Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

BREAKING NEWS: CHINESE SCIENTISTS PROVED EINSTEIN WRONG by performing an “impossible” experiment, a top US science journal reported in its latest issue. Iconic scientist Albert Einstein outlined an experiment on paper a century ago to disprove claims by an up-and-coming Danish physicist named Nils Bohr. But Chinese scientist Pan...

NuryVittachi's profile picture

Nury Vittachi

57,026 subscribers

35,688 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

How will USA compete with China in robotics? stash and his team have a huge answer. Rip out their OS and put an American-made OS into the Chinese robots. Let's be honest. America is not going to catch up to Chinese robotics companies. The Chinese ecosystem is far more advanced than even in San Francisco. I've been visiting as many in the San Francisco ecosystem as I can and they all tell me this is true, with the exception of Tesla. So, the world is about to be flooded with Chinese robots of all types. Do business people anywhere, whether they are in Europe, India, America, or Asia, want to gift all their data to the Chinese? No. Dimensional has the answer, and here I visit with Stash and his team who already have an OS running on a variety of Chinese robotics. And they are building a new kind of OS (I call it a World Model, but it doesn't matter what you call it, we are headed toward an AGI that can make a robot get smarter and smarter over time and do more and more things autonomously over time) and here Stash goes into his work and gives you a very intimate look into one of San Francisco's most interesting robotics startups I've met.
49:11

How will USA compete with China in robotics? stash and his team have a huge answer. Rip out their OS and put an American-made OS into the Chinese robots. Let's be honest. America is not going to catch up to Chinese robotics companies. The Chinese ecosystem is far more advanced than even in San Francisco. I've been visiting as many in the San Francisco ecosystem as I can and they all tell me this is true, with the exception of Tesla. So, the world is about to be flooded with Chinese robots of all types. Do business people anywhere, whether they are in Europe, India, America, or Asia, want to gift all their data to the Chinese? No. Dimensional has the answer, and here I visit with Stash and his team who already have an OS running on a variety of Chinese robotics. And they are building a new kind of OS (I call it a World Model, but it doesn't matter what you call it, we are headed toward an AGI that can make a robot get smarter and smarter over time and do more and more things autonomously over time) and here Stash goes into his work and gives you a very intimate look into one of San Francisco's most interesting robotics startups I've met.

Robert Scoble

156,803 views • 10 months ago

A week ago, Pete Hegseth said they had destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s missiles and launchers. Today, we see that this is not true, and not only that, the war has entered a dangerous stage of potential large-scale escalation and a total breakdown of the global economy. So did the U.S. actually destroy real targets, or just Chinese balloon decoys?
0:30

A week ago, Pete Hegseth said they had destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s missiles and launchers. Today, we see that this is not true, and not only that, the war has entered a dangerous stage of potential large-scale escalation and a total breakdown of the global economy. So did the U.S. actually destroy real targets, or just Chinese balloon decoys?

Open Minded Approach

38,753 views • 5 months ago

David Friedberg: The Eric Swalwell allegations were widely known about by California insiders, but held back for the perfect moment. Was this a hit job to clear the path for a preferred candidate in California? “Back in December, when it was first rumored that Swalwell was going to run for governor, I started making some calls to various folks to be like, ‘Hey, what do we think of this guy? Is he going to be a good candidate?’ I spoke to several people who independently told me that there's knowledge about this guy sending pics to employees, and that this guy has a bunch of stuff that's going to come out about him. And I largely kind of dismissed it, because I was like, if this is true, this would've all come out already. If multiple people are telling me about this, then I've got to assume that it's a rumor that's being used to block him from running for governor. And then everything that I had been told started to come out in the last week. So the striking aspect of all of this for me was how much knowledge there was about these various incidents with the guy, how so many people had this knowledge, and how no one had actually brought the knowledge to bear. Which begs the question, why did they not do what was right by the victims? Or, why did the victims sit on the sidelines waiting for the right moment to all come out together? These were all being held back purposefully and deliberately for a very particular moment in time when they were all brought forward to be used. And that's what was so striking to me is just how coordinated all of this was. My sense of it is that there are certain insiders, and he's not an insider. Katie Porter, I think, is who the Democratic establishment wants to be governor. She's an insider to national Democrats, she's an insider to California Democrats, and I think that she's the preferred candidate.”
1:50

David Friedberg: The Eric Swalwell allegations were widely known about by California insiders, but held back for the perfect moment. Was this a hit job to clear the path for a preferred candidate in California? “Back in December, when it was first rumored that Swalwell was going to run for governor, I started making some calls to various folks to be like, ‘Hey, what do we think of this guy? Is he going to be a good candidate?’ I spoke to several people who independently told me that there's knowledge about this guy sending pics to employees, and that this guy has a bunch of stuff that's going to come out about him. And I largely kind of dismissed it, because I was like, if this is true, this would've all come out already. If multiple people are telling me about this, then I've got to assume that it's a rumor that's being used to block him from running for governor. And then everything that I had been told started to come out in the last week. So the striking aspect of all of this for me was how much knowledge there was about these various incidents with the guy, how so many people had this knowledge, and how no one had actually brought the knowledge to bear. Which begs the question, why did they not do what was right by the victims? Or, why did the victims sit on the sidelines waiting for the right moment to all come out together? These were all being held back purposefully and deliberately for a very particular moment in time when they were all brought forward to be used. And that's what was so striking to me is just how coordinated all of this was. My sense of it is that there are certain insiders, and he's not an insider. Katie Porter, I think, is who the Democratic establishment wants to be governor. She's an insider to national Democrats, she's an insider to California Democrats, and I think that she's the preferred candidate.”

The All-In Podcast

35,455 views • 4 months ago

Q: What exactly was the evidence that led you to this person of interest? A: There was a tip that came in just like we were taking any other tips and that one came in specifically identifying a person of interest, which was this individual. And so we are detectives, just like the others, but this specific one it was actually picked up by the, by the FBI, and they followed through with it, and they ended up coming and locating this individual of interest.
0:54

Q: What exactly was the evidence that led you to this person of interest? A: There was a tip that came in just like we were taking any other tips and that one came in specifically identifying a person of interest, which was this individual. And so we are detectives, just like the others, but this specific one it was actually picked up by the, by the FBI, and they followed through with it, and they ended up coming and locating this individual of interest.

Acyn

893,175 views • 8 months ago

On this day, 52 years ago, John Cassavetes' "The Ki!!ing of a Chinese Bookie" (1974) was released in the USA. John Cassavetes explaining why he made the movie: "'A Woman Under the Influence' (1974) was the first picture I’ve had anything to do with that wasn’t made out of plain, simple feeling, but rather out of a real desire to do something in my profession. It was extremely frightening for me not to come to work out of enthusiasm and instead put myself up as something of a craftsman. Earlier films such as 'Shadows' (1958) and 'Husbands' (1970) grew out of personal experiences reaching all the way back to my childhood days. They were expressions of my innermost feelings, and now that I’ve dealt with all that, I feel obligated to view life in other terms. I want to explore other areas of human and artistic experience. I made 'The Ki!!ing of a Chinese Bookie' (1976) as an intellectual experiment– not because I am in love with it. I enjoy a more intellectual and less emotionally demanding view than in my previous work. If I can make, out of certain intellectual ideas, films that are complex in their nature, then I’m entering into new ground. And that is certainly something I look forward to. It is a film that has little to do with me and with how I feel about life. It’s interesting to me to see how other people live in our society, to look at them and ask myself, ‘Why do they do it? And how do they do it?’ Without trying to explain. The fun and challenge of the film was to imagine a self-contained world different from the one I live in: to move into it and live in it." ("Cassavetes on Cassavetes", edited by Ray Carney, 2001)
1:52

On this day, 52 years ago, John Cassavetes' "The Ki!!ing of a Chinese Bookie" (1974) was released in the USA. John Cassavetes explaining why he made the movie: "'A Woman Under the Influence' (1974) was the first picture I’ve had anything to do with that wasn’t made out of plain, simple feeling, but rather out of a real desire to do something in my profession. It was extremely frightening for me not to come to work out of enthusiasm and instead put myself up as something of a craftsman. Earlier films such as 'Shadows' (1958) and 'Husbands' (1970) grew out of personal experiences reaching all the way back to my childhood days. They were expressions of my innermost feelings, and now that I’ve dealt with all that, I feel obligated to view life in other terms. I want to explore other areas of human and artistic experience. I made 'The Ki!!ing of a Chinese Bookie' (1976) as an intellectual experiment– not because I am in love with it. I enjoy a more intellectual and less emotionally demanding view than in my previous work. If I can make, out of certain intellectual ideas, films that are complex in their nature, then I’m entering into new ground. And that is certainly something I look forward to. It is a film that has little to do with me and with how I feel about life. It’s interesting to me to see how other people live in our society, to look at them and ask myself, ‘Why do they do it? And how do they do it?’ Without trying to explain. The fun and challenge of the film was to imagine a self-contained world different from the one I live in: to move into it and live in it." ("Cassavetes on Cassavetes", edited by Ray Carney, 2001)

DepressedBergman

86,531 views • 6 months ago

🚨 PBD: "How does Chinese state media control the narrative about COVID?" JIANG: "COVID has been memory holed in China. Nobody talks about it. Nobody even mentions it anymore. The Chinese Government has said on multiple occasions that COVID started off as an American bioweapon. The Chinese believe COVID was an American bioweapon that was leaked into China to hurt Chinese society." "I personally believe that COVID was an American bioweapon founded by Tony Fauci. Obama had put a ban on Gain of Function research so Fauci subcontracted Gain of Function research to the Wuhan lab which was a military instillation. I don't know if it was accident or deliberate but it got released into Wuhan, and early reporting said it was killing people and burning their lungs. They locked down the city too late and people escaped to other cities and boarded flights to Europe and this spread around the world quickly. The Chinese believe this was an American bioweapon designed to hurt the Chinese economy and that's their story but they downplay China's role in it."
2:58

🚨 PBD: "How does Chinese state media control the narrative about COVID?" JIANG: "COVID has been memory holed in China. Nobody talks about it. Nobody even mentions it anymore. The Chinese Government has said on multiple occasions that COVID started off as an American bioweapon. The Chinese believe COVID was an American bioweapon that was leaked into China to hurt Chinese society." "I personally believe that COVID was an American bioweapon founded by Tony Fauci. Obama had put a ban on Gain of Function research so Fauci subcontracted Gain of Function research to the Wuhan lab which was a military instillation. I don't know if it was accident or deliberate but it got released into Wuhan, and early reporting said it was killing people and burning their lungs. They locked down the city too late and people escaped to other cities and boarded flights to Europe and this spread around the world quickly. The Chinese believe this was an American bioweapon designed to hurt the Chinese economy and that's their story but they downplay China's role in it."

Autism Capital 🧩

98,418 views • 5 months ago

Incredible, and maybe even unprecedented, answer by Arnaud Montebourg - former French Minister of Economy - to the question "what method do the Americans use to wage economic warfare against us?" Here's the translation (by me): "They use military tools. First of all, they use all the listening and intelligence systems that they built on after 9/11. They don't listen to terrorists...well they certainly do and that's very good...but they listen to foreign companies that compete with theirs. So it's very simple, it became clear in 2014 when Snowden revealed that there were 75 million conversations and emails that had been exploited by the NSA on France, on French companies. When Pierucci - a man who should wear the Legion of Honor today because he defended France rather than its interests by agreeing to serve two unjustified years in prison in US jails in the Alstom affair... when Mr. Pierucci was taken into custody in Manhattan by the prosecutors they put under his nose 1 million emails. How did they get 1 million emails? By illegal eavesdropping. 1 million emails: it would have taken a lawyer 3 years to read through them… so he couldn't defend himself. So those are the military tools. Second, they have a tool called extraterritorial law. The Americans are using a form of law, which is an imperialist law, which consists in declaring themselves competent for matters which in no way concern them. Example: Alstom, a contract between Indonesia and a French company. They consider that there was an offense that was committed in this matter 10 years ago and they sue Alstom! The United States is not a victim, no American company was involved in this case. They declare themselves policeman of the world by undermining the sovereign interests. Therefore this is interference. They do it in ALL fields, and especially the economic field. For example ITAR. ITAR is interesting: the United States has set a list of 22,000 components on which it grants itself the right to authorize or not the export by a foreign power. Example: you buy a varnish to put on the wing of the Rafale [a French fighter plane] which is on the ITAR list because it is not produced in France but in the US or elsewhere... because of this single varnish they allow themselves the right to say: 'you have the right to export to such and such a country, but not to this one because it is an enemy of the United States of America'. Why should I care if he's an enemy of the United States of America? The enemies of my allies are not necessarily my enemies! Example: they banned the export of Rafales to Egypt because of ITAR. Is that so, and why? So our urgency should be to produce these 22,000 products in France... Or in Europe, in allied countries which are also victims of ITAR. This is a sovereign policy. I can also tell you about the American Patriot Act. 2001, September 11, what do they do? When a French company is bought by an American company, the American government has the unilateral power to request all the information on a company controlled by an American company. Absolutely all the information: patents, technologies, people, etc. Without any motivation and without judicial authorization, which means that these are illegal searches. This is why in the affair of the takeover of the valves which equip our nuclear submarines and power stations - the Segault valves which are manufactured in Mennecy, Essonne - I intervened by saying 'it is out of question that this business goes under American control' and it is now a company that is controlled by Canadians. Canadians do not have extraterritorial rights, it is not an issue to work with Canadians. But Americans are different because they are predators. This is the reason why I said 'it is out of the question that Segault, who equips our nuclear submarines, gives our information to a foreign power'. Because Canadians do not have the right to do so, if they do it is criminal. But for Americans it is the law to do so!"
5:04

Incredible, and maybe even unprecedented, answer by Arnaud Montebourg - former French Minister of Economy - to the question "what method do the Americans use to wage economic warfare against us?" Here's the translation (by me): "They use military tools. First of all, they use all the listening and intelligence systems that they built on after 9/11. They don't listen to terrorists...well they certainly do and that's very good...but they listen to foreign companies that compete with theirs. So it's very simple, it became clear in 2014 when Snowden revealed that there were 75 million conversations and emails that had been exploited by the NSA on France, on French companies. When Pierucci - a man who should wear the Legion of Honor today because he defended France rather than its interests by agreeing to serve two unjustified years in prison in US jails in the Alstom affair... when Mr. Pierucci was taken into custody in Manhattan by the prosecutors they put under his nose 1 million emails. How did they get 1 million emails? By illegal eavesdropping. 1 million emails: it would have taken a lawyer 3 years to read through them… so he couldn't defend himself. So those are the military tools. Second, they have a tool called extraterritorial law. The Americans are using a form of law, which is an imperialist law, which consists in declaring themselves competent for matters which in no way concern them. Example: Alstom, a contract between Indonesia and a French company. They consider that there was an offense that was committed in this matter 10 years ago and they sue Alstom! The United States is not a victim, no American company was involved in this case. They declare themselves policeman of the world by undermining the sovereign interests. Therefore this is interference. They do it in ALL fields, and especially the economic field. For example ITAR. ITAR is interesting: the United States has set a list of 22,000 components on which it grants itself the right to authorize or not the export by a foreign power. Example: you buy a varnish to put on the wing of the Rafale [a French fighter plane] which is on the ITAR list because it is not produced in France but in the US or elsewhere... because of this single varnish they allow themselves the right to say: 'you have the right to export to such and such a country, but not to this one because it is an enemy of the United States of America'. Why should I care if he's an enemy of the United States of America? The enemies of my allies are not necessarily my enemies! Example: they banned the export of Rafales to Egypt because of ITAR. Is that so, and why? So our urgency should be to produce these 22,000 products in France... Or in Europe, in allied countries which are also victims of ITAR. This is a sovereign policy. I can also tell you about the American Patriot Act. 2001, September 11, what do they do? When a French company is bought by an American company, the American government has the unilateral power to request all the information on a company controlled by an American company. Absolutely all the information: patents, technologies, people, etc. Without any motivation and without judicial authorization, which means that these are illegal searches. This is why in the affair of the takeover of the valves which equip our nuclear submarines and power stations - the Segault valves which are manufactured in Mennecy, Essonne - I intervened by saying 'it is out of question that this business goes under American control' and it is now a company that is controlled by Canadians. Canadians do not have extraterritorial rights, it is not an issue to work with Canadians. But Americans are different because they are predators. This is the reason why I said 'it is out of the question that Segault, who equips our nuclear submarines, gives our information to a foreign power'. Because Canadians do not have the right to do so, if they do it is criminal. But for Americans it is the law to do so!"

Arnaud Bertrand

1,931,978 views • 3 years ago

🚨Governor DeSantis MOCKS the Florida GOP and their pathetic Chairman for RIGGING the primary and LYING to voters by pulling a BAIT AND SWITCH! Says SPECIAL INTERESTS are choosing our candidate! “They do this summit and they say we're gonna do a debate, a governor debate. All right, so people like signed up thinking that they'd have this debate and they said NO CANDIDATE CAN DO ANY OTHER DEBATE EXCEPT OUR DEBATE and then they say oh, well only ONE GUY can debate so we're not gonna have a debate! I mean, I think people feel that that's a BAIT-ND-SWITCH! The party's job is NOT to try to engineer an outcome. The Party's job is to inform Republican voters and and try to increase participation. I know when I was running in 2018, this is the fact, I mean most of the people in the RPOF were not for me in the primary. I mean, that's just the reality and so it is what it is. If you don't ever have debates then the only way to get known is basically the person that raises the most money from special interests. And then you spend money to do it and if you're not able to do that, then you don't even get known to begin with and that's challenging. And I know when I ran in 2018, I got outspent probably three to one and I think having certainly the June debate that we did was a huge, huge thing to be able to inform people about who I was, what my background was, all these other things. So I think there should be debates generally. I don't think the party has any right to control the debates but I think how this was handled, you've got to be on the up and up here and you say you could do debate, do a debate! If you're gonna say other candidates can't do any other debate, but our debate, well, you definitely got to do the debate, right? So it has not been I think done properly and look, I mean, voters can make decisions about how they think of all that.”
2:12

🚨Governor DeSantis MOCKS the Florida GOP and their pathetic Chairman for RIGGING the primary and LYING to voters by pulling a BAIT AND SWITCH! Says SPECIAL INTERESTS are choosing our candidate! “They do this summit and they say we're gonna do a debate, a governor debate. All right, so people like signed up thinking that they'd have this debate and they said NO CANDIDATE CAN DO ANY OTHER DEBATE EXCEPT OUR DEBATE and then they say oh, well only ONE GUY can debate so we're not gonna have a debate! I mean, I think people feel that that's a BAIT-ND-SWITCH! The party's job is NOT to try to engineer an outcome. The Party's job is to inform Republican voters and and try to increase participation. I know when I was running in 2018, this is the fact, I mean most of the people in the RPOF were not for me in the primary. I mean, that's just the reality and so it is what it is. If you don't ever have debates then the only way to get known is basically the person that raises the most money from special interests. And then you spend money to do it and if you're not able to do that, then you don't even get known to begin with and that's challenging. And I know when I ran in 2018, I got outspent probably three to one and I think having certainly the June debate that we did was a huge, huge thing to be able to inform people about who I was, what my background was, all these other things. So I think there should be debates generally. I don't think the party has any right to control the debates but I think how this was handled, you've got to be on the up and up here and you say you could do debate, do a debate! If you're gonna say other candidates can't do any other debate, but our debate, well, you definitely got to do the debate, right? So it has not been I think done properly and look, I mean, voters can make decisions about how they think of all that.”

Chris Nelson 🏝️🇺🇸

30,272 views • 2 months ago

Jeff Bezos on why everyone is wrong about AI: "AI is going to create a labor shortage. We have an endless set of things to invent. Today, we're limited not by our imagination, but by what we can actually do. Every single person in this audience has had an idea. For a new business, a new product, a new device they wish they could manufacture. And it just stayed in your head. It went nowhere. The reason it stayed in your head and went nowhere is because it's too hard to do it and it wasn't worth it. If we can accelerate the dream-build loop, all of the ideas will become possible. And we end up being limited not by our capabilities, but by our imagination."
1:05

Jeff Bezos on why everyone is wrong about AI: "AI is going to create a labor shortage. We have an endless set of things to invent. Today, we're limited not by our imagination, but by what we can actually do. Every single person in this audience has had an idea. For a new business, a new product, a new device they wish they could manufacture. And it just stayed in your head. It went nowhere. The reason it stayed in your head and went nowhere is because it's too hard to do it and it wasn't worth it. If we can accelerate the dream-build loop, all of the ideas will become possible. And we end up being limited not by our capabilities, but by our imagination."

Giuliano

16,286 views • 2 months ago

.David Deutsch: The equivalent of consilience, that is, the unified meta-theory, as you put it, for all sciences, and I think actually more than a meta-theory, because I think more links them than just the structure and methodology and so on, was discovered by Popper. Again, I don't know whether this is historically the order in which things happen, but he is famous for his political philosophy and for his philosophy of science, and he found at one point that they are the same, that they both are about problems and about the fact that there is no such instruction from without, there is only conjecture from within. So that's why Lamarckism is false and Darwinism is true, and that's why group selection is false and individual selection is true, and so on. So I think it's already there in Popper. I think there's a lot more to it, and I tried to add another couple of things to it, so quantum theory and computation, but there's a lot that isn't in it, like consciousness and creativity and so on, that we have no idea of how those work and how they fit in with those other things. Gad Saad: Forgive me for interrupting you, David, I'm sorry. There is a book by Dean Simington, who's a psychologist out of, I think, UC Davis, that actually offers a Darwinian account for creativity. It's actually quite mind-blowing. So keep that in mind. I can give you the reference later, but go ahead. David Deutsch: I don't read such things unless they've already made an AGI. Gad Saad: I see. Okay, fair enough. David Deutsch: If they can't make an AGI, then they haven't got the full theory. They might have an idea for a theory, but then Popper has an idea for a theory, but he couldn't make one either. And Turing thought that there'd be an AGI by the year 2000, and that it would require two megabytes of memory. Now, he's obviously wrong about the year 2000, but two megabytes of memory, I reckon that's what it'll be. In other words, these large language models and all this massive computer power is going in entirely the wrong direction. The answer will be a philosophical breakthrough, which will allow, once we understand what we're trying to make, it will be relatively easy to make it with relatively few computational resources.
2:58

.David Deutsch: The equivalent of consilience, that is, the unified meta-theory, as you put it, for all sciences, and I think actually more than a meta-theory, because I think more links them than just the structure and methodology and so on, was discovered by Popper. Again, I don't know whether this is historically the order in which things happen, but he is famous for his political philosophy and for his philosophy of science, and he found at one point that they are the same, that they both are about problems and about the fact that there is no such instruction from without, there is only conjecture from within. So that's why Lamarckism is false and Darwinism is true, and that's why group selection is false and individual selection is true, and so on. So I think it's already there in Popper. I think there's a lot more to it, and I tried to add another couple of things to it, so quantum theory and computation, but there's a lot that isn't in it, like consciousness and creativity and so on, that we have no idea of how those work and how they fit in with those other things. Gad Saad: Forgive me for interrupting you, David, I'm sorry. There is a book by Dean Simington, who's a psychologist out of, I think, UC Davis, that actually offers a Darwinian account for creativity. It's actually quite mind-blowing. So keep that in mind. I can give you the reference later, but go ahead. David Deutsch: I don't read such things unless they've already made an AGI. Gad Saad: I see. Okay, fair enough. David Deutsch: If they can't make an AGI, then they haven't got the full theory. They might have an idea for a theory, but then Popper has an idea for a theory, but he couldn't make one either. And Turing thought that there'd be an AGI by the year 2000, and that it would require two megabytes of memory. Now, he's obviously wrong about the year 2000, but two megabytes of memory, I reckon that's what it'll be. In other words, these large language models and all this massive computer power is going in entirely the wrong direction. The answer will be a philosophical breakthrough, which will allow, once we understand what we're trying to make, it will be relatively easy to make it with relatively few computational resources.

Deutsch Explains

33,398 views • 1 year ago

Angus: Donald Trump is furious that he was made to look like an absolute buffoon in Davos, and that the revenge was coming fast and quick. And what do you do the next day? You start raising the issue of breaking Canada apart. This is the Donbass playbook. Exactly. This has been in the works for some time. The Alberta separatists—these are not credible people. One of them is an ex-Marine. I mean, can you say astroturf? But what they’ve been doing is meeting in Washington. You know, Pete Hoekstra, the ambassador to Canada, accused us of foreign interference by showing a commercial of Ronald Reagan. Meanwhile, the Alberta separatists claim there’s a $500 million slush fund on the table for them to help break up Canada. This is the play they’re going to be using against us. We have an extremist premier, Danielle Smith, who’s been undermining Canada again and again. I just came back from Alberta—huge rallies in Calgary and Edmonton. People do not want this. But what they understand is it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks right now. What matters is Donald Trump’s ability to create an impression so that he has an excuse, a provocation, to act. That’s the Vladimir Putin playbook. These are really, really dangerous times. Ben, we have to start calling this out. We have to shine a light on this. And unfortunately, our national media are being led by the nose on this. This is not a credible rallying of independence. This is about subservience to the MAGA agenda, and Canadians need to recognize the threat that’s coming at us right now.
1:51

Angus: Donald Trump is furious that he was made to look like an absolute buffoon in Davos, and that the revenge was coming fast and quick. And what do you do the next day? You start raising the issue of breaking Canada apart. This is the Donbass playbook. Exactly. This has been in the works for some time. The Alberta separatists—these are not credible people. One of them is an ex-Marine. I mean, can you say astroturf? But what they’ve been doing is meeting in Washington. You know, Pete Hoekstra, the ambassador to Canada, accused us of foreign interference by showing a commercial of Ronald Reagan. Meanwhile, the Alberta separatists claim there’s a $500 million slush fund on the table for them to help break up Canada. This is the play they’re going to be using against us. We have an extremist premier, Danielle Smith, who’s been undermining Canada again and again. I just came back from Alberta—huge rallies in Calgary and Edmonton. People do not want this. But what they understand is it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks right now. What matters is Donald Trump’s ability to create an impression so that he has an excuse, a provocation, to act. That’s the Vladimir Putin playbook. These are really, really dangerous times. Ben, we have to start calling this out. We have to shine a light on this. And unfortunately, our national media are being led by the nose on this. This is not a credible rallying of independence. This is about subservience to the MAGA agenda, and Canadians need to recognize the threat that’s coming at us right now.

Acyn

635,025 views • 7 months ago

Logan Paul says he spent $562,000 on a Michael Jordan signed court, discovered it wasn’t what he was told, and thinks he’s uncovered something shady that could rattle the sports memorabilia market “I bought an 8 foot by 8 foot piece of Chicago Bulls floor court that was supposedly used during the second three, Last Dance, signed by Michael Jordan” “Turns out it is not what they say it is, and they will say it is what they say it is, it is objectively not what they say it is. So the only way for me to not move forward and have to pay $562,000, because they were making me do it by this certain date, was to file an injunction, which made SportsCenter news. It’s like, hold on a second, let me inspect this item and verify its authenticity first. And I tried so hard to verify that this thing was what they said it was, and that it was used during the years of 1994 to either 98 or 99. I could not do it. It didn’t check out” “As this house of cards was falling down, I discovered that this is just the tip of the iceberg in items that have been authenticated and actually don’t have the proof that they are what they say they are.” “I believe I’m sitting on a story that is going to rattle the sports market to the core. There’s been some just shady fucked up shit that’s happened, and it appears that one company in particular said things were used or are things that they actually are not. That is my opinion”
2:28

Logan Paul says he spent $562,000 on a Michael Jordan signed court, discovered it wasn’t what he was told, and thinks he’s uncovered something shady that could rattle the sports memorabilia market “I bought an 8 foot by 8 foot piece of Chicago Bulls floor court that was supposedly used during the second three, Last Dance, signed by Michael Jordan” “Turns out it is not what they say it is, and they will say it is what they say it is, it is objectively not what they say it is. So the only way for me to not move forward and have to pay $562,000, because they were making me do it by this certain date, was to file an injunction, which made SportsCenter news. It’s like, hold on a second, let me inspect this item and verify its authenticity first. And I tried so hard to verify that this thing was what they said it was, and that it was used during the years of 1994 to either 98 or 99. I could not do it. It didn’t check out” “As this house of cards was falling down, I discovered that this is just the tip of the iceberg in items that have been authenticated and actually don’t have the proof that they are what they say they are.” “I believe I’m sitting on a story that is going to rattle the sports market to the core. There’s been some just shady fucked up shit that’s happened, and it appears that one company in particular said things were used or are things that they actually are not. That is my opinion”

Third

53,682 views • 25 days ago

HE (RUBIO) DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, AND THIS IS TRUE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT FOR RUSSIA, THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT. THE POSSIBILITY OF UKRAINE BECOMING A MEMBER OF NATO IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE TO THE RUSSIANS. IT IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT, AND THEY ARE NOT GONNA STOP UNTIL UKRAINE AND THE WEST ARE DEFEATED AND THEY BOTH ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UKRAINE HAS TO BE A NEUTRAL STATE, NUMBER ONE, AND IT HAS TO BE DISARMED TO THE POINT OFFENSIVE THREAT TO RUSSIA. - John Mearsheimer
1:49

HE (RUBIO) DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, AND THIS IS TRUE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT FOR RUSSIA, THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT. THE POSSIBILITY OF UKRAINE BECOMING A MEMBER OF NATO IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE TO THE RUSSIANS. IT IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT, AND THEY ARE NOT GONNA STOP UNTIL UKRAINE AND THE WEST ARE DEFEATED AND THEY BOTH ACCEPT THE FACT THAT UKRAINE HAS TO BE A NEUTRAL STATE, NUMBER ONE, AND IT HAS TO BE DISARMED TO THE POINT OFFENSIVE THREAT TO RUSSIA. - John Mearsheimer

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

54,393 views • 11 months ago

Religion was and is still one of the major tools that was used to divide and destroy Africa. They told us they had the best and ours was wrong and while we were comparing and changing and dividing ourselves they were stealing our wealth. Now l am not telling to be or not be a Christian or Muslim. I don't care. All l want you to do is to think. If they did it to your forefathers and you still allow them to do it to you today, in this century of information and technology,then you are a bigger coward than those that sold us out in the past. #LiberateAfrica Now is the time to rise up, not tomorrow.
4:31

Religion was and is still one of the major tools that was used to divide and destroy Africa. They told us they had the best and ours was wrong and while we were comparing and changing and dividing ourselves they were stealing our wealth. Now l am not telling to be or not be a Christian or Muslim. I don't care. All l want you to do is to think. If they did it to your forefathers and you still allow them to do it to you today, in this century of information and technology,then you are a bigger coward than those that sold us out in the past. #LiberateAfrica Now is the time to rise up, not tomorrow.

Liberate Africa

24,848 views • 1 year ago

🚨“The Chinese, who manufacture virtually all of our solar panels…have been installing cellular radios inside the inverters, which can act as kill switches," says Michael Shellenberger "There was actually a Chinese solar company that turned off the solar panels and sent up a little message to its users, saying: we've turned this off because these solar panels are only authorized to be used in certain countries. …So we know that the Chinese solar companies—all of which essentially can be used as arms of the Chinese military…they are able to to switch off large amounts of solar. And if you are able to do that, then you are able to cause the de-powering and blackouts of the grid. How big of a problem is this? …I think most national security experts view this as something that the Chinese could do if there was, for example, an invasion of Taiwan, and the United States decided to defend Taiwan. The Chinese could potentially trigger blackouts in the United States and Europe. As crazy as that sounds, that is the reality."
3:28

🚨“The Chinese, who manufacture virtually all of our solar panels…have been installing cellular radios inside the inverters, which can act as kill switches," says Michael Shellenberger "There was actually a Chinese solar company that turned off the solar panels and sent up a little message to its users, saying: we've turned this off because these solar panels are only authorized to be used in certain countries. …So we know that the Chinese solar companies—all of which essentially can be used as arms of the Chinese military…they are able to to switch off large amounts of solar. And if you are able to do that, then you are able to cause the de-powering and blackouts of the grid. How big of a problem is this? …I think most national security experts view this as something that the Chinese could do if there was, for example, an invasion of Taiwan, and the United States decided to defend Taiwan. The Chinese could potentially trigger blackouts in the United States and Europe. As crazy as that sounds, that is the reality."

Jan Jekielek

549,335 views • 1 year ago

A new Chinese electric car drove upside down in a tunnel. The Voyah Passion S model travelled so fast that it did a looping-the-loop maneuver to defy gravity before returning safely to run along the road. The drive was designed to recreate a famous maneuver that race driver Michael Schumaker did in a Mercedes vehicle 16 years ago. But the Chinese team made their version of the challenge much harder. Instead of stripping down the car to make it a lightweight experimental car, they used a full production model – and it was electric, so it contained a heavy battery. They did a lot of testing and mathematics before trying it for real—and they worked out that if the driver entered the tunnel at 130 km an hour and turned at 16 degrees, the experiment would work. It did.
0:55

A new Chinese electric car drove upside down in a tunnel. The Voyah Passion S model travelled so fast that it did a looping-the-loop maneuver to defy gravity before returning safely to run along the road. The drive was designed to recreate a famous maneuver that race driver Michael Schumaker did in a Mercedes vehicle 16 years ago. But the Chinese team made their version of the challenge much harder. Instead of stripping down the car to make it a lightweight experimental car, they used a full production model – and it was electric, so it contained a heavy battery. They did a lot of testing and mathematics before trying it for real—and they worked out that if the driver entered the tunnel at 130 km an hour and turned at 16 degrees, the experiment would work. It did.

Nury Vittachi

24,243 views • 16 days ago

I shared a video from Nick Freitas yesterday about how to encourage and reach young men. You should check it out if you didn’t see it. Now, here is a clip that shows how to repel and discourage young men. This is so frustrating, Sean DeMars and Neil Shenvi. Leaving aside the whole “woke right” thing, whatever. You acknowledge that the Left has total cultural control. Then you mock the idea that white men are systemically discriminated against in our culture, or that we live in an effeminate gynocracy. What do you think the Left does with its total cultural control? You mock young men by claiming that their discrimination has no basis in reality, but has to be understood via some “gnostic” higher knowledge. This is not fair. We are starting to get more and more hard data on this issue. I will admit that there is an element of “look around, this should be obvious.” It should be, and you’re really sticking your head in the sand to deny these things. But being on the Right is to believe in God’s created reality. It’s not about “lived experience,” it’s about what is actually true. White men are being discriminated against in this culture, and the West has been feminized radically in the last 60 years. The biggest problem with the woke was always that they were wrong, beyond even their philosophical system. It wasn’t merely that they were claiming to be oppressed, but it was that this claim was wrong. "This argument sounds like that argument" is just so lazy when one was factually wrong, and one is factually right. The claims of the Right are correct in general. But at the end of the day, good luck crapping on young men like this. We'll see how that works out for you. I won’t be joining you.
3:05

I shared a video from Nick Freitas yesterday about how to encourage and reach young men. You should check it out if you didn’t see it. Now, here is a clip that shows how to repel and discourage young men. This is so frustrating, Sean DeMars and Neil Shenvi. Leaving aside the whole “woke right” thing, whatever. You acknowledge that the Left has total cultural control. Then you mock the idea that white men are systemically discriminated against in our culture, or that we live in an effeminate gynocracy. What do you think the Left does with its total cultural control? You mock young men by claiming that their discrimination has no basis in reality, but has to be understood via some “gnostic” higher knowledge. This is not fair. We are starting to get more and more hard data on this issue. I will admit that there is an element of “look around, this should be obvious.” It should be, and you’re really sticking your head in the sand to deny these things. But being on the Right is to believe in God’s created reality. It’s not about “lived experience,” it’s about what is actually true. White men are being discriminated against in this culture, and the West has been feminized radically in the last 60 years. The biggest problem with the woke was always that they were wrong, beyond even their philosophical system. It wasn’t merely that they were claiming to be oppressed, but it was that this claim was wrong. "This argument sounds like that argument" is just so lazy when one was factually wrong, and one is factually right. The claims of the Right are correct in general. But at the end of the day, good luck crapping on young men like this. We'll see how that works out for you. I won’t be joining you.

Nate Schlomann

47,845 views • 9 months ago

Francis Schaffer in 1982 answering the question of what has gone wrong with evangelicals that allowed the Christian consensus to be lost in our nation: "I think a false view of spirituality, a Platonic view of spirituality which follows Plato, but certainly isn't biblical. And that is that spirituality is shut up to a small area of life...in this view, everything is worldly that isn't in this little box of spirituality. Now, as I look at the Bible, this is exactly 1000% backwards. There are certain sinful things that God tells us are sinful, and we ought to take those and set them aside...and then, everything else is spiritual." Robertson: "Elaborate on that. Everything then in the world, because you're saying that Jesus has a plan and a worldview and a purpose. He's not just God of the church; He's God of everything." Schaeffer: "Absolutely. He made it. And one day, the wonder is, Jesus is coming back and is going to be the redemption of all things...God is interested in the totality of life—art, music, literature, but also the political life. So true spirituality means the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life and not just a small part of it." Robertson: "The liberal press, particularly, would try to keep conservative Christians or evangelicals out of political life, and there's this great pressure to make fun of you when you get in politics, and they don't think it should be. And there are many Christians who say yes to the same thing. Now, what do you say to them?" Schaeffer: "Well, they're wrong." Robertson: "Christians should do what? Run for office, vote, register, get involved? What ought they to do?" Schaeffer: "Well, we ought to realize that in the viewpoint of the Scripture, life is not divided up into watertight compartments, that all of life should be lived for the Lordship of Christ. Now, what exact portion each one of us should have is according to the Lord's leading for us...but the rule to lay down is that Christians have a responsibility for the society in which they live. We're to be the salt. We're to be the light...By our silence, by refusing to be what God tells us to be, the light of this culture, the salt of the culture, we are the ones responsible before God for the mess we're in."
3:44

Francis Schaffer in 1982 answering the question of what has gone wrong with evangelicals that allowed the Christian consensus to be lost in our nation: "I think a false view of spirituality, a Platonic view of spirituality which follows Plato, but certainly isn't biblical. And that is that spirituality is shut up to a small area of life...in this view, everything is worldly that isn't in this little box of spirituality. Now, as I look at the Bible, this is exactly 1000% backwards. There are certain sinful things that God tells us are sinful, and we ought to take those and set them aside...and then, everything else is spiritual." Robertson: "Elaborate on that. Everything then in the world, because you're saying that Jesus has a plan and a worldview and a purpose. He's not just God of the church; He's God of everything." Schaeffer: "Absolutely. He made it. And one day, the wonder is, Jesus is coming back and is going to be the redemption of all things...God is interested in the totality of life—art, music, literature, but also the political life. So true spirituality means the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life and not just a small part of it." Robertson: "The liberal press, particularly, would try to keep conservative Christians or evangelicals out of political life, and there's this great pressure to make fun of you when you get in politics, and they don't think it should be. And there are many Christians who say yes to the same thing. Now, what do you say to them?" Schaeffer: "Well, they're wrong." Robertson: "Christians should do what? Run for office, vote, register, get involved? What ought they to do?" Schaeffer: "Well, we ought to realize that in the viewpoint of the Scripture, life is not divided up into watertight compartments, that all of life should be lived for the Lordship of Christ. Now, what exact portion each one of us should have is according to the Lord's leading for us...but the rule to lay down is that Christians have a responsibility for the society in which they live. We're to be the salt. We're to be the light...By our silence, by refusing to be what God tells us to be, the light of this culture, the salt of the culture, we are the ones responsible before God for the mess we're in."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

123,586 views • 5 months ago