’ve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe that’s why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. This has been today’s news story. 🐶: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Heejin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Heejin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Heejin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Heejin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. 🐱: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Heejin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. 🐰: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that. 🐻: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all. 🐰: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Heejin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. 🐻: Besides this, there are many other incidents we’ve experienced that are beyond my understanding—things that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, it’s hard to discuss everything today because we’re not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of what’s been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. 🐶: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Heejin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. 🐱: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. 🐹: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just that—empty words. HYBE’s actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. 🐻: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, it’s incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, it’s heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work we’ve created so far but also the identity of our team. That’s what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. 🐰: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow Hybe's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Heejin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Heejin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. 🐹: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. We’re not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. We’ll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. 🐶: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee Jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. 🐻: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee Jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. #하이브어도어_뉴진스지우기_작작해 #HYBE_STOP_SABOTAGING_NEWJEANS #HYBEによるNewJeansへの妨害に抗議します #NEWJEANS_NEVER_DIE

1tokki

3,769,309 次观看 • 2 年前