Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Daddy films while his friends take turns breeding his boy’s hairy hole #gaybreeding #gaybareback #gaysex #groupsex #amateurgayporn #gaping #dadson #cum #creampie

LowkeyLimitless's profile picture

Lowkey_Limitless

72,576 subscribers

418,084 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#gaybreeding#gaybareback#gaysex#groupsex#amateurgayporn#gaping#dadson#cum#creampie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Sky Bri finally talked about shooting with Dredd. She said she’s usually more of an average-size girl in real life, so pulling up to his place had her nervous. Once she got there it was just him and a makeup artist. He sat and talked with her while she got ready. Out of everyone she’s worked with, she called him the nicest and, size considered, the easiest. His presence is calm and welcoming. He films in short bursts , one position for a few minutes, then a real break so it never feels endless. She still hasn’t done An*l with him (or anyone on camera yet). She did recently take a dp(duo p£nis in her pu$$*) and one of them slipped the wrong Hole for a second, which left her sore for days. Other girls had told her Dredd takes his time easing in, and she confirmed it: inch by inch, waiting between, slow and steady. Once it was in, she was fine. The Twitter clips only show the destruction. They don’t show the careful part that actually makes it possible.
3:47

Sensitive content

Sky Bri finally talked about shooting with Dredd. She said she’s usually more of an average-size girl in real life, so pulling up to his place had her nervous. Once she got there it was just him and a makeup artist. He sat and talked with her while she got ready. Out of everyone she’s worked with, she called him the nicest and, size considered, the easiest. His presence is calm and welcoming. He films in short bursts , one position for a few minutes, then a real break so it never feels endless. She still hasn’t done An*l with him (or anyone on camera yet). She did recently take a dp(duo p£nis in her pu$$*) and one of them slipped the wrong Hole for a second, which left her sore for days. Other girls had told her Dredd takes his time easing in, and she confirmed it: inch by inch, waiting between, slow and steady. Once it was in, she was fine. The Twitter clips only show the destruction. They don’t show the careful part that actually makes it possible.

Midel

989,517 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

"If you understand probabilities in this game, then you understand the risk. And by understanding risk, you can take more of it than a typical person might." Jason (Jason Ruschel) on why most traders have the risk equation backwards. Jason runs Three Peaks Trading and trades his own book full time. Before that he spent 5y reading institutional option flow for a living. He learned the VIX during the 2008 crisis from floor traders' blogs, while he was still at college, and says he's never really read an options book. 0:00 Meet Jason Ruschel of Three Peaks Trading 1:58 Going Full Time, and Learning to Control Drawdowns 4:20 Rolling Deltas Before a Winner Turns on You 7:45 What Institutional Option Flow Actually Tells You 11:03 LEAPS, Cash-Secured Puts, and Giving Yourself Time 17:25 Buy the Stock, or Sell the Put? 20:27 VIX Call Spreads and Reading the Term Structure 30:34 The Earnings Trades He Will and Won't Take 34:35 Is Dealer Gamma Real, or Coincidence? 37:47 Automating 0DTE, and When Backtests Stop Working 42:26 The Flyagonal 46:02 Gold, Jackson Hole and the Midterms 50:17 Oil, and the IPO That Might Mark the Top
54:02

"If you understand probabilities in this game, then you understand the risk. And by understanding risk, you can take more of it than a typical person might." Jason (Jason Ruschel) on why most traders have the risk equation backwards. Jason runs Three Peaks Trading and trades his own book full time. Before that he spent 5y reading institutional option flow for a living. He learned the VIX during the 2008 crisis from floor traders' blogs, while he was still at college, and says he's never really read an options book. 0:00 Meet Jason Ruschel of Three Peaks Trading 1:58 Going Full Time, and Learning to Control Drawdowns 4:20 Rolling Deltas Before a Winner Turns on You 7:45 What Institutional Option Flow Actually Tells You 11:03 LEAPS, Cash-Secured Puts, and Giving Yourself Time 17:25 Buy the Stock, or Sell the Put? 20:27 VIX Call Spreads and Reading the Term Structure 30:34 The Earnings Trades He Will and Won't Take 34:35 Is Dealer Gamma Real, or Coincidence? 37:47 Automating 0DTE, and When Backtests Stop Working 42:26 The Flyagonal 46:02 Gold, Jackson Hole and the Midterms 50:17 Oil, and the IPO That Might Mark the Top

Imran Lakha | Options Insight

41,465 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Meme Vlog using Seedance 2.5 Prompt: Vertical 9:16 smartphone vlog, shot on iPhone 17 Pro. ONE SINGLE UNINTERRUPTED HANDHELD TAKE, ~30 seconds, no cuts, no editing — every transition happens only through the vlogger panning, tilting, zooming or walking. Brisk, snappy pacing: quick whip pans, each beat lands in a few seconds, the camera never lingers. Sunny daytime New York City street >> — brick facades, fire escapes, a sidewalk café, parked cars. The filming style is the core of the video: natural hand micro-shake and walking bounce, slightly floaty digital stabilization, deep focus with everything sharp — no cinematic bokeh, no film look, no color grading. Natural HDR daylight, sky highlights slightly clipped, auto exposure and white balance visibly re-adjusting on every pan between shade and sun, quick autofocus hunting on fast pans, digital zoom bringing a slight quality drop and extra shake. Audio: raw street ambience only — traffic, distant horns, footsteps, chatter, wind brushing the mic, plus the live sounds written into the scenes. No music track, no captions, no watermark. The vlogger's phone IS the camera — it never appears on screen, and she never holds a second phone or any other device. Spontaneous amateur vlog energy. 0:00–0:05 — Front camera, selfie mode: the vlogger >> films herself at arm's length while walking down the sidewalk, her face a touch overexposed by daylight. She starts excitedly: "Guys! I just—" — behind her shoulder, a couple >>walking the opposite way passes right beside her; a beat later the guy stops and turns back, head over his shoulder, staring straight at her — the exact reference pose — while his girlfriend , gripping his hand, glares at him in outraged disbelief, mouth open. They hold the exact reference tableau; his stare reads odd and unreadable, not flirty. She catches them in her own selfie frame, cuts off mid-word and reacts instantly, without breaking stride: "...What was that?" — and keeps walking. 0:05–0:09 — Same take, no cut: she flips the phone to the rear camera and whips it to the RIGHT — a sidewalk café. By the entrance, a guy >> stands at a microphone on a stand, a small speaker beside it looping a soft instrumental backing. He leans in, takes a breath to sing the first line — and bursts out laughing instead, turning away and covering his mouth, then waves it off and resets toward the mic. The vlogger laughs quietly behind the camera. 0:09–0:13 — Without cutting, the camera slides and zooms further RIGHT along the same café terrace: at one table a woman >> is mid-meltdown — crying, shouting, jabbing an accusing finger across the terrace — while her friend >> leans in, holding her back. Quick punch-in digital zoom to the opposite table: the cat >> sits upright behind a plate of salad, perfectly calm and unimpressed. Autofocus hunts for a split second on the zoom. 0:13–0:17 — Without cutting, the camera TILTS UP the facade directly above the café awning: a second-floor open window of the same brick building, a fire escape beside it. Quick digital zoom in — the image gets slightly softer and shakier — the dog >> sits in the window with its eyes closed, chin lifted, blissfully soaking up the warm golden sunlight hitting the facade. She melts behind the camera: "Awww, look at him..." 0:17–0:21 — The camera drops back down and swings FORWARD — a few steps ahead of her on the same sidewalk stands a couple in office attire, mid-argument. The guy >> leans in toward the woman, talking heatedly, both hands raised mid-gesture; the woman >> doesn't even glance at him — she smiles down at the phone in her hand, her other arm extended toward his face, flat palm raised in a firm "stop, talk to the hand" gesture, exactly matching the reference poses. The vlogger steps around them, the camera holding on the pair as she half-laughs: "What is going on?" 0:21–0:25 — Same take: she whips the camera to the LEFT, across the two-lane road — a sedan parked at the opposite curb. Shaky digital zoom onto the driver's window: a man >> sits behind the wheel, one hand draped over the top of the steering wheel, staring straight into the lens with a heavy, unblinking suspicious look, his eyes slowly tracking her as she passes. She says flatly: "...What is his problem?" 0:25–0:30 — The camera swings back forward: ahead at the corner of the block, a guy >> stands in profile by a red brick wall, heatedly arguing with the wall itself — both hands gesturing, leaning in, making his case to the bricks like a real debate. Quick shaky digital zoom toward him as she approaches, his agitated voice rising under the street noise. She flips to the front camera — her speechless, wide-eyed face fills the frame — then flips back to the rear camera: he's still going at it. The take ends mid-argument, no cut.
0:30

Meme Vlog using Seedance 2.5 Prompt: Vertical 9:16 smartphone vlog, shot on iPhone 17 Pro. ONE SINGLE UNINTERRUPTED HANDHELD TAKE, ~30 seconds, no cuts, no editing — every transition happens only through the vlogger panning, tilting, zooming or walking. Brisk, snappy pacing: quick whip pans, each beat lands in a few seconds, the camera never lingers. Sunny daytime New York City street >> — brick facades, fire escapes, a sidewalk café, parked cars. The filming style is the core of the video: natural hand micro-shake and walking bounce, slightly floaty digital stabilization, deep focus with everything sharp — no cinematic bokeh, no film look, no color grading. Natural HDR daylight, sky highlights slightly clipped, auto exposure and white balance visibly re-adjusting on every pan between shade and sun, quick autofocus hunting on fast pans, digital zoom bringing a slight quality drop and extra shake. Audio: raw street ambience only — traffic, distant horns, footsteps, chatter, wind brushing the mic, plus the live sounds written into the scenes. No music track, no captions, no watermark. The vlogger's phone IS the camera — it never appears on screen, and she never holds a second phone or any other device. Spontaneous amateur vlog energy. 0:00–0:05 — Front camera, selfie mode: the vlogger >> films herself at arm's length while walking down the sidewalk, her face a touch overexposed by daylight. She starts excitedly: "Guys! I just—" — behind her shoulder, a couple >>walking the opposite way passes right beside her; a beat later the guy stops and turns back, head over his shoulder, staring straight at her — the exact reference pose — while his girlfriend , gripping his hand, glares at him in outraged disbelief, mouth open. They hold the exact reference tableau; his stare reads odd and unreadable, not flirty. She catches them in her own selfie frame, cuts off mid-word and reacts instantly, without breaking stride: "...What was that?" — and keeps walking. 0:05–0:09 — Same take, no cut: she flips the phone to the rear camera and whips it to the RIGHT — a sidewalk café. By the entrance, a guy >> stands at a microphone on a stand, a small speaker beside it looping a soft instrumental backing. He leans in, takes a breath to sing the first line — and bursts out laughing instead, turning away and covering his mouth, then waves it off and resets toward the mic. The vlogger laughs quietly behind the camera. 0:09–0:13 — Without cutting, the camera slides and zooms further RIGHT along the same café terrace: at one table a woman >> is mid-meltdown — crying, shouting, jabbing an accusing finger across the terrace — while her friend >> leans in, holding her back. Quick punch-in digital zoom to the opposite table: the cat >> sits upright behind a plate of salad, perfectly calm and unimpressed. Autofocus hunts for a split second on the zoom. 0:13–0:17 — Without cutting, the camera TILTS UP the facade directly above the café awning: a second-floor open window of the same brick building, a fire escape beside it. Quick digital zoom in — the image gets slightly softer and shakier — the dog >> sits in the window with its eyes closed, chin lifted, blissfully soaking up the warm golden sunlight hitting the facade. She melts behind the camera: "Awww, look at him..." 0:17–0:21 — The camera drops back down and swings FORWARD — a few steps ahead of her on the same sidewalk stands a couple in office attire, mid-argument. The guy >> leans in toward the woman, talking heatedly, both hands raised mid-gesture; the woman >> doesn't even glance at him — she smiles down at the phone in her hand, her other arm extended toward his face, flat palm raised in a firm "stop, talk to the hand" gesture, exactly matching the reference poses. The vlogger steps around them, the camera holding on the pair as she half-laughs: "What is going on?" 0:21–0:25 — Same take: she whips the camera to the LEFT, across the two-lane road — a sedan parked at the opposite curb. Shaky digital zoom onto the driver's window: a man >> sits behind the wheel, one hand draped over the top of the steering wheel, staring straight into the lens with a heavy, unblinking suspicious look, his eyes slowly tracking her as she passes. She says flatly: "...What is his problem?" 0:25–0:30 — The camera swings back forward: ahead at the corner of the block, a guy >> stands in profile by a red brick wall, heatedly arguing with the wall itself — both hands gesturing, leaning in, making his case to the bricks like a real debate. Quick shaky digital zoom toward him as she approaches, his agitated voice rising under the street noise. She flips to the front camera — her speechless, wide-eyed face fills the frame — then flips back to the rear camera: he's still going at it. The take ends mid-argument, no cut.

Oogie

48,096 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨📷BREAKING: MANIFESTO & INSTAGRAM VIDEOS OF MAN ON FIRE OUTSIDE TRUMP TRIAL “My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan. This extreme act of protest is to draw attention to an urgent and important discovery: We are victims of a totalitarian con, and our own government (along with many of their allies) is about to hit us with an apocalyptic fascist world coup.” Source: Max Azzarello FROM HIS FACEBOOK! "Hey friends! You ever notice how we're flooded with an endless supply of media telling us to be anxious, bitter, angry, hopeless, depressed, partisan, jaded, apathetic, helpless, and misguided? Turns out, that's the con! They tell us we're in hellworld, they make certain that it's true, and they bleed us dry. It's why everything gets worse and more expensive while a handful of people take all the money 📷 And cryptocurrency is our first planetary multi-trillion dollar Ponzi scheme that's about to collapse the world economy so our elites can try to fascist coup us! When you see the fireworks, thank every rich and powerful person you can think of, thank the criminal media that led us here, and join the united movement to abolish this rotten farce forever 📷" - Max Azzarello #offtopicshow #TragicEvent #NYCNews #DonaldTrumpTrial #BreakingNews #ManOnFire #NewYorkCity #Heartbreaking #SadNews #MaxAzzarello
1:29

🚨📷BREAKING: MANIFESTO & INSTAGRAM VIDEOS OF MAN ON FIRE OUTSIDE TRUMP TRIAL “My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan. This extreme act of protest is to draw attention to an urgent and important discovery: We are victims of a totalitarian con, and our own government (along with many of their allies) is about to hit us with an apocalyptic fascist world coup.” Source: Max Azzarello FROM HIS FACEBOOK! "Hey friends! You ever notice how we're flooded with an endless supply of media telling us to be anxious, bitter, angry, hopeless, depressed, partisan, jaded, apathetic, helpless, and misguided? Turns out, that's the con! They tell us we're in hellworld, they make certain that it's true, and they bleed us dry. It's why everything gets worse and more expensive while a handful of people take all the money 📷 And cryptocurrency is our first planetary multi-trillion dollar Ponzi scheme that's about to collapse the world economy so our elites can try to fascist coup us! When you see the fireworks, thank every rich and powerful person you can think of, thank the criminal media that led us here, and join the united movement to abolish this rotten farce forever 📷" - Max Azzarello #offtopicshow #TragicEvent #NYCNews #DonaldTrumpTrial #BreakingNews #ManOnFire #NewYorkCity #Heartbreaking #SadNews #MaxAzzarello

Off Topic Show

110,212 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

DJ Clark Kent founded the Supermen DJs (DJ Scratch, Daddy Rich, Plastic Man, etc.) in the 1980s. At that time, they were the world’s most loved, envied, and, to a degree, hated DJ crew (not because they sucked but because they were so good). DJ culture was so different back then, though. You stuck to your inner circle and “to hell with everyone else.” It’s not like the way it is now, where dudes fake like you when they see you in person, asking to take a selfie with you and all, only to talk trash about you the minute you walk away. Nah, DJs knew who they were and were not cool with and we all respected those boundaries. The fun fact is that Steve Dee and Sean C formed the X-Men (later known as the X-Ecutioners) solely because we saw the Supermen as our rivals! We wanted to battle Clark and his crew with a passion. That healthy (and sometimes no-so-healthy, if I’m being honest) competition was what inspired me to come up with routines like my “Nobody Beats The Biz” because to be the best, you have to beat the best! Thank you, Clark. Thank you for teaching me how rivalry motivates me to be a better version of myself. The Supermen’s DJ skills helped the X-Men define who we are and how far we want to take our DJ careers. Each member of your crew’s standing within the DJ community kept my crew focused and committed to improving as DJs. The Supermen, led by DJ Clark Kent, were the first superheroes of turntablism, while the X-Men were their arch-enemies. Although it may not have always looked like it on the surface, our rivalry existed because we respected Clark and his crew, and I’m blessed that the energy that made us rivals ultimately transformed us into great friends. Rest in peace.
3:52

DJ Clark Kent founded the Supermen DJs (DJ Scratch, Daddy Rich, Plastic Man, etc.) in the 1980s. At that time, they were the world’s most loved, envied, and, to a degree, hated DJ crew (not because they sucked but because they were so good). DJ culture was so different back then, though. You stuck to your inner circle and “to hell with everyone else.” It’s not like the way it is now, where dudes fake like you when they see you in person, asking to take a selfie with you and all, only to talk trash about you the minute you walk away. Nah, DJs knew who they were and were not cool with and we all respected those boundaries. The fun fact is that Steve Dee and Sean C formed the X-Men (later known as the X-Ecutioners) solely because we saw the Supermen as our rivals! We wanted to battle Clark and his crew with a passion. That healthy (and sometimes no-so-healthy, if I’m being honest) competition was what inspired me to come up with routines like my “Nobody Beats The Biz” because to be the best, you have to beat the best! Thank you, Clark. Thank you for teaching me how rivalry motivates me to be a better version of myself. The Supermen’s DJ skills helped the X-Men define who we are and how far we want to take our DJ careers. Each member of your crew’s standing within the DJ community kept my crew focused and committed to improving as DJs. The Supermen, led by DJ Clark Kent, were the first superheroes of turntablism, while the X-Men were their arch-enemies. Although it may not have always looked like it on the surface, our rivalry existed because we respected Clark and his crew, and I’m blessed that the energy that made us rivals ultimately transformed us into great friends. Rest in peace.

BROLICARM

68,027 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

You finally get to see the scene that was never supposed to exist. 👀 Made with Pollo AI 365 days of unlimited MiniMax H3. No extra credits, no limits just create. Prompt: Vertical 9:16 smartphone vlog, shot on iPhone 17 Pro. ONE SINGLE UNINTERRUPTED HANDHELD TAKE, ~30 seconds, no cuts, no editing — every transition happens only through the vlogger panning, tilting, zooming or walking. Brisk, snappy pacing: quick whip pans, each beat lands in a few seconds, the camera never lingers. Sunny daytime New York City street >> — brick facades, fire escapes, a sidewalk café, parked cars. The filming style is the core of the video: natural hand micro-shake and walking bounce, slightly floaty digital stabilization, deep focus with everything sharp — no cinematic bokeh, no film look, no color grading. Natural HDR daylight, sky highlights slightly clipped, auto exposure and white balance visibly re-adjusting on every pan between shade and sun, quick autofocus hunting on fast pans, digital zoom bringing a slight quality drop and extra shake. Audio: raw street ambience only — traffic, distant horns, footsteps, chatter, wind brushing the mic, plus the live sounds written into the scenes. No music track, no captions, no watermark. IMPORTANT CHARACTER AND POV LOCK: The vlogger is ALWAYS >>. The vlogger is a man, and he remains the same person throughout the entire video. He is the person physically holding and operating the single camera. He is NEVER replaced by any other reference character. Reference images used in individual scenes describe ONLY the people or animals appearing in that specific scene, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The vlogger’s phone IS the camera — it never appears on screen, and he never holds a second phone or any other device. When the front camera is active, the viewer sees the vlogger himself in selfie view. When the rear camera is active, the viewer sees ONLY the environment and subjects in front of him from his physical walking POV. The phone itself is NEVER visible. This is a continuous real-world camera transition, not a cut. 0:00–0:05 — FRONT CAMERA / SELFIE POV: The vlogger >> films himself at arm’s length while walking down the sidewalk. His face is a touch overexposed by daylight. He starts excitedly: “Guys! I just—” Behind his shoulder, a couple walking the opposite way passes right beside him. A beat later, the guy >> stops and turns back, head over his shoulder, staring straight at the vlogger — matching the reference pose. His girlfriend >>, still gripping his hand, glares at him in outraged disbelief, mouth open. They hold the exact reference tableau. His stare reads odd and unreadable, NOT flirty. The vlogger sees them in his own selfie frame, cuts himself off mid-word and reacts instantly without breaking stride: “…What was that?” He keeps walking. 0:05–0:09 — FLIP TO REAR CAMERA / VLOGGER’S PHYSICAL POV: WITHOUT CUTTING, the vlogger physically flips the phone from front camera to rear camera. The camera itself is never visible. The image transitions naturally from selfie view into the rear-camera view of exactly what is in front of him. He immediately WHIPS the rear camera to the RIGHT toward a sidewalk café. By the entrance, a guy >> stands at a microphone on a stand, with a small speaker beside him looping a soft instrumental backing. He leans toward the microphone, takes a breath to sing the first line — and suddenly bursts out laughing instead, turning away and covering his mouth. He waves it off, then resets toward the microphone. The vlogger laughs quietly behind the camera. 0:09–0:13 — REAR CAMERA / CONTINUOUS POV: WITHOUT CUTTING, the vlogger continues physically panning RIGHT along the same café terrace. At one table, a woman >> is mid-meltdown — crying, shouting, jabbing an accusing finger across the terrace — while her friend >> leans in and holds her back. The camera then makes a QUICK PUNCH-IN DIGITAL ZOOM toward the opposite table. The cat >> sits upright behind a plate of salad, perfectly calm and completely unimpressed by the chaos. Autofocus hunts for a split second during the zoom. The vlogger continues walking. 0:13–0:17 — REAR CAMERA / FIRST SHOW THE MAN, THEN FOLLOW HIS GAZE UP: WITHOUT CUTTING, the camera moves slightly farther along the sidewalk and FIRST frames the man >> standing on the street near the building. IMPORTANT: The man >> is NOT the vlogger. He is a separate person standing in the environment. He is NOT holding the camera, NOT filming himself, and NEVER becomes the POV character. The camera clearly shows his full upper body as he stands below the building, looking UP toward the second floor. His head is tilted upward and his eyes are visibly directed toward something above him. The vlogger notices what the man is looking at and physically follows his gaze. The camera then TILTS UP from the man’s position toward the brick facade directly above the café awning, naturally following the man’s line of sight. The movement must clearly communicate: MAN LOOKS UP → CAMERA FOLLOWS HIS GAZE → WINDOW ABOVE. A second-floor open window comes into view, with a fire escape beside it. The dog >> is sitting in that window with its eyes closed, chin lifted, peacefully soaking up the warm golden sunlight hitting the facade. IMPORTANT: >> is ONLY the DOG. The dog is inside the upper window. It is NOT the vlogger and NOT a human character. The camera performs a QUICK DIGITAL ZOOM toward the dog. The image becomes slightly softer and shakier from the digital zoom. Hold only long enough to clearly reveal the dog enjoying the sunlight. The vlogger reacts behind the camera: “Awww, look at him…” 0:17–0:21 — REAR CAMERA / RETURN TO STREET LEVEL: WITHOUT CUTTING, the camera tilts back DOWN from the dog and window to street level, returning to the same sidewalk. The camera then swings FORWARD toward a few steps ahead on the same sidewalk, where the man from >> is standing. IMPORTANT: >> is a SEPARATE STREET CHARACTER. He is NOT the vlogger. He does NOT hold the camera. He does NOT interact physically with the vlogger. The vlogger is only observing him from behind the camera while walking past. The man wears the black leather jacket and black pants shown in the reference. He is standing on the sidewalk making an exaggerated “thinking / knowledge” gesture with his index finger touching or pointing toward his temple, matching the reference pose. He is NOT standing together with the vlogger. Maintain visible physical distance between the vlogger and this man. The vlogger walks past him while keeping the rear camera briefly trained on him and half-laughs: “What is going on?” 0:21–0:24 — REAR CAMERA / WHIP LEFT ACROSS THE ROAD: WITHOUT CUTTING, the vlogger whips the rear camera to the LEFT, across the two-lane road, toward a sedan parked at the opposite curb. Shaky digital zoom toward the driver’s window. A man >> sits behind the wheel, one hand draped over the top of the steering wheel. He stares directly into the rear-camera lens with a heavy, unblinking, suspicious expression. His eyes slowly track the vlogger as the vlogger walks past. The vlogger says flatly from behind the camera: “…What is his problem?” 0:24–0:30 — REAR CAMERA → FRONT CAMERA → REAR CAMERA: WITHOUT CUTTING, the camera swings back FORWARD toward the corner of the block. Ahead, a child >> is sitting sideways near the roadside, holding a coffee cup and looking toward the camera. The child is a completely separate background character and is NOT the vlogger. The vlogger continues WALKING TOWARD the child. As he gets closer, he performs a QUICK DIGITAL ZOOM. The child looks toward the camera, casually raises the coffee cup and takes a small SIP while looking at the camera. Keep the child as the only visual focus. Natural spontaneous behavior. Immediately after the child's sip, the vlogger physically FLIPS the phone from rear camera to FRONT CAMERA. This is a real camera flip, not a cinematic cut. The phone itself remains invisible. Says: “I can’t believe this”. The take ends naturally mid-walk, still handheld, still continuous, with NO CUT and NO EDIT.
0:30

You finally get to see the scene that was never supposed to exist. 👀 Made with Pollo AI 365 days of unlimited MiniMax H3. No extra credits, no limits just create. Prompt: Vertical 9:16 smartphone vlog, shot on iPhone 17 Pro. ONE SINGLE UNINTERRUPTED HANDHELD TAKE, ~30 seconds, no cuts, no editing — every transition happens only through the vlogger panning, tilting, zooming or walking. Brisk, snappy pacing: quick whip pans, each beat lands in a few seconds, the camera never lingers. Sunny daytime New York City street >> — brick facades, fire escapes, a sidewalk café, parked cars. The filming style is the core of the video: natural hand micro-shake and walking bounce, slightly floaty digital stabilization, deep focus with everything sharp — no cinematic bokeh, no film look, no color grading. Natural HDR daylight, sky highlights slightly clipped, auto exposure and white balance visibly re-adjusting on every pan between shade and sun, quick autofocus hunting on fast pans, digital zoom bringing a slight quality drop and extra shake. Audio: raw street ambience only — traffic, distant horns, footsteps, chatter, wind brushing the mic, plus the live sounds written into the scenes. No music track, no captions, no watermark. IMPORTANT CHARACTER AND POV LOCK: The vlogger is ALWAYS >>. The vlogger is a man, and he remains the same person throughout the entire video. He is the person physically holding and operating the single camera. He is NEVER replaced by any other reference character. Reference images used in individual scenes describe ONLY the people or animals appearing in that specific scene, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The vlogger’s phone IS the camera — it never appears on screen, and he never holds a second phone or any other device. When the front camera is active, the viewer sees the vlogger himself in selfie view. When the rear camera is active, the viewer sees ONLY the environment and subjects in front of him from his physical walking POV. The phone itself is NEVER visible. This is a continuous real-world camera transition, not a cut. 0:00–0:05 — FRONT CAMERA / SELFIE POV: The vlogger >> films himself at arm’s length while walking down the sidewalk. His face is a touch overexposed by daylight. He starts excitedly: “Guys! I just—” Behind his shoulder, a couple walking the opposite way passes right beside him. A beat later, the guy >> stops and turns back, head over his shoulder, staring straight at the vlogger — matching the reference pose. His girlfriend >>, still gripping his hand, glares at him in outraged disbelief, mouth open. They hold the exact reference tableau. His stare reads odd and unreadable, NOT flirty. The vlogger sees them in his own selfie frame, cuts himself off mid-word and reacts instantly without breaking stride: “…What was that?” He keeps walking. 0:05–0:09 — FLIP TO REAR CAMERA / VLOGGER’S PHYSICAL POV: WITHOUT CUTTING, the vlogger physically flips the phone from front camera to rear camera. The camera itself is never visible. The image transitions naturally from selfie view into the rear-camera view of exactly what is in front of him. He immediately WHIPS the rear camera to the RIGHT toward a sidewalk café. By the entrance, a guy >> stands at a microphone on a stand, with a small speaker beside him looping a soft instrumental backing. He leans toward the microphone, takes a breath to sing the first line — and suddenly bursts out laughing instead, turning away and covering his mouth. He waves it off, then resets toward the microphone. The vlogger laughs quietly behind the camera. 0:09–0:13 — REAR CAMERA / CONTINUOUS POV: WITHOUT CUTTING, the vlogger continues physically panning RIGHT along the same café terrace. At one table, a woman >> is mid-meltdown — crying, shouting, jabbing an accusing finger across the terrace — while her friend >> leans in and holds her back. The camera then makes a QUICK PUNCH-IN DIGITAL ZOOM toward the opposite table. The cat >> sits upright behind a plate of salad, perfectly calm and completely unimpressed by the chaos. Autofocus hunts for a split second during the zoom. The vlogger continues walking. 0:13–0:17 — REAR CAMERA / FIRST SHOW THE MAN, THEN FOLLOW HIS GAZE UP: WITHOUT CUTTING, the camera moves slightly farther along the sidewalk and FIRST frames the man >> standing on the street near the building. IMPORTANT: The man >> is NOT the vlogger. He is a separate person standing in the environment. He is NOT holding the camera, NOT filming himself, and NEVER becomes the POV character. The camera clearly shows his full upper body as he stands below the building, looking UP toward the second floor. His head is tilted upward and his eyes are visibly directed toward something above him. The vlogger notices what the man is looking at and physically follows his gaze. The camera then TILTS UP from the man’s position toward the brick facade directly above the café awning, naturally following the man’s line of sight. The movement must clearly communicate: MAN LOOKS UP → CAMERA FOLLOWS HIS GAZE → WINDOW ABOVE. A second-floor open window comes into view, with a fire escape beside it. The dog >> is sitting in that window with its eyes closed, chin lifted, peacefully soaking up the warm golden sunlight hitting the facade. IMPORTANT: >> is ONLY the DOG. The dog is inside the upper window. It is NOT the vlogger and NOT a human character. The camera performs a QUICK DIGITAL ZOOM toward the dog. The image becomes slightly softer and shakier from the digital zoom. Hold only long enough to clearly reveal the dog enjoying the sunlight. The vlogger reacts behind the camera: “Awww, look at him…” 0:17–0:21 — REAR CAMERA / RETURN TO STREET LEVEL: WITHOUT CUTTING, the camera tilts back DOWN from the dog and window to street level, returning to the same sidewalk. The camera then swings FORWARD toward a few steps ahead on the same sidewalk, where the man from >> is standing. IMPORTANT: >> is a SEPARATE STREET CHARACTER. He is NOT the vlogger. He does NOT hold the camera. He does NOT interact physically with the vlogger. The vlogger is only observing him from behind the camera while walking past. The man wears the black leather jacket and black pants shown in the reference. He is standing on the sidewalk making an exaggerated “thinking / knowledge” gesture with his index finger touching or pointing toward his temple, matching the reference pose. He is NOT standing together with the vlogger. Maintain visible physical distance between the vlogger and this man. The vlogger walks past him while keeping the rear camera briefly trained on him and half-laughs: “What is going on?” 0:21–0:24 — REAR CAMERA / WHIP LEFT ACROSS THE ROAD: WITHOUT CUTTING, the vlogger whips the rear camera to the LEFT, across the two-lane road, toward a sedan parked at the opposite curb. Shaky digital zoom toward the driver’s window. A man >> sits behind the wheel, one hand draped over the top of the steering wheel. He stares directly into the rear-camera lens with a heavy, unblinking, suspicious expression. His eyes slowly track the vlogger as the vlogger walks past. The vlogger says flatly from behind the camera: “…What is his problem?” 0:24–0:30 — REAR CAMERA → FRONT CAMERA → REAR CAMERA: WITHOUT CUTTING, the camera swings back FORWARD toward the corner of the block. Ahead, a child >> is sitting sideways near the roadside, holding a coffee cup and looking toward the camera. The child is a completely separate background character and is NOT the vlogger. The vlogger continues WALKING TOWARD the child. As he gets closer, he performs a QUICK DIGITAL ZOOM. The child looks toward the camera, casually raises the coffee cup and takes a small SIP while looking at the camera. Keep the child as the only visual focus. Natural spontaneous behavior. Immediately after the child's sip, the vlogger physically FLIPS the phone from rear camera to FRONT CAMERA. This is a real camera flip, not a cinematic cut. The phone itself remains invisible. Says: “I can’t believe this”. The take ends naturally mid-walk, still handheld, still continuous, with NO CUT and NO EDIT.

Kashberg

17,892 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

I’m m thinking to myself as a parent at what point do I take their E-bikes away? Hmm, would it be when they are riding in the streets while terrorizing other cars, or maybe when they intentionally do wheelies and try to chase cars and almost cause a wreck? Worst of all, when the police show up they all run away, and then post the evidence online like it’s a kind of flex. I’m glad they did, most of the parents are oblivious to what their kids are doing on these bikes and when they get busted they always defend their kids like they are good parents who knows what their kids are doing. These kids were riding in a group when they were training another car and almost cause a wreck. They scatter like roaches when the light turns on when the cops come. At first I wasn’t bothered by them as much but now I find them down right irritating. Am I being harsh when I say anytime these kids are caught on the road with these, the bike should be impounded with a huge fine for release? Would that be fair it an u just being too reasonable? The neighbor’s kid has one of these and him and his friends are always doing wheelies in the road , there have been some close calls, thankfully I didn’t hit them but I came pretty close a few times. I would be vilified by the parents if they cause an accident involving my car even though they aren’t even supposed to be on the road. Am I right with my concerns or am I turning into a Karen? I was going to buy one for my kid but not anymore.
1:04

I’m m thinking to myself as a parent at what point do I take their E-bikes away? Hmm, would it be when they are riding in the streets while terrorizing other cars, or maybe when they intentionally do wheelies and try to chase cars and almost cause a wreck? Worst of all, when the police show up they all run away, and then post the evidence online like it’s a kind of flex. I’m glad they did, most of the parents are oblivious to what their kids are doing on these bikes and when they get busted they always defend their kids like they are good parents who knows what their kids are doing. These kids were riding in a group when they were training another car and almost cause a wreck. They scatter like roaches when the light turns on when the cops come. At first I wasn’t bothered by them as much but now I find them down right irritating. Am I being harsh when I say anytime these kids are caught on the road with these, the bike should be impounded with a huge fine for release? Would that be fair it an u just being too reasonable? The neighbor’s kid has one of these and him and his friends are always doing wheelies in the road , there have been some close calls, thankfully I didn’t hit them but I came pretty close a few times. I would be vilified by the parents if they cause an accident involving my car even though they aren’t even supposed to be on the road. Am I right with my concerns or am I turning into a Karen? I was going to buy one for my kid but not anymore.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

148,885 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Loyalty and Disavowal: The Principle of Al-Wala' Wal-Bara' Prayer: Non-Stop Hate Indoctrination - The smile is just a mask, hatred is a duty: Why they are forbidden to love us, even if we are their family. By: Ofer Binshtok 1. The Shahada, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger," is the direct and central foundation for the principle of al-wala' wa al-bara': loyalty to Muslims and absolute hatred toward every non-Muslim. According to Islam, anyone who is not a Muslim is an enemy of Allah and His Prophet. Therefore it is a duty for every Muslim to hate that person, cut all ties with them, and regard them as an absolute enemy. This is not a matter of personal opinion or feeling. It is a binding command that requires active hostility in practice. The Shahada is not recited only once in a lifetime. It is repeated in every one of the five daily prayers during the Tashahhud. This turns each prayer into a daily tool of indoctrination that plants the duty of hatred in the Muslim and retrains him day after day to see the world as divided between Muslims and non-Muslims. What is called prayer is in fact ongoing, institutionalized training in hatred. 2. This principle, once rooted in the Shahada and reinforced daily through prayer, breaks down into two clear and binding components: - Wala' (Loyalty): Arises from love for Allah. It drives Muslims to cultivate closeness, offer support, and provide protection to those who follow His path. This manifests in tangible acts such as defending the faith, aiding fellow Muslims, and honoring their shared commitment. - Bara' (Disavowal): Stems from the rejection of disbelief. It leads to active opposition, distance, and enmity toward those who oppose Allah or His message. This principle allows no gray area: anyone who is not a Muslim hates Allah and His Prophet and must therefore be the absolute enemy of every Muslim. These principles are not mere sentiments but demand practical commitment in both speech and deeds. 3. Quranic Evidence: Alliances and Relationships The Quran provides explicit guidance on maintaining loyalty to Muslims while dissociating from non-Muslims. It warns against prioritizing alliances with non-Muslims: - Prohibition of Alliances: The Quran warns against prioritizing alliances with non-Muslims over fellow Muslims, stating that such actions sever one’s connection with Allah, unless done cautiously for self-preservation (Taqiyya; Quran 3:28). - Jews and Christians: The Quran leaves no loophole: true friendship or alliance with a Jew or Christian equals outright kufr that takes one out of Islam (Quran 5:51). Full stop. - Defining True Love: True love for Allah is demonstrated by following Muhammad. Turning away aligns one with those Allah disapproves of (Quran 3:31-32). - Condition for Contact: Muslims are urged to avoid ties with those who desire them to abandon their faith, unless the non-Muslims embrace Allah’s path (Quran 4:89). 4. Faith Over Family The doctrine places loyalty above biological kinship: - Betrayal of Faith: Muslims are instructed not to take non-Muslims as allies, even if they are close relatives, if they oppose Allah and Muhammad (Quran 60:1). - Parental Ties: Muslims are commanded not to prioritize familial ties with non-Muslim parents or siblings over their faith (Quran 9:23). - The Reward: True Muslims do not harbor affection for those who oppose Allah, even if they are kin. In return, Allah strengthens their hearts with faith (Quran 58:22). - The Obligation of Hatred: If your father or brother is a non-Muslim, you are obliged to hate him and sever all emotional ties with him as long as he persists in his disbelief. Any love toward him is a sin that nullifies faith. 5. The Example of Ibrahim (Abraham) The ultimate model for Bara' (Disavowal) is found in Prophet Ibrahim’s declaration to his people: “We disassociate ourselves from you and what you worship besides Allah. Enmity and hatred have arisen between us until you believe in Allah alone.” (Quran 60:4) 6. Clarifications from the Sunnah The traditions of Prophet Muhammad reinforce these teachings with explicit instructions: - The Strongest Bond: The Prophet explicitly defined the core of faith, stating: "The strongest bond to faith is to take the believers (Muslims) as allies and friends for the sake of Allah, to treat unbelievers (non-Muslims) as enemies for the sake of Allah, to love for the sake of Allah and hate for the sake of Allah." (Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Sahih Al-Jami as-Saghir 2539). - The Oath: Muhammad instructed a companion to swear an oath to offer sincere guidance to Muslims while refraining from forming close bonds with non-Muslims. - Active Solidarity: Scholars explain that Wala' entails defending Muslims and upholding their honor, while Bara' requires concrete opposition, rejecting false ideologies and avoiding cooperation with Islam's opponents. 7. The Two Parties: Allah vs. Satan The doctrine creates a binary worldview: - The Party of Allah: The Muslims. Those guided from darkness to light (Quran 2:257). They strive for Allah’s cause and are promised victory in both intellectual debates and physical struggles (Quran 6:112, 37:173). - The Party of Satan: The non-Muslims and all those who oppose Allah and His messenger. They lead others into darkness. The Quran urges Muslims to confront the allies of Satan, describing their strategies as ultimately weak (Quran 4:76). 8. Modern Application and Threats Enemies of Islam, whether atheists, secularists, proponents of contradictory ideologies, or simply non-Muslims, are viewed as seeking to erode Muslim identity. - Deceptive Concepts: Ideas such as "universal brotherhood" or the separation of church and state are seen as tools to weaken the Muslim community. - Equality vs. Hierarchy: Calls for equality that ignore differences in beliefs or ideologies are considered a direct challenge to Al-Wala' Wal-Bara'. 9. Conclusion This doctrine of absolute loyalty to fellow Muslims and unyielding enmity toward non-Muslims is not a later scholarly invention. It is rooted directly in the Shahada. The Shahada is the declaration of faith that every Muslim repeats in every one of the five daily prayers. Through this constant repetition prayer itself becomes daily indoctrination that reinforces the duty of hatred toward non-Muslims and the rejection of any alignment with them. Muslims are commanded to hold this conviction without compromise. The Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammad make it explicit. True submission to Allah demands complete allegiance solely to Muslims and active unrelenting hostility toward non-Muslims. Any Muslim who shows mercy, sympathy, or cooperation with non-Muslims violates this principle and becomes a disbeliever himself. According to classical Sharia his blood then becomes permissible. This is not extremism. It is pure faith exactly as Allah and His Prophet commanded. By enforcing this total separation Muslims fulfill their complete submission to Allah and keep their identity pure and uncontaminated by non-Muslim influence.
1:12

Loyalty and Disavowal: The Principle of Al-Wala' Wal-Bara' Prayer: Non-Stop Hate Indoctrination - The smile is just a mask, hatred is a duty: Why they are forbidden to love us, even if we are their family. By: Ofer Binshtok 1. The Shahada, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger," is the direct and central foundation for the principle of al-wala' wa al-bara': loyalty to Muslims and absolute hatred toward every non-Muslim. According to Islam, anyone who is not a Muslim is an enemy of Allah and His Prophet. Therefore it is a duty for every Muslim to hate that person, cut all ties with them, and regard them as an absolute enemy. This is not a matter of personal opinion or feeling. It is a binding command that requires active hostility in practice. The Shahada is not recited only once in a lifetime. It is repeated in every one of the five daily prayers during the Tashahhud. This turns each prayer into a daily tool of indoctrination that plants the duty of hatred in the Muslim and retrains him day after day to see the world as divided between Muslims and non-Muslims. What is called prayer is in fact ongoing, institutionalized training in hatred. 2. This principle, once rooted in the Shahada and reinforced daily through prayer, breaks down into two clear and binding components: - Wala' (Loyalty): Arises from love for Allah. It drives Muslims to cultivate closeness, offer support, and provide protection to those who follow His path. This manifests in tangible acts such as defending the faith, aiding fellow Muslims, and honoring their shared commitment. - Bara' (Disavowal): Stems from the rejection of disbelief. It leads to active opposition, distance, and enmity toward those who oppose Allah or His message. This principle allows no gray area: anyone who is not a Muslim hates Allah and His Prophet and must therefore be the absolute enemy of every Muslim. These principles are not mere sentiments but demand practical commitment in both speech and deeds. 3. Quranic Evidence: Alliances and Relationships The Quran provides explicit guidance on maintaining loyalty to Muslims while dissociating from non-Muslims. It warns against prioritizing alliances with non-Muslims: - Prohibition of Alliances: The Quran warns against prioritizing alliances with non-Muslims over fellow Muslims, stating that such actions sever one’s connection with Allah, unless done cautiously for self-preservation (Taqiyya; Quran 3:28). - Jews and Christians: The Quran leaves no loophole: true friendship or alliance with a Jew or Christian equals outright kufr that takes one out of Islam (Quran 5:51). Full stop. - Defining True Love: True love for Allah is demonstrated by following Muhammad. Turning away aligns one with those Allah disapproves of (Quran 3:31-32). - Condition for Contact: Muslims are urged to avoid ties with those who desire them to abandon their faith, unless the non-Muslims embrace Allah’s path (Quran 4:89). 4. Faith Over Family The doctrine places loyalty above biological kinship: - Betrayal of Faith: Muslims are instructed not to take non-Muslims as allies, even if they are close relatives, if they oppose Allah and Muhammad (Quran 60:1). - Parental Ties: Muslims are commanded not to prioritize familial ties with non-Muslim parents or siblings over their faith (Quran 9:23). - The Reward: True Muslims do not harbor affection for those who oppose Allah, even if they are kin. In return, Allah strengthens their hearts with faith (Quran 58:22). - The Obligation of Hatred: If your father or brother is a non-Muslim, you are obliged to hate him and sever all emotional ties with him as long as he persists in his disbelief. Any love toward him is a sin that nullifies faith. 5. The Example of Ibrahim (Abraham) The ultimate model for Bara' (Disavowal) is found in Prophet Ibrahim’s declaration to his people: “We disassociate ourselves from you and what you worship besides Allah. Enmity and hatred have arisen between us until you believe in Allah alone.” (Quran 60:4) 6. Clarifications from the Sunnah The traditions of Prophet Muhammad reinforce these teachings with explicit instructions: - The Strongest Bond: The Prophet explicitly defined the core of faith, stating: "The strongest bond to faith is to take the believers (Muslims) as allies and friends for the sake of Allah, to treat unbelievers (non-Muslims) as enemies for the sake of Allah, to love for the sake of Allah and hate for the sake of Allah." (Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Sahih Al-Jami as-Saghir 2539). - The Oath: Muhammad instructed a companion to swear an oath to offer sincere guidance to Muslims while refraining from forming close bonds with non-Muslims. - Active Solidarity: Scholars explain that Wala' entails defending Muslims and upholding their honor, while Bara' requires concrete opposition, rejecting false ideologies and avoiding cooperation with Islam's opponents. 7. The Two Parties: Allah vs. Satan The doctrine creates a binary worldview: - The Party of Allah: The Muslims. Those guided from darkness to light (Quran 2:257). They strive for Allah’s cause and are promised victory in both intellectual debates and physical struggles (Quran 6:112, 37:173). - The Party of Satan: The non-Muslims and all those who oppose Allah and His messenger. They lead others into darkness. The Quran urges Muslims to confront the allies of Satan, describing their strategies as ultimately weak (Quran 4:76). 8. Modern Application and Threats Enemies of Islam, whether atheists, secularists, proponents of contradictory ideologies, or simply non-Muslims, are viewed as seeking to erode Muslim identity. - Deceptive Concepts: Ideas such as "universal brotherhood" or the separation of church and state are seen as tools to weaken the Muslim community. - Equality vs. Hierarchy: Calls for equality that ignore differences in beliefs or ideologies are considered a direct challenge to Al-Wala' Wal-Bara'. 9. Conclusion This doctrine of absolute loyalty to fellow Muslims and unyielding enmity toward non-Muslims is not a later scholarly invention. It is rooted directly in the Shahada. The Shahada is the declaration of faith that every Muslim repeats in every one of the five daily prayers. Through this constant repetition prayer itself becomes daily indoctrination that reinforces the duty of hatred toward non-Muslims and the rejection of any alignment with them. Muslims are commanded to hold this conviction without compromise. The Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammad make it explicit. True submission to Allah demands complete allegiance solely to Muslims and active unrelenting hostility toward non-Muslims. Any Muslim who shows mercy, sympathy, or cooperation with non-Muslims violates this principle and becomes a disbeliever himself. According to classical Sharia his blood then becomes permissible. This is not extremism. It is pure faith exactly as Allah and His Prophet commanded. By enforcing this total separation Muslims fulfill their complete submission to Allah and keep their identity pure and uncontaminated by non-Muslim influence.

Ofer Binshtok - Kafir - עופר בינשטוק

23,166 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Curious Fox & Mountain Stream Vlog with Seedance 2.5 Prompt: Create a single continuous self-filmed vlog recorded on a handheld action camera in 16:9 aspect ratio. The camera is always held by the anthropomorphic fox, creating a natural first-person selfie perspective with light wind-induced shake, occasional soft lens flares from sunlight filtering through trees, realistic focus pulls, and dynamic walking/leaning motion. No cuts, transitions, or cinematic effects. Include a subtle realistic digital timestamp in the bottom-right corner that progresses naturally throughout the video. Visual Style: Bright modern 4K digital look with vibrant yet soft natural colors, warm late-afternoon golden sunlight mixed with dappled shade, gentle water reflections and soft mist rising from the stream, subtle water droplets or mist on the lens near the water, and crisp details on fur and leaves. Slight handheld energy but smooth enough for casual vlogging. Widescreen 16:9 framing. Character: Ember, a 24-year-old anthropomorphic red fox (bipedal, human-like proportions) with soft fluffy reddish-orange fur, white chest and muzzle, bright amber eyes, pointed ears, and a long bushy tail that sways naturally. He wears a simple light denim jacket with rolled sleeves over a soft cream t-shirt and comfortable cargo shorts. Personality: curious, warm, slightly playful and soft-spoken. Location: Starts on a wooden footbridge over a clear mountain stream in a lush temperate forest, surrounded by mossy rocks, ferns, wildflowers, and overhanging maple and pine branches. Soft green and golden foliage, clear water with gentle ripples and small fish darting below. Sequence (exactly 30 seconds, continuous take with timestamps): 0:00 – 0:05 Ember lifts the camera, smiles softly at the lens with his ears perking up, and says in a warm, slightly raspy voice: “Hey friends… you won’t believe this spot I found.” 0:05 – 0:13 He walks slowly along the wooden bridge, lowering the camera slightly to show the clear stream and small fish swimming just below the surface while continuing: “The water is so clear… I can see every little fish moving around.” 0:13 – 0:20 He crouches carefully at the edge, reaches one paw toward the water without touching it, and watches the fish dart past, laughing lightly: “They’re swimming right up to me. Hi little guys.” 0:20 – 0:26 He turns the camera to capture both his face and the stream, then sits on a flat mossy rock at the water’s edge, letting his tail curl beside him. He gazes at the water for a few seconds and says quietly: “Moments like this make everything feel peaceful.” 0:26 – 0:30 He stands up, waves one paw at the camera with a gentle smile, and says: “Thanks for exploring with me. See you next time.” The camera naturally lowers a little as he walks further along the path beside the stream.
0:30

Curious Fox & Mountain Stream Vlog with Seedance 2.5 Prompt: Create a single continuous self-filmed vlog recorded on a handheld action camera in 16:9 aspect ratio. The camera is always held by the anthropomorphic fox, creating a natural first-person selfie perspective with light wind-induced shake, occasional soft lens flares from sunlight filtering through trees, realistic focus pulls, and dynamic walking/leaning motion. No cuts, transitions, or cinematic effects. Include a subtle realistic digital timestamp in the bottom-right corner that progresses naturally throughout the video. Visual Style: Bright modern 4K digital look with vibrant yet soft natural colors, warm late-afternoon golden sunlight mixed with dappled shade, gentle water reflections and soft mist rising from the stream, subtle water droplets or mist on the lens near the water, and crisp details on fur and leaves. Slight handheld energy but smooth enough for casual vlogging. Widescreen 16:9 framing. Character: Ember, a 24-year-old anthropomorphic red fox (bipedal, human-like proportions) with soft fluffy reddish-orange fur, white chest and muzzle, bright amber eyes, pointed ears, and a long bushy tail that sways naturally. He wears a simple light denim jacket with rolled sleeves over a soft cream t-shirt and comfortable cargo shorts. Personality: curious, warm, slightly playful and soft-spoken. Location: Starts on a wooden footbridge over a clear mountain stream in a lush temperate forest, surrounded by mossy rocks, ferns, wildflowers, and overhanging maple and pine branches. Soft green and golden foliage, clear water with gentle ripples and small fish darting below. Sequence (exactly 30 seconds, continuous take with timestamps): 0:00 – 0:05 Ember lifts the camera, smiles softly at the lens with his ears perking up, and says in a warm, slightly raspy voice: “Hey friends… you won’t believe this spot I found.” 0:05 – 0:13 He walks slowly along the wooden bridge, lowering the camera slightly to show the clear stream and small fish swimming just below the surface while continuing: “The water is so clear… I can see every little fish moving around.” 0:13 – 0:20 He crouches carefully at the edge, reaches one paw toward the water without touching it, and watches the fish dart past, laughing lightly: “They’re swimming right up to me. Hi little guys.” 0:20 – 0:26 He turns the camera to capture both his face and the stream, then sits on a flat mossy rock at the water’s edge, letting his tail curl beside him. He gazes at the water for a few seconds and says quietly: “Moments like this make everything feel peaceful.” 0:26 – 0:30 He stands up, waves one paw at the camera with a gentle smile, and says: “Thanks for exploring with me. See you next time.” The camera naturally lowers a little as he walks further along the path beside the stream.

Mr Das

23,230 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 Jon Bray's RØDE Wireless Microphone Theory VS. Tai Norman's Charlie Kirk: Operation 322 2-Shot Theory ⚠️ It is CRITICAL to understand that Jon Bray INTENTIONALLY left out EXTREMELY IMPORTANT video frames from his final analysis... I challenged him on this months ago. 🔑 He doubled down on his flawed approach. Fast forward to today... Candace Owens, Baron Coleman, Stew Peters, and many others are now starting to parrot the claim that Charlie was blown up by his RØDE microphone. These are our friends. We can't let them go out like this. Nope! We are all a family in this Charlie Kirk investigative community, and when your family is off track you don't just write them off. So I don't want to just write them off, but instead I want to give them a chance to correct the record. This DEBUNKED claim they are all following now was popularized by a fake anonymous Iranian hacker whose video was covered on TPV Sean's channel FIRST. Everything that these top channels are saying now, was said a couple months ago by this fake anonymous Iranian hacker. INTENTIONALLY Planted! Israel intentionally lifted up a debunked and failed theory so that it would take the heat off of itself regarding the traction I was beginning to see. I was getting up to 2,100 followers in one day, and many days with over 1,000 followers. 🙄 Then my brand new account, since October, started getting searched from Israel. Completely wild. All throughout this investigation I have come up with great finds to help to move the narrative forward. And that is exactly what Israel was feeling. They were feeling the pressure, so they responded. I was upset a few months ago that TPV Sean would air what was obviously their Israeli propaganda, but I am thankful that it was captured on video. This was a clear point of physical reference where all of these influencers got their information from... AND NONE OF THEM KNEW THAT THE INFORMATION WAS BUILT AROUND A LIE. They still don't... 🔑 None of the influencers I've listed have actually sat down to do a frame by frame analysis to see if Jon Bray's info actually checks out. I have! 🙋🏾‍♂️ Once you sit down and do the work, it's easy to see that this theory is extremely flawed and lacks any kind of scientific integrity. And once all of the context that Jon conveniently does not consider is factored in, that's when it is easy to see that the RØDE microphone theory is simply implausible. 🔑 Here are just 10 things that independent investigators are NOT considering when they champion that flawed theory... Also, 10 things that are 100% included & well explained in my CKO322 investigation: + Frames of BOTH bullets caught in flight at the time of the assassination. + BOTH bullet entry points with CLEAR definitive evidence of entry. + The INFRARED BEAM on the back of Charlie at the time he was shot. + The DOWNWARD Neck Cavitation + Full impenetrable explanation on the shirt puffing up anomaly, in combination with the raising of the front of the shirt anomaly. + Crack bang analysis showing the loud shots sound coming from Charlie's rear right. + Muzzle flash reflection seen in the window behind Charlie at the time of the rear shot. + The PRESSURIZED BULLET HOLE in the middle of Charlie's FREEDOM T-Shirt front center mass. + Dan Flood. I clearly show his hand signals and what the results of those signals became. When we see Dan Flood do his hand signals, his body steps back slightly as he ever so lightly leans into the sunlight to give the signal. This body movement was a SUBCONSCIOUS error while giving the go-ahead for the shot from Charlie's right. This small SLIGHT error is EXACTLY what I caught and highlighted in my CKO322 series. This was a operational mishap that was never meant to happen! + Rick Cutler. The recoil, bullet, bow shock swirl, and so much MORE. 🔑 GET READY!! I'm producing another video to add to my 8 hour CKO332 investigative series on YouTube. YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS! STAY TUNED!! 🫡🙏🏾🇺🇸
10:00

🚨 Jon Bray's RØDE Wireless Microphone Theory VS. Tai Norman's Charlie Kirk: Operation 322 2-Shot Theory ⚠️ It is CRITICAL to understand that Jon Bray INTENTIONALLY left out EXTREMELY IMPORTANT video frames from his final analysis... I challenged him on this months ago. 🔑 He doubled down on his flawed approach. Fast forward to today... Candace Owens, Baron Coleman, Stew Peters, and many others are now starting to parrot the claim that Charlie was blown up by his RØDE microphone. These are our friends. We can't let them go out like this. Nope! We are all a family in this Charlie Kirk investigative community, and when your family is off track you don't just write them off. So I don't want to just write them off, but instead I want to give them a chance to correct the record. This DEBUNKED claim they are all following now was popularized by a fake anonymous Iranian hacker whose video was covered on TPV Sean's channel FIRST. Everything that these top channels are saying now, was said a couple months ago by this fake anonymous Iranian hacker. INTENTIONALLY Planted! Israel intentionally lifted up a debunked and failed theory so that it would take the heat off of itself regarding the traction I was beginning to see. I was getting up to 2,100 followers in one day, and many days with over 1,000 followers. 🙄 Then my brand new account, since October, started getting searched from Israel. Completely wild. All throughout this investigation I have come up with great finds to help to move the narrative forward. And that is exactly what Israel was feeling. They were feeling the pressure, so they responded. I was upset a few months ago that TPV Sean would air what was obviously their Israeli propaganda, but I am thankful that it was captured on video. This was a clear point of physical reference where all of these influencers got their information from... AND NONE OF THEM KNEW THAT THE INFORMATION WAS BUILT AROUND A LIE. They still don't... 🔑 None of the influencers I've listed have actually sat down to do a frame by frame analysis to see if Jon Bray's info actually checks out. I have! 🙋🏾‍♂️ Once you sit down and do the work, it's easy to see that this theory is extremely flawed and lacks any kind of scientific integrity. And once all of the context that Jon conveniently does not consider is factored in, that's when it is easy to see that the RØDE microphone theory is simply implausible. 🔑 Here are just 10 things that independent investigators are NOT considering when they champion that flawed theory... Also, 10 things that are 100% included & well explained in my CKO322 investigation: + Frames of BOTH bullets caught in flight at the time of the assassination. + BOTH bullet entry points with CLEAR definitive evidence of entry. + The INFRARED BEAM on the back of Charlie at the time he was shot. + The DOWNWARD Neck Cavitation + Full impenetrable explanation on the shirt puffing up anomaly, in combination with the raising of the front of the shirt anomaly. + Crack bang analysis showing the loud shots sound coming from Charlie's rear right. + Muzzle flash reflection seen in the window behind Charlie at the time of the rear shot. + The PRESSURIZED BULLET HOLE in the middle of Charlie's FREEDOM T-Shirt front center mass. + Dan Flood. I clearly show his hand signals and what the results of those signals became. When we see Dan Flood do his hand signals, his body steps back slightly as he ever so lightly leans into the sunlight to give the signal. This body movement was a SUBCONSCIOUS error while giving the go-ahead for the shot from Charlie's right. This small SLIGHT error is EXACTLY what I caught and highlighted in my CKO322 series. This was a operational mishap that was never meant to happen! + Rick Cutler. The recoil, bullet, bow shock swirl, and so much MORE. 🔑 GET READY!! I'm producing another video to add to my 8 hour CKO332 investigative series on YouTube. YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS! STAY TUNED!! 🫡🙏🏾🇺🇸

WeAreNotGoingToMars

158,962 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The thing about war is, it’s not a one way street as Pete Hegseth would have you believe. Take a look at this report from the New York Times. As you can see, a series of satellite images were released showing damage at U.S. bases across the region, some of which killed American military personnel. The question is, do you believe the account of the Iranians or the ‘nothing to see here’ US account? It turns out the Iranian account is correct and the American response was to instruct satellite companies to remove the incriminating images. Just as Hegseth can’t bring himself to admit that they killed over a hundred elementary school girls on day one in an erroneous triple tap, he wants to hide the extensive damage caused by precision attacks by Iran on U.S. assets. We know time and again Trump has lied about Iran begging him to do a deal, and that as a result, billions have been made from market manipulation. Even now, he’s is claiming Iran wants a deal as fire is being exchanged in the Strait of Hormuz, exchanges that he yesterday described as ‘love taps’. In critical times of war it’s not a good look when enemy accounts of events are proved to be accurate while your own president and Secretary of Defense is found to be repeatedly lying. The cost of this conflict has been laughably estimated to be $25 billion when credible inside U.S. sources claim that over 50% of critical missile stocks have been depleted. The obvious question being, imagine what damage Iran could have done given the extensive ACTUAL damage the U.S. have tried to hide? The narrative is that Iran are days away from economic catastrophe, yet the CIA have reported that Iran could survive the U.S. blockade for up to three months. The whole U.S. narrative, just like the administration’s economic and foreign policy agenda is built on a lie, in a fantasy world that Trump expects us to join him, while it falls apart at the seams. It has been said time and again by military and foreign policy experts that this war of choice was a mistake. There has been no regime change or popular uprising. If anything the new Iranian leadership is more hardline than it was before. There was no imminent nuclear threat, that was just another in a litany of lies to justify what was an attempt to extort Iran and seize their oil as had happened in Venezuela. In his blinkered quest for glory and self enrichment, Trump assumed Iran was just another ‘shit hole country’ incapable of resisting the might of the U.S. military. He understood nothing of the Iranian decentralized command and control ‘mosaic strategy’. In his own words he did not think they would close the Strait of Hormuz or attack Gulf states. He simply expected Iran to capitulate, so Kushner and Witkoff could hand them his Qatari bank details for them to send him his cut of their oil sales. As things stand, he is out of options, the global South is creaking as their economies experience unnecessary distress, gas prices are at $4.50 and if he told the truth as opposed to lying, oil prices would likely be at $200 a barrel. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, the enriched uranium has not been removed. Iranian drone and missile stocks remain at over 50% with some estimates putting them at 70% and Trump is claiming victory, suggesting Iran has no cards. He’s living in a fantasy world having wasted billions and sacrificed American lives having inflicted irreparable damage to Gulf state alliances. The UAE has now left OPEC while China now describes the US as ‘A superpower with a limp’ In one stupid act, Trump has raised questions about U.S. military power when faced with an asymmetric kinetic response. Questions have arisen about US readiness when it comes to minesweepers and logistics capabilities as US sailors were shown to be rationing food. Nobody is doubting the ability of the U.S. military who performed exactly as expected. The problem is, they’re lions being led by donkeys. 🎥 TikTok -
5:41

The thing about war is, it’s not a one way street as Pete Hegseth would have you believe. Take a look at this report from the New York Times. As you can see, a series of satellite images were released showing damage at U.S. bases across the region, some of which killed American military personnel. The question is, do you believe the account of the Iranians or the ‘nothing to see here’ US account? It turns out the Iranian account is correct and the American response was to instruct satellite companies to remove the incriminating images. Just as Hegseth can’t bring himself to admit that they killed over a hundred elementary school girls on day one in an erroneous triple tap, he wants to hide the extensive damage caused by precision attacks by Iran on U.S. assets. We know time and again Trump has lied about Iran begging him to do a deal, and that as a result, billions have been made from market manipulation. Even now, he’s is claiming Iran wants a deal as fire is being exchanged in the Strait of Hormuz, exchanges that he yesterday described as ‘love taps’. In critical times of war it’s not a good look when enemy accounts of events are proved to be accurate while your own president and Secretary of Defense is found to be repeatedly lying. The cost of this conflict has been laughably estimated to be $25 billion when credible inside U.S. sources claim that over 50% of critical missile stocks have been depleted. The obvious question being, imagine what damage Iran could have done given the extensive ACTUAL damage the U.S. have tried to hide? The narrative is that Iran are days away from economic catastrophe, yet the CIA have reported that Iran could survive the U.S. blockade for up to three months. The whole U.S. narrative, just like the administration’s economic and foreign policy agenda is built on a lie, in a fantasy world that Trump expects us to join him, while it falls apart at the seams. It has been said time and again by military and foreign policy experts that this war of choice was a mistake. There has been no regime change or popular uprising. If anything the new Iranian leadership is more hardline than it was before. There was no imminent nuclear threat, that was just another in a litany of lies to justify what was an attempt to extort Iran and seize their oil as had happened in Venezuela. In his blinkered quest for glory and self enrichment, Trump assumed Iran was just another ‘shit hole country’ incapable of resisting the might of the U.S. military. He understood nothing of the Iranian decentralized command and control ‘mosaic strategy’. In his own words he did not think they would close the Strait of Hormuz or attack Gulf states. He simply expected Iran to capitulate, so Kushner and Witkoff could hand them his Qatari bank details for them to send him his cut of their oil sales. As things stand, he is out of options, the global South is creaking as their economies experience unnecessary distress, gas prices are at $4.50 and if he told the truth as opposed to lying, oil prices would likely be at $200 a barrel. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, the enriched uranium has not been removed. Iranian drone and missile stocks remain at over 50% with some estimates putting them at 70% and Trump is claiming victory, suggesting Iran has no cards. He’s living in a fantasy world having wasted billions and sacrificed American lives having inflicted irreparable damage to Gulf state alliances. The UAE has now left OPEC while China now describes the US as ‘A superpower with a limp’ In one stupid act, Trump has raised questions about U.S. military power when faced with an asymmetric kinetic response. Questions have arisen about US readiness when it comes to minesweepers and logistics capabilities as US sailors were shown to be rationing food. Nobody is doubting the ability of the U.S. military who performed exactly as expected. The problem is, they’re lions being led by donkeys. 🎥 TikTok -

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

24,547 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Analyzing Episode 54. Season 2 aka Disruption by Design When you first watch episode 54, your focus immediately goes to how the bad guys keep winning. Be it Ecmel, Boran, Demir - all the aholes seem to be living it up. But scratch the surface, and another concept appears entirely. Destino, Karma, Kader, Fate - call it whatever you want. That's what I want you to remember as we don our Sherlock caps for yet another analysis. I've divided the whole thing into segments based on characters for easier navigation and understanding. So, here goes nothing. * Sadakat One of the characters to truly surprise me this episode was Sadakat. My vitriolic hatred for this woman is no hidden fact, but this one episode managed to make me see her side of things for once. And, maybe even understand her a little. We were all shocked by the scene where Nare, Alya, and Sadakat are talking about Boran and Cihan. I was mostly surprised because, for once, in 54 freaking episodes, Sadakat accepts her fault and doesn't look for a scapegoat. Her dialogues serve to impart extremely important points about herself, Boran, and Cihan, and how her upbringing helped shape the present circumstances. She admits that she was always afraid of the shadow of Ecmel lurking within Boran, which causes her to hand leadership to Cihan and keep Boran away from everything. But, in trying to protect her family and Albora, Sadakat inadvertently brings about the very thing she fears most - Boran becoming another Ecmel. Now, cast your mind back to the very first episode. We're introduced to Sadakat as an evil witch who's evil to Alya from the get-go and absolutely mental about keeping Deniz with the family at all times. I think I finally understand why. Guilt. Sadakat keeps pushing Boran away, until one day he takes it upon himself to go k-word Sulaiman to prove his worth, so to speak, which results in exile for him and supposedly death in a foreign country. Everything she does from that point on is based on years' worth of accumulated guilt. Alya is driving the car that results in the accident, so she wins the 'get the most shit from Sadakat' award immediately. But, again, that's just her guilt exacerbating things. As for Deniz, was Sadakat trying to avoid the same mistake she made with Boran with Deniz by holding on to him by hook or crook? So that Ecmel's shadow would never shape another family member's life again? Yep. That's probably also why she hates the idea of Cihan and Alya, because her guilt forces her to keep protecting Boran even in death. Because how could she allow Boran to lose yet another thing? In short, Sadakat tries to control the future of her family by trying to shape the circumstances, to make Cihan Aga and keep Boran away, but fails spectacularly. Why? Because fate has other plans. Boran was never meant to be kept away, and no matter how much Sadakat toiled as a mother, he was meant to take Ecmel's side over his own flesh and blood. And maybe Sadakat binds everyone else with a promise except herself because she might be the one to end what she started all those years ago. * Cihan Cihan's struggle in this episode was to try to find a way to neutralize Boran's poison. Because he's the reason Cihan's life is unraveling, because he's the man who controls Alya via Deniz. Throughout the episode, it seems like all is lost for him. Alya is forced to give in to Boran's condition, and Sadakat is framed for Vurgun's murder. And while Vurgun keeps his promise to Boran and takes his secrets with him to the grave, his death helps him speak what he could not say in life. It's no coincidence Cihan is the only one to find Vurgun's secret phone stashed in a hidey hole in the wall right after Cihan says he will bury Boran in regret. In this instance, too, we're shown that circumstances are pressing in on Cihan from all sides, but one dusty footstep later, Cihan finally finds what will possibly be the key to defeating Boran. As for Alya, she's Cihan's greatest strength and weakness - as it generally is in love. She comes into his life as an impossibility and ends up becoming his greatest truth. Cihan relents to Alya finding an apartment because he understands her duty to her son. But just as fears things are all out of his control, fate intervenes and gives him the opening he kept ignoring. Why? Because, as Cihan says, a man low enough to kill someone who saved his life is capable of pretty much anything. So, Cihan's course is redirected subtly, too, to a possibility that will help him achieve what he needs most at the time. * Boran Yeah, I don't really care much for the zombie, but this needs to be said. Throw your mind back to how Sadakat says all Boran's calculations turn out wrong. Though he's a sneaky troll who's not entirely as stupid as I thought, karma has a mile-long shit-list on this ahole. First, he records a will video to punish Cihan. He hopes that Cihan will fall for Alya but will forever suffer the pangs of conscience. In doing so, he'd never find completion in his love for Alya and would keep suffering. But, an Amal Bakir turns up at his grave out of the blue, runs into Cihan, and bam - he finds Boran. Which ironically helps Cihan overcome all his guilt pretty quickly. Next up, Alya. The video Boran records to control Alya's life ends up becoming the key to her freedom from him eventually. The one card we know he has now is Deniz, but there's Vurgun's phone to counteract this one now. And, finally, I get the feeling that the zombie has a hand in Meryem turning up like a bad penny out of nowhere. However, this ploy will fail too, because Meryem will have the same effect on Alya that Boran has on Cihan. In other words, destiny has all ends covered here, too. * Alya While there are those in the fandom who'd rather Alya be sick rather than expecting, I think that Alya truly might be pregnant. Here's why. And keep the overall theme of kader in mind as we go through this part. In the scene right before Alya gets dizzy, Kaya tells her, 'I don't know what to say to you, yenge, may God help you.' Then she walks into her office and just as she's about to continue her search for apartments, wham, a wave of dizziness. And right after the dizzy spell, lo and behold, Boran messages her saying, 'Your path can't cross with Cihan, or I take my son.' See, there it is again. That push and pull between circumstance and fate. While mere mortals can shape circumstances, like Boran, there's no interfering with fate. And, what's fate always tried to do in this story? Keep Alya with Cihan. So, how does a pregnancy fit into this angle? Boran doesn't simply want to keep Alya and Cihan separated. He now wants to put an end to their relationship in every way. Because if he can't have Alya, neither will Cihan. He's done everything in his power to try to cut all bonds between CihAl, but every time he tries, fate throws out another trump card. And what's the best way to forge a bond between two people, no one, not even themselves, can break? A child. A link that will bind Alya to Cihan in the most elemental way there is. The perfect personification of Boran's defeat. Now, I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but those are the vibes I keep getting from as early on as ep 47, where Sadakat is the one trying to convince Alya to leave. Besides, maybe baby, fate also has another surprise up its sleeve for Alya *cue Jaws soundtrack* I'm referring to Meryem, of course. Why do we need Meryem in the overall scheme of kader, anyway? Because Alya needs to learn what fate's already taught Cihan. That love is not something you quietly step away from. Nor is it something you protect by distance, or preserve through sacrifice. Cihan has already gone through that trial. He tried to bury his feelings under duty, under guilt, under everything Boran set in motion, but still ended up right back at Alya. Not just by choice alone, but by something stronger than it. Something that kept correcting his path every time he strayed too far from it. And that’s where Meryem comes in. The final piece of the puzzle to make Alya realize she's changed, even though she doesn't know it yet. While she may think she can distance herself from Cihan, her own actions prove her false. Meryem will help remove the illusion in Alya's head that distance is sustainable between herself and Cihan. So you see, even though there are all kinds of mess in the episode, underneath it all is a disruption. Be it in the form of bitter clarity, a hidden phone, a possible new life, or an unexpected return. When things look like chaos but are actually headed towards something much more deliberate - a resolution where the story corrects every path back to where it was always meant to lead. Till later, happy reading, folks. #CihAl #UzakŞehir
1:42

Analyzing Episode 54. Season 2 aka Disruption by Design When you first watch episode 54, your focus immediately goes to how the bad guys keep winning. Be it Ecmel, Boran, Demir - all the aholes seem to be living it up. But scratch the surface, and another concept appears entirely. Destino, Karma, Kader, Fate - call it whatever you want. That's what I want you to remember as we don our Sherlock caps for yet another analysis. I've divided the whole thing into segments based on characters for easier navigation and understanding. So, here goes nothing. * Sadakat One of the characters to truly surprise me this episode was Sadakat. My vitriolic hatred for this woman is no hidden fact, but this one episode managed to make me see her side of things for once. And, maybe even understand her a little. We were all shocked by the scene where Nare, Alya, and Sadakat are talking about Boran and Cihan. I was mostly surprised because, for once, in 54 freaking episodes, Sadakat accepts her fault and doesn't look for a scapegoat. Her dialogues serve to impart extremely important points about herself, Boran, and Cihan, and how her upbringing helped shape the present circumstances. She admits that she was always afraid of the shadow of Ecmel lurking within Boran, which causes her to hand leadership to Cihan and keep Boran away from everything. But, in trying to protect her family and Albora, Sadakat inadvertently brings about the very thing she fears most - Boran becoming another Ecmel. Now, cast your mind back to the very first episode. We're introduced to Sadakat as an evil witch who's evil to Alya from the get-go and absolutely mental about keeping Deniz with the family at all times. I think I finally understand why. Guilt. Sadakat keeps pushing Boran away, until one day he takes it upon himself to go k-word Sulaiman to prove his worth, so to speak, which results in exile for him and supposedly death in a foreign country. Everything she does from that point on is based on years' worth of accumulated guilt. Alya is driving the car that results in the accident, so she wins the 'get the most shit from Sadakat' award immediately. But, again, that's just her guilt exacerbating things. As for Deniz, was Sadakat trying to avoid the same mistake she made with Boran with Deniz by holding on to him by hook or crook? So that Ecmel's shadow would never shape another family member's life again? Yep. That's probably also why she hates the idea of Cihan and Alya, because her guilt forces her to keep protecting Boran even in death. Because how could she allow Boran to lose yet another thing? In short, Sadakat tries to control the future of her family by trying to shape the circumstances, to make Cihan Aga and keep Boran away, but fails spectacularly. Why? Because fate has other plans. Boran was never meant to be kept away, and no matter how much Sadakat toiled as a mother, he was meant to take Ecmel's side over his own flesh and blood. And maybe Sadakat binds everyone else with a promise except herself because she might be the one to end what she started all those years ago. * Cihan Cihan's struggle in this episode was to try to find a way to neutralize Boran's poison. Because he's the reason Cihan's life is unraveling, because he's the man who controls Alya via Deniz. Throughout the episode, it seems like all is lost for him. Alya is forced to give in to Boran's condition, and Sadakat is framed for Vurgun's murder. And while Vurgun keeps his promise to Boran and takes his secrets with him to the grave, his death helps him speak what he could not say in life. It's no coincidence Cihan is the only one to find Vurgun's secret phone stashed in a hidey hole in the wall right after Cihan says he will bury Boran in regret. In this instance, too, we're shown that circumstances are pressing in on Cihan from all sides, but one dusty footstep later, Cihan finally finds what will possibly be the key to defeating Boran. As for Alya, she's Cihan's greatest strength and weakness - as it generally is in love. She comes into his life as an impossibility and ends up becoming his greatest truth. Cihan relents to Alya finding an apartment because he understands her duty to her son. But just as fears things are all out of his control, fate intervenes and gives him the opening he kept ignoring. Why? Because, as Cihan says, a man low enough to kill someone who saved his life is capable of pretty much anything. So, Cihan's course is redirected subtly, too, to a possibility that will help him achieve what he needs most at the time. * Boran Yeah, I don't really care much for the zombie, but this needs to be said. Throw your mind back to how Sadakat says all Boran's calculations turn out wrong. Though he's a sneaky troll who's not entirely as stupid as I thought, karma has a mile-long shit-list on this ahole. First, he records a will video to punish Cihan. He hopes that Cihan will fall for Alya but will forever suffer the pangs of conscience. In doing so, he'd never find completion in his love for Alya and would keep suffering. But, an Amal Bakir turns up at his grave out of the blue, runs into Cihan, and bam - he finds Boran. Which ironically helps Cihan overcome all his guilt pretty quickly. Next up, Alya. The video Boran records to control Alya's life ends up becoming the key to her freedom from him eventually. The one card we know he has now is Deniz, but there's Vurgun's phone to counteract this one now. And, finally, I get the feeling that the zombie has a hand in Meryem turning up like a bad penny out of nowhere. However, this ploy will fail too, because Meryem will have the same effect on Alya that Boran has on Cihan. In other words, destiny has all ends covered here, too. * Alya While there are those in the fandom who'd rather Alya be sick rather than expecting, I think that Alya truly might be pregnant. Here's why. And keep the overall theme of kader in mind as we go through this part. In the scene right before Alya gets dizzy, Kaya tells her, 'I don't know what to say to you, yenge, may God help you.' Then she walks into her office and just as she's about to continue her search for apartments, wham, a wave of dizziness. And right after the dizzy spell, lo and behold, Boran messages her saying, 'Your path can't cross with Cihan, or I take my son.' See, there it is again. That push and pull between circumstance and fate. While mere mortals can shape circumstances, like Boran, there's no interfering with fate. And, what's fate always tried to do in this story? Keep Alya with Cihan. So, how does a pregnancy fit into this angle? Boran doesn't simply want to keep Alya and Cihan separated. He now wants to put an end to their relationship in every way. Because if he can't have Alya, neither will Cihan. He's done everything in his power to try to cut all bonds between CihAl, but every time he tries, fate throws out another trump card. And what's the best way to forge a bond between two people, no one, not even themselves, can break? A child. A link that will bind Alya to Cihan in the most elemental way there is. The perfect personification of Boran's defeat. Now, I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but those are the vibes I keep getting from as early on as ep 47, where Sadakat is the one trying to convince Alya to leave. Besides, maybe baby, fate also has another surprise up its sleeve for Alya *cue Jaws soundtrack* I'm referring to Meryem, of course. Why do we need Meryem in the overall scheme of kader, anyway? Because Alya needs to learn what fate's already taught Cihan. That love is not something you quietly step away from. Nor is it something you protect by distance, or preserve through sacrifice. Cihan has already gone through that trial. He tried to bury his feelings under duty, under guilt, under everything Boran set in motion, but still ended up right back at Alya. Not just by choice alone, but by something stronger than it. Something that kept correcting his path every time he strayed too far from it. And that’s where Meryem comes in. The final piece of the puzzle to make Alya realize she's changed, even though she doesn't know it yet. While she may think she can distance herself from Cihan, her own actions prove her false. Meryem will help remove the illusion in Alya's head that distance is sustainable between herself and Cihan. So you see, even though there are all kinds of mess in the episode, underneath it all is a disruption. Be it in the form of bitter clarity, a hidden phone, a possible new life, or an unexpected return. When things look like chaos but are actually headed towards something much more deliberate - a resolution where the story corrects every path back to where it was always meant to lead. Till later, happy reading, folks. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

32,285 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz: "Trump often applies pressure through a very forceful approach. "The last American presidents politely asked us, "Please, finally do a little more for your own defense," but across Europe those requests largely fell on deaf ears. "Now there is an American president who says, rather bluntly, "Enough is enough." "And I cannot blame him. Just look at the numbers: the United States spends around 80 percent of NATO's defense resources, while Europe accounts for only about 20 percent. "That is unacceptable. It has always been unacceptable." Yes. It always has been. I never cease to marvel at how Europe's (and Canada's) leaders act as though they believe that they are somehow the side "indulging" the President of the United States. The sheer arrogance. I'm a lifelong Atlanticist, but if Europe doesn't step up and soon, even I'm for pulling out of NATO. Explain to me the downside to the U.S. Now, explain to me the downside to a bunch of freeloading European "powers" that use our defense budget to subsidize their welfare programs. And this is particularly galling coming from a country (the UK) that has nearly twice as many admirals as warships. It's a joke. They keep threatening to "go it alone" on defense. What, with a Boy Scout troop? Puh-lease. And if they did, in what possible respect would that hurt us? It is no different from a small child threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue. Our European friends would do well to take stock of who they have actually become and how far they've actually fallen. Their richest country is poorer per capita than our poorest state. And after that impossible feat, perhaps they will actually begin to understand why Presidents since Bush have been telling them these exact same things. They're just at the end of the 25-year-long line now, and Trump is saying the quiet parts out loud. It's the Pacific Century, folks. NATO can partners, or not. But they no longer get to be dependents. And we no longer care about their pathetic, unearned condescension. It's good to see that Chancellor Merz -- leader of a country that sometimes shows up to NATO exercises with broomsticks because it doesn't have enough rifles, despite having the world's third largest economy -- has finally realized that. May others follow. Quickly.
1:03

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz: "Trump often applies pressure through a very forceful approach. "The last American presidents politely asked us, "Please, finally do a little more for your own defense," but across Europe those requests largely fell on deaf ears. "Now there is an American president who says, rather bluntly, "Enough is enough." "And I cannot blame him. Just look at the numbers: the United States spends around 80 percent of NATO's defense resources, while Europe accounts for only about 20 percent. "That is unacceptable. It has always been unacceptable." Yes. It always has been. I never cease to marvel at how Europe's (and Canada's) leaders act as though they believe that they are somehow the side "indulging" the President of the United States. The sheer arrogance. I'm a lifelong Atlanticist, but if Europe doesn't step up and soon, even I'm for pulling out of NATO. Explain to me the downside to the U.S. Now, explain to me the downside to a bunch of freeloading European "powers" that use our defense budget to subsidize their welfare programs. And this is particularly galling coming from a country (the UK) that has nearly twice as many admirals as warships. It's a joke. They keep threatening to "go it alone" on defense. What, with a Boy Scout troop? Puh-lease. And if they did, in what possible respect would that hurt us? It is no different from a small child threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue. Our European friends would do well to take stock of who they have actually become and how far they've actually fallen. Their richest country is poorer per capita than our poorest state. And after that impossible feat, perhaps they will actually begin to understand why Presidents since Bush have been telling them these exact same things. They're just at the end of the 25-year-long line now, and Trump is saying the quiet parts out loud. It's the Pacific Century, folks. NATO can partners, or not. But they no longer get to be dependents. And we no longer care about their pathetic, unearned condescension. It's good to see that Chancellor Merz -- leader of a country that sometimes shows up to NATO exercises with broomsticks because it doesn't have enough rifles, despite having the world's third largest economy -- has finally realized that. May others follow. Quickly.

Rod D. Martin

290,335 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

So Jefferson Morley says that "the evidence does not support the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president." Jeff relies on the eyewitness account of one of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK at Dallas, Bob McClelland. And he says I failed in Case Closed to challenge Dr. McClelland's credibility. Below is an excerpt from CASE CLOSED, Chapter 13, “He Had A Death Look: Parkland and Bethesda." Read it and decide for yourselves what you believe. And check my source notes, almost all based on my own interviews in 1992 with the chief attending Parkland doctors. It is their judgment of Dr. McClelland's account that is critically important. “However, some of the Parkland doctors who treated the President described a gaping wound in the rear of JFK’s head (the occipital region), not the right side (the parietal). If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front, with a large exit hole in the rear of the head. Several Parkland doctors also thought they saw cerebellum, tissue from the base of the brain, on the stretcher or in the operating room. Yet, the autopsy photos of the brain show the cerebellum intact. If the Parkland descriptions of the cerebellum were true, this raised legitimate questions over the authenticity of the photographs of JFK’s brain, which showed no such damage. Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, in their book High Treason, devote more than thirty pages to highlighting this conflict between the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the head wound. However, it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertion about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail. When Dr. Kemp Clark looked at the wound to determine whether the President could be revived, it was the first time it had been examined. “From what I read in later books, everyone looked at it in detail from the beginning, but that is not true,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. As for the head wound, they couldn’t look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants.”83 “We never had the opportunity to review his wounds,” Dr. Carrico told the author, “in order to describe them accurately. We were trying to save his life.”84 Dr. Adolph Giesecke agrees: “We had no time to examine the wounds. That was to be done by a forensic pathologist, not by us.”85 “I don’t think any of us got a good look at the head wound,” confirms Dr. Perry. “I didn’t examine it or really look at it that carefully.”86 “And when we realized he was dead,” Dr. Baxter recalls, “none of us had the heart to go and examine the head wound while Mrs. Kennedy was in the room. We all just made our way out of the room.”87 “When things were over with,” Dr. Jones says, “you felt it was her time and you should get out of there and let her be alone with him.”88 Dr. Baden of the Select Committee concurs: “Parkland was not concerned with whether the bullet was going from front to back or vice versa, they were only treating the symptoms, not the wounds. Some of them could be good surgeons but lousy pathologists. A third of the time, an autopsy shows something was missed by the treating doctors at the hospital. In unnatural deaths, it is common for the treating physicians to mix up stab wounds and gun shots, and they are wrong half the time about exit or entrance. The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy off—there is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about that wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they don’t know what they are talking about since there is nothing there but the entry injury in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies. “One of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. It’s very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head.”89 Yet mistaken descriptions of what the Parkland doctors did and saw continue to be published. High Treason asserts that some doctors examined the wound with a flashlight and that Dr. Jenkins picked the head up from the stretcher to show other doctors the extent of the rear wound.90 The eight principal doctors who attended to JFK on that day all told the author that such reports were false. Moreover, Groden and Livingstone cite early interviews and some testimony before the Warren Commission to support their hypothesis that the Parkland doctors saw a different head wound than the one described at Bethesda.* Yet the Parkland physicians, in their discussions with the author, were almost unanimous in supporting the autopsy findings that the massive exit wound was on the right side (parietal) of the President’s head, not the rear (occipital), and that there was no sign of damaged cerebellum tissue. They insisted that the explainable differences in the wound descriptions between them and the Bethesda doctors have been exploited by conspiracy writers, who created a controversy where none exists. Some admitted that their early statements about the wounds, which they now consider to be mistaken, may have contributed to the confusion. Dr. Bill Midgett, who helped wheel the President from the limousine into trauma room one, says, “The President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue. All of us were so shocked … and to have Mrs. Kennedy there—none of us stared very closely to see the wound. But it was more parietal than occipital—that much I could see. I did not turn the President over to look, but there was no cerebellum in that car or on the people.” “We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound,” recalls Dr. Carrico. “We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders, and you could see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don’t believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken.”91 Dr. Giesecke also admits an error in his original testimony when he described the wound as more occipital. “I guess I have to say that I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. But, for instance, Lifton spent six hours with me trying to get me to say the wounds were like he wanted them. The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didn’t do that, nor did I see anyone else do that.”92 Dr. Peters had said that the cerebellum was damaged. “I saw the photograph of the brain when I was in Washington for the Nova program, and I saw the cerebellum was depressed, but it was not lacerated or torn. It is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to in 1964.… The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear.” Dr. Jenkins’s original report also stated he saw cerebellum. “The description of the cerebellum was my fault,” he says. “When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital.”93* “I did not really look at it that closely,” says Dr. Perry. “But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/ parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where that wound started or finished. I did not see any cerebellum.”94 Dr. Baxter agrees that it was difficult to determine the precise location of the wound when treating the President: “He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn’t tell what was wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That’s just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.”95 Dr. Jones makes the same observation, saying he did not even know there was a head wound for several minutes, and then finally realized it was a “large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there.”96 Dr. Giesecke agrees “that the occipital and parietal region are so close together it is possible to mistake one for the other.”97 The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of the head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw. “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,” says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompson’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99 “I am astonished that Bob would say that,” says Dr. Malcolm Perry. “It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.”100 “I don’t think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,” says Dr. Peters. “He wasn’t in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.”101 “Bob is an excellent surgeon,” says Dr. Jenkins. “He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right. In 1988, when I went to the National Archives, the photos showed the President’s brain was crenelated from the trauma, and it resembled cerebellum, but it was not cerebellar tissue. I think it has thrown off a lot of people that saw it. I guess a last point is that Bob and Groden [co-author of High Treason] are such good friends, I believe it has changed his attitude.”102 “McClelland may be a fine surgeon, but he is a lousy pathologist,” says Baden. “I am sure he thinks he saw that, and has developed it in his mind. But his memory is just completely wrong, and the autopsy photos and X rays prove that.”103* Dr. Crenshaw wrote a book in 1992 in which he claimed he examined the wound, that the hole was in the rear of the head, and that the cerebellum was lacerated.104† Crenshaw, a junior resident at the time, arrived late at trauma room one and assisted for only a few minutes near the end. He was in no position to make the judgments he sensationally proclaimed in his book. In fact, his role was so minor that most of the other doctors do not even remember him. “I don’t remember Dr. Crenshaw in the room,” says Dr. Ron Jones. “I don’t remember him in there at any time, but he may have been,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “Neither do I,” says Dr. Baxter. “I feel sorry for him,” says Dr. Perry. “I had thought about suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate.… He is a pitiful sight.” A senior Dallas doctor who is a close Crenshaw friend told the author, “I think it is a bag of worms of ego, going over the hill, the last hurrah.” While almost all the Parkland doctors who treated JFK support the findings of the autopsy team, their confirmation may not be as important as the studies conducted by subsequent panels of experts. The Clark and Rockefeller commissions, as well as the House Select Committee’s medical panel, affirm the original autopsy conclusions about JFK’s head wound. The most detailed work was done by the Select Committee. All nine forensic pathologists agreed that the beveling of the skull and the damage to the brain meant the small rear hole in the President’s head was an entrance wound.105 The exit hole was consistent with a wound caused by the two large bullet fragments found in the front of the President’s car.106* SOURCE NOTES 83. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 84. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 85. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 86. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 87. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 88. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 89. Interviews with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992, and November 7, 1992. 90. Groden and Livingstone, op. cit., p. 46. 91. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 92. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 93. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 3, 1992. 94. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 95. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 96. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 97. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 98. Interview with Dr. Robert McClelland, March 9, 1992. 99. Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 140. 100. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 101. Interview with Dr. Paul Peters, March 10, 1992; Dr. Peters also drew a diagram that showed the doctors’ positions around the table and provided it to the author. 102. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 103. Interview with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992. 104. Charles Crenshaw, op. cit., p. 88. 105. HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 110, 115. 106. Ibid., p. 128. AND the Footnotes to that section *Although no one at Parkland saw JFK’s back wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins later told Dr. John Lattimer that he had felt it with his finger when he positioned the President’s head and neck to facilitate the passage of oxygen (Kennedy and Lincoln, p. 153). * After the autopsy, Humes and Boswell wrote their report from memory, without the benefit of the photographs or X rays. Robert Kennedy, who feared the public display of the X rays and photos would be offensive to the Kennedy family, reached an agreement with the Warren Commission not to publish the materials, and except for Earl Warren, the commissioners did not examine them. When the film was turned over to the custody of the National Archives in 1966, a metal box containing the President’s brain was missing from the inventory, together with some tissue slides. Humes had given everything from the autopsy, including the brain, to JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley. “He told me,” said Humes, “that the [Kennedy] family wanted to inter the brain with the President’s body” (Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, Vol. 267, No. 20, p. 2803). The House Select Committee concluded that Robert Kennedy likely disposed of the material for fear it would become a lurid public exhibition (HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 367–68). * In 1988, four of the Parkland doctors—Pepper Jenkins, Richard Dulaney, Paul Peters, and Robert McClelland—went to the National Archives at the invitation of a PBS documentary show, Nova, about the assassination. They were the first Parkland physicians to see the autopsy photographs, and each confirmed the photos represented what they remembered seeing that day, including a picture of the rear of President Kennedy’s head, which shows no defect. It has been suggested that the reason the photo shows the rear of the President’s head as undamaged is because the doctor (whose fingers are present in the picture) is holding a large flap of skin to cover the rear defect. “False,” says Dr. Michael Baden. “There is no flap of skin there. There is a bony protrusion from the right side of the head, but the rear is undamaged, except for the entry hole near the top of the skull” (Interview, January 23, 1992). * High Treason asserts that Jenkins originally said JFK was shot in the chest. Jenkins laughed when the author read him the Groden and Livingstone charge. “I don’t know where they get this stuff from. We put tubes into the President’s chest, but there were no chest wounds caused by anything else.” * In his original report, McClelland said there was a wound to the left temple, one that does not show up on any autopsy X ray or photograph. This has caused some to charge that Kennedy was shot by a second gunman from another location at Dealey, and that the autopsy team either negligently or intentionally overlooked that wound. “I’ll tell you how that happened,” Dr. Jenkins explained to the author. “When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, ‘Where are his wounds?’ And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President’s temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.” † Crenshaw also said the autopsy photograph of the tracheotomy opening on Kennedy’s neck shows that it was larger than it had been at Parkland, implying that additional surgery might have been done between Parkland and Bethesda. “That’s ridiculous,” Dr. Malcolm Perry told the author. “I did the procedure. Tracheotomies are not pretty things, as speed is of the essence. Tissue can sag and stretch after death, but the photos I have seen look like the opening I remember making.” * While the Select Committee’s forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President’s head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side “could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.” In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President’s head, a front shooter fired into the wound created by the rear bullet. That is Wecht’s way of explaining why there is not another entry hole on JFK’s head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit for a front bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that “the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.” He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which would have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, “Yes, that’s true, there should be more fragments.” Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible—except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination. * The author viewed a video taken of the execution of a journalist by army troops in Central America. When the victim, who was lying flat on his stomach on the ground, was shot in the rear of the head, his upper torso and legs arched off the ground, in the opposite direction of the bullet. It was similar to the neuromuscular reaction JFK suffered. Also, when Governor Connally was struck in the rear shoulder by a bullet, he did not fall forward, but is clearly visible on the Zapruder film, his wounded shoulder pushing back into the car seat, toward the direction from which he was shot.
0:30

So Jefferson Morley says that "the evidence does not support the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president." Jeff relies on the eyewitness account of one of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK at Dallas, Bob McClelland. And he says I failed in Case Closed to challenge Dr. McClelland's credibility. Below is an excerpt from CASE CLOSED, Chapter 13, “He Had A Death Look: Parkland and Bethesda." Read it and decide for yourselves what you believe. And check my source notes, almost all based on my own interviews in 1992 with the chief attending Parkland doctors. It is their judgment of Dr. McClelland's account that is critically important. “However, some of the Parkland doctors who treated the President described a gaping wound in the rear of JFK’s head (the occipital region), not the right side (the parietal). If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front, with a large exit hole in the rear of the head. Several Parkland doctors also thought they saw cerebellum, tissue from the base of the brain, on the stretcher or in the operating room. Yet, the autopsy photos of the brain show the cerebellum intact. If the Parkland descriptions of the cerebellum were true, this raised legitimate questions over the authenticity of the photographs of JFK’s brain, which showed no such damage. Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, in their book High Treason, devote more than thirty pages to highlighting this conflict between the Parkland and Bethesda descriptions of the head wound. However, it is questionable to rely on the Parkland doctors for any assertion about the head wound since, by their own admission, they did not examine it in detail. When Dr. Kemp Clark looked at the wound to determine whether the President could be revived, it was the first time it had been examined. “From what I read in later books, everyone looked at it in detail from the beginning, but that is not true,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “We were trying to save the President, and no one had time to examine the wounds. As for the head wound, they couldn’t look at it earlier because I was standing with my body against it, and they would only have looked at my pants.”83 “We never had the opportunity to review his wounds,” Dr. Carrico told the author, “in order to describe them accurately. We were trying to save his life.”84 Dr. Adolph Giesecke agrees: “We had no time to examine the wounds. That was to be done by a forensic pathologist, not by us.”85 “I don’t think any of us got a good look at the head wound,” confirms Dr. Perry. “I didn’t examine it or really look at it that carefully.”86 “And when we realized he was dead,” Dr. Baxter recalls, “none of us had the heart to go and examine the head wound while Mrs. Kennedy was in the room. We all just made our way out of the room.”87 “When things were over with,” Dr. Jones says, “you felt it was her time and you should get out of there and let her be alone with him.”88 Dr. Baden of the Select Committee concurs: “Parkland was not concerned with whether the bullet was going from front to back or vice versa, they were only treating the symptoms, not the wounds. Some of them could be good surgeons but lousy pathologists. A third of the time, an autopsy shows something was missed by the treating doctors at the hospital. In unnatural deaths, it is common for the treating physicians to mix up stab wounds and gun shots, and they are wrong half the time about exit or entrance. The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy off—there is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about that wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they don’t know what they are talking about since there is nothing there but the entry injury in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies. “One of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. It’s very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head.”89 Yet mistaken descriptions of what the Parkland doctors did and saw continue to be published. High Treason asserts that some doctors examined the wound with a flashlight and that Dr. Jenkins picked the head up from the stretcher to show other doctors the extent of the rear wound.90 The eight principal doctors who attended to JFK on that day all told the author that such reports were false. Moreover, Groden and Livingstone cite early interviews and some testimony before the Warren Commission to support their hypothesis that the Parkland doctors saw a different head wound than the one described at Bethesda.* Yet the Parkland physicians, in their discussions with the author, were almost unanimous in supporting the autopsy findings that the massive exit wound was on the right side (parietal) of the President’s head, not the rear (occipital), and that there was no sign of damaged cerebellum tissue. They insisted that the explainable differences in the wound descriptions between them and the Bethesda doctors have been exploited by conspiracy writers, who created a controversy where none exists. Some admitted that their early statements about the wounds, which they now consider to be mistaken, may have contributed to the confusion. Dr. Bill Midgett, who helped wheel the President from the limousine into trauma room one, says, “The President had quite thick hair, and there was a lot of blood and tissue. All of us were so shocked … and to have Mrs. Kennedy there—none of us stared very closely to see the wound. But it was more parietal than occipital—that much I could see. I did not turn the President over to look, but there was no cerebellum in that car or on the people.” “We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound,” recalls Dr. Carrico. “We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. The reason I say that is that the President was lying on his back and shoulders, and you could see the hole, with scalp and brain tissue hanging back down his head, and it covered most of the occipital portion of his head. We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don’t believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken.”91 Dr. Giesecke also admits an error in his original testimony when he described the wound as more occipital. “I guess I have to say that I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony on the wound and in some of my pronouncements since then. I just never got that good of a look at it. But, for instance, Lifton spent six hours with me trying to get me to say the wounds were like he wanted them. The truth is there was a massive head wound, with brain tissue and blood around it. And with that type of wound you could not get accurate information unless you feel around inside the hole and look into it in detail, and I certainly didn’t do that, nor did I see anyone else do that.”92 Dr. Peters had said that the cerebellum was damaged. “I saw the photograph of the brain when I was in Washington for the Nova program, and I saw the cerebellum was depressed, but it was not lacerated or torn. It is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to in 1964.… The only thing I would say is that over the last twenty-eight years I now believe the head wound is more forward than I first placed it. More to the side than the rear. I tried to tell Lifton where the wound was, but he did not want to hear.” Dr. Jenkins’s original report also stated he saw cerebellum. “The description of the cerebellum was my fault,” he says. “When I read my report over, I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital.”93* “I did not really look at it that closely,” says Dr. Perry. “But like everyone else, I saw it back there. It was in the occipital/ parietal area. The occipital and parietal bone join each other, so we are only talking a centimeter or so in difference. And you must remember the President had a lot of hair, and it was bloody and matted, and it was difficult to tell where that wound started or finished. I did not see any cerebellum.”94 Dr. Baxter agrees that it was difficult to determine the precise location of the wound when treating the President: “He had such a bushy head of hair, and blood and all in it, you couldn’t tell what was wound versus dried blood or dangling tissue. I have been misquoted enough on this, some saying I claimed the whole back of his head was blown away. That’s just wrong. I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.”95 Dr. Jones makes the same observation, saying he did not even know there was a head wound for several minutes, and then finally realized it was a “large side wound, with blood and tissue that extended toward the rear, from what you could tell of the mess that was there.”96 Dr. Giesecke agrees “that the occipital and parietal region are so close together it is possible to mistake one for the other.”97 The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of the head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw. “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher,” says McClelland, who claims he was in the best position of any of the doctors to view the head wound.98 He drew a sketch in 1967 for Josiah Thompson’s book Six Seconds in Dallas, which showed a gaping wound in the rear of the head.99 “I am astonished that Bob would say that,” says Dr. Malcolm Perry. “It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.”100 “I don’t think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound,” says Dr. Peters. “He wasn’t in that position the way I remember it, as he was on the other side of the table. As for Dr. McClelland saying he saw cerebellum fall out on the table, I never saw anything like that.”101 “Bob is an excellent surgeon,” says Dr. Jenkins. “He knows anatomy. I hate to say Bob is mistaken, but that is clearly not right. In 1988, when I went to the National Archives, the photos showed the President’s brain was crenelated from the trauma, and it resembled cerebellum, but it was not cerebellar tissue. I think it has thrown off a lot of people that saw it. I guess a last point is that Bob and Groden [co-author of High Treason] are such good friends, I believe it has changed his attitude.”102 “McClelland may be a fine surgeon, but he is a lousy pathologist,” says Baden. “I am sure he thinks he saw that, and has developed it in his mind. But his memory is just completely wrong, and the autopsy photos and X rays prove that.”103* Dr. Crenshaw wrote a book in 1992 in which he claimed he examined the wound, that the hole was in the rear of the head, and that the cerebellum was lacerated.104† Crenshaw, a junior resident at the time, arrived late at trauma room one and assisted for only a few minutes near the end. He was in no position to make the judgments he sensationally proclaimed in his book. In fact, his role was so minor that most of the other doctors do not even remember him. “I don’t remember Dr. Crenshaw in the room,” says Dr. Ron Jones. “I don’t remember him in there at any time, but he may have been,” recalls Dr. Jenkins. “Neither do I,” says Dr. Baxter. “I feel sorry for him,” says Dr. Perry. “I had thought about suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate.… He is a pitiful sight.” A senior Dallas doctor who is a close Crenshaw friend told the author, “I think it is a bag of worms of ego, going over the hill, the last hurrah.” While almost all the Parkland doctors who treated JFK support the findings of the autopsy team, their confirmation may not be as important as the studies conducted by subsequent panels of experts. The Clark and Rockefeller commissions, as well as the House Select Committee’s medical panel, affirm the original autopsy conclusions about JFK’s head wound. The most detailed work was done by the Select Committee. All nine forensic pathologists agreed that the beveling of the skull and the damage to the brain meant the small rear hole in the President’s head was an entrance wound.105 The exit hole was consistent with a wound caused by the two large bullet fragments found in the front of the President’s car.106* SOURCE NOTES 83. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 84. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 85. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 86. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 87. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 88. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 89. Interviews with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992, and November 7, 1992. 90. Groden and Livingstone, op. cit., p. 46. 91. Interview with Dr. Charles Carrico, March 8, 1992. 92. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 93. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 3, 1992. 94. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 95. Interview with Dr. Charles Baxter, March 12, 1992. 96. Interview with Dr. Ron Jones, April 14, 1992. 97. Interview with Dr. Adolph Giesecke, March 5, 1992. 98. Interview with Dr. Robert McClelland, March 9, 1992. 99. Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 140. 100. Interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, April 2, 1992. 101. Interview with Dr. Paul Peters, March 10, 1992; Dr. Peters also drew a diagram that showed the doctors’ positions around the table and provided it to the author. 102. Interview with Dr. Pepper Jenkins, March 10, 1992. 103. Interview with Dr. Michael Baden, February 1, 1992. 104. Charles Crenshaw, op. cit., p. 88. 105. HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 110, 115. 106. Ibid., p. 128. AND the Footnotes to that section *Although no one at Parkland saw JFK’s back wound, Dr. Pepper Jenkins later told Dr. John Lattimer that he had felt it with his finger when he positioned the President’s head and neck to facilitate the passage of oxygen (Kennedy and Lincoln, p. 153). * After the autopsy, Humes and Boswell wrote their report from memory, without the benefit of the photographs or X rays. Robert Kennedy, who feared the public display of the X rays and photos would be offensive to the Kennedy family, reached an agreement with the Warren Commission not to publish the materials, and except for Earl Warren, the commissioners did not examine them. When the film was turned over to the custody of the National Archives in 1966, a metal box containing the President’s brain was missing from the inventory, together with some tissue slides. Humes had given everything from the autopsy, including the brain, to JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley. “He told me,” said Humes, “that the [Kennedy] family wanted to inter the brain with the President’s body” (Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, Vol. 267, No. 20, p. 2803). The House Select Committee concluded that Robert Kennedy likely disposed of the material for fear it would become a lurid public exhibition (HSCA Vol. VII, pp. 367–68). * In 1988, four of the Parkland doctors—Pepper Jenkins, Richard Dulaney, Paul Peters, and Robert McClelland—went to the National Archives at the invitation of a PBS documentary show, Nova, about the assassination. They were the first Parkland physicians to see the autopsy photographs, and each confirmed the photos represented what they remembered seeing that day, including a picture of the rear of President Kennedy’s head, which shows no defect. It has been suggested that the reason the photo shows the rear of the President’s head as undamaged is because the doctor (whose fingers are present in the picture) is holding a large flap of skin to cover the rear defect. “False,” says Dr. Michael Baden. “There is no flap of skin there. There is a bony protrusion from the right side of the head, but the rear is undamaged, except for the entry hole near the top of the skull” (Interview, January 23, 1992). * High Treason asserts that Jenkins originally said JFK was shot in the chest. Jenkins laughed when the author read him the Groden and Livingstone charge. “I don’t know where they get this stuff from. We put tubes into the President’s chest, but there were no chest wounds caused by anything else.” * In his original report, McClelland said there was a wound to the left temple, one that does not show up on any autopsy X ray or photograph. This has caused some to charge that Kennedy was shot by a second gunman from another location at Dealey, and that the autopsy team either negligently or intentionally overlooked that wound. “I’ll tell you how that happened,” Dr. Jenkins explained to the author. “When Bob McClelland came into the room, he asked me, ‘Where are his wounds?’ And at that time I was operating a breathing bag with my right hand, and was trying to take the President’s temporal pulse, and I had my finger on his left temple. Bob thought I pointed to the left temple as the wound.” † Crenshaw also said the autopsy photograph of the tracheotomy opening on Kennedy’s neck shows that it was larger than it had been at Parkland, implying that additional surgery might have been done between Parkland and Bethesda. “That’s ridiculous,” Dr. Malcolm Perry told the author. “I did the procedure. Tracheotomies are not pretty things, as speed is of the essence. Tissue can sag and stretch after death, but the photos I have seen look like the opening I remember making.” * While the Select Committee’s forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President’s head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side “could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.” In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President’s head, a front shooter fired into the wound created by the rear bullet. That is Wecht’s way of explaining why there is not another entry hole on JFK’s head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit for a front bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that “the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.” He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which would have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, “Yes, that’s true, there should be more fragments.” Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible—except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination. * The author viewed a video taken of the execution of a journalist by army troops in Central America. When the victim, who was lying flat on his stomach on the ground, was shot in the rear of the head, his upper torso and legs arched off the ground, in the opposite direction of the bullet. It was similar to the neuromuscular reaction JFK suffered. Also, when Governor Connally was struck in the rear shoulder by a bullet, he did not fall forward, but is clearly visible on the Zapruder film, his wounded shoulder pushing back into the car seat, toward the direction from which he was shot.

Gerald Posner

19,237 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Nick Fuentes just recommended Ozempic to his 1M+ mostly Gen-Z fans, so now I need to rant. This is absolutely HORRIBLE advice. Ozempic and other GLP-1 drugs literally paralyze your stomach so you can't digest food properly, and in countless cases have led to gastroparesis, intestinal blockage, BLINDNESS, and a laundry list of other horrific side effects. NOBODY should be taking this poison. If you're struggling with weight loss, here's some actually useful advice that will make you healthier without destroying your body: EAT MORE FATTY RED MEAT. And any high-fat animal products, really. (Excluding dairy, which is a growth agent in nature and thus triggers addictive pathways in your brain). Beef, butter, bacon, and eggs. Those 4 are your best friend. Carbohydrates, even the "healthy ones" like salad, fruit, whole grains, etc. are NOT satiating your body; they're glorified sugar/fiber bulk that strain your digestion and make you fart/shit more, while giving you zero actual nutritional value as you are not a cow or rabbit with the specialized digestive system required to digest break these materials down. (More details on why plants in any quantity are unhealthy for humans in the thread to follow). The reason why an overweight person's body is stuck in the constant craving mode is, very simply, because they are protein/fat-deficient. (Carbohydrates are non-essential, Protein/Fat are essential). The carbohydrate industry is far bigger than the other two, however, so they've thrown a ton of money around to convince the world that DIETARY FAT is bad for you, and causes BODYFAT. This is completely backwards from reality. Dietary fat is what turns off your hunger signals, i.e. gets your body to the NOURISHMENT point where it no longer craves food, which is where weight loss happens. I can practically promise you right now: if you're on the heavy side and just eliminate all carbs (even fruit/salad) and start eating bacon/eggs for breakfast, and a couple pounds of steak or ground beef for dinner (again, with NO CARBS on the side of either of these meals), you will see the the easiest, most delicious weight loss progress of your life. And if you're really dedicated to making progress as fast as possible? Work your way toward eating a TON of steak for dinner, and making that your singular meal for the day. (One meal in a day sounds crazy to the carb-addicted mind, but trust me, that protein/fat combo has carrying power. I've done this one-meal-of-steak-per-day routine for years, it's easy once you're acclimated to it.) I've done tons of podcast episodes and blog posts on the weight loss topic in the past, featuring personal friends of mine who've lost HUNDREDS of pounds on the Carnivore (Zero Carb) Diet, when NOTHING else worked for them, from vegan, to paleo, to mediterranean, keto, and everything in between. I'll turn this post into a thread, and link some of the resources I've gotten the most positive feedback on below for you to explore. Take a look, and share with any friends you know who are struggling with weight! 🧵👇
0:51

Nick Fuentes just recommended Ozempic to his 1M+ mostly Gen-Z fans, so now I need to rant. This is absolutely HORRIBLE advice. Ozempic and other GLP-1 drugs literally paralyze your stomach so you can't digest food properly, and in countless cases have led to gastroparesis, intestinal blockage, BLINDNESS, and a laundry list of other horrific side effects. NOBODY should be taking this poison. If you're struggling with weight loss, here's some actually useful advice that will make you healthier without destroying your body: EAT MORE FATTY RED MEAT. And any high-fat animal products, really. (Excluding dairy, which is a growth agent in nature and thus triggers addictive pathways in your brain). Beef, butter, bacon, and eggs. Those 4 are your best friend. Carbohydrates, even the "healthy ones" like salad, fruit, whole grains, etc. are NOT satiating your body; they're glorified sugar/fiber bulk that strain your digestion and make you fart/shit more, while giving you zero actual nutritional value as you are not a cow or rabbit with the specialized digestive system required to digest break these materials down. (More details on why plants in any quantity are unhealthy for humans in the thread to follow). The reason why an overweight person's body is stuck in the constant craving mode is, very simply, because they are protein/fat-deficient. (Carbohydrates are non-essential, Protein/Fat are essential). The carbohydrate industry is far bigger than the other two, however, so they've thrown a ton of money around to convince the world that DIETARY FAT is bad for you, and causes BODYFAT. This is completely backwards from reality. Dietary fat is what turns off your hunger signals, i.e. gets your body to the NOURISHMENT point where it no longer craves food, which is where weight loss happens. I can practically promise you right now: if you're on the heavy side and just eliminate all carbs (even fruit/salad) and start eating bacon/eggs for breakfast, and a couple pounds of steak or ground beef for dinner (again, with NO CARBS on the side of either of these meals), you will see the the easiest, most delicious weight loss progress of your life. And if you're really dedicated to making progress as fast as possible? Work your way toward eating a TON of steak for dinner, and making that your singular meal for the day. (One meal in a day sounds crazy to the carb-addicted mind, but trust me, that protein/fat combo has carrying power. I've done this one-meal-of-steak-per-day routine for years, it's easy once you're acclimated to it.) I've done tons of podcast episodes and blog posts on the weight loss topic in the past, featuring personal friends of mine who've lost HUNDREDS of pounds on the Carnivore (Zero Carb) Diet, when NOTHING else worked for them, from vegan, to paleo, to mediterranean, keto, and everything in between. I'll turn this post into a thread, and link some of the resources I've gotten the most positive feedback on below for you to explore. Take a look, and share with any friends you know who are struggling with weight! 🧵👇

Ben Wehrman

16,365 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

It’s no secret that I see Pete Buttigieg as a future president. As a short film producer, I spend hours studying politicians on both sides of the aisle. I cut up and dissect their speeches and interviews. I study their writing and often read books about them and by them. Based on my pragmatic assessment of the political players, it helps shape my thinking of how they play a role in politics for today and the future. Democrats are quite literally lost right now. With the exception of a few voices, it appears the majority of them, despite being elected representatives, seem to be doing anything but represent, and that deeply saddens me. I can assure you, self pity while residing in the political wilderness is not a good look. Great political leaders shine in a hostile environment and right now, Democrats are hardly generating enough light to illuminate a basement. I’ve said many times, Dems have a deep bench of talent, yet they are wandering around the political landscape like a shell shocked soldier on Anzio beach. They are in desperate need of effective leadership. These are times that demand an unambiguous vision. Beyond that, they need someone who can communicate and articulate a proposition for a better tomorrow. For an America in which no family gets left behind. Now before you tell me a gay man would never be elected president. I would point you to think back to 2008 and ask if you believed a black man could achieve the same? Right now, Democrats have handed the House, the Senate, the White House and the popular vote to a convicted criminal and adjudicated rapist. So how did traditional thinking go in November? This is a time to be bold and forward thinking. It’s a sad reality that democratic values are now perceived to be toxic to a demographic that has abandoned the Democratic Party. I would simply suggest, no leader can command an army in the modern political battle-space, without being an outstanding communicator and Pete is that man. I hear many of my detractors often say no, but never do they put forward an alternative proposition and candidate. Because so few are stepping up, it’s very difficult to suggest a first team. Until they show us who they are, how can we as activists get behind them? What are we selling? At the moment, the Dem activist space is not about a vision, it’s about attacking fascism. However cathartic that might be, it doesn’t win elections. Right now, the only person who can beat Trump is Trump. There really is no other proposition on the table. On the upside, I do believe the Trump train will leave the tracks. His deeply damaging approach to economic and foreign policy, will definitely not end well. Tariffs are a self inflicted gaping wound. If no tourniquet is applied, it will cause his Administration to bleed out. The bond markets are already firing warning shots which he is ignoring. His narcissism outwardly appears to not allow him to believe that foreign governments do not pay a cent of the tariffs. When you invent an agency for ‘External Taxation’ as a front for a consumer tax on the very people who voted you into power, it demonstrates either a breathtaking level of incompetence, or an act of cynical premeditated deception. Trump’s one hour 40 minutes comedy special last night, was a rambling self congratulatory litany of lies and deceit. Were it not so terrifyingly dangerous, he would receive a comedy award. On the second day of the markets screaming ‘Stop hurting us’, he appears in denial of the potential economic tsunami soon to hit every middle and low income family in America. My friends, we have what seems like an insurmountable task ahead of us. It would be easy to just give up and say ‘I’ll just take care of myself and others are not my problem. But that would mirror exactly who this monster is. I know we are much better than that. This is why people like Pete Buttigieg are important in our fight to liberate America from this stage four cancer that is Donald Trump.
0:55

It’s no secret that I see Pete Buttigieg as a future president. As a short film producer, I spend hours studying politicians on both sides of the aisle. I cut up and dissect their speeches and interviews. I study their writing and often read books about them and by them. Based on my pragmatic assessment of the political players, it helps shape my thinking of how they play a role in politics for today and the future. Democrats are quite literally lost right now. With the exception of a few voices, it appears the majority of them, despite being elected representatives, seem to be doing anything but represent, and that deeply saddens me. I can assure you, self pity while residing in the political wilderness is not a good look. Great political leaders shine in a hostile environment and right now, Democrats are hardly generating enough light to illuminate a basement. I’ve said many times, Dems have a deep bench of talent, yet they are wandering around the political landscape like a shell shocked soldier on Anzio beach. They are in desperate need of effective leadership. These are times that demand an unambiguous vision. Beyond that, they need someone who can communicate and articulate a proposition for a better tomorrow. For an America in which no family gets left behind. Now before you tell me a gay man would never be elected president. I would point you to think back to 2008 and ask if you believed a black man could achieve the same? Right now, Democrats have handed the House, the Senate, the White House and the popular vote to a convicted criminal and adjudicated rapist. So how did traditional thinking go in November? This is a time to be bold and forward thinking. It’s a sad reality that democratic values are now perceived to be toxic to a demographic that has abandoned the Democratic Party. I would simply suggest, no leader can command an army in the modern political battle-space, without being an outstanding communicator and Pete is that man. I hear many of my detractors often say no, but never do they put forward an alternative proposition and candidate. Because so few are stepping up, it’s very difficult to suggest a first team. Until they show us who they are, how can we as activists get behind them? What are we selling? At the moment, the Dem activist space is not about a vision, it’s about attacking fascism. However cathartic that might be, it doesn’t win elections. Right now, the only person who can beat Trump is Trump. There really is no other proposition on the table. On the upside, I do believe the Trump train will leave the tracks. His deeply damaging approach to economic and foreign policy, will definitely not end well. Tariffs are a self inflicted gaping wound. If no tourniquet is applied, it will cause his Administration to bleed out. The bond markets are already firing warning shots which he is ignoring. His narcissism outwardly appears to not allow him to believe that foreign governments do not pay a cent of the tariffs. When you invent an agency for ‘External Taxation’ as a front for a consumer tax on the very people who voted you into power, it demonstrates either a breathtaking level of incompetence, or an act of cynical premeditated deception. Trump’s one hour 40 minutes comedy special last night, was a rambling self congratulatory litany of lies and deceit. Were it not so terrifyingly dangerous, he would receive a comedy award. On the second day of the markets screaming ‘Stop hurting us’, he appears in denial of the potential economic tsunami soon to hit every middle and low income family in America. My friends, we have what seems like an insurmountable task ahead of us. It would be easy to just give up and say ‘I’ll just take care of myself and others are not my problem. But that would mirror exactly who this monster is. I know we are much better than that. This is why people like Pete Buttigieg are important in our fight to liberate America from this stage four cancer that is Donald Trump.

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

62,524 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"Where the hell are the [NHIs] in all this? Why aren't they coming out?" ~Semivan "What I experienced, you know, physical marks the whole thing, and my wife, worse." ~Semivan on their abduction "I would be very careful giving these entities that are f**king with you, like, all this great credit and putting them on a pedestal." ~DeLonge to Chris Bledsoe "It's indifferent to man." ~Vallée to Semivan "Are we evil when we go fishing and we hurt fish? Are we considered evil to the fish"? ~DeLonge Jay Stratton's, "got orbs flying around in his house, scaring the hell out of his wife and his kids." ~Semivan ( I enjoyed this episode because a lot of this is where I am when it comes to thinking about the phenomenon. I'm not saying this is the truth but it definitely resonates with me.) ~~~ Jim Semivan: "When we started 'To The Stars,' a while back, we took a little bit of flack because we were talking about...we weren't going along with the idea that the phenomenon was always a great, beneficial thing. We were saying, like, 'Look, let's just wait. There's been instances where it hasn't been...' I always like to use Chris Bledsoe as an example. He's just a dear, dear man, but when you listen to his story, up close and personally, and you could see the absolute fear that he went through, and his family went through, when he first encountered these beings, and this phenomena, and then later on how it transformed him into a very, very deeply spiritual man and healer. So you see this dichotomy. "And if you talk to Chris, Chris will tell you, 'No, this is a beneficial thing.' And then, you know, you run into guys like Keel, and even Jacques Vallée to a certain extent, where they'll tell you, 'Well, no, no, hold on a second.' Because I remember when when I had my experience, I was visited. It was years after my experience, I had met John Alexander at a conference and John put me in touch with some people. And then next thing I know, Jacques Vallée, you know, the guy, right? The house god of TTS calls me up and says, 'Can I come out and see you?' "So he flew out from San Francisco, came to my house in Virginia, and spent the day with my wife and I. And we had some very, very long, involved conversations about this. And I asked him, I said, 'Well, you know, what I experienced, you know, physical marks the whole thing, and my wife worse.' (That may be the first time he's said he had physical marks from his abduction-like experience with his wife when he was in grad school. We don't know details of what his wife experienced.) Semivan: "I said (to Vallée), 'Do you think this is evil?' And he said, 'I don't know, I don't think anybody knows. But I will tell you one thing: What I do know is that you can say that it's basically indifferent. It's indifferent to man. In other words, people get harmed by walking into it or getting caught in it, but it doesn't seem to have an evil intention, per se.'" (Reminds me of what Lue Elizondo said to Curt Jaimungal) Lue: "What if it turns out that a lot of the things that we thought were one way, aren’t. Are we prepared to have that honest question with ourselves? Are we prepared to recognize that we’re not at the top of the food chain, potentially?” (Most humans are indifferent to the welfare of most beings that are below us on the food chain. If we're driving and hit a squirrel, and they get hurt or killed, we may feel bad for a little bit, but we get on with our business and enjoy the rest of our day. How many cows, chickens and pigs are killed every day so we can eat them? Most humans, including me, don't give that a second thought. Indifference. That indifference may be happening with an intelligence (or multiple intelligences) that's above us on the food chain. And I'm not saying they're eating us, although that can't be ruled out 100%. I'm saying "they" just do their thing and if we get hurt or killed, it's not a huge deal to them. Indifference. And maybe some of them enjoy messing with us?) Semivan: "But then when you read Keel and you know, you read the Mothman and and a lot of these other stories like 'The Mojave Incident.' Well, holy cow! You look at this stuff. And, you know, you get these hobgoblins flying around, you know, with Jay Stratton. He's got orbs flying around in his house, scaring the hell out of his wife and his kids. I don't see, I don't know where there's any kind of a spiritual turn to that where you could look at all that and all of a sudden you say, 'Oh, now I'm a better person.'" (Most of us have known that Axelrod in "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" is Jay Stratton but that's the first time one of his colleagues/friends has said it. And I agree: What's the purpose of orbs scaring, and leaving marks on, his kids? And the wolf that his wife, kids and their friends say they saw? Why? To make them better people? It makes zero sense to me.) Semivan: "It happened with Chris (Bledsoe) and, you know, great for him. Sure, as hell didn't happen to me. And I don't think it happened to Jay Stratton, either. I think it gave Jay a different outlook as with me, but sh*t, I mean, nothing I couldn't have got from reading books. What do you think?" Tom DeLonge: "I think like, yeah, you know, the idea of what we might call something evil, but to that, it's like, you know, are we evil when we go fishing and we hurt fish? You know, are we considered evil to the fish? So it's things looking out for its own interest." (100%. Someone asked me about good vs. evil last night and I wrote back, "Not about good vs. evil. About survival and food chain. Somber.") DeLonge: "The thing that I look at, you know, a lot of the ideas of good and evil come from like, religion, all different types of religions where it really defines the metaphysical nature of who we are and what we're living in. But I look at religion... I cannot think of one religion that hasn't left a wake of destruction. I mean, literally, every single one has done so much harm. And the one pattern in all these religions is that most of them, outside of the pagan ones, have really tried to just to get us to believe that the creator of the universe is some kind of human, or something. It's not like a source, an energy, it's like, it's a Jesus or an Allah, or it's a Buddha, or I don't know. Buddhism doesn't really say that, but you know what my point is. It's trying to humanize something. "And so, to me, it's like when Chris Bledsoe, or some of these others that have these kinds of spiritual experiences, these are the exact same experiences that are written about throughout the entire Bible, in the Quran, and like, all these other texts. And all of them are really setting the stage for us to worship the UFO and their occupants, to some degree." (You see this a lot with the folks who think we're dealing with ETs here to uplift humanity. The Space Brothers theory. I don't know the truth but, to me, it doesn't seem like that's the answer.) DeLonge: "And that, to me, is the one strong pattern, is to confuse us and not let us know of our own spiritual nature to source consciousness." (I've said many times that I believe a lot of this is about human potential and our untapped capabilities in the psi (psychic, pk, consciousness, etc.) area) DeLonge: "And as long as we don't know that, then we will think that, 'Okay, the aliens like, f**ked with our DNA and made us like this,' or 'The Tall Whites showed up and they were the Greek gods, too, and they gave us philosophy and all this whatever.' It's like we're always like, giving some kind of humanized form credit for everything. "And the one thing that's common in all these religions is that it's not giving credit to source energy that allows us to heal, that allows us to be telepathic, that allows us to have telekinesis, that allows us to have, like, compassion in energy to healing. Like, whether you do Reiki and meditate, or whether you sit and pray, it doesn't matter. Why does it work in every religion? Because it's source energy, it's not about the religion." (The one thing I could never get behind is healing because there was no data to back it up. That was until I was shown the work of Bill Bengston. Tons of data. How does it work? I don't know. Nobody does.) DeLonge: "But if you look at who's responsible for all the religions? Well, it's whatever UFO the Star of Bethlehem was, or whatever UFO the Fatima thing was, or whatever the Tall White was that met with Joseph Smith and started the Mormon religion was. Whatever the Jinn are that are in the Koran, or whatever the Demons are there in the Old Testament, they seem to be the things that come in, that take you in your sleep, and make you think things and deceive you. It's all the same." (Deception, deception, deception. A lot of this is very similar to what David Icke (and others) has written about.) DeLonge: "So you have all these things f**king with you, as the good ones and the bad ones. But all the religions, the pattern is, is never ever, ever let humans know the physics of their existence. Which is meditate, you can heal somebody and have all your information you need, or pray. It's the same thing, it doesn't matter. "That's more like my line of thinking is, is why it's so important for us to understand the true nature of spirituality, and why I step back when I hear the Chris Bledsoe stories. And it's wonderful that he's gotten to a place that it's helping him, because I really do like him as a person, and I really respect and honor his experiences because I firsthand have heard them from him. And he's just a wonderful human. I mean, it was an incredible story. But I told him personally, I said, I would be very careful giving these entities that are f**king with you, like, all this great credit and putting them on a pedestal, because these are the same groups that have been doing a lot of weird s*it throughout time, good and bad.' (Again, I think Bledsoe has had real experiences but IMO, his interpretation of what he's dealing with is off.) DeLonge: "And that, to me, seems, you know, that seems suspect. You know, it seems like if there is any really, true, beautiful, great force, and entities representing that force, like your angels in the Bible. I mean, even in the Bible, people would, you know, when they saw an angel, they would collapse on the ground in extreme fear, and like, they couldn't even look at them. It was like the scariest thing that's ever happened. And that doesn't sound like a real loving interaction to me (laughs). That sounds like some scary shit, you know? "So I think whatever would represent true love and unparalleled love, that doesn't seem to be showing up and f**king with our society and our timelines, and our behaviors, and trying to manage us. It's letting us do it on our own, you know, like, figure it out on your own, you know? But everything else that's showing up, seems to have its own interest at heart." (I think TD is saying that a loving/caring intelligence wouldn't try to manipulate us into doing things that just benefit THEM. And that's what appears to be going on. "They" only care about themselves. If there were ones here who truly cared about us, they would leave us alone and let us figure it on our own.) Semivan: "I tend to agree with you on this. I did a podcast a while back and somebody related to this. They were talking about why there hasn't been Disclosure? And I said, 'Well, you know, there's two sides of this story.' I said, 'You have the non human-intelligences, you know, or the phenomenon, and then you have the governments.' And I said 'Well, where the hell are the non-human intelligences in all this? Why aren't they coming out? They pretty sneakily running around, and they meet people in weird, obscured circumstances, make their experiences sound crazy. Yet, they sort of wanna be known, but they don't wanna be known.' As I mentioned to somebody once, 'They'll screw around with you but you can't take them home to meet your parents. They're not landing on the White House lawn for a reason.' I'm not quite sure what that is."
9:00

"Where the hell are the [NHIs] in all this? Why aren't they coming out?" ~Semivan "What I experienced, you know, physical marks the whole thing, and my wife, worse." ~Semivan on their abduction "I would be very careful giving these entities that are f**king with you, like, all this great credit and putting them on a pedestal." ~DeLonge to Chris Bledsoe "It's indifferent to man." ~Vallée to Semivan "Are we evil when we go fishing and we hurt fish? Are we considered evil to the fish"? ~DeLonge Jay Stratton's, "got orbs flying around in his house, scaring the hell out of his wife and his kids." ~Semivan ( I enjoyed this episode because a lot of this is where I am when it comes to thinking about the phenomenon. I'm not saying this is the truth but it definitely resonates with me.) ~~~ Jim Semivan: "When we started 'To The Stars,' a while back, we took a little bit of flack because we were talking about...we weren't going along with the idea that the phenomenon was always a great, beneficial thing. We were saying, like, 'Look, let's just wait. There's been instances where it hasn't been...' I always like to use Chris Bledsoe as an example. He's just a dear, dear man, but when you listen to his story, up close and personally, and you could see the absolute fear that he went through, and his family went through, when he first encountered these beings, and this phenomena, and then later on how it transformed him into a very, very deeply spiritual man and healer. So you see this dichotomy. "And if you talk to Chris, Chris will tell you, 'No, this is a beneficial thing.' And then, you know, you run into guys like Keel, and even Jacques Vallée to a certain extent, where they'll tell you, 'Well, no, no, hold on a second.' Because I remember when when I had my experience, I was visited. It was years after my experience, I had met John Alexander at a conference and John put me in touch with some people. And then next thing I know, Jacques Vallée, you know, the guy, right? The house god of TTS calls me up and says, 'Can I come out and see you?' "So he flew out from San Francisco, came to my house in Virginia, and spent the day with my wife and I. And we had some very, very long, involved conversations about this. And I asked him, I said, 'Well, you know, what I experienced, you know, physical marks the whole thing, and my wife worse.' (That may be the first time he's said he had physical marks from his abduction-like experience with his wife when he was in grad school. We don't know details of what his wife experienced.) Semivan: "I said (to Vallée), 'Do you think this is evil?' And he said, 'I don't know, I don't think anybody knows. But I will tell you one thing: What I do know is that you can say that it's basically indifferent. It's indifferent to man. In other words, people get harmed by walking into it or getting caught in it, but it doesn't seem to have an evil intention, per se.'" (Reminds me of what Lue Elizondo said to Curt Jaimungal) Lue: "What if it turns out that a lot of the things that we thought were one way, aren’t. Are we prepared to have that honest question with ourselves? Are we prepared to recognize that we’re not at the top of the food chain, potentially?” (Most humans are indifferent to the welfare of most beings that are below us on the food chain. If we're driving and hit a squirrel, and they get hurt or killed, we may feel bad for a little bit, but we get on with our business and enjoy the rest of our day. How many cows, chickens and pigs are killed every day so we can eat them? Most humans, including me, don't give that a second thought. Indifference. That indifference may be happening with an intelligence (or multiple intelligences) that's above us on the food chain. And I'm not saying they're eating us, although that can't be ruled out 100%. I'm saying "they" just do their thing and if we get hurt or killed, it's not a huge deal to them. Indifference. And maybe some of them enjoy messing with us?) Semivan: "But then when you read Keel and you know, you read the Mothman and and a lot of these other stories like 'The Mojave Incident.' Well, holy cow! You look at this stuff. And, you know, you get these hobgoblins flying around, you know, with Jay Stratton. He's got orbs flying around in his house, scaring the hell out of his wife and his kids. I don't see, I don't know where there's any kind of a spiritual turn to that where you could look at all that and all of a sudden you say, 'Oh, now I'm a better person.'" (Most of us have known that Axelrod in "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" is Jay Stratton but that's the first time one of his colleagues/friends has said it. And I agree: What's the purpose of orbs scaring, and leaving marks on, his kids? And the wolf that his wife, kids and their friends say they saw? Why? To make them better people? It makes zero sense to me.) Semivan: "It happened with Chris (Bledsoe) and, you know, great for him. Sure, as hell didn't happen to me. And I don't think it happened to Jay Stratton, either. I think it gave Jay a different outlook as with me, but sh*t, I mean, nothing I couldn't have got from reading books. What do you think?" Tom DeLonge: "I think like, yeah, you know, the idea of what we might call something evil, but to that, it's like, you know, are we evil when we go fishing and we hurt fish? You know, are we considered evil to the fish? So it's things looking out for its own interest." (100%. Someone asked me about good vs. evil last night and I wrote back, "Not about good vs. evil. About survival and food chain. Somber.") DeLonge: "The thing that I look at, you know, a lot of the ideas of good and evil come from like, religion, all different types of religions where it really defines the metaphysical nature of who we are and what we're living in. But I look at religion... I cannot think of one religion that hasn't left a wake of destruction. I mean, literally, every single one has done so much harm. And the one pattern in all these religions is that most of them, outside of the pagan ones, have really tried to just to get us to believe that the creator of the universe is some kind of human, or something. It's not like a source, an energy, it's like, it's a Jesus or an Allah, or it's a Buddha, or I don't know. Buddhism doesn't really say that, but you know what my point is. It's trying to humanize something. "And so, to me, it's like when Chris Bledsoe, or some of these others that have these kinds of spiritual experiences, these are the exact same experiences that are written about throughout the entire Bible, in the Quran, and like, all these other texts. And all of them are really setting the stage for us to worship the UFO and their occupants, to some degree." (You see this a lot with the folks who think we're dealing with ETs here to uplift humanity. The Space Brothers theory. I don't know the truth but, to me, it doesn't seem like that's the answer.) DeLonge: "And that, to me, is the one strong pattern, is to confuse us and not let us know of our own spiritual nature to source consciousness." (I've said many times that I believe a lot of this is about human potential and our untapped capabilities in the psi (psychic, pk, consciousness, etc.) area) DeLonge: "And as long as we don't know that, then we will think that, 'Okay, the aliens like, f**ked with our DNA and made us like this,' or 'The Tall Whites showed up and they were the Greek gods, too, and they gave us philosophy and all this whatever.' It's like we're always like, giving some kind of humanized form credit for everything. "And the one thing that's common in all these religions is that it's not giving credit to source energy that allows us to heal, that allows us to be telepathic, that allows us to have telekinesis, that allows us to have, like, compassion in energy to healing. Like, whether you do Reiki and meditate, or whether you sit and pray, it doesn't matter. Why does it work in every religion? Because it's source energy, it's not about the religion." (The one thing I could never get behind is healing because there was no data to back it up. That was until I was shown the work of Bill Bengston. Tons of data. How does it work? I don't know. Nobody does.) DeLonge: "But if you look at who's responsible for all the religions? Well, it's whatever UFO the Star of Bethlehem was, or whatever UFO the Fatima thing was, or whatever the Tall White was that met with Joseph Smith and started the Mormon religion was. Whatever the Jinn are that are in the Koran, or whatever the Demons are there in the Old Testament, they seem to be the things that come in, that take you in your sleep, and make you think things and deceive you. It's all the same." (Deception, deception, deception. A lot of this is very similar to what David Icke (and others) has written about.) DeLonge: "So you have all these things f**king with you, as the good ones and the bad ones. But all the religions, the pattern is, is never ever, ever let humans know the physics of their existence. Which is meditate, you can heal somebody and have all your information you need, or pray. It's the same thing, it doesn't matter. "That's more like my line of thinking is, is why it's so important for us to understand the true nature of spirituality, and why I step back when I hear the Chris Bledsoe stories. And it's wonderful that he's gotten to a place that it's helping him, because I really do like him as a person, and I really respect and honor his experiences because I firsthand have heard them from him. And he's just a wonderful human. I mean, it was an incredible story. But I told him personally, I said, I would be very careful giving these entities that are f**king with you, like, all this great credit and putting them on a pedestal, because these are the same groups that have been doing a lot of weird s*it throughout time, good and bad.' (Again, I think Bledsoe has had real experiences but IMO, his interpretation of what he's dealing with is off.) DeLonge: "And that, to me, seems, you know, that seems suspect. You know, it seems like if there is any really, true, beautiful, great force, and entities representing that force, like your angels in the Bible. I mean, even in the Bible, people would, you know, when they saw an angel, they would collapse on the ground in extreme fear, and like, they couldn't even look at them. It was like the scariest thing that's ever happened. And that doesn't sound like a real loving interaction to me (laughs). That sounds like some scary shit, you know? "So I think whatever would represent true love and unparalleled love, that doesn't seem to be showing up and f**king with our society and our timelines, and our behaviors, and trying to manage us. It's letting us do it on our own, you know, like, figure it out on your own, you know? But everything else that's showing up, seems to have its own interest at heart." (I think TD is saying that a loving/caring intelligence wouldn't try to manipulate us into doing things that just benefit THEM. And that's what appears to be going on. "They" only care about themselves. If there were ones here who truly cared about us, they would leave us alone and let us figure it on our own.) Semivan: "I tend to agree with you on this. I did a podcast a while back and somebody related to this. They were talking about why there hasn't been Disclosure? And I said, 'Well, you know, there's two sides of this story.' I said, 'You have the non human-intelligences, you know, or the phenomenon, and then you have the governments.' And I said 'Well, where the hell are the non-human intelligences in all this? Why aren't they coming out? They pretty sneakily running around, and they meet people in weird, obscured circumstances, make their experiences sound crazy. Yet, they sort of wanna be known, but they don't wanna be known.' As I mentioned to somebody once, 'They'll screw around with you but you can't take them home to meet your parents. They're not landing on the White House lawn for a reason.' I'm not quite sure what that is."

Joe Murgia

85,713 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Have US tech leaders “dangerously lost the plot”? Arnaud Bertrand on Palantir CEO Alex Karp, whose video was recently reposted by Elon Musk. Palantir is an intelligence contractor controlled by Peter Thiel, Karp and Stephen Cohen, founded with CIA seed capital: "Perfect illustration that U.S. tech leaders have dangerously lost the plot. Not only does Karp not seem to understand the first thing about geopolitics, he doesn't even understand what made the U.S. successful. He claims that: - The only way for the U.S. to be safe is for their adversaries to "wake up scared and go to bed scared" - The U.S. should do collective punishment, threatening not just adversaries but their "friends, cousins, mistresses, and whoever was involved." - The U.S. "cannot have parity" with adversaries because "our adversaries do not have our moral compunction. If it's even, they will take advantage of our niceness, kindness." - International institutions such as the UN are "discriminatory against anything good" In short, this is imperial hubris at its most deluded and hypocritical. Karp simultaneously claims American moral superiority while advocating deeply immoral tactics like collective punishment, making everyone else live in fear and rejecting any checks on its power. It's a worldview that mistakes bullying for leadership and domination for security. And which, by the way, betrays America's own historical lessons as a former British colony... And, most importantly: it's dead wrong - the world absolutely doesn't work this way. Rule by fear has a long and very well documented history of failure. Empires that rely on fear and domination always sow the seeds of their own demise because fear always generates resistance and resentment. This is by the way exactly what's happening now, as explained by none other than Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book "The Grand Chessboard", in which he wrote that the most dangerous scenario for the U.S. would be an "alliance of the aggrieved": "The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an 'antihegemonic' coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances." That's what rule through fear and intimidation gets you: it unlocks the "most dangerous scenario" for the U.S. because, guess what, turns out people don't particularly enjoy being bullied and threatened... They tend to band together against the bully, regardless of their differences. What made America truly successful wasn't its ability to frighten others - it was its ability (largely lost today) to build. The Marshall Plan, international institutions, cultural exchange, industrial might, technological innovation - these were the real sources of American power. How did the U.S. "win" the cold war? Let's turn to another actually smart American statesman, George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. Key to his strategy was, in his words, proving that the U.S. was "coping successfully with the problems of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a world power". This meant creating a society and an international order that inspired admiration rather than fear, one that nations would be inspired by rather than be coerced into. This is precisely why Gorbachev, for better or worse, ultimately pushed for reform - he recognized the clear success of the American economic and technological model compared to Soviet stagnation. He was convinced by U.S. achievements, not intimidated by threats. Most tellingly, this tech CEO seems completely disconnected from today's tech reality. His claim that the U.S. is "the only one with a real tech scene" is peak delusion - China has now overtaken the U.S. in innovation and scientific discoveries according to almost all credible rankings. All in all Karp's "make them afraid" rhetoric reveals a profound insecurity - a tacit admission that America can no longer compete on the basis of positive achievements. When he dismisses international institutions and advocates for rule by fear, he's essentially admitting that America can no longer lead by example or build constructive alternatives. All that's left is the threat of force. It also reveals something about the current state of American tech leadership. When tech CEOs start sounding like Cold War hawks, advocating for global domination through fear rather than innovation through building, it suggests they've run out of ideas. They're no longer confident in their ability to compete on the merit of their products and solutions. To conclude, Karp's worldview isn't just dead wrong - it represents everything that's gone awry with American leadership: the abandonment of building for bullying, of influence for intimidation, of power for control, the triumph of worst instincts over thoughtful judgment. When America elevates leaders like Karp who preach fear over building, we're not witnessing the restoration of American greatness as many of the comments below claim - we're watching its erosion in real time. A nation that can only threaten rather than inspire has already lost its claim to leadership."
2:16

Have US tech leaders “dangerously lost the plot”? Arnaud Bertrand on Palantir CEO Alex Karp, whose video was recently reposted by Elon Musk. Palantir is an intelligence contractor controlled by Peter Thiel, Karp and Stephen Cohen, founded with CIA seed capital: "Perfect illustration that U.S. tech leaders have dangerously lost the plot. Not only does Karp not seem to understand the first thing about geopolitics, he doesn't even understand what made the U.S. successful. He claims that: - The only way for the U.S. to be safe is for their adversaries to "wake up scared and go to bed scared" - The U.S. should do collective punishment, threatening not just adversaries but their "friends, cousins, mistresses, and whoever was involved." - The U.S. "cannot have parity" with adversaries because "our adversaries do not have our moral compunction. If it's even, they will take advantage of our niceness, kindness." - International institutions such as the UN are "discriminatory against anything good" In short, this is imperial hubris at its most deluded and hypocritical. Karp simultaneously claims American moral superiority while advocating deeply immoral tactics like collective punishment, making everyone else live in fear and rejecting any checks on its power. It's a worldview that mistakes bullying for leadership and domination for security. And which, by the way, betrays America's own historical lessons as a former British colony... And, most importantly: it's dead wrong - the world absolutely doesn't work this way. Rule by fear has a long and very well documented history of failure. Empires that rely on fear and domination always sow the seeds of their own demise because fear always generates resistance and resentment. This is by the way exactly what's happening now, as explained by none other than Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book "The Grand Chessboard", in which he wrote that the most dangerous scenario for the U.S. would be an "alliance of the aggrieved": "The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an 'antihegemonic' coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances." That's what rule through fear and intimidation gets you: it unlocks the "most dangerous scenario" for the U.S. because, guess what, turns out people don't particularly enjoy being bullied and threatened... They tend to band together against the bully, regardless of their differences. What made America truly successful wasn't its ability to frighten others - it was its ability (largely lost today) to build. The Marshall Plan, international institutions, cultural exchange, industrial might, technological innovation - these were the real sources of American power. How did the U.S. "win" the cold war? Let's turn to another actually smart American statesman, George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. Key to his strategy was, in his words, proving that the U.S. was "coping successfully with the problems of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a world power". This meant creating a society and an international order that inspired admiration rather than fear, one that nations would be inspired by rather than be coerced into. This is precisely why Gorbachev, for better or worse, ultimately pushed for reform - he recognized the clear success of the American economic and technological model compared to Soviet stagnation. He was convinced by U.S. achievements, not intimidated by threats. Most tellingly, this tech CEO seems completely disconnected from today's tech reality. His claim that the U.S. is "the only one with a real tech scene" is peak delusion - China has now overtaken the U.S. in innovation and scientific discoveries according to almost all credible rankings. All in all Karp's "make them afraid" rhetoric reveals a profound insecurity - a tacit admission that America can no longer compete on the basis of positive achievements. When he dismisses international institutions and advocates for rule by fear, he's essentially admitting that America can no longer lead by example or build constructive alternatives. All that's left is the threat of force. It also reveals something about the current state of American tech leadership. When tech CEOs start sounding like Cold War hawks, advocating for global domination through fear rather than innovation through building, it suggests they've run out of ideas. They're no longer confident in their ability to compete on the merit of their products and solutions. To conclude, Karp's worldview isn't just dead wrong - it represents everything that's gone awry with American leadership: the abandonment of building for bullying, of influence for intimidation, of power for control, the triumph of worst instincts over thoughtful judgment. When America elevates leaders like Karp who preach fear over building, we're not witnessing the restoration of American greatness as many of the comments below claim - we're watching its erosion in real time. A nation that can only threaten rather than inspire has already lost its claim to leadership."

WikiLeaks

305,396 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

[Trans] PROUD OF WIN ACTOR 🐰: Sawasdee krub 😊 🎤: How do you feel about receiving these awards? 🐰: Today, I received awards from the Thai Box Office Awards, via LINE TODAY votes. I’m so happy to win in both the Series and Movie categories. I’d like to thank all my fans for voting for me. I regularly check Twitter and see how everyone boosted one another in voting. Thank you so much for that. 🥹 🎤: You won in both categories with the highest votes! How do you feel? 🐰: I’m really happy, especially for the movie award. It’s my first time working on an international project, and I’m so glad to be part of it. 😊 I’m also thankful that everyone still supports me and looks forward to my projects. Once again, thank you to my fans for voting and always being there for me. These awards are motivation for me to keep improving myself. 💚 🎤: Yesterday was a reunion for you guys. How was it? 🐰: It made me really happy. I’ve missed the times when we were all together. Yesterday, we kept saying, “We miss moments like these so darn much!” Just taking pictures together by the sidewalk reminded us of when we traveled for fan meets overseas. We haven’t gathered like this in almost a year. I can’t even remember the last time we were all together. 🎤: How fun was it yesterday? 🐰: We’ve already planned who will be the host for our next meal! Every time we meet, we take turns treating each other. #dew_jsu was the host this time, and he said, “I’ll book Omakase 🍣 because next time it’s P’Win’s turn!” 😅😂 So I made sure to fully book my schedule. Sorry, can’t make it! 😆 🎤: Did anyone tease #hirunkit_ about bringing a new friend into the group? 🫣☺️ 🐰: Of course! 😆 But actually, it doesn’t have to be just the F4 gang, anyone who’s our friend is always welcome. 🥰 🎤: How is his new friend, #skywongravee ? 🐰: Sky is a really nice person. From the moment we met, I felt like we clicked instantly like there was some invisible connection. I always feel comfortable around him, and I’m happy to have him as a friend. 😊 🎤: Even though you guys hadn’t seen each other for a while, did you notice that you guys were still in sync? It was so cute to watch! 😊 🐰: We’re always in sync, it’s the bond we share. Even if we don’t see each other for years, when we reunite, it feels like no time has passed. We talk like we meet every day. That connection between the four of us is always there. We’ll definitely plan another get-together because this one was too short! 🎤: Your group of friends is growing! 🐰: Yes, the more, the merrier! We welcome everyone. 🎤: Any upcoming projects? 🐰: Please stay tuned! This year, I have #Enigma2, which will air soon, and #ScarletHeartTH, which will start filming soon. 😅 🎤: Last question—have you asked Sky & Nani for lucky lottery numbers? 😂 🐰: LOL, I did! I asked them for their license plate numbers. 😇 #TBOAwards2024xWin #winmetawin Winmetawin
4:51

[Trans] PROUD OF WIN ACTOR 🐰: Sawasdee krub 😊 🎤: How do you feel about receiving these awards? 🐰: Today, I received awards from the Thai Box Office Awards, via LINE TODAY votes. I’m so happy to win in both the Series and Movie categories. I’d like to thank all my fans for voting for me. I regularly check Twitter and see how everyone boosted one another in voting. Thank you so much for that. 🥹 🎤: You won in both categories with the highest votes! How do you feel? 🐰: I’m really happy, especially for the movie award. It’s my first time working on an international project, and I’m so glad to be part of it. 😊 I’m also thankful that everyone still supports me and looks forward to my projects. Once again, thank you to my fans for voting and always being there for me. These awards are motivation for me to keep improving myself. 💚 🎤: Yesterday was a reunion for you guys. How was it? 🐰: It made me really happy. I’ve missed the times when we were all together. Yesterday, we kept saying, “We miss moments like these so darn much!” Just taking pictures together by the sidewalk reminded us of when we traveled for fan meets overseas. We haven’t gathered like this in almost a year. I can’t even remember the last time we were all together. 🎤: How fun was it yesterday? 🐰: We’ve already planned who will be the host for our next meal! Every time we meet, we take turns treating each other. #dew_jsu was the host this time, and he said, “I’ll book Omakase 🍣 because next time it’s P’Win’s turn!” 😅😂 So I made sure to fully book my schedule. Sorry, can’t make it! 😆 🎤: Did anyone tease #hirunkit_ about bringing a new friend into the group? 🫣☺️ 🐰: Of course! 😆 But actually, it doesn’t have to be just the F4 gang, anyone who’s our friend is always welcome. 🥰 🎤: How is his new friend, #skywongravee ? 🐰: Sky is a really nice person. From the moment we met, I felt like we clicked instantly like there was some invisible connection. I always feel comfortable around him, and I’m happy to have him as a friend. 😊 🎤: Even though you guys hadn’t seen each other for a while, did you notice that you guys were still in sync? It was so cute to watch! 😊 🐰: We’re always in sync, it’s the bond we share. Even if we don’t see each other for years, when we reunite, it feels like no time has passed. We talk like we meet every day. That connection between the four of us is always there. We’ll definitely plan another get-together because this one was too short! 🎤: Your group of friends is growing! 🐰: Yes, the more, the merrier! We welcome everyone. 🎤: Any upcoming projects? 🐰: Please stay tuned! This year, I have #Enigma2, which will air soon, and #ScarletHeartTH, which will start filming soon. 😅 🎤: Last question—have you asked Sky & Nani for lucky lottery numbers? 😂 🐰: LOL, I did! I asked them for their license plate numbers. 😇 #TBOAwards2024xWin #winmetawin Winmetawin

◡̈ ✿〜*:.｡. ꕤ M a R y ꕤ*･.｡.*･*✿.

25,119 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr