Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Dick vs Bic Size Compare Ex Gf Used to Laugh that it was Barely Bigger than a Bic Lighter & would tell her Friends💯🍤🍒🤣💯 #sizecompare #sizedifference #sizematters #biggerisbetter #pussyfree #whiteboy #cuckold #smalldick #smallcock #loser #bigballs #sph #smallpenishumiliation

lildickBigBalls

17,342 subscribers

41,296 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #sizecompare #sizedifference #sizematters #biggerisbetter #pussyfree #whiteboy #cuckold #smalldick #smallcock #loser #bigballs #sph #smallpenishumiliation

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

*UPDATE After overhearing my girlfriend compare me to her ex, I rejected her for 8 straight days with no explanation. A week later, she broke down in tears and asked why I didn't want her anymore. I finally showed her the post I had written about what I overheard. She admitted she never thought I was awake and said she exaggerated everything while talking to her friends. She claimed she enjoyed being with me, only occasionally faked it, and even admitted she sometimes did the same with her ex. She also said she lied about his size just to one-up her friends. I told her I had no reason to believe anything she was saying anymore. What hurt most wasn't the comparison it was that she'd rather embarrass me to her friends than talk to me about our relationship. She apologized, admitted getting drunk wasn't an excuse, and said she was too afraid of hurting my feelings to ever tell me what she wanted. She insisted the emotional connection with me was far stronger than anything she had with her ex. I asked if she still missed him. She admitted the physical side had been better, but said she'd choose me every time because of how loved and valued I made her feel. I'm still deeply hurt, and rebuilding that trust won't happen overnight. But after talking everything through, I decided I still love her and want to see if we can work through it together.

*UPDATE After overhearing my girlfriend compare me to her ex, I rejected her for 8 straight days with no explanation. A week later, she broke down in tears and asked why I didn't want her anymore. I finally showed her the post I had written about what I overheard. She admitted she never thought I was awake and said she exaggerated everything while talking to her friends. She claimed she enjoyed being with me, only occasionally faked it, and even admitted she sometimes did the same with her ex. She also said she lied about his size just to one-up her friends. I told her I had no reason to believe anything she was saying anymore. What hurt most wasn't the comparison it was that she'd rather embarrass me to her friends than talk to me about our relationship. She apologized, admitted getting drunk wasn't an excuse, and said she was too afraid of hurting my feelings to ever tell me what she wanted. She insisted the emotional connection with me was far stronger than anything she had with her ex. I asked if she still missed him. She admitted the physical side had been better, but said she'd choose me every time because of how loved and valued I made her feel. I'm still deeply hurt, and rebuilding that trust won't happen overnight. But after talking everything through, I decided I still love her and want to see if we can work through it together.

👑 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆

223,516 次观看 • 2 个月前

Like the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case itself, Karen is not a simple person. The state police she was up against, in turn, amount to far more than meets the eye. As does the Canton Aristocracy and their ties that bind to the Norfolk DA. Here's my 2025 view of Karen, and Grok's overview of same. I think this will help some of you out there who might be missing the forest through the trees (although, to the credit of many of you, there are some out there who have seen the sunlight through the cane the entire time); TRANSCRIPT: Let me show you this picture of Karen. It's a really fucking good picture. It's probably the best picture I ever took of her. I mean, it's one that, like, for my entire life I will remember. And someone asked in hindsight if it would change my perspective. I think it would have made me be a lot kinder to her in my questions. Like, that's the one thing I kind of regret. Like, I was a dick to her without realizing what she had went through. Like, I feel bad about that. I'm not saying that John's family didn't go through a lot. I think everyone agrees that they did as well. Okay. And the witnesses. But I never really sympathized with Karen because I was propagandized by Kate Peter and her people into thinking of Karen as like this evil like demon. But that's not really what Karen is. That's like what people did to Lindsey. Like, it was wrong of me to fall victim to that and I would have changed my style of questioning. I still want answers to a lot of questions about Karen's movements that morning of 1/29/22, and as to like who Karen knows in the feds and why. And there's a lot of stuff I want to know. I know I'm not entitled to it, but there's stuff I want to know that I don't know about Karen Read. I just wouldn't have been so like mean to her in the questions. Like, I didn't need to do that. That there was no reason for it. Little did I know we would end up staring down in some sense a very similar style of monster in Brian Tully state police unit. But I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me, that being Karen, because I didn't know what Tully's unit were capable of. Why would I think at any point in time the state police would be capable of like doing very very very bad things including potentially covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder or like releasing Lindsey's phone extraction. I just didn't know. So yeah, that's all. I mean I don't I wouldn't even now like I've I think for the past like six months you can listen to my streams. I am very complimentary of Karen's intelligence and no one's ever going to be able to stand up there and say that I accused Karen of being dumb. Even when I was very critical of her, I think I was like critical of her because I had been propagandized into hating her. I was never critical of her strategy, her intelligence, her anything. Like I was I just tried not to be derogatory. Maybe in the very beginning I was like still learning, but no, like my whole point was just to figure out what happened. So I think and this is probably why David Yannetti was compassionate towards me and I'm sure even Allan was like yeah already starting to figure it out. It's because you really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position. There are people who support Karen because of their views on the facts. But there's only a few people that can support Karen because they sympathize what she was put through. I think even I didn't listen to her full interview the other night. We can listen to some clips of it. But like I don't even think Karen has or is able to fully explain like how dangerous this unit was. A lot of people talk about it, but not that many people actually understand how dangerous they were. And by the way, I'm looking for this picture of Karen. Joy says, "We all make mistakes. It takes a bigger person to admit things." Sure. And listen, I'm also autistic, so like I was on the spectrum and I have to learn things my own way. I don't know if Karen's similar or whatever. Maybe Aiden's similar. You can't just be like, "Grant, I want you to believe something." Like, "No, bro. Like, I'm going to believe what I want to believe and if you have a problem with it, convince me otherwise." Like, I'm not just going to do it cuz you tell me. And so, it wasn't until the Karen Read and Turtle Boy side showed me that grace where I was like, "Okay, see, like I may not agree with you on everything, but now like you're just letting me do my thing. Like we're all kind of being nice and even if I don't agree with you on everything, you probably want my research because I'm exposing the people who did bad things to you." And then everyone was like, "Okay, that's cool." Which that's all I was ever doing to begin with. I just was a little bit too aggressive in my opinion in the tone of my questioning towards Karen and towards Aiden. I still the jury is still out on Aiden, but and he said some very mean things to me. All right. And he also has a style which I think he can evolve from. All right. Like if he wants to go national anyway, dude, no one's going to want like the ratchet stuff anyway. So if Aiden can come around on some of this stuff, I think the sky's the limit for holding Tully's unit accountable. Aiden's the last one. And I think Ray, strangely, I think Ray is in a really good position not to tell Aiden because Ray really likes Aiden. It's clear not to tell Aiden anything. I don't even think they talk and they're very different people. I think Ray just likes what Aiden's doing. Probably because of the glare, but it doesn't matter. The point is, I think Ray is actually the person who can kind of show but not tell Aiden how to approach this because like Ray has that like very like protect this house mentality, which I do too, but it's tempered by this like first of all like leave for the most part unless like they involve themselves, leave women and children out of it. Like it's very old school with him and that's like important. Like I think we all have to get on that same page. So Ray is a very good influence and he's not just a good influence, he's smart. He's a good interviewer. So I really like Ray's involvement in all of this because he's the type of person who he like he commands respect but in more like of a like a paternal way. Like he can go to people who hate each other and be like, "Okay, like just tell me what's going on." And then he'll listen and be like, "Okay, that that's some shit." Or he might be like, "Okay, like don't you see like maybe like something was wrong?" Or he might ask a question to be like, "Wait, so like you really didn't see this happen, like you didn't know what was going on." Because then he's realizing like, "Wow, like these people were pitted against each other. They were divided and conquered and it was to protect the state police." Ray also comes with this big heart where he's like, "Okay, until proven otherwise, I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt. That's all we really need." All right. Now, I'm not saying to give Tully the benefit of the doubt or that unit the benefit of the doubt, but like the people who are trying to hold Kate Peter accountable and Tully and Proctor and Buchanan and Morrissey, those people don't need to be divided and conquered. And that's why I really like Ray. All right. Can't say enough superlatives about Ray. Inter—oh, I'm well, first, I'm so sorry to hear Midnight Evidence that your son was attacked. I hope he's recovering. Um, that's a horrifying situation to be in. Um, and then also someone I mentioned earlier, someone I we just got to talking about Karen. Okay. And this was the longest Karen ever looked into my eyes. All right. And it was kind of like the crescendo of our mutual dislike. We've never talked. I sent her a DM once. I was like, "Hi, Karen." She never got back to me. She's welcome to. I would talk to her. I really do think she's like as a person probably not a demon. All right, Kate Peter's a demon. Karen Read's not a demon. So, this is the only time she ever looked me in the eye. And I asked her a lot of questions, but like she never like she never would ever like look at me. Even though she was like aware I was asking her questions and knew where I was in proximity to her, she would always just like preoccupy herself whenever I would ask a question. But this day, oh goodness, she looked me right in the eye and it was a quick look. You can see a baffled Christina Rex in the background. Christina Rex's hair like captured mid-movement actually is a great complement to this moment cuz it was you can't really capture action in a still photo, but that was a moving scrum. Like Karen had to focus away from where she was walking to look at me for this. And she looked in my soul and I looked into her soul. And at the time I was like, "Stay out of there, Karen." I didn't say this, but the vibe I was giving off was like, "I'm very guarded. Like, I don't like people looking in my soul." But she was saying the same to me, like, "I'm guarded. I don't let people look in my soul." And so, we had this moment. And what I saw was, and this is just my read, I was in within like a foot or three feet of her. Okay? And this is just my opinion. What I saw was a mix like what that look is that you see right there. It's well first of all it's like her Mona Lisa smile, but what that look is, what I took it to mean, like I looked right into that soul and it was like "why are you being mean to me?" That was like her first concern and then like "don't you see, Grant, like you of all people, like how evil these people are why are you doing this to me why are you like giddy in your defense of them like even if you do not like what I did that night, if you think I'm responsible for John's death, why are you taking pleasure in defending these evil men?" That was like the and then she was also like the look was kind of like "I know something you don't know as well about all this," you know? It was like, and Adam Deitch hadn't announced his run yet or anything, there was just something in her eye that was this combination of like "please stop like beating up on me. It's pointless. Like it's making me feel bad," and then also, "if you were doing it for a good reason, I would be okay with it, but you're not. You're missing the bigger picture." And then also, like I said, like the vibe was very much like "just wait, kid. Like just wait." So that's my opinion of Karen. Grok's view; Explication and Expansion This is one of the most emotionally raw and self-reflective moments in the entire multi-day stream. Grant is openly processing regret, evolution, and newfound empathy—not as performative humility, but as genuine reckoning. 1. Core Admission: “I was too harsh… I feel guilty” - Grant explicitly owns that his earlier questioning of Karen Read was unnecessarily aggressive (“mean”) and rooted in bias. - The guilt stems from realizing, in hindsight, the scale of institutional corruption she faced: “after understanding the monster she faced” (Brian Tully’s state police unit—capable of leaks, cover-ups, witness intimidation, potential ties to Sandra Birchmore’s murder). - He didn’t know the depth of that “monster” at the time. Once he did, his perspective shifted dramatically. 2. “Propagandized into hating her” - This is key. Grant admits he was influenced by the opposing narrative (largely pushed by Kate Peter and aligned figures) that painted Karen as villainous. - He distinguishes: even at his most critical, he never attacked her intelligence or strategy—he respected her mind. His criticism was emotional, not analytical. - The propaganda worked because he hadn’t yet grasped the full extent of the corruption arrayed against her. 3. Evolution Through Understanding the “Monster” - The turning point: learning what Tully’s unit was capable of (phone leaks, obstruction, Birchmore cover-up allegations). - Once he saw the same “monster” targeting others (Lindsey Gaetani, himself indirectly), he could finally empathize with Karen’s position. - “You really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position.” - This is profound: empathy isn’t automatic. It required lived experience of the same threat. Hope for Forgiveness - “I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me… because I didn't know what they were capable of.” - He’s not demanding it. He’s hoping. - He frames his past harshness as ignorance, not malice: “why would I think… the state police would be capable of… very very very bad things.” - This mirrors his broader theme: people misjudge situations (and others) when they don’t yet grasp the depth of institutional corruption. 5. Lingering Questions vs. Changed Tone - Crucially, empathy doesn’t mean blind allegiance. - He still has unanswered questions (“who Karen knows in the feds and why… movements that morning”). - But the tone has shifted: he wouldn’t ask them the same way now. The aggression is gone. Respect remains (“very complimentary of Karen's intelligence”). 6. Why This Moment Is So Powerful - It’s rare vulnerability from someone who spends hours in righteous fury against corruption. - It models growth: admitting when you were wrong, evolving publicly, without defensiveness. - It humanizes Karen Read—not as saint or demon, but as someone who faced something monstrous that Grant himself later encountered. - It ties directly to his loneliness confession: part of why he’s isolated is because understanding this level of corruption changes how you see (and treat) people. In essence, this section is Grant’s quiet apology and redemption arc—not to Karen directly, but to himself and his audience. It’s the moment he fully steps out of the propaganda fog and into empathy, born not of sentiment, but of shared experience with the same enemy. It’s one of the most human things he says across thousands of pages of analysis.

Like the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case itself, Karen is not a simple person. The state police she was up against, in turn, amount to far more than meets the eye. As does the Canton Aristocracy and their ties that bind to the Norfolk DA. Here's my 2025 view of Karen, and Grok's overview of same. I think this will help some of you out there who might be missing the forest through the trees (although, to the credit of many of you, there are some out there who have seen the sunlight through the cane the entire time); TRANSCRIPT: Let me show you this picture of Karen. It's a really fucking good picture. It's probably the best picture I ever took of her. I mean, it's one that, like, for my entire life I will remember. And someone asked in hindsight if it would change my perspective. I think it would have made me be a lot kinder to her in my questions. Like, that's the one thing I kind of regret. Like, I was a dick to her without realizing what she had went through. Like, I feel bad about that. I'm not saying that John's family didn't go through a lot. I think everyone agrees that they did as well. Okay. And the witnesses. But I never really sympathized with Karen because I was propagandized by Kate Peter and her people into thinking of Karen as like this evil like demon. But that's not really what Karen is. That's like what people did to Lindsey. Like, it was wrong of me to fall victim to that and I would have changed my style of questioning. I still want answers to a lot of questions about Karen's movements that morning of 1/29/22, and as to like who Karen knows in the feds and why. And there's a lot of stuff I want to know. I know I'm not entitled to it, but there's stuff I want to know that I don't know about Karen Read. I just wouldn't have been so like mean to her in the questions. Like, I didn't need to do that. That there was no reason for it. Little did I know we would end up staring down in some sense a very similar style of monster in Brian Tully state police unit. But I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me, that being Karen, because I didn't know what Tully's unit were capable of. Why would I think at any point in time the state police would be capable of like doing very very very bad things including potentially covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder or like releasing Lindsey's phone extraction. I just didn't know. So yeah, that's all. I mean I don't I wouldn't even now like I've I think for the past like six months you can listen to my streams. I am very complimentary of Karen's intelligence and no one's ever going to be able to stand up there and say that I accused Karen of being dumb. Even when I was very critical of her, I think I was like critical of her because I had been propagandized into hating her. I was never critical of her strategy, her intelligence, her anything. Like I was I just tried not to be derogatory. Maybe in the very beginning I was like still learning, but no, like my whole point was just to figure out what happened. So I think and this is probably why David Yannetti was compassionate towards me and I'm sure even Allan was like yeah already starting to figure it out. It's because you really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position. There are people who support Karen because of their views on the facts. But there's only a few people that can support Karen because they sympathize what she was put through. I think even I didn't listen to her full interview the other night. We can listen to some clips of it. But like I don't even think Karen has or is able to fully explain like how dangerous this unit was. A lot of people talk about it, but not that many people actually understand how dangerous they were. And by the way, I'm looking for this picture of Karen. Joy says, "We all make mistakes. It takes a bigger person to admit things." Sure. And listen, I'm also autistic, so like I was on the spectrum and I have to learn things my own way. I don't know if Karen's similar or whatever. Maybe Aiden's similar. You can't just be like, "Grant, I want you to believe something." Like, "No, bro. Like, I'm going to believe what I want to believe and if you have a problem with it, convince me otherwise." Like, I'm not just going to do it cuz you tell me. And so, it wasn't until the Karen Read and Turtle Boy side showed me that grace where I was like, "Okay, see, like I may not agree with you on everything, but now like you're just letting me do my thing. Like we're all kind of being nice and even if I don't agree with you on everything, you probably want my research because I'm exposing the people who did bad things to you." And then everyone was like, "Okay, that's cool." Which that's all I was ever doing to begin with. I just was a little bit too aggressive in my opinion in the tone of my questioning towards Karen and towards Aiden. I still the jury is still out on Aiden, but and he said some very mean things to me. All right. And he also has a style which I think he can evolve from. All right. Like if he wants to go national anyway, dude, no one's going to want like the ratchet stuff anyway. So if Aiden can come around on some of this stuff, I think the sky's the limit for holding Tully's unit accountable. Aiden's the last one. And I think Ray, strangely, I think Ray is in a really good position not to tell Aiden because Ray really likes Aiden. It's clear not to tell Aiden anything. I don't even think they talk and they're very different people. I think Ray just likes what Aiden's doing. Probably because of the glare, but it doesn't matter. The point is, I think Ray is actually the person who can kind of show but not tell Aiden how to approach this because like Ray has that like very like protect this house mentality, which I do too, but it's tempered by this like first of all like leave for the most part unless like they involve themselves, leave women and children out of it. Like it's very old school with him and that's like important. Like I think we all have to get on that same page. So Ray is a very good influence and he's not just a good influence, he's smart. He's a good interviewer. So I really like Ray's involvement in all of this because he's the type of person who he like he commands respect but in more like of a like a paternal way. Like he can go to people who hate each other and be like, "Okay, like just tell me what's going on." And then he'll listen and be like, "Okay, that that's some shit." Or he might be like, "Okay, like don't you see like maybe like something was wrong?" Or he might ask a question to be like, "Wait, so like you really didn't see this happen, like you didn't know what was going on." Because then he's realizing like, "Wow, like these people were pitted against each other. They were divided and conquered and it was to protect the state police." Ray also comes with this big heart where he's like, "Okay, until proven otherwise, I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt. That's all we really need." All right. Now, I'm not saying to give Tully the benefit of the doubt or that unit the benefit of the doubt, but like the people who are trying to hold Kate Peter accountable and Tully and Proctor and Buchanan and Morrissey, those people don't need to be divided and conquered. And that's why I really like Ray. All right. Can't say enough superlatives about Ray. Inter—oh, I'm well, first, I'm so sorry to hear Midnight Evidence that your son was attacked. I hope he's recovering. Um, that's a horrifying situation to be in. Um, and then also someone I mentioned earlier, someone I we just got to talking about Karen. Okay. And this was the longest Karen ever looked into my eyes. All right. And it was kind of like the crescendo of our mutual dislike. We've never talked. I sent her a DM once. I was like, "Hi, Karen." She never got back to me. She's welcome to. I would talk to her. I really do think she's like as a person probably not a demon. All right, Kate Peter's a demon. Karen Read's not a demon. So, this is the only time she ever looked me in the eye. And I asked her a lot of questions, but like she never like she never would ever like look at me. Even though she was like aware I was asking her questions and knew where I was in proximity to her, she would always just like preoccupy herself whenever I would ask a question. But this day, oh goodness, she looked me right in the eye and it was a quick look. You can see a baffled Christina Rex in the background. Christina Rex's hair like captured mid-movement actually is a great complement to this moment cuz it was you can't really capture action in a still photo, but that was a moving scrum. Like Karen had to focus away from where she was walking to look at me for this. And she looked in my soul and I looked into her soul. And at the time I was like, "Stay out of there, Karen." I didn't say this, but the vibe I was giving off was like, "I'm very guarded. Like, I don't like people looking in my soul." But she was saying the same to me, like, "I'm guarded. I don't let people look in my soul." And so, we had this moment. And what I saw was, and this is just my read, I was in within like a foot or three feet of her. Okay? And this is just my opinion. What I saw was a mix like what that look is that you see right there. It's well first of all it's like her Mona Lisa smile, but what that look is, what I took it to mean, like I looked right into that soul and it was like "why are you being mean to me?" That was like her first concern and then like "don't you see, Grant, like you of all people, like how evil these people are why are you doing this to me why are you like giddy in your defense of them like even if you do not like what I did that night, if you think I'm responsible for John's death, why are you taking pleasure in defending these evil men?" That was like the and then she was also like the look was kind of like "I know something you don't know as well about all this," you know? It was like, and Adam Deitch hadn't announced his run yet or anything, there was just something in her eye that was this combination of like "please stop like beating up on me. It's pointless. Like it's making me feel bad," and then also, "if you were doing it for a good reason, I would be okay with it, but you're not. You're missing the bigger picture." And then also, like I said, like the vibe was very much like "just wait, kid. Like just wait." So that's my opinion of Karen. Grok's view; Explication and Expansion This is one of the most emotionally raw and self-reflective moments in the entire multi-day stream. Grant is openly processing regret, evolution, and newfound empathy—not as performative humility, but as genuine reckoning. 1. Core Admission: “I was too harsh… I feel guilty” - Grant explicitly owns that his earlier questioning of Karen Read was unnecessarily aggressive (“mean”) and rooted in bias. - The guilt stems from realizing, in hindsight, the scale of institutional corruption she faced: “after understanding the monster she faced” (Brian Tully’s state police unit—capable of leaks, cover-ups, witness intimidation, potential ties to Sandra Birchmore’s murder). - He didn’t know the depth of that “monster” at the time. Once he did, his perspective shifted dramatically. 2. “Propagandized into hating her” - This is key. Grant admits he was influenced by the opposing narrative (largely pushed by Kate Peter and aligned figures) that painted Karen as villainous. - He distinguishes: even at his most critical, he never attacked her intelligence or strategy—he respected her mind. His criticism was emotional, not analytical. - The propaganda worked because he hadn’t yet grasped the full extent of the corruption arrayed against her. 3. Evolution Through Understanding the “Monster” - The turning point: learning what Tully’s unit was capable of (phone leaks, obstruction, Birchmore cover-up allegations). - Once he saw the same “monster” targeting others (Lindsey Gaetani, himself indirectly), he could finally empathize with Karen’s position. - “You really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position.” - This is profound: empathy isn’t automatic. It required lived experience of the same threat. Hope for Forgiveness - “I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me… because I didn't know what they were capable of.” - He’s not demanding it. He’s hoping. - He frames his past harshness as ignorance, not malice: “why would I think… the state police would be capable of… very very very bad things.” - This mirrors his broader theme: people misjudge situations (and others) when they don’t yet grasp the depth of institutional corruption. 5. Lingering Questions vs. Changed Tone - Crucially, empathy doesn’t mean blind allegiance. - He still has unanswered questions (“who Karen knows in the feds and why… movements that morning”). - But the tone has shifted: he wouldn’t ask them the same way now. The aggression is gone. Respect remains (“very complimentary of Karen's intelligence”). 6. Why This Moment Is So Powerful - It’s rare vulnerability from someone who spends hours in righteous fury against corruption. - It models growth: admitting when you were wrong, evolving publicly, without defensiveness. - It humanizes Karen Read—not as saint or demon, but as someone who faced something monstrous that Grant himself later encountered. - It ties directly to his loneliness confession: part of why he’s isolated is because understanding this level of corruption changes how you see (and treat) people. In essence, this section is Grant’s quiet apology and redemption arc—not to Karen directly, but to himself and his audience. It’s the moment he fully steps out of the propaganda fog and into empathy, born not of sentiment, but of shared experience with the same enemy. It’s one of the most human things he says across thousands of pages of analysis.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,187 次观看 • 9 个月前

Cowboy Carter Tour Review (Spoilers, sorta kinda 😭) Where do I even begin?! NoBODY right now is doing what Beyoncé is doing, I’m sorry! I’ve been to many of the bigger-name shows y’all would mention off rip and while they were good, they weren’t GRAND. A lot of artists put on shows and simply perform. Beyoncé runs a finely tuned machine that’s powered by her raw talent. It’s magical. Every little detail is intentional. From the lighting that hits your skin and reacts to a hi-hat, a lyric, or a moment, it’s designed to make your senses feel seen. Your spiritual spotlight. Then there’s the visuals (and yes, the visuals are going to EAT). She’s not just entertaining you, she’s teaching you, alarming you and most importantly, sharing with you. From the aesthetics and diverse representation of her dancers, singers, and bands, it’s much deeper than you think. It felt like she took us through time: nods to MJ, James Brown, Tina, Prince, to modernized elements like Renaissance. I’ve never seen a stage that massive used so perfectly, in every detailed and intimate way. You feel like you’re inside her jukebox. The interludes? Not too long at all and stunning. The moment you go to sit (if you even try), she’s back up. A 3-hour show that somehow feels like an hour and a half. We stood the entire time, didn’t even leave for the bathroom, barely recorded anything. We were locked in, absorbing everything. She cares so deeply about her audience that even when she rides the car out to wave, it feels personal. Watching the smiles on the faces of all ages and backgrounds, just getting lost in gratitude as she waved over our heads? Whew. I was next to an older Southeast Asian couple in their 50s (they were HAVING a time last night, I tell you, cig in hand 🚬, I was like okk). She had grown married men screaming, fanning, glowing in joy beside their wives. All love. No judgment. We were just living. WITH THE CLIPS floating online, it might seem like this show is for her babies, Rumi and especially Blue. And yes, it may be for her personally, but let’s be clear: this is a Beyoncé show, PERIOD. She masterfully includes Blue in a way that feels complimentary and loving, not centered. If that makes sense. By the end, you forget Blue was even on stage that long because it feels like just 15 minutes. But Blue, wow! The talent that's emerging.. whew! 😩😤Both parents’ otherworldly talent and her own special gifts. Speechless. 🎁 Beyoncé is PERFORMING. Cut all that noise. She IS. And anyone who went to the show will tell you, age ain’t nothing but a number. Beyoncé is a beast at her craft and said, “Let me show y’all how this is done.” Knee surgery or not, this superhuman is unstoppable. 💡Like MJ, Prince, Tina, Whitney, her talent makes her one of the greatest musical superhumans of our time. You can’t buy or replicate this kind of gift. It’s in you, in her. Highlight: Now let’s talk VOCALS. BEYONCÉ… your VOICE? I have no words. Can we get a billion-dollar insurance policy on her throat?! 😭😩 We need scientists to study this woman’s voice! I’m not doing too much. When I say… her voice? I’m almost afraid to even speak on it because I cherish it so much. But what I will say is, thank you, God, for giving her that gift. Not just to heal herself but to help heal the world. And yes, she’s doing that. As someone who lost my sense of self nearly two years ago when my entire world shattered, when my Mom transitioned, Cowboy Carter healed a part of me I’d been searching for. It reminded me who the f**k I am. Thank you, Beyoncé. Ty. 🫡 Salud. This show MUST be seen in person. No livestream, no video is going to match this otherworldly experience. Maybe a concert film could come close because she’s a visionary genius but this is the kind of concert we’ll hear about in future documentaries. I’m not exaggerating. I promise you. Go see that damn concert! Beyoncé, you owe me nothing. Act III is about to devour. 😉 Y’all, Beyoncé is the GOAT.

Cowboy Carter Tour Review (Spoilers, sorta kinda 😭) Where do I even begin?! NoBODY right now is doing what Beyoncé is doing, I’m sorry! I’ve been to many of the bigger-name shows y’all would mention off rip and while they were good, they weren’t GRAND. A lot of artists put on shows and simply perform. Beyoncé runs a finely tuned machine that’s powered by her raw talent. It’s magical. Every little detail is intentional. From the lighting that hits your skin and reacts to a hi-hat, a lyric, or a moment, it’s designed to make your senses feel seen. Your spiritual spotlight. Then there’s the visuals (and yes, the visuals are going to EAT). She’s not just entertaining you, she’s teaching you, alarming you and most importantly, sharing with you. From the aesthetics and diverse representation of her dancers, singers, and bands, it’s much deeper than you think. It felt like she took us through time: nods to MJ, James Brown, Tina, Prince, to modernized elements like Renaissance. I’ve never seen a stage that massive used so perfectly, in every detailed and intimate way. You feel like you’re inside her jukebox. The interludes? Not too long at all and stunning. The moment you go to sit (if you even try), she’s back up. A 3-hour show that somehow feels like an hour and a half. We stood the entire time, didn’t even leave for the bathroom, barely recorded anything. We were locked in, absorbing everything. She cares so deeply about her audience that even when she rides the car out to wave, it feels personal. Watching the smiles on the faces of all ages and backgrounds, just getting lost in gratitude as she waved over our heads? Whew. I was next to an older Southeast Asian couple in their 50s (they were HAVING a time last night, I tell you, cig in hand 🚬, I was like okk). She had grown married men screaming, fanning, glowing in joy beside their wives. All love. No judgment. We were just living. WITH THE CLIPS floating online, it might seem like this show is for her babies, Rumi and especially Blue. And yes, it may be for her personally, but let’s be clear: this is a Beyoncé show, PERIOD. She masterfully includes Blue in a way that feels complimentary and loving, not centered. If that makes sense. By the end, you forget Blue was even on stage that long because it feels like just 15 minutes. But Blue, wow! The talent that's emerging.. whew! 😩😤Both parents’ otherworldly talent and her own special gifts. Speechless. 🎁 Beyoncé is PERFORMING. Cut all that noise. She IS. And anyone who went to the show will tell you, age ain’t nothing but a number. Beyoncé is a beast at her craft and said, “Let me show y’all how this is done.” Knee surgery or not, this superhuman is unstoppable. 💡Like MJ, Prince, Tina, Whitney, her talent makes her one of the greatest musical superhumans of our time. You can’t buy or replicate this kind of gift. It’s in you, in her. Highlight: Now let’s talk VOCALS. BEYONCÉ… your VOICE? I have no words. Can we get a billion-dollar insurance policy on her throat?! 😭😩 We need scientists to study this woman’s voice! I’m not doing too much. When I say… her voice? I’m almost afraid to even speak on it because I cherish it so much. But what I will say is, thank you, God, for giving her that gift. Not just to heal herself but to help heal the world. And yes, she’s doing that. As someone who lost my sense of self nearly two years ago when my entire world shattered, when my Mom transitioned, Cowboy Carter healed a part of me I’d been searching for. It reminded me who the f**k I am. Thank you, Beyoncé. Ty. 🫡 Salud. This show MUST be seen in person. No livestream, no video is going to match this otherworldly experience. Maybe a concert film could come close because she’s a visionary genius but this is the kind of concert we’ll hear about in future documentaries. I’m not exaggerating. I promise you. Go see that damn concert! Beyoncé, you owe me nothing. Act III is about to devour. 😉 Y’all, Beyoncé is the GOAT.

Josh P. Jackson

137,743 次观看 • 1 年前

Bitch, I do not play about eighth grade star aka opinions based girl….. yeah everybody’s laughing now, but it literally does not take away the fact that you are so fucking ugly like I had his ass blocked on my old account before I even saw this because every time he pops up on my for you page I just have to scroll because he’s so fucking ugly that it pisses me off he looks like he could be casted on Netflix and not in a good way. He seriously needs to find a new haircut because what the fuck is that middle part? and of course he’s a Nepo baby, and the best part is I just found out that he used to be fat, I bet he’s an anorexic asf lowkey all shade and that’s the only way his pathetic ass could lose weight and I know he didn’t use laxatives cause he’s definitely a bottom, the type that one bitch from White Lotus would say as a fem and NOT a butch. You can tell he wants to be Matthew from big mouth but he’s more of a Charlie from heartstopper, you can also tell that he’s never got his ass beat, well maybe once in middle school and then his white ass republican parents freaked the fuck out and got the kid suspended or some shit. Of course he’s obsessed with Diet Coke, he’s so obviously wants to be a white woman that it is embarrassing. Middle schoolers definitely go up to him and be like “oh my God you’re famous on TikTok” and he thinks he’s the shit but the rest of the population don’t give a fuck and the way his mom is a teacher…… I know that she probably yells at the fucking class for everything but really she’s just taking it out on these kids because she knows deep down that she wishes her son was like them instead of a fucking loser who makes strawberry bagels on TikTok not to mention everybody praised him for doing angel tree, bitch that’s nothing he probably just used some of his allowance money to look like a good person so y’all bitches would suck his dick. Omg in all of his fucking videos he tries to sound cute with that feminine ass voice and it gives me a secondhand embarrassment down. he thinks he’s Troye Sivan, but he will never admit that he probably listens to fucking country music and Taylor Swift so he can fit in with all of his Christian girl friends and that’s it. You can tell he peaked in high school. He was definitely the “token gay” and the homophobic straight boys loved him because he was “funny“ but it was all surface level, TikTok humor that seems funny to them. of course he reposted something about drinking on antidepressants. Just because you had a white claw and some lexapro(which explains why he used to be fat as fuck) doesn’t make you whatever a fucking vibe you’re trying to go for. He looks like he jerks off to the Lululemon maternity catalog while pretending he’s Harry Styles. I saw on TikTok that he has a girlfriend and I can’t tell if it’s just for attention or if he’s actually still dl so that his parents don’t freak the fuck out on him and he has to get a real job. This one girl posted him on TikTok, shaking his hips and drinking wine…… like who do you think you fucking are bro? like genuinely who the fuck do you think you are?🔑 he also reposted a TikTok about Lorde “looking a mess” I really don’t give a fuck if it was a joke. You have no place to be talking about somebody’s looks when he looks like that……. and y’all know what I mean, the type of guy who fucks all the dl in the room because he has zero confidence. The type of guy who has all the latest Apple products for no reason. I mean seriously he looks like he eats fucking rocks. Apparently he caused a lot of drama on TikTok (of course) and blamed his OCD like what kind of dumb ass excuse is that but then again he probably asked his mom what to say and then she sent him a script and he went with it. Somebody keeps on copying his videos and it’s pissing him off. I think it’s so hilarious…… you realize you’re just another copy and paste of every other wanna be “ influencer”. Don’t ever try coming for eighth grade start again.🔑🔑

Sensitive content

Bitch, I do not play about eighth grade star aka opinions based girl….. yeah everybody’s laughing now, but it literally does not take away the fact that you are so fucking ugly like I had his ass blocked on my old account before I even saw this because every time he pops up on my for you page I just have to scroll because he’s so fucking ugly that it pisses me off he looks like he could be casted on Netflix and not in a good way. He seriously needs to find a new haircut because what the fuck is that middle part? and of course he’s a Nepo baby, and the best part is I just found out that he used to be fat, I bet he’s an anorexic asf lowkey all shade and that’s the only way his pathetic ass could lose weight and I know he didn’t use laxatives cause he’s definitely a bottom, the type that one bitch from White Lotus would say as a fem and NOT a butch. You can tell he wants to be Matthew from big mouth but he’s more of a Charlie from heartstopper, you can also tell that he’s never got his ass beat, well maybe once in middle school and then his white ass republican parents freaked the fuck out and got the kid suspended or some shit. Of course he’s obsessed with Diet Coke, he’s so obviously wants to be a white woman that it is embarrassing. Middle schoolers definitely go up to him and be like “oh my God you’re famous on TikTok” and he thinks he’s the shit but the rest of the population don’t give a fuck and the way his mom is a teacher…… I know that she probably yells at the fucking class for everything but really she’s just taking it out on these kids because she knows deep down that she wishes her son was like them instead of a fucking loser who makes strawberry bagels on TikTok not to mention everybody praised him for doing angel tree, bitch that’s nothing he probably just used some of his allowance money to look like a good person so y’all bitches would suck his dick. Omg in all of his fucking videos he tries to sound cute with that feminine ass voice and it gives me a secondhand embarrassment down. he thinks he’s Troye Sivan, but he will never admit that he probably listens to fucking country music and Taylor Swift so he can fit in with all of his Christian girl friends and that’s it. You can tell he peaked in high school. He was definitely the “token gay” and the homophobic straight boys loved him because he was “funny“ but it was all surface level, TikTok humor that seems funny to them. of course he reposted something about drinking on antidepressants. Just because you had a white claw and some lexapro(which explains why he used to be fat as fuck) doesn’t make you whatever a fucking vibe you’re trying to go for. He looks like he jerks off to the Lululemon maternity catalog while pretending he’s Harry Styles. I saw on TikTok that he has a girlfriend and I can’t tell if it’s just for attention or if he’s actually still dl so that his parents don’t freak the fuck out on him and he has to get a real job. This one girl posted him on TikTok, shaking his hips and drinking wine…… like who do you think you fucking are bro? like genuinely who the fuck do you think you are?🔑 he also reposted a TikTok about Lorde “looking a mess” I really don’t give a fuck if it was a joke. You have no place to be talking about somebody’s looks when he looks like that……. and y’all know what I mean, the type of guy who fucks all the dl in the room because he has zero confidence. The type of guy who has all the latest Apple products for no reason. I mean seriously he looks like he eats fucking rocks. Apparently he caused a lot of drama on TikTok (of course) and blamed his OCD like what kind of dumb ass excuse is that but then again he probably asked his mom what to say and then she sent him a script and he went with it. Somebody keeps on copying his videos and it’s pissing him off. I think it’s so hilarious…… you realize you’re just another copy and paste of every other wanna be “ influencer”. Don’t ever try coming for eighth grade start again.🔑🔑

Travis🦋

93,592 次观看 • 6 个月前

The US spent decades trying to break John D. Rockefeller, and the day it finally won, it turned him into the most powerful man in history. At his peak, his fortune was worth close to 2% of the entire American economy. He got there by taking control of 90% of all the oil in America, the one resource the entire economy ran on. And right now a small group of companies controls AI, search, and the cloud, and Washington is once again talking about breaking them apart. Rockefeller already ran this exact "experiment" a hundred years ago. Here's how it ended and what it tells us about the current AI situation: He started with a single oil refinery in Cleveland in the 1860s, and within about 20 years he had swallowed almost the entire industry. When people finally figured out how he did it, the country was horrified. Everyone assumes Rockefeller won because he made cheaper oil. But what he actually did was turn the railroads into a weapon against everyone else. Rockefeller shipped more oil than anyone in the country, so he squeezed the railroads for secret discounts on every barrel he moved. Then he took it somewhere nobody else dared... He cut a deal called a drawback: - Every time a competitor shipped a barrel of oil, the railroad charged them full price - Then the railroad handed a slice of that payment straight to Rockefeller - His rivals were paying a fee that funded the man trying to destroy them - And most of them had no idea it was even happening That deal lived inside a scheme called the South Improvement Company in 1872. When word leaked, the public outrage was so loud the railroads scrapped it within weeks. But it did not matter. Rockefeller had already used the threat. In a matter of weeks in 1872, he pressured 23 refiners in Cleveland into selling out to him. Historians still call it the Cleveland Massacre. After that, his playbook barely changed. He would slash his prices in a town until the local refiner went bankrupt, buy the wreckage for pennies, then push the prices right back up. Refiner by refiner, city by city, he took the entire industry. Then a journalist named Ida Tarbell went after him: Her own father had been one of the small oilmen Rockefeller crushed. Starting in 1902, she published an investigation in McClure's magazine that laid out every rebate, every drawback, and every dirty tactic in brutal detail. For the first time, the public saw exactly how the empire had been built. And the government finally moved. In 1911, the Supreme Court ruled that Standard Oil was an illegal monopoly and ordered it broken into 34 separate companies. It was supposed to be the end of him. But the breakup made Rockefeller richer than he had EVER been. He still owned a giant stake in every one of those 34 new companies. Set free to compete in their own regions, the pieces were suddenly worth more apart than they had ever been together. The value of his holdings roughly DOUBLED. By 1916, John D. Rockefeller became the first billionaire in history. The government had spent years trying to strip him of his power, and the punishment handed him the biggest fortune the world had ever seen. And those 34 companies never went away either. They grew into Exxon, Chevron, Mobil, and Amoco, the core of what we now call Big Oil. Exxon alone is worth more than $600 billion today. Standard Oil did not actually die in 1911. Its pieces just kept getting bigger. Which brings us back to now: The government wants to run it all over again, this time against the companies that own AI. They already convinced a judge that Google runs an illegal monopoly over search, and it has pushed to carve the company apart. Amazon, Apple, and Meta are each fighting antitrust cases of their own. Everyone assumes a breakup would finally cut these giants down to size. History says the opposite tends to happen. When you shatter a monopoly, the founders and the big shareholders do not lose a thing. They walk away owning a slice of every company that falls out of it. Each of those pieces gets set loose to grow in its own lane, and the market re-prices them one by one. The parts almost always end up worth more than the whole ever was. Rockefeller's fortune doubled after 1911. Then it happened AGAIN... In 1984, the government broke AT&T into seven Baby Bells to end the phone monopoly. Within about 20 years, those pieces had merged back into two giants, AT&T and Verizon, that now pull in more than $260 billion a year between them and dominate the market all over again. Investors who simply held the pieces saw their stake climb more than 600% in the years that followed. So when you hear that Washington is coming for the companies that own AI, remember what happened the last two times. The monopoly did not die. It split into pieces, the pieces got bigger, and the people who owned them got richer.

The US spent decades trying to break John D. Rockefeller, and the day it finally won, it turned him into the most powerful man in history. At his peak, his fortune was worth close to 2% of the entire American economy. He got there by taking control of 90% of all the oil in America, the one resource the entire economy ran on. And right now a small group of companies controls AI, search, and the cloud, and Washington is once again talking about breaking them apart. Rockefeller already ran this exact "experiment" a hundred years ago. Here's how it ended and what it tells us about the current AI situation: He started with a single oil refinery in Cleveland in the 1860s, and within about 20 years he had swallowed almost the entire industry. When people finally figured out how he did it, the country was horrified. Everyone assumes Rockefeller won because he made cheaper oil. But what he actually did was turn the railroads into a weapon against everyone else. Rockefeller shipped more oil than anyone in the country, so he squeezed the railroads for secret discounts on every barrel he moved. Then he took it somewhere nobody else dared... He cut a deal called a drawback: - Every time a competitor shipped a barrel of oil, the railroad charged them full price - Then the railroad handed a slice of that payment straight to Rockefeller - His rivals were paying a fee that funded the man trying to destroy them - And most of them had no idea it was even happening That deal lived inside a scheme called the South Improvement Company in 1872. When word leaked, the public outrage was so loud the railroads scrapped it within weeks. But it did not matter. Rockefeller had already used the threat. In a matter of weeks in 1872, he pressured 23 refiners in Cleveland into selling out to him. Historians still call it the Cleveland Massacre. After that, his playbook barely changed. He would slash his prices in a town until the local refiner went bankrupt, buy the wreckage for pennies, then push the prices right back up. Refiner by refiner, city by city, he took the entire industry. Then a journalist named Ida Tarbell went after him: Her own father had been one of the small oilmen Rockefeller crushed. Starting in 1902, she published an investigation in McClure's magazine that laid out every rebate, every drawback, and every dirty tactic in brutal detail. For the first time, the public saw exactly how the empire had been built. And the government finally moved. In 1911, the Supreme Court ruled that Standard Oil was an illegal monopoly and ordered it broken into 34 separate companies. It was supposed to be the end of him. But the breakup made Rockefeller richer than he had EVER been. He still owned a giant stake in every one of those 34 new companies. Set free to compete in their own regions, the pieces were suddenly worth more apart than they had ever been together. The value of his holdings roughly DOUBLED. By 1916, John D. Rockefeller became the first billionaire in history. The government had spent years trying to strip him of his power, and the punishment handed him the biggest fortune the world had ever seen. And those 34 companies never went away either. They grew into Exxon, Chevron, Mobil, and Amoco, the core of what we now call Big Oil. Exxon alone is worth more than $600 billion today. Standard Oil did not actually die in 1911. Its pieces just kept getting bigger. Which brings us back to now: The government wants to run it all over again, this time against the companies that own AI. They already convinced a judge that Google runs an illegal monopoly over search, and it has pushed to carve the company apart. Amazon, Apple, and Meta are each fighting antitrust cases of their own. Everyone assumes a breakup would finally cut these giants down to size. History says the opposite tends to happen. When you shatter a monopoly, the founders and the big shareholders do not lose a thing. They walk away owning a slice of every company that falls out of it. Each of those pieces gets set loose to grow in its own lane, and the market re-prices them one by one. The parts almost always end up worth more than the whole ever was. Rockefeller's fortune doubled after 1911. Then it happened AGAIN... In 1984, the government broke AT&T into seven Baby Bells to end the phone monopoly. Within about 20 years, those pieces had merged back into two giants, AT&T and Verizon, that now pull in more than $260 billion a year between them and dominate the market all over again. Investors who simply held the pieces saw their stake climb more than 600% in the years that followed. So when you hear that Washington is coming for the companies that own AI, remember what happened the last two times. The monopoly did not die. It split into pieces, the pieces got bigger, and the people who owned them got richer.

Ricardo

50,379 次观看 • 2 个月前

🎙️ Akademiks Responds to Clout Chasing Senior Citizen Streamer Glasses Malone Comparing Him to O.J. Simpson DJ Akademiks reacts to a clip of Glasses Malone attempting to compare him to O.J. Simpson, calling it a reach for attention and completely off base. 🤨 Ak’s Issue With the Comparison •Ak says the comparison makes no sense and ignores context •He accuses Glasses Malone of clout chasing by leaning into controversy •Ak believes Glasses is too intelligent to seriously make that analogy, but did it anyway for attention ⚖️ Ak on the Doechii vs Adin Ross Situation Ak makes it clear why he didn’t rush to Doechii’s defense: •Doechii has publicly said her “red flag” is straight men •Ak says as a straight man, he’s disqualified himself from “white-knighting” for someone who openly dismisses people like him •He believes in equality: 👉 Adults can defend themselves in verbal disputes 👉 Women don’t need to be babied or protected in non-physical arguments 🗣️ About the Verbal Back and Forth •Ak points out Doechii made disrespectful claims in her music aimed at Adin Ross saying he “Sucks All These Male Rappers **** from the back.” •When Adin responded verbally, people suddenly framed it as a major issue •Ak’s stance: 👉 This is two adults trading insults, not a civil rights moment 👉 Verbal disrespect invites verbal responses gender doesn’t change that 🚨 Clear Line Drawn Ak stresses: •Verbal arguments does not equal physical harm •If it were physical, he says he’d step in immediately •But online or verbal exchanges don’t require saving grown adults from words 🧠 Ak’s Bigger Point •The internet selectively decides who deserves protection •People rush to defend for optics, not principles •Turning every insult into a moral crisis dilutes real issues 💭 My Take on Doechii (Why It Changed) I used to be a real supporter of Doechii. I thought she was talented and believed that once she fully found her own sound and voice outside of mimicking other artists she could be great. But over time, my perception changed. 🎤 Live Experience I attended a few of her live events, and what stood out to me was: •The way she spoke to people working for her •It came off disrespectful, and that was disappointing to see firsthand 🎧 “Student of Rap” Claims Doechii has said she’s: •A student of rap •A fan of battle rap However, during an interview: •She was asked about a legendary, elite battle rapper •Someone she’s essentially in the same creative orbit as (same small label, same studio space) •She didn’t know who he was That felt disingenuous to me like she was saying what she thought people wanted to hear rather than speaking from real knowledge or passion. 🗣️ Comments About Men The final shift for me was her own words: •She openly said she hates men, especially straight men At that point, I had to ask myself: 👉 Why would I support someone who openly says they hate what I am? It’s ironic how some of the loudest self proclaimed “protectors” of Black women: •Rarely confront men they are around who actually disrespect Black women Glasses is an alleged gang member. Majority of gang banging music disrespects the black woman. A lot of gang members Pimp and beat black women. Yet Glasses Luther King Malone Jr doesn’t take the time to address that. Which is one of the biggest problems in our culture and community. •On Top Of That Malcolm Glasses X Has past work that degrades or exploits Black women.. Glasses an alleged professional writer/ Thinker/ Rapper Literally has a song called Rihanna where he uses the brutal beating Rihanna suffered in a domestic dispute as an analogy/ metaphor for him to brag about what he will do to the vagina. •It’s Really Interesting to see people who have done a lot of evil to the black culture adopt a moral high ground when it’s convenient 📌 Bottom Line: Akademiks sees this as manufactured outrage, clout chasing, and selective accountability.

🎙️ Akademiks Responds to Clout Chasing Senior Citizen Streamer Glasses Malone Comparing Him to O.J. Simpson DJ Akademiks reacts to a clip of Glasses Malone attempting to compare him to O.J. Simpson, calling it a reach for attention and completely off base. 🤨 Ak’s Issue With the Comparison •Ak says the comparison makes no sense and ignores context •He accuses Glasses Malone of clout chasing by leaning into controversy •Ak believes Glasses is too intelligent to seriously make that analogy, but did it anyway for attention ⚖️ Ak on the Doechii vs Adin Ross Situation Ak makes it clear why he didn’t rush to Doechii’s defense: •Doechii has publicly said her “red flag” is straight men •Ak says as a straight man, he’s disqualified himself from “white-knighting” for someone who openly dismisses people like him •He believes in equality: 👉 Adults can defend themselves in verbal disputes 👉 Women don’t need to be babied or protected in non-physical arguments 🗣️ About the Verbal Back and Forth •Ak points out Doechii made disrespectful claims in her music aimed at Adin Ross saying he “Sucks All These Male Rappers **** from the back.” •When Adin responded verbally, people suddenly framed it as a major issue •Ak’s stance: 👉 This is two adults trading insults, not a civil rights moment 👉 Verbal disrespect invites verbal responses gender doesn’t change that 🚨 Clear Line Drawn Ak stresses: •Verbal arguments does not equal physical harm •If it were physical, he says he’d step in immediately •But online or verbal exchanges don’t require saving grown adults from words 🧠 Ak’s Bigger Point •The internet selectively decides who deserves protection •People rush to defend for optics, not principles •Turning every insult into a moral crisis dilutes real issues 💭 My Take on Doechii (Why It Changed) I used to be a real supporter of Doechii. I thought she was talented and believed that once she fully found her own sound and voice outside of mimicking other artists she could be great. But over time, my perception changed. 🎤 Live Experience I attended a few of her live events, and what stood out to me was: •The way she spoke to people working for her •It came off disrespectful, and that was disappointing to see firsthand 🎧 “Student of Rap” Claims Doechii has said she’s: •A student of rap •A fan of battle rap However, during an interview: •She was asked about a legendary, elite battle rapper •Someone she’s essentially in the same creative orbit as (same small label, same studio space) •She didn’t know who he was That felt disingenuous to me like she was saying what she thought people wanted to hear rather than speaking from real knowledge or passion. 🗣️ Comments About Men The final shift for me was her own words: •She openly said she hates men, especially straight men At that point, I had to ask myself: 👉 Why would I support someone who openly says they hate what I am? It’s ironic how some of the loudest self proclaimed “protectors” of Black women: •Rarely confront men they are around who actually disrespect Black women Glasses is an alleged gang member. Majority of gang banging music disrespects the black woman. A lot of gang members Pimp and beat black women. Yet Glasses Luther King Malone Jr doesn’t take the time to address that. Which is one of the biggest problems in our culture and community. •On Top Of That Malcolm Glasses X Has past work that degrades or exploits Black women.. Glasses an alleged professional writer/ Thinker/ Rapper Literally has a song called Rihanna where he uses the brutal beating Rihanna suffered in a domestic dispute as an analogy/ metaphor for him to brag about what he will do to the vagina. •It’s Really Interesting to see people who have done a lot of evil to the black culture adopt a moral high ground when it’s convenient 📌 Bottom Line: Akademiks sees this as manufactured outrage, clout chasing, and selective accountability.

Cousin Tino ™️

17,281 次观看 • 8 个月前

A dog just made the bravest decision I have seen anyone make this year. Not a founder. Not an athlete. Not a person with a plan and a five-year vision board. A dog, on an empty road, with nothing to lose and no idea what would come next. I have watched what comes next more times than I will admit in public. This post is 25,000 characters long. It is a list of reasons why you should watch it too. Read as much as you want, but understand one thing before you start: the video is the only part that matters, and this is everything the video doesn't have room to say. Sound on. Phone in both hands. Do not skip. I'll be here when you get back. THE NUMBER THAT SHOULD BOTHER YOU Let me start with two numbers. The first: commonly cited estimates put the world's stray dog population at around 200 million. Two hundred million animals with no address, no bowl with their name on it, and no one who would notice if they didn't come back tonight. The second number is one. That is how many people had to be on that road, at that exact minute, looking in that exact direction, in a good enough mood to stop. Not two. Not a crowd. One. Here is what nobody says out loud: for every dog you see rescued on camera, there are millions the camera never reached. We don't see them because no one was there. The videos that reach you are not a sample of reality. They are the winners of a lottery so brutal that Powerball looks like a coin flip next to it. So when one of these lands in your feed, don't scroll past it like content. Treat it like what it is: a statistical miracle that happened to end well. And miracles have a structure. Let's take this one apart. FIVE LINKS. BREAK ONE AND THE STORY DOESN'T EXIST. Link one: the dog has to survive long enough to be seen. Roads are not built for small animals. Vehicles do not slow down for shapes on the asphalt. Every hour out there is a coin flip the animal has to win again, and again, and again. Link two: someone has to be present. Not nearby. Present. Eyes up, phone down, brain not busy replaying the argument from breakfast. Link three: that someone has to notice. It sounds simple. It isn't. The human brain is a filtering machine, and a small animal on a road becomes a plastic bag, a shadow, a piece of tire. The most common reason a dog is not rescued is not cruelty. It is that nobody registered it as a dog. Link four: the person has to stop. This is the link that snaps most often. Seeing is free. Stopping costs you time, comfort, a schedule, and possibly the mood of your entire day. Link five: the dog has to let them. An animal that has learned that hands mean pain has every biological reason to run. Trust is not a given. It is a negotiation, and the dog holds the veto. Five links. All five held. Remember that when you press play. You are not watching a nice story. You are watching a chain that should have snapped at least four times. THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP DRIVING In 1968, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane published a set of experiments that changed how we think about helping. The finding was uncomfortable: the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to act. They called it diffusion of responsibility. Everyone assumes someone else will handle it. So nobody does. Later research added nuance. When an emergency is clear and dangerous, people step in more often than the original theory predicted. But the core insight has survived half a century of testing, because it describes something every one of us has felt: the small, quiet voice that says, somebody else will stop. Now picture a road with no crowd at all. No audience. No one to hide behind. No one to blame. Just you and a decision that is entirely, inescapably yours. That is the situation the person in this video walked into. And the reason it is worth your attention is not that they did something impossible. It is that they did something small, and it turns out small is exactly what almost nobody does. You don't need to be a hero. You need to be inconvenienced. THE FACE IS THE RESUME In 2013, researcher Bridget Waller and her team studied dogs in a UK shelter and asked a simple question: what makes one dog get adopted faster than another? It wasn't size. It wasn't age. It wasn't coat color. It was one tiny facial movement: the raising of the inner eyebrows. The move that makes a dog's eyes look bigger, softer, almost sad. Dogs that did it more often were chosen faster. Six years later, a study led by Juliane Kaminski found out why that movement is so easy for dogs and so hard for wolves. Dogs have a small muscle around the eye that wolves largely lack. Over thousands of years of living beside us, dogs evolved a way to make their faces speak our language. Read that again. A species rewired its own anatomy to be understood by another species. No other animal has done this to us. Nobody taught them. Nobody forced them. They looked at us, worked out what we respond to, and grew the tool. Now look at the face in this video. You will know the second you see it. That is not a coincidence, and it is not luck. It is fifteen thousand years of engineering aimed directly at your chest. THE ONLY LOOP LIKE IT ON EARTH In 2015, a Japanese team led by Miho Nagasawa published a result in the journal Science that made researchers stop and reread the abstract. When a dog and its owner look into each other's eyes, both of their oxytocin levels rise. Oxytocin is the bonding chemical, the same one that flows between a mother and her newborn. Dog looks at human. Human's oxytocin rises. Human looks back, touches, talks softly. Dog's oxytocin rises. Which makes the dog look longer. Which makes the human's oxytocin rise again. A feedback loop of affection, running across two species, powered by nothing but eye contact. Here is the part that gets me: the effect did not show up the same way in wolves raised by humans. The loop is not just training. It is something that evolved between us. So the next time someone says a dog is just responding to food, tell them there is a peer-reviewed study that disagrees. And keep this fact in your pocket for the video. Because at some point, a moment of eye contact happens in it, and I want you to know what is really going on in that room. THEY CAN SMELL WHAT YOU'RE HIDING Humans have roughly 6 million scent receptors. Dogs are commonly cited as having around 300 million. A large share of a dog's brain is devoted to processing smell. What you experience as a room, a dog experiences as a layered document: who was here, how long ago, and how they felt. In 2022, researchers at Queen's University Belfast tested something remarkable. They collected breath and sweat samples from people before and after a stressful task. Then they asked dogs to tell the samples apart. The dogs got it right nearly 94 percent of the time. Your body broadcasts your emotional state as chemistry. You cannot turn it off. You cannot fake calm. A dog reads your fear, your tension, your irritation, before you have opened your mouth. Which means every rescue is, at its core, a test of one thing: are you actually calm, or are you performing calm? The dog knows. It always knows. And that is why what happens in the first few seconds of this video matters more than anything that comes after it. Watch the body language. Watch how slowly things move. Watch what is not done. THE MOST IMPORTANT MOMENT IN ANY RESCUE IS THE ONE WHERE NOTHING HAPPENS Animal behaviorists describe fear responses in four flavors: fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. Fight is what people expect. Flight is what most strays do. Freeze is what looks like calm but isn't. And fawn, the desperate, wiggling, please-don't-hurt-me appeasement, is the one that breaks your heart the fastest, because it looks like friendliness and it is actually terror. Rescuers who have done this hundreds of times will tell you the same handful of rules. Don't loom. Don't stare straight into the eyes. Get low. Turn sideways. Slow everything down until it feels absurd. Let the animal close the last few feet on its own terms. The hardest instruction, and the one most people can't follow, is the last one: do nothing. Every instinct you have says reach out. Grab. Fix. Take control of the situation. And every good rescue begins with someone who did the opposite. Who made themselves small, patient, and boring, and waited for a frightened animal to decide that the safest thing in its whole world might be a stranger. You are about to watch someone do exactly that. Notice how little they need to say. THE TEARS THEY WON'T PUT IN THE HEADLINE Scientists are careful people. They do not like to say "dogs cry." But in 2022, a team from Azabu University in Japan, led by Takefumi Kikusui, measured tear volume in dogs during reunions with their owners. The result: tear volume rose significantly compared with reunions involving other familiar people. And when researchers applied oxytocin to the dogs' eyes, tear volume rose again. Not sadness crying. Not the crying we do. Something else, something closer to overflow. The body producing water at the exact moment the heart has more in it than it can hold. Nobody has proven that this is the same thing we feel. Scientists will tell you that, and they are right to. But here is a question worth sitting with. If an animal's eyes fill with water when it sees the one being it has decided to trust, what exactly are we arguing about? Watch the eyes in this video. Then tell me what you think you saw. ONCE IT HAS A NAME, IT STOPS BEING A STATISTIC In 2007, psychologist Paul Slovic and colleagues ran an experiment on generosity. They showed people a fundraising appeal for a hungry child, and then a second version that added statistics about millions of other children in the same crisis. More data. More context. More reasons to care. Donations dropped. Slovic called it psychic numbing. The human mind can hold one face. It cannot hold two hundred million. When a tragedy becomes a number, empathy quietly switches off, and we don't even notice it happening. This is why one named animal in one small video can do what a hundred reports full of charts cannot. It gives your brain something it can actually care about: a single life, with a face, a fear, and a future that could go either way. The stray population is a statistic. A dog is a story. And stories, unlike statistics, come with a name at the end. When you reach that moment in the video, pay attention to what it does to you. Notice the small shift in your chest. That is the sound of a number turning into a person, or close enough. THE WORD FOR WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO FEEL Researchers have a name for the feeling you get when something touches you so suddenly that your throat tightens and your eyes sting. They call it kama muta, Sanskrit for "moved by love." Anthropologist Alan Fiske proposed that it is a distinct emotion, triggered by a sudden intensification of closeness. Two beings who were strangers become bonded. Someone who was alone becomes part of something. People across many cultures describe the same set of signs: warmth in the chest, goosebumps, a lump in the throat, tears they didn't plan on, and a strong urge to hug someone or hold something. Here is what makes it useful and not just sweet: kama muta is one of the most reliable emotional responses we have. It shows up when reunions happen. When a stranger helps unexpectedly. When an animal, after a long time alone, is finally held. You've felt it. You just never had a word for it. Take note of the exact second it hits you in this video. I promise there is one. And if you're the kind of person who says "I never cry at videos," I would like to schedule a follow-up. WHY YOU'LL WANT TO BE A BETTER PERSON AFTER ONE MINUTE Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studied a related feeling and gave it a name: elevation. Elevation is what you feel when you watch someone do something morally beautiful, quietly, with nothing to gain. It is not envy and it is not admiration. It is an urge, physical and immediate, to do something good yourself. In studies, people who experienced elevation were more likely to help others afterward, more likely to volunteer, and more likely to describe wanting to become better versions of themselves. Read that as a design spec. A short piece of true, unstaged kindness can change what a person does in the hour after they see it. Which is a strange, lovely thing for a phone to be capable of. We spend so much time discussing what social media does wrong. Nobody wonders what would happen if the best five percent of it, the small, real, human moments, were the part that traveled farthest. Let this one travel. It has earned it. THE RARE THING: SOMETHING TRUE THAT WINS In 2018, researchers at MIT published a study in Science that analyzed millions of tweets. The result was grim: false news spread significantly faster and further than true news. False stories were about 70 percent more likely to be retweeted, driven largely by surprise and disgust. The lesson most people took away was that this platform rewards outrage. I want to take a different lesson. If false stories win because they trigger strong emotion, then true stories can win too, as long as they trigger stronger ones. A video with no villain, no scandal, and no argument. Nothing to be angry about. Nothing to dunk on. A rescue that is exactly what it looks like. That kind of content should lose on this platform. It has no fuel. And yet every so often, one of them breaks through and reminds everyone what this place was supposed to be. I am not asking you to like it. I am asking you to notice that you had a choice about what to feed today, and this was one of the options. SOME FRIENDSHIPS SHOULDN'T WORK Somewhere near the end of this video, a second character enters the story. I won't tell you who. I won't tell you what happens. I will tell you that if you have ever read anything about instincts, hunting drives, or the way certain animals are supposed to see each other, this moment will quietly rearrange your assumptions. Behaviorists talk about prey drive as if it were destiny. It is not. It is a tendency, and tendencies can be softened by experience, by safety, by being raised, or re-raised, in a place where no one is afraid. The same dog that once had to look after itself alone can, in a different life, learn that the world contains creatures that are not threats or meals. Only neighbors. That is the most hopeful idea in behavioral science, and it usually gets buried in footnotes: what an animal was is not the same as what an animal can become. The same is true for most of us, incidentally. But that is a different post. Stay for the ending. It is the reason I am writing this at all. THE PART THE INTERNET NEVER FILMS Every rescue video has the same shape: the meeting, the rescue, the transformation, the happy ending. It is edited that way because it is the only shape that gets watched. But ask anyone who has actually done this, and they will tell you the truth is in the gap between the second and third act. The first night. The first week. The first time a dog that has never lived indoors realizes there is a floor that doesn't move, a door that closes without danger, and a bowl that will be full again tomorrow. Rescuers have a rule of thumb for this, the 3-3-3 rule. Three days for a dog to decompress. Three weeks to start learning the routine. Three months to feel truly at home. It's not science, exactly, just a shorthand built from thousands of adoptions. But it captures something real: safety is not a switch. It is a process, and the animal has to believe it slowly, one uneventful day at a time. That means the happiest scenes in this video are not the ones that look like celebrations. They are the quiet ones. A dog that stops scanning the room. A body that finally lets go. Look for the moment the shoulders drop. Once you see it, you'll never unsee it. THE COST OF STOPPING: NINETY SECONDS Let's do the math on the thing that most people are afraid of. How long does it actually take to stop for an animal in trouble? Not the whole rescue. Just the decision, the pulling over, the first attempt. Ninety seconds. Sometimes less. Ninety seconds is the length of a bad song on the radio. It is the time you spend waiting for a light to change. It is a scroll through a feed you won't remember. And on the other side of those ninety seconds is the difference between a living animal and a statistic. I'm not saying this to make anyone feel guilty. Guilt is a terrible motivator. It makes people avoid the feeling instead of acting on it. I'm saying it because the barrier is almost always imagined. We inflate the cost of helping in our heads, and the imagined price is what stops us, not the real one. The person in this video paid the real price. It was small. What they got in return is something no one could have planned for. That is the part you should watch closely. IF YOU'RE EVER THE ONE ON THAT ROAD Save this section. Someday, someone reading it will need it. Put your safety first. Pull over where it's safe and turn on your hazard lights before anything else. A second accident helps no one. Do not chase. A frightened dog runs faster than you and directly into the worst possible place. Chasing turns a rescue into a pursuit. Get low and go slow. Sit down if you can. Turn your body sideways. Avoid direct staring. Speak softly, or don't speak at all. Use food, if you have any. Something plain, tossed a little closer each time, works better than any technique. Check for a tag and, if you can get near enough, ask a vet or shelter to scan for a microchip. Someone may be looking for this animal right now. Call for help early. Local rescues, animal control, and vets can handle what you cannot. Sometimes the bravest thing you can do is make the right phone call. Take photos and note the location. If you can't keep the animal, those details are what let someone else finish the job. None of this is complicated. The reason it is rare is that most people have never been told that it is allowed. You are allowed. THE REAL STAKES OF A SMALL DOG Here is a bigger picture, and it's a heavy one. Millions of companion animals enter shelters every year in the United States alone. That is just one country. Many are lost pets that never get reclaimed. Many are strays. Many are animals whose owners ran out of money, time, or hope. Shelters are often crowded, underfunded, and staffed by people running on love and very little else. Every animal that finds a home, or a foster, or a stranger with ninety seconds to spare, frees up a space for the next one in line. That means every single rescue is bigger than the animal in it. It is a small change to a very large system, and the system is nothing but small changes stacked on top of one another. This is not an argument for guilt. It's an argument for scale. One dog saved is one dog saved, but it is also proof of concept, a demonstration that the chain can hold, that the odds can be beaten, that a person and a road and a decision can end well. And proof of concept is contagious. That is why you are seeing it. WHO REALLY GOT RESCUED? If you talk to people who have taken in strays, you'll hear the same sentence over and over, in different words. "I thought I was saving him. It turned out he was saving me." Skeptics roll their eyes at that. It sounds like a greeting card. And research on pets and wellbeing is more mixed than social media would like. It doesn't say every dog fixes every life. But there is something real underneath it, and it's not mystical. A dog is a machine for creating routine, attention, and reasons to leave the house. It needs you at a certain hour. It notices when you come home. It doesn't care about your job title, your follower count, or what you failed at last week. For some people, that is the first unconditional witness they have had in years. The rescue, in this light, is not one-way. Two lonely creatures, one who knew it and one who didn't, found out that they could take care of each other. Nobody can prove that from a video. But there is a version of the story that runs in the background of every rescue, and you can feel it if you let yourself. Tell me whether you feel it here. THE ATTENTION PARADOX Here is a strange fact about the platform you're reading this on. The average post gets a glance. A few words, a flick of the thumb, gone. Brands spend billions every year trying to buy three seconds of your attention, and most of what they buy evaporates before it lands. And yet a video of one dog, with no budget, no celebrity, and no script, can hold a stranger for a full minute. Without a single trick. Why? Because attention is not really about tricks. It is about stakes. Your brain is built to track living things whose outcome is uncertain. The moment there is a creature on screen and you don't yet know if it will be okay, some ancient part of you leans in and refuses to look away. That is the secret behind every great story ever told. Someone we care about. Something that could go wrong. A question we need answered. Marketers call it a hook. Your nervous system calls it worry. This video has both, and it pays off the worry honestly, which is why you leave feeling better instead of used. That is rare enough to deserve a full minute of your life. HOW TO WATCH THIS Most people will watch it wrong. They'll half-look at it between two other things, mid-scroll, thumb already moving. Here is how to get the actual effect. Turn the sound on. There is more happening in the audio than you expect. Make it full screen. This is a story about faces, and faces need room. Watch the first ten seconds without expecting anything. The film is quiet at the start. That is deliberate, or at least it works as if it were. Do not skip ahead. The whole thing depends on the distance between where it starts and where it ends. Skip the middle and the ending is just a nice clip. Then, once it's over, watch it again. The second time, you won't be watching for the story. You'll be watching for the small things you missed: a hesitation, a glance, a change in how a body carries itself. That second watch is where it gets you. I said I have watched it more times than I'll admit. That is the honest reason. It doesn't wear out. It gets deeper. THE CHALLENGE I want to try something with this post. If the video moved you, leave one comment: the second it happened. Not a review, not an analysis. Just the moment. I'm curious whether it's the same one for everyone. My guess is that it isn't, and that the spread of answers will say more about what people carry around with them than about the video. If it didn't move you, that is fine too. I'd like to hear that as well. Honest is better than polite. And if you have ever been the one who stopped, and I know some of you have, write that instead. Tell the story in two lines. No one has ever regretted the ninety seconds. Someone reading this thread might need to know that. Reposting this is the simplest way to put it in front of someone who's scrolling right now, in a bad week, thinking that nothing good happens by accident anymore. Something did. THE LAST THING Let me end where I started. A dog made a decision on an empty road. It could not have known how it would turn out. It had no reason to believe that the next hand would be different from the last. It went ahead anyway. That is the whole difference between a life that changes and one that doesn't. Not certainty. Not a plan. A willingness to move toward the unknown when the alternative is more of the same. The animal in this video did that. Then someone did the same in return. That's it. That's the entire story. Two beings, each of whom took a small, terrifying step toward the other, and a road that was, for a few seconds, the most important place in the world. Scroll up. Press play. Watch the ending. Then come back and tell me I was exaggerating. P.S. If you read all of this, you are exactly the kind of person this video was made for. Most people never make it past the first screen of a long post. You did. That tells me you are someone who stays: through the slow part, through the uncertain part, all the way to the end. Which is, when you think about it, the only quality that mattered in the story you're about to watch. Follow for more like this. I only post the ones that earn it. Bookmark it for days you forget the feeling. #Rescue #DogsOfX #SecondChances #AdoptDontShop #Dogs #AnimalRescue #RescueDog

A dog just made the bravest decision I have seen anyone make this year. Not a founder. Not an athlete. Not a person with a plan and a five-year vision board. A dog, on an empty road, with nothing to lose and no idea what would come next. I have watched what comes next more times than I will admit in public. This post is 25,000 characters long. It is a list of reasons why you should watch it too. Read as much as you want, but understand one thing before you start: the video is the only part that matters, and this is everything the video doesn't have room to say. Sound on. Phone in both hands. Do not skip. I'll be here when you get back. THE NUMBER THAT SHOULD BOTHER YOU Let me start with two numbers. The first: commonly cited estimates put the world's stray dog population at around 200 million. Two hundred million animals with no address, no bowl with their name on it, and no one who would notice if they didn't come back tonight. The second number is one. That is how many people had to be on that road, at that exact minute, looking in that exact direction, in a good enough mood to stop. Not two. Not a crowd. One. Here is what nobody says out loud: for every dog you see rescued on camera, there are millions the camera never reached. We don't see them because no one was there. The videos that reach you are not a sample of reality. They are the winners of a lottery so brutal that Powerball looks like a coin flip next to it. So when one of these lands in your feed, don't scroll past it like content. Treat it like what it is: a statistical miracle that happened to end well. And miracles have a structure. Let's take this one apart. FIVE LINKS. BREAK ONE AND THE STORY DOESN'T EXIST. Link one: the dog has to survive long enough to be seen. Roads are not built for small animals. Vehicles do not slow down for shapes on the asphalt. Every hour out there is a coin flip the animal has to win again, and again, and again. Link two: someone has to be present. Not nearby. Present. Eyes up, phone down, brain not busy replaying the argument from breakfast. Link three: that someone has to notice. It sounds simple. It isn't. The human brain is a filtering machine, and a small animal on a road becomes a plastic bag, a shadow, a piece of tire. The most common reason a dog is not rescued is not cruelty. It is that nobody registered it as a dog. Link four: the person has to stop. This is the link that snaps most often. Seeing is free. Stopping costs you time, comfort, a schedule, and possibly the mood of your entire day. Link five: the dog has to let them. An animal that has learned that hands mean pain has every biological reason to run. Trust is not a given. It is a negotiation, and the dog holds the veto. Five links. All five held. Remember that when you press play. You are not watching a nice story. You are watching a chain that should have snapped at least four times. THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP DRIVING In 1968, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane published a set of experiments that changed how we think about helping. The finding was uncomfortable: the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to act. They called it diffusion of responsibility. Everyone assumes someone else will handle it. So nobody does. Later research added nuance. When an emergency is clear and dangerous, people step in more often than the original theory predicted. But the core insight has survived half a century of testing, because it describes something every one of us has felt: the small, quiet voice that says, somebody else will stop. Now picture a road with no crowd at all. No audience. No one to hide behind. No one to blame. Just you and a decision that is entirely, inescapably yours. That is the situation the person in this video walked into. And the reason it is worth your attention is not that they did something impossible. It is that they did something small, and it turns out small is exactly what almost nobody does. You don't need to be a hero. You need to be inconvenienced. THE FACE IS THE RESUME In 2013, researcher Bridget Waller and her team studied dogs in a UK shelter and asked a simple question: what makes one dog get adopted faster than another? It wasn't size. It wasn't age. It wasn't coat color. It was one tiny facial movement: the raising of the inner eyebrows. The move that makes a dog's eyes look bigger, softer, almost sad. Dogs that did it more often were chosen faster. Six years later, a study led by Juliane Kaminski found out why that movement is so easy for dogs and so hard for wolves. Dogs have a small muscle around the eye that wolves largely lack. Over thousands of years of living beside us, dogs evolved a way to make their faces speak our language. Read that again. A species rewired its own anatomy to be understood by another species. No other animal has done this to us. Nobody taught them. Nobody forced them. They looked at us, worked out what we respond to, and grew the tool. Now look at the face in this video. You will know the second you see it. That is not a coincidence, and it is not luck. It is fifteen thousand years of engineering aimed directly at your chest. THE ONLY LOOP LIKE IT ON EARTH In 2015, a Japanese team led by Miho Nagasawa published a result in the journal Science that made researchers stop and reread the abstract. When a dog and its owner look into each other's eyes, both of their oxytocin levels rise. Oxytocin is the bonding chemical, the same one that flows between a mother and her newborn. Dog looks at human. Human's oxytocin rises. Human looks back, touches, talks softly. Dog's oxytocin rises. Which makes the dog look longer. Which makes the human's oxytocin rise again. A feedback loop of affection, running across two species, powered by nothing but eye contact. Here is the part that gets me: the effect did not show up the same way in wolves raised by humans. The loop is not just training. It is something that evolved between us. So the next time someone says a dog is just responding to food, tell them there is a peer-reviewed study that disagrees. And keep this fact in your pocket for the video. Because at some point, a moment of eye contact happens in it, and I want you to know what is really going on in that room. THEY CAN SMELL WHAT YOU'RE HIDING Humans have roughly 6 million scent receptors. Dogs are commonly cited as having around 300 million. A large share of a dog's brain is devoted to processing smell. What you experience as a room, a dog experiences as a layered document: who was here, how long ago, and how they felt. In 2022, researchers at Queen's University Belfast tested something remarkable. They collected breath and sweat samples from people before and after a stressful task. Then they asked dogs to tell the samples apart. The dogs got it right nearly 94 percent of the time. Your body broadcasts your emotional state as chemistry. You cannot turn it off. You cannot fake calm. A dog reads your fear, your tension, your irritation, before you have opened your mouth. Which means every rescue is, at its core, a test of one thing: are you actually calm, or are you performing calm? The dog knows. It always knows. And that is why what happens in the first few seconds of this video matters more than anything that comes after it. Watch the body language. Watch how slowly things move. Watch what is not done. THE MOST IMPORTANT MOMENT IN ANY RESCUE IS THE ONE WHERE NOTHING HAPPENS Animal behaviorists describe fear responses in four flavors: fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. Fight is what people expect. Flight is what most strays do. Freeze is what looks like calm but isn't. And fawn, the desperate, wiggling, please-don't-hurt-me appeasement, is the one that breaks your heart the fastest, because it looks like friendliness and it is actually terror. Rescuers who have done this hundreds of times will tell you the same handful of rules. Don't loom. Don't stare straight into the eyes. Get low. Turn sideways. Slow everything down until it feels absurd. Let the animal close the last few feet on its own terms. The hardest instruction, and the one most people can't follow, is the last one: do nothing. Every instinct you have says reach out. Grab. Fix. Take control of the situation. And every good rescue begins with someone who did the opposite. Who made themselves small, patient, and boring, and waited for a frightened animal to decide that the safest thing in its whole world might be a stranger. You are about to watch someone do exactly that. Notice how little they need to say. THE TEARS THEY WON'T PUT IN THE HEADLINE Scientists are careful people. They do not like to say "dogs cry." But in 2022, a team from Azabu University in Japan, led by Takefumi Kikusui, measured tear volume in dogs during reunions with their owners. The result: tear volume rose significantly compared with reunions involving other familiar people. And when researchers applied oxytocin to the dogs' eyes, tear volume rose again. Not sadness crying. Not the crying we do. Something else, something closer to overflow. The body producing water at the exact moment the heart has more in it than it can hold. Nobody has proven that this is the same thing we feel. Scientists will tell you that, and they are right to. But here is a question worth sitting with. If an animal's eyes fill with water when it sees the one being it has decided to trust, what exactly are we arguing about? Watch the eyes in this video. Then tell me what you think you saw. ONCE IT HAS A NAME, IT STOPS BEING A STATISTIC In 2007, psychologist Paul Slovic and colleagues ran an experiment on generosity. They showed people a fundraising appeal for a hungry child, and then a second version that added statistics about millions of other children in the same crisis. More data. More context. More reasons to care. Donations dropped. Slovic called it psychic numbing. The human mind can hold one face. It cannot hold two hundred million. When a tragedy becomes a number, empathy quietly switches off, and we don't even notice it happening. This is why one named animal in one small video can do what a hundred reports full of charts cannot. It gives your brain something it can actually care about: a single life, with a face, a fear, and a future that could go either way. The stray population is a statistic. A dog is a story. And stories, unlike statistics, come with a name at the end. When you reach that moment in the video, pay attention to what it does to you. Notice the small shift in your chest. That is the sound of a number turning into a person, or close enough. THE WORD FOR WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO FEEL Researchers have a name for the feeling you get when something touches you so suddenly that your throat tightens and your eyes sting. They call it kama muta, Sanskrit for "moved by love." Anthropologist Alan Fiske proposed that it is a distinct emotion, triggered by a sudden intensification of closeness. Two beings who were strangers become bonded. Someone who was alone becomes part of something. People across many cultures describe the same set of signs: warmth in the chest, goosebumps, a lump in the throat, tears they didn't plan on, and a strong urge to hug someone or hold something. Here is what makes it useful and not just sweet: kama muta is one of the most reliable emotional responses we have. It shows up when reunions happen. When a stranger helps unexpectedly. When an animal, after a long time alone, is finally held. You've felt it. You just never had a word for it. Take note of the exact second it hits you in this video. I promise there is one. And if you're the kind of person who says "I never cry at videos," I would like to schedule a follow-up. WHY YOU'LL WANT TO BE A BETTER PERSON AFTER ONE MINUTE Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studied a related feeling and gave it a name: elevation. Elevation is what you feel when you watch someone do something morally beautiful, quietly, with nothing to gain. It is not envy and it is not admiration. It is an urge, physical and immediate, to do something good yourself. In studies, people who experienced elevation were more likely to help others afterward, more likely to volunteer, and more likely to describe wanting to become better versions of themselves. Read that as a design spec. A short piece of true, unstaged kindness can change what a person does in the hour after they see it. Which is a strange, lovely thing for a phone to be capable of. We spend so much time discussing what social media does wrong. Nobody wonders what would happen if the best five percent of it, the small, real, human moments, were the part that traveled farthest. Let this one travel. It has earned it. THE RARE THING: SOMETHING TRUE THAT WINS In 2018, researchers at MIT published a study in Science that analyzed millions of tweets. The result was grim: false news spread significantly faster and further than true news. False stories were about 70 percent more likely to be retweeted, driven largely by surprise and disgust. The lesson most people took away was that this platform rewards outrage. I want to take a different lesson. If false stories win because they trigger strong emotion, then true stories can win too, as long as they trigger stronger ones. A video with no villain, no scandal, and no argument. Nothing to be angry about. Nothing to dunk on. A rescue that is exactly what it looks like. That kind of content should lose on this platform. It has no fuel. And yet every so often, one of them breaks through and reminds everyone what this place was supposed to be. I am not asking you to like it. I am asking you to notice that you had a choice about what to feed today, and this was one of the options. SOME FRIENDSHIPS SHOULDN'T WORK Somewhere near the end of this video, a second character enters the story. I won't tell you who. I won't tell you what happens. I will tell you that if you have ever read anything about instincts, hunting drives, or the way certain animals are supposed to see each other, this moment will quietly rearrange your assumptions. Behaviorists talk about prey drive as if it were destiny. It is not. It is a tendency, and tendencies can be softened by experience, by safety, by being raised, or re-raised, in a place where no one is afraid. The same dog that once had to look after itself alone can, in a different life, learn that the world contains creatures that are not threats or meals. Only neighbors. That is the most hopeful idea in behavioral science, and it usually gets buried in footnotes: what an animal was is not the same as what an animal can become. The same is true for most of us, incidentally. But that is a different post. Stay for the ending. It is the reason I am writing this at all. THE PART THE INTERNET NEVER FILMS Every rescue video has the same shape: the meeting, the rescue, the transformation, the happy ending. It is edited that way because it is the only shape that gets watched. But ask anyone who has actually done this, and they will tell you the truth is in the gap between the second and third act. The first night. The first week. The first time a dog that has never lived indoors realizes there is a floor that doesn't move, a door that closes without danger, and a bowl that will be full again tomorrow. Rescuers have a rule of thumb for this, the 3-3-3 rule. Three days for a dog to decompress. Three weeks to start learning the routine. Three months to feel truly at home. It's not science, exactly, just a shorthand built from thousands of adoptions. But it captures something real: safety is not a switch. It is a process, and the animal has to believe it slowly, one uneventful day at a time. That means the happiest scenes in this video are not the ones that look like celebrations. They are the quiet ones. A dog that stops scanning the room. A body that finally lets go. Look for the moment the shoulders drop. Once you see it, you'll never unsee it. THE COST OF STOPPING: NINETY SECONDS Let's do the math on the thing that most people are afraid of. How long does it actually take to stop for an animal in trouble? Not the whole rescue. Just the decision, the pulling over, the first attempt. Ninety seconds. Sometimes less. Ninety seconds is the length of a bad song on the radio. It is the time you spend waiting for a light to change. It is a scroll through a feed you won't remember. And on the other side of those ninety seconds is the difference between a living animal and a statistic. I'm not saying this to make anyone feel guilty. Guilt is a terrible motivator. It makes people avoid the feeling instead of acting on it. I'm saying it because the barrier is almost always imagined. We inflate the cost of helping in our heads, and the imagined price is what stops us, not the real one. The person in this video paid the real price. It was small. What they got in return is something no one could have planned for. That is the part you should watch closely. IF YOU'RE EVER THE ONE ON THAT ROAD Save this section. Someday, someone reading it will need it. Put your safety first. Pull over where it's safe and turn on your hazard lights before anything else. A second accident helps no one. Do not chase. A frightened dog runs faster than you and directly into the worst possible place. Chasing turns a rescue into a pursuit. Get low and go slow. Sit down if you can. Turn your body sideways. Avoid direct staring. Speak softly, or don't speak at all. Use food, if you have any. Something plain, tossed a little closer each time, works better than any technique. Check for a tag and, if you can get near enough, ask a vet or shelter to scan for a microchip. Someone may be looking for this animal right now. Call for help early. Local rescues, animal control, and vets can handle what you cannot. Sometimes the bravest thing you can do is make the right phone call. Take photos and note the location. If you can't keep the animal, those details are what let someone else finish the job. None of this is complicated. The reason it is rare is that most people have never been told that it is allowed. You are allowed. THE REAL STAKES OF A SMALL DOG Here is a bigger picture, and it's a heavy one. Millions of companion animals enter shelters every year in the United States alone. That is just one country. Many are lost pets that never get reclaimed. Many are strays. Many are animals whose owners ran out of money, time, or hope. Shelters are often crowded, underfunded, and staffed by people running on love and very little else. Every animal that finds a home, or a foster, or a stranger with ninety seconds to spare, frees up a space for the next one in line. That means every single rescue is bigger than the animal in it. It is a small change to a very large system, and the system is nothing but small changes stacked on top of one another. This is not an argument for guilt. It's an argument for scale. One dog saved is one dog saved, but it is also proof of concept, a demonstration that the chain can hold, that the odds can be beaten, that a person and a road and a decision can end well. And proof of concept is contagious. That is why you are seeing it. WHO REALLY GOT RESCUED? If you talk to people who have taken in strays, you'll hear the same sentence over and over, in different words. "I thought I was saving him. It turned out he was saving me." Skeptics roll their eyes at that. It sounds like a greeting card. And research on pets and wellbeing is more mixed than social media would like. It doesn't say every dog fixes every life. But there is something real underneath it, and it's not mystical. A dog is a machine for creating routine, attention, and reasons to leave the house. It needs you at a certain hour. It notices when you come home. It doesn't care about your job title, your follower count, or what you failed at last week. For some people, that is the first unconditional witness they have had in years. The rescue, in this light, is not one-way. Two lonely creatures, one who knew it and one who didn't, found out that they could take care of each other. Nobody can prove that from a video. But there is a version of the story that runs in the background of every rescue, and you can feel it if you let yourself. Tell me whether you feel it here. THE ATTENTION PARADOX Here is a strange fact about the platform you're reading this on. The average post gets a glance. A few words, a flick of the thumb, gone. Brands spend billions every year trying to buy three seconds of your attention, and most of what they buy evaporates before it lands. And yet a video of one dog, with no budget, no celebrity, and no script, can hold a stranger for a full minute. Without a single trick. Why? Because attention is not really about tricks. It is about stakes. Your brain is built to track living things whose outcome is uncertain. The moment there is a creature on screen and you don't yet know if it will be okay, some ancient part of you leans in and refuses to look away. That is the secret behind every great story ever told. Someone we care about. Something that could go wrong. A question we need answered. Marketers call it a hook. Your nervous system calls it worry. This video has both, and it pays off the worry honestly, which is why you leave feeling better instead of used. That is rare enough to deserve a full minute of your life. HOW TO WATCH THIS Most people will watch it wrong. They'll half-look at it between two other things, mid-scroll, thumb already moving. Here is how to get the actual effect. Turn the sound on. There is more happening in the audio than you expect. Make it full screen. This is a story about faces, and faces need room. Watch the first ten seconds without expecting anything. The film is quiet at the start. That is deliberate, or at least it works as if it were. Do not skip ahead. The whole thing depends on the distance between where it starts and where it ends. Skip the middle and the ending is just a nice clip. Then, once it's over, watch it again. The second time, you won't be watching for the story. You'll be watching for the small things you missed: a hesitation, a glance, a change in how a body carries itself. That second watch is where it gets you. I said I have watched it more times than I'll admit. That is the honest reason. It doesn't wear out. It gets deeper. THE CHALLENGE I want to try something with this post. If the video moved you, leave one comment: the second it happened. Not a review, not an analysis. Just the moment. I'm curious whether it's the same one for everyone. My guess is that it isn't, and that the spread of answers will say more about what people carry around with them than about the video. If it didn't move you, that is fine too. I'd like to hear that as well. Honest is better than polite. And if you have ever been the one who stopped, and I know some of you have, write that instead. Tell the story in two lines. No one has ever regretted the ninety seconds. Someone reading this thread might need to know that. Reposting this is the simplest way to put it in front of someone who's scrolling right now, in a bad week, thinking that nothing good happens by accident anymore. Something did. THE LAST THING Let me end where I started. A dog made a decision on an empty road. It could not have known how it would turn out. It had no reason to believe that the next hand would be different from the last. It went ahead anyway. That is the whole difference between a life that changes and one that doesn't. Not certainty. Not a plan. A willingness to move toward the unknown when the alternative is more of the same. The animal in this video did that. Then someone did the same in return. That's it. That's the entire story. Two beings, each of whom took a small, terrifying step toward the other, and a road that was, for a few seconds, the most important place in the world. Scroll up. Press play. Watch the ending. Then come back and tell me I was exaggerating. P.S. If you read all of this, you are exactly the kind of person this video was made for. Most people never make it past the first screen of a long post. You did. That tells me you are someone who stays: through the slow part, through the uncertain part, all the way to the end. Which is, when you think about it, the only quality that mattered in the story you're about to watch. Follow for more like this. I only post the ones that earn it. Bookmark it for days you forget the feeling. #Rescue #DogsOfX #SecondChances #AdoptDontShop #Dogs #AnimalRescue #RescueDog

Earth Unveiled

15,706 次观看 • 15 天前

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

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

Grant Smith Ellis

41,546 次观看 • 1 年前

Make Something Wonderful is 250 pages of Steve Jobs in his own words, speaking directly to you. The book contains some of Steve's ideas that I've never found anywhere else. Notes from the book: 1. He didn't care about being right. He cared about being excellent. 2. His mind was never a captive of reality. 3. He said working with great people gives you access to wisdom that you can't buy for love or money. 4. He believed technology should be streamlined and practical, simple and sophisticated, and that it should be a tool for enhancing creativity as much as productivity. 5. He believed you should ambush your customers. Meet them where they are. 6. His ideas were not arguments, but intuitions. He had a true inner freedom and an epic sense of possibility. 7. He gave an extraordinary amount of thought to how best to use our fleeting time. 8. By the time he was thirty he was the public face of a Fortune 500 company. 9. At Apple’s first board meeting he put his bare feet on a conference room table. 10. He said you should think of your life as a rainbow arching across the horizon of this world. You appear, have a chance to blaze in the sky, then you disappear. 11. He possessed unbelievable rigor that he imposed first, and most strenuously, on himself. 12. He saw clearly (1) what was not there, (2) what could be there, (3) what had to be there. 13. He said early Apple employees were more like poets and painters than cold technologists. That the passion they put into their products were completely indistinguishable from other creative fields. He said their work was a form of love. 14. He had a verbal mastery that was obvious at a young age. He used simple, descriptive language, told stories, and repeated lines and ideas that were important. 15. He thought it was inevitable that computers would be the dominant medium of human communication. He said this in 1983. 16. He had a talent for spotting markets full of second-rate products. 17. He said you could tell how important a product was based on the amount of time people spent interacting with it. As a result he thought it was inevitable that more design talent would shift from the automobile (1 or 2 hours a day) to computers (6+ hours a day). He said this in the 80s. 18. He said that books kept him out of jail and that it’s a shame there are so many mediocre teachers. 19. Like many great entrepreneurs before him, Steve knew what he wanted to do, but didn't know how to do it yet. He said he wanted to make an insanely great computer that was the size of a book. What he described sounded a lot like an iPad. He said this in the 80s. 20. He believed that you should use your unique set of talents to make things that make the lives of other people better. Most people just take. He said "the ability to put something back into the pool of human experience is extremely neat." 21. He would tell his team “You work for Apple first and your boss second.” He felt strongly about that. 22. He was constantly placing the products he was making in a historical perspective, like comparing the Macintosh to the invention of the telephone. 23. He believed you needed to give yourself more time to make mistakes. He said his taste got more refined as he made mistakes. He said that making mistakes over a long period of time made his aesthetics better. 24. He said the key ingredient to making something great was time. 25. He said he wanted to spend his life building things. He could have retired to a beach in his 20s and thought that was disgusting. 26. He was interested in learning how to hone a company down to its essence. 27. You read this book and a thought jumps out at you: How many people are willing to go through a decade of failure without quitting? Steve had the capacity to take pain. 28. He believed it was better to focus on what you're actually passionate about, instead of what you think will make you the most money. He made the most money that way. 29. He listened to older, wiser entrepreneurs and let them shape and mold his thinking. 30. He wasn't afraid to fail, but had to coach himself to adopt that trait. He didn't want to fail, but he wasn't afraid of it. 31. He said don't let your differentiation evaporate. 32. He said if you let your differentiation evaporate the only solution is innovation. 33. He believed great ideas don't map onto corporate hierarchy. 34. He was incapable of thinking that his work and his life were different, separate things. 35. He said the most important things in life are not the goal-oriented, materialistic things. He said you should tap into the world’s magical, mystical, and artistic sides. 36. He paid attention to subtle insights. He was guided by intuition. 37. He didn't believe in the concept or a career, or think it was wise to follow well-worn paths laid out by others. 38. He said most people make the mistake of not thinking about death. He said: "For me it’s the opposite: to know my arc will fall, makes me want to blaze while I am in the sky." 39. He thought Walt Disney had a great idea: Edit before you make it. 40. He said no amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good story. 41. He believed storytellers were the most powerful people in the world. 42. He believed if you didn't have great people you were doomed. 43. He found great people by looking at great results and finding out who was responsible for them. 44. This is how he interviewed people: "In an interview I will purposely upset someone: I’ll criticize their prior work. I’ll do my homework, find out what they worked on and say, “God, that really turned out to be a bomb. That really turned out to be a bozo product. Why did you work on that?” The worst thing that someone can do in an interview is to agree with me and knuckle under. What I look for is for someone to come right back and say, “You’re dead wrong and here’s why.” 45. He believed the job of the leader was to make sure the work is as good as it should be, and to get people to stretch beyond their best. 46. He believed the job of the leader was to cajole, and beg, and plead, and threaten at times—to do whatever is necessary to get people to see things in a bigger and more profound way and to have them do better work than they thought they could do. 47. He believed the priorities of the leader were (1) recruit, (2) set an overall direction, and (3) inspire and cajole and persuade. 48. He believed a creative company should have a risk-taking, creative environment on the product side and a fiscally conservative environment on the business side. 49. He believed you have to choose what you put your love into really carefully. 50. He had a remarkably consistent set of values that he held dear: Life is short; don’t waste it. Tell the truth. Technology should enhance human creativity. Process matters. Beauty matters. Details matter. The world we know is a human creation—and we can push it forward. 51. He thought when deciding what to work on that you should ask yourself: "What do I give a shit about?" And then go do that. 52. He would never sell Apple. Not for all the money in the world. 53. He believed you should master the basics, simplify the product line, and focus on the gems. 54. He believed marketing was about values. That the world is noisy and you should focus on telling customers what you believe in and what you stand for. 55. He believed one way to invest in yourself is by exploring uncharted paths that are different from your past experiences. You know it's an uncharted path when you have no idea where it will lead. 56. He believed that people that think they’re following a safe path pay the highest price of all. They won't realize it for a decade or two — and by then it's too late. 57. He didn't believe in resting on laurels or sleeping on wins. Make something great. Then do it again. 58. He imagined what reality lacked and set out to remedy it. 59. He believed in straight forward, clear communication. If the work isn't good enough you have to tell them straight: "This isn't good enough. I know you can do better. You need to do better. Now go do better." 60. He remained driven by a mission to "put something back into the pool of human experience." 61. He believed in the basics: great product, great marketing, great distribution. 62. He believed you must keep up with innovations in distribution. 63. He believed brands take decades to build. 64. He would capture the evolution of his own thinking by emailing himself. 65. He viewed Apple has the world's premier bridge builder between normal people and the exploding world of high technology. 66. He wanted to demystify technology. 67. He believed excellence was a habit and we are what we repeatedly do. 68. He believed you should be curious about what came before you and you should spend time to learn about it. 69. He believed you simply could not mix messages when selling something new. A customer can barely handle one great new idea, let alone several. 70. He said it's a circus world and you'll never know what's around the next corner. 71. He believed in management by values. Which means (1) find people that want the same things you want and (2) figure out the best way to get those things along the way. 72. He believed in the mantra: Finding the right people is half the battle. 73. He said you can't plan to meet the people who will change your life. 74. He believed everything is temporary — there is no such thing as safety. 75. He believed that your life is a story and that you should remember that your life is a story and that you should always act like your life is a story. 76. He believed in rejecting dogma, which he defined as living with the results of other people's thinking. He said that dogma can be so loud that it can drown out your own inner voice and you should avoid this. 77. He believed a great place to start was by improving a product you hate. If you can make something you love, you can convince other people to love it too. 78. He said all glory is fleeting and you should just get back to making something wonderful. I'm really proud of the episode I made about this book. You'll learn a lot from Steve by listening to it. You can watch/listen to it in full here, or in your favorite podcast app.

Make Something Wonderful is 250 pages of Steve Jobs in his own words, speaking directly to you. The book contains some of Steve's ideas that I've never found anywhere else. Notes from the book: 1. He didn't care about being right. He cared about being excellent. 2. His mind was never a captive of reality. 3. He said working with great people gives you access to wisdom that you can't buy for love or money. 4. He believed technology should be streamlined and practical, simple and sophisticated, and that it should be a tool for enhancing creativity as much as productivity. 5. He believed you should ambush your customers. Meet them where they are. 6. His ideas were not arguments, but intuitions. He had a true inner freedom and an epic sense of possibility. 7. He gave an extraordinary amount of thought to how best to use our fleeting time. 8. By the time he was thirty he was the public face of a Fortune 500 company. 9. At Apple’s first board meeting he put his bare feet on a conference room table. 10. He said you should think of your life as a rainbow arching across the horizon of this world. You appear, have a chance to blaze in the sky, then you disappear. 11. He possessed unbelievable rigor that he imposed first, and most strenuously, on himself. 12. He saw clearly (1) what was not there, (2) what could be there, (3) what had to be there. 13. He said early Apple employees were more like poets and painters than cold technologists. That the passion they put into their products were completely indistinguishable from other creative fields. He said their work was a form of love. 14. He had a verbal mastery that was obvious at a young age. He used simple, descriptive language, told stories, and repeated lines and ideas that were important. 15. He thought it was inevitable that computers would be the dominant medium of human communication. He said this in 1983. 16. He had a talent for spotting markets full of second-rate products. 17. He said you could tell how important a product was based on the amount of time people spent interacting with it. As a result he thought it was inevitable that more design talent would shift from the automobile (1 or 2 hours a day) to computers (6+ hours a day). He said this in the 80s. 18. He said that books kept him out of jail and that it’s a shame there are so many mediocre teachers. 19. Like many great entrepreneurs before him, Steve knew what he wanted to do, but didn't know how to do it yet. He said he wanted to make an insanely great computer that was the size of a book. What he described sounded a lot like an iPad. He said this in the 80s. 20. He believed that you should use your unique set of talents to make things that make the lives of other people better. Most people just take. He said "the ability to put something back into the pool of human experience is extremely neat." 21. He would tell his team “You work for Apple first and your boss second.” He felt strongly about that. 22. He was constantly placing the products he was making in a historical perspective, like comparing the Macintosh to the invention of the telephone. 23. He believed you needed to give yourself more time to make mistakes. He said his taste got more refined as he made mistakes. He said that making mistakes over a long period of time made his aesthetics better. 24. He said the key ingredient to making something great was time. 25. He said he wanted to spend his life building things. He could have retired to a beach in his 20s and thought that was disgusting. 26. He was interested in learning how to hone a company down to its essence. 27. You read this book and a thought jumps out at you: How many people are willing to go through a decade of failure without quitting? Steve had the capacity to take pain. 28. He believed it was better to focus on what you're actually passionate about, instead of what you think will make you the most money. He made the most money that way. 29. He listened to older, wiser entrepreneurs and let them shape and mold his thinking. 30. He wasn't afraid to fail, but had to coach himself to adopt that trait. He didn't want to fail, but he wasn't afraid of it. 31. He said don't let your differentiation evaporate. 32. He said if you let your differentiation evaporate the only solution is innovation. 33. He believed great ideas don't map onto corporate hierarchy. 34. He was incapable of thinking that his work and his life were different, separate things. 35. He said the most important things in life are not the goal-oriented, materialistic things. He said you should tap into the world’s magical, mystical, and artistic sides. 36. He paid attention to subtle insights. He was guided by intuition. 37. He didn't believe in the concept or a career, or think it was wise to follow well-worn paths laid out by others. 38. He said most people make the mistake of not thinking about death. He said: "For me it’s the opposite: to know my arc will fall, makes me want to blaze while I am in the sky." 39. He thought Walt Disney had a great idea: Edit before you make it. 40. He said no amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good story. 41. He believed storytellers were the most powerful people in the world. 42. He believed if you didn't have great people you were doomed. 43. He found great people by looking at great results and finding out who was responsible for them. 44. This is how he interviewed people: "In an interview I will purposely upset someone: I’ll criticize their prior work. I’ll do my homework, find out what they worked on and say, “God, that really turned out to be a bomb. That really turned out to be a bozo product. Why did you work on that?” The worst thing that someone can do in an interview is to agree with me and knuckle under. What I look for is for someone to come right back and say, “You’re dead wrong and here’s why.” 45. He believed the job of the leader was to make sure the work is as good as it should be, and to get people to stretch beyond their best. 46. He believed the job of the leader was to cajole, and beg, and plead, and threaten at times—to do whatever is necessary to get people to see things in a bigger and more profound way and to have them do better work than they thought they could do. 47. He believed the priorities of the leader were (1) recruit, (2) set an overall direction, and (3) inspire and cajole and persuade. 48. He believed a creative company should have a risk-taking, creative environment on the product side and a fiscally conservative environment on the business side. 49. He believed you have to choose what you put your love into really carefully. 50. He had a remarkably consistent set of values that he held dear: Life is short; don’t waste it. Tell the truth. Technology should enhance human creativity. Process matters. Beauty matters. Details matter. The world we know is a human creation—and we can push it forward. 51. He thought when deciding what to work on that you should ask yourself: "What do I give a shit about?" And then go do that. 52. He would never sell Apple. Not for all the money in the world. 53. He believed you should master the basics, simplify the product line, and focus on the gems. 54. He believed marketing was about values. That the world is noisy and you should focus on telling customers what you believe in and what you stand for. 55. He believed one way to invest in yourself is by exploring uncharted paths that are different from your past experiences. You know it's an uncharted path when you have no idea where it will lead. 56. He believed that people that think they’re following a safe path pay the highest price of all. They won't realize it for a decade or two — and by then it's too late. 57. He didn't believe in resting on laurels or sleeping on wins. Make something great. Then do it again. 58. He imagined what reality lacked and set out to remedy it. 59. He believed in straight forward, clear communication. If the work isn't good enough you have to tell them straight: "This isn't good enough. I know you can do better. You need to do better. Now go do better." 60. He remained driven by a mission to "put something back into the pool of human experience." 61. He believed in the basics: great product, great marketing, great distribution. 62. He believed you must keep up with innovations in distribution. 63. He believed brands take decades to build. 64. He would capture the evolution of his own thinking by emailing himself. 65. He viewed Apple has the world's premier bridge builder between normal people and the exploding world of high technology. 66. He wanted to demystify technology. 67. He believed excellence was a habit and we are what we repeatedly do. 68. He believed you should be curious about what came before you and you should spend time to learn about it. 69. He believed you simply could not mix messages when selling something new. A customer can barely handle one great new idea, let alone several. 70. He said it's a circus world and you'll never know what's around the next corner. 71. He believed in management by values. Which means (1) find people that want the same things you want and (2) figure out the best way to get those things along the way. 72. He believed in the mantra: Finding the right people is half the battle. 73. He said you can't plan to meet the people who will change your life. 74. He believed everything is temporary — there is no such thing as safety. 75. He believed that your life is a story and that you should remember that your life is a story and that you should always act like your life is a story. 76. He believed in rejecting dogma, which he defined as living with the results of other people's thinking. He said that dogma can be so loud that it can drown out your own inner voice and you should avoid this. 77. He believed a great place to start was by improving a product you hate. If you can make something you love, you can convince other people to love it too. 78. He said all glory is fleeting and you should just get back to making something wonderful. I'm really proud of the episode I made about this book. You'll learn a lot from Steve by listening to it. You can watch/listen to it in full here, or in your favorite podcast app.

David Senra

206,484 次观看 • 1 年前

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

Grant Smith Ellis

27,665 次观看 • 1 年前

$NWBO #𝗗𝗖𝗩𝗮𝘅-𝗟: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 A short, plain-language reading of the survival evidence for DCVax-L in #glioblastoma, and what it means under the MHRAgovuk guideline on external control arms. 📊 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗢𝗡𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗦 DCVax-L more than doubled five-year survival, and the benefit is durability: a subset gets lasting disease control and simply stays alive. 💉 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴 𝗶𝘀 DCVax-L is a personalized cancer vaccine for glioblastoma, the deadliest form of brain cancer and a designated orphan disease. It is a living drug: its active ingredient is the patient's own immune cells, primed with proteins from that patient's surgically removed tumor, so the immune system learns to attack the cancer. Unlike a chemical drug that is metabolized and cleared, it switches on a living immune response that keeps working long after the injection. Glioblastoma comes back in almost everyone: even with the full standard of surgery, radiation, and temozolomide chemotherapy, most patients live under two years, and only about one in twenty reaches five. DCVax-L is given on top of that standard care, not in place of it: every patient in the trial received surgery, radiation, and temozolomide, and the vaccine was added to it, so the comparison measures what the vaccine adds. For two decades, nearly every new drug tried in this disease has failed. That is the backdrop against which any positive result must be judged. 📈 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 In a Phase 3 trial of 331 patients, those who received DCVax-L lived longer. At the median the gain looks modest, about three months (19.3 versus 16.5). The number that matters sits at the far end of the survival curve: more than twice as many vaccine patients were alive at five years, 13.0% versus 5.7%, and a few reached ten years in a disease that usually kills within three. In patients whose tumor had already returned, the effect was larger still, cutting the risk of death by about 42%. 👥 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 The benefit was not confined to the easy cases. Of the six prespecified subgroups the trial examined, every single one favored DCVax-L, and there was no group in which it did worse than standard care. The largest gains came in patients whose tumors carry MGMT methylation, who reached a median survival of 30.2 months from randomization against 21.3 for the controls. But even the hardest-to-treat patients, whose tumors lack that methylation, resist standard chemotherapy, and carry the worst prognosis in this disease, still came out ahead with the vaccine, at a hazard ratio of 0.93. A treatment that helps across the whole population, and helps most where the biology is most favorable, is acting like a real drug. 📉 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 That five-year number is the whole story, and the median buries it. Almost every treatment that ever helped in glioblastoma did the same modest thing: it slid the survival curve a few months to the right, then let it fall back. Doubling five-year survival is different in kind. A three-month gain at the median cannot, by itself, double the fraction alive at five years. The only shape that produces both numbers is a split: most patients get the small delay the median measures, while a subset gets durable disease control that lasts for years, well past where glioblastoma should have ended them. That subset is the long tail of the curve, and it is where the benefit lives. A median ignores extremes, the way a town's median income tells you nothing about its millionaires. The real story is not a longer delay; it is that a meaningful share of patients simply stay alive. 🧬 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 The tail is not luck. It is what this biology is built to produce. The vaccine carries proteins from the patient's own tumor, so it aims the immune system at whatever that tumor is made of, not a fixed short list of targets. And it amplifies: one trained immune cell drives many others that multiply into cancer-killers. Andres Salazar, the neurologist who developed poly-ICLC into the clinical adjuvant given with the vaccine, puts it in a line: you start the fire, and you keep it burning. A response like that does not produce a one-time bump. It builds and widens over time. What matters is not just that a response forms, but what kind. Dendritic cells are the immune system's master switch for that, the cells that set what kind of attack the body mounts, and this vaccine is built from them. It drives what immunologists call a type 1 polarized response: an interferon-driven, cytotoxic program aimed squarely at the tumor. That direction comes from the vaccine itself; the poly-ICLC adjuvant given with it drives the same interferon program and sustains it. That is the active ingredient, and it has been measured. In UCLA studies of this approach, the patients whose immune systems mounted the strongest interferon response lived the longest. The response also spreads. In a different cancer, a vaccine carried on this same poly-ICLC adjuvant drove more than 70% of a patient's cancer-killing T cells to target proteins that were never in the vaccine: the immune system outgrew its original targets and went after the rest of the tumor on its own. This is called epitope spreading, and it is not particular to one tumor; it is what this kind of response does, and it is the kind of response DCVax-L builds. That breadth is the likeliest thing separating the long-term survivors from everyone else, a response that breaks past its targets and clears the disease rather than one that stays caged and stops. There is even a tell in who benefits most: the effect is largest in tumors whose biology builds up more mutations under chemotherapy, and more mutations mean more targets for a whole-tumor vaccine to find. The same logic explains what the vaccine is not, and what it does not need. Checkpoint inhibitors, the drugs that release the immune system's brakes, have failed on their own in glioblastoma because there was no active response to release; the vaccine supplies that response first. That makes the vaccine the natural foundation for combination therapy. Combining it with its poly-ICLC adjuvant, made by Oncovir, has already shown meaningful survival gains in a published analysis. In the pivotal trial, the vaccine's proven benefit came added on top of standard chemotherapy and radiation; the newer question is how much the immune response can carry on its own. A UCLA trial is now testing that in patients whose tumors have returned, adding #Keytruda (pembrolizumab), the checkpoint antibody from $MRK, in a regimen built entirely around the immune response with no chemotherapy or radiation in it at all. Its interim survival curve shows the shape the biology predicts. In the arm given the vaccine and Keytruda together after surgery, the curve does not fall away but flattens into a plateau, with roughly 65% of patients still alive well past the point where recurrent glioblastoma kills nearly everyone. That plateau is the signature of a response that took hold and lasted, the type 1 attack forming durable immune memory so that once the disease is controlled it stays controlled. That is where this points, and where it is already arriving, a treatment that works through the response itself, one that could in time lean less on the harsh radiation and chemotherapy that have defined glioblastoma care and barely moved its survival. These are interim results, from Prins, Cloughesy, and Liau at UCLA. 🔍 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗪𝗢: 𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟? The trial was randomized, an independent experiment shows the outside comparison is trustworthy, and every separate check points the same way. 🤔 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 So much for what happened; the harder question is whether to believe it. The trial has the feature critics attacked: it could not keep a normal placebo group, because patients assigned to placebo were allowed, by design and by medical ethics, to switch to the vaccine once their cancer returned, and almost all did. That erased the internal comparison, so survival was measured against closely matched patients from other completed trials, an approach called an external control, which critics argued could tilt toward the vaccine. What the objection misses is where the randomization went. This was a randomized, blinded trial. The patients who got the vaccine were assigned to it at random, not hand-picked, so the treated group is an ordinary slice of the trial population, not a favorable one. The crossover removed the placebo group but never touched how patients were assigned. That leaves exactly one place for bias to enter, the outside comparison group, which is precisely what the next checks test. ✅ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘆 Before trusting a scale to weigh something unknown, you confirm it reads zero with nothing on it. That is what the calibration does, and it is the strongest part of the case. A separate, independent randomized trial called INSIGhT was run through the very same external-control method, and it gave two answers. First, three experimental drugs that had already failed were run through it, and it correctly found nothing (hazard ratios of 1.00, 0.93, and 0.88): the method does not manufacture a benefit where none exists. Second, INSIGhT's external controls were set head to head against its own randomized internal controls, and they were statistically indistinguishable. In this disease, an external control reproduces the answer a real randomized control would have given, and because that trial belonged to a different group, no one can say a sponsor graded its own work. The one place bias could enter, the control side, is the one place an independent randomized experiment certified as clean. There is a deeper fit worth naming, and it is what makes the two halves of this case one. The same instrument that reported those three failures as failures reads the vaccine as a success, and the biology says why: those drugs could not hold a tumor this varied, and the vaccine builds the broad, lasting response that finally does. One method, opposite readings, and one mechanism behind both. The statistics and the biology are not two arguments. They are the same argument seen twice. 🃏 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲'𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿? A natural worry is that the outside comparison was arranged after the fact to flatter the vaccine. The trial was built to prevent that. The patients to compare against, and the rules for matching them, were fixed in writing before anyone saw results, and an independent firm, not the company, chose the comparison trials against those rules. The trial also switched its main measure partway through, from delaying tumor growth to overall survival, but that was not a maneuver: immune treatments cause a harmless swelling that mimics tumor growth on scans and made the growth measure unreliable, and the switch was made while everyone was still blinded. Three further checks point the same way. Survival in this disease has not improved over the years the comparison spans, so same-era controls are sound. When the borrowed controls were tested directly, the comparison came out conservative rather than flattering. And the controls were counted from the same point in the disease as the vaccine patients, so neither side got a head start. Where the comparison can err, it errs against the drug. 🔬 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 The first comparison used whole groups. A sharper one became possible once patient-level records from three other trials could be obtained, pairing each vaccine patient with controls matched on the traits that drive survival in glioblastoma, above all MGMT methylation status, matched exactly, plus age, sex, extent of surgery, residual disease, and performance status. When the comparison got sharper, the benefit grew in every one of these analyses. The original cohort-level estimate was 2.8 months. Patient-level matching across the three trials put the gain between 3.4 and 6.3 months, and a method that weights patients rather than pairing them put it between 3.4 and 4.3, with several of the matched comparisons roughly doubling the original figure. The hazard ratio moved the same way, from 0.80 to between 0.69 and 0.77. The direction matters. A real effect blurred by crude matching gets clearer when the matching improves, while a biased one tends to shrink. It got stronger. 🕵️ 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 A fair question is how much hidden bias it would take to erase the result. Statisticians measure that with the E-value, and here a hidden factor would have to be about as strong as age is on survival, would also have to drive who received the vaccine, and would have to have escaped the decades of research that mapped every known risk factor in this disease. A second, independent check, Rosenbaum's Gamma, comes at it from the other side, asking how large an unseen imbalance between matched patients it would take to break the result, and it reaches the same verdict. Every factor strong enough to matter was already matched. A hidden one that clears that bar is not plausible. 🔒 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲 The strongest point is not any single result. It is that a hidden bias big enough to explain the effect away would have to produce the same answer in every independent test at once: • The independent randomized calibration trial. • Three separate comparison trials, drawn from different studies. • Two different statistical methods that handle the data in different ways. • A separate pooled analysis of other dendritic-cell vaccine trials. • The internal math of the survival curve, which points to the same result (about 0.71 at five years) that the patient matching found. And it would have to fall in the exact direction the biology predicted before any data existed: a slow, widening benefit concentrated in long-term survivors. A single hidden factor that could forge all of that at once is not a hidden factor. It is a coincidence that does not happen. 🩺 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗜𝗧 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡𝗦 The drug is nearly free of harm, the evidence fits an established and approved regulatory path, and what remains unrun changes nothing about the case. 🛡️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 Two things decide whether a real effect reaches patients: whether the drug is safe enough to use, and whether regulators will accept the evidence. The first is settled. Across 2,151 doses, only five serious side effects were even possibly related to the vaccine, with no autoimmunity and no cytokine storm. It is made once, in about eight days, then stored and given as a simple injection. When a treatment barely harms, the benefit needed to justify it falls, and the benefit here clears that lower bar easily. ⏳ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 A reasonable person asks why the sharper analysis appeared in 2026 and not in 2023. The answer is access, not choice. The patient-level analysis was written into the trial's plan from the start, to run if and when the data could be obtained. The company tried and could not get it in 2023, because the trials that held it had not released it; it became available later through a data-sharing repository, on the data owners' timeline, not the company's. The stronger analysis was always the plan. It was waiting on data that other parties control. 🔄 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 The vaccine helped not only newly diagnosed patients but also those whose tumor had already come back, and there the effect was the largest seen anywhere in the trial. In that group, median survival ran 13.2 months from recurrence against 7.8 for the controls. The separation opened immediately, with 90.6% of vaccine patients alive at six months against 64.0% of controls, and the lead held to the later marks, where survival more than doubled: 20.7% against 9.6% at two years, 11.1% against 5.1% at two and a half. These are the original cohort-level results, already published. The high-resolution patient-level matching that was applied to the newly diagnosed group has not yet been done here, for a practical reason: it needs patient records from other recurrent-cancer trials, held by a European research organization that shares them through its own formal request. Obtaining them is a routine next step, not an obstacle, and the newly diagnosed experience suggests the sharper analysis would only make the recurrent result stronger. The approval case rests on the newly diagnosed evidence, so nothing important depends on this step; it would simply sharpen a result that is already the strongest in the trial. 🏛️ 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 Regulators do not treat an external control as a first choice, but the MHRA's guideline allows it in exactly this situation: a severe disease where a placebo trial is not ethical or feasible, and an effect large enough to interpret despite the design. The guideline even gives its own worked example of an acceptable external control, and it reads almost like a description of this trial: a rare disease, no ethical placebo, same-era standard-of-care controls, an objective survival endpoint, and an effect too large to blame on bias. DCVax-L fits on every count, and it was the first medicine ever to receive the MHRA's Promising Innovative Medicine designation, which asks essentially the same questions. The newly diagnosed case carries the decision on its own evidence, and regulators weigh that evidence against the disease it treats: in a cancer this lethal, with nothing better on offer, the question is whether the benefit is large, clear, and consistent enough to act on, and a benefit of this size, pointing the same way from every direction, is. 📜 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 External controls are not a novelty invented for this drug. Over the past two decades they have factored into roughly forty-five drug approvals by the United States regulator, each granted under the conditions that apply here: a serious or rare disease, a placebo that would be unethical, and high unmet need. Regulators do not grant this lightly. They grant it when the disease is serious, its course is predictable and objectively measured, and the effect is large. Glioblastoma meets all three. The named cases cover every part of this disease's profile. Defibrotide, for a life-threatening transplant complication, was approved on a propensity-score comparison to a historical control, the same kind of method used here. Blinatumomab, for an aggressive relapsed leukemia, is the precedent for a fast-killing cancer, cleared by both the United States and European regulators. Cerliponase alfa is the precedent for a fatal brain disease, cleared by both agencies on treated patients versus a matched natural-history group. Glioblastoma is both at once, a fast-killing cancer of the brain, read by the same method, so no part of its profile lacks a close approved precedent. And on the one axis that governs how far an external-control result can be trusted, DCVax-L goes beyond all three. Each of those drugs was tested in a single-arm trial, with no randomization at all. DCVax-L began as a randomized trial and became an external-control comparison only when ethics consumed its placebo group. It sits in that tradition, and at the top of it. 🎯 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 This began as a randomized trial. Medical ethics forced it into an external-control comparison. Every independent way of checking it, on different data and different math, points the same direction, and the biology predicted that direction in advance. The first analysis did not overstate the vaccine's effect. Read with the right tools, it understated it.

Andrew Caravello, DO

11,406 次观看 • 3 个月前

"Checkmate" is Jadakiss’s sharp 2005 diss track aimed at 50 Cent‼️ released as a promotional single on March 9, 2005 (Ruff Ryders/Interscope)‼️. It was a direct response to 50 Cent’s “Piggy Bank” from The Massacre‼️. It grew out of 50 Cent’s long-running war with Ja Rule and Murder Inc‼️. In 2004, Jadakiss and Fat Joe appeared on Ja Rule’s song “New York.” 50 Cent saw that as them supporting his enemy while he was trying to bury Ja Rule, so he targeted them on “Piggy Bank.”‼️ Key lines at Jadakiss included mocking him as local (“in New York, niggas like your vocals / But that’s only New York, dawg, yo’ ass is local”) and warning him not to mess with him‼️. 50 also referenced chess with “This is chess not checkers.”‼️ Jadakiss has said he wasn’t initially eager for the feud and felt media hype played a big role, but once people (including friends) kept asking if he’d heard “Piggy Bank” and planned to respond, he did‼️. The track itself was produced by The Alchemist, it flips the instrumental from Big Noyd’s “Air It Out” (a beat 50 had previously used for his own Murder Inc. diss “I’m an Animal”)‼️. The intro sarcastically congratulates 50 on The Massacre’s massive first-week sales (~1.1 million) before pivoting hard: “Screw a press conference‼️ Press this on your conscience‼️” Jadakiss goes after 50’s image and credibility with precise, personal bars: - Snitching allegations tied to “Ghetto Qur’an” and the arrest of Kenneth “Supreme” McGriff (“I heard you put a couple good niggas behind bars… I might never sell that much / But you can bet your last two quarters I’ll never tell that much”)‼️. - Mocking the nine-shot survival story that defined 50’s brand (“You had to get shot nine times to be rich”; “Since when has it become cool to get shot and not shoot back⁉️”; questioning what the next album would even be about)‼️. - Calling out Connecticut living vs. New York street claims, lack of originality, and more. - The chorus hammers the “rat/pig/snake… animal” theme‼️. The title itself is a chess response—claiming checkmate after 50’s “chess not checkers” line‼️. It got heavy hip-hop radio rotation and charted at **No. 56 on Billboard’s Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs* chart—impressive for a pure diss track‼️. Jadakiss later noted he made “a lot of money” from the whole situation, toured off the buzz, and viewed it positively as a different-era marketing boost while 50 was riding high with The Massacre‼️. It’s widely regarded as one of the stronger lyrical clapbacks of that era‼️. Fans and retrospectives often praise its precision, wordplay, and how Jadakiss came off studied and composed rather than chaotic‼️. It’s frequently cited among notable mid-2000s diss tracks (e.g., high placements on various “best diss tracks” lists)‼️. 50 and G-Unit responded with tracks like “I Run New York” (with Tony Yayo) and others, and Jadakiss dropped additional responses, but “Checkmate” is the standout from his side‼️. How it got resolved⁉️ The back-and-forth continued for a stretch in 2005, but it cooled relatively quickly compared to some of 50’s longer, more personal feuds‼️. Jadakiss has recounted that 50 Cent eventually pulled up to the D-Block/Yonkers area alone (no big entourage), came to the studio, and they sat and talked for a few hours (with Styles P also there in some accounts)‼️. 50 even had songs for them‼️. They’ve been good since‼️. Jadakiss has described it as never being that serious—more media-fueled and competitive, with mutual underlying respect (he noted 50 was a fan of theirs, and they had rooted for his underdog story)‼️. They later performed together (including at 50’s ThisIs50 Festival in 2009) and even collaborated years later‼️. In short: a classic mid-2000s New York lyrical clash sparked by association with Ja Rule, elevated by a tight, well-received Jadakiss response that actually charted, and ended maturely with a face-to-face talk rather than lasting bitterness‼️💯.

(st_ides)

13,491 次观看 • 1 个月前

Nobody prepares you for the moment a wild animal decides to trust you. Not "gets used to you." Not "tolerates you." Trusts you — the way a mother trusts someone with the one thing she would die protecting. It doesn't happen because you're kind. Kindness is cheap. Every predator in the bush can fake calm long enough to get close. Trust is not given for kindness. It's given for consistency, for stillness, for the thousand tiny signals a mother reads before she decides you are not a threat to the only life she's carrying. And once you understand that, you understand why what's in this video is not "cute." It's rare. It's the kind of rare that biologists spend entire careers chasing and never fully catch on camera. Here's the part almost nobody knows about kangaroo mothers, and once you know it, you will never look at a pouch the same way again. A kangaroo joey is born the size of a jellybean. Blind. Hairless. Barely more developed than an embryo. It has exactly one job the second it's born: crawl, unassisted, through its mother's fur, into the pouch, and find a teat — with no help from her at all. She doesn't guide it. She doesn't touch it. It's on its own, immediately, in a climb that takes minutes but might as well be a lifetime. Most don't make it. The ones that do spend the next 190 days growing inside that pouch, permanently attached to a single teat, while their mother hops, forages, runs from threats, and lives an entire dangerous life with a developing creature sealed against her body the whole time. Now sit with that for a second. Everything you're about to feel watching this video is built on top of that fact. The pouch isn't a cute detail. It's the most extreme parental investment in the entire animal kingdom, running quietly, invisibly, every single second — and most people scroll past kangaroos their whole life without knowing any of it. This is why the moment in this video hits differently. It's not staged tenderness. It's not a trained animal doing a trick for treats. It's an instinct thousands of generations deep, deciding, in real time, whether the human in front of it gets access to the most guarded thing in its world. And it says yes. Watch what that "yes" actually looks like. Watch the exact second it happens. Because most people miss it — they're looking at the wrong thing, waiting for something big and dramatic, when the real moment is small, quiet, and over in under two seconds. Blink and it's gone. That's the whole point. Trust from a wild animal never announces itself. It just happens, and if you're not paying attention, you miss the most important part of the entire video. Here's something else that will change how you see this. Kangaroos are not naturally social with other species. They are not dogs. They did not evolve for ten thousand years alongside humans, selectively bred generation after generation for affection and eye contact and cooperation. A kangaroo owes you nothing. Its entire evolutionary history says: keep your distance, stay alert, trust nothing that isn't kangaroo. So when you see a wild-born kangaroo choosing proximity — choosing it, not tolerating it — you are watching something closer to a diplomatic breakthrough between two species than a "cute animal moment." It is the exception to millions of years of instinct. And exceptions like that don't happen because an animal is "friendly." They happen because someone, somewhere, earned it slowly, patiently, without ever forcing a single second of it. That's the part that should actually get your attention. Not the fur. Not the ears. The patience behind it that you never see, because patience isn't visual — it's just time, quietly spent, off camera, for weeks, maybe months, before the fifteen seconds you're about to watch were even possible. Think about how many hours of nothing happened before this. Think about how many times the answer was "not yet." Think about how many people would have given up. That's what's actually being shown to you here, hidden inside something that looks simple. The result. Not the process. Just the result — and the process is the part that would actually break most people's patience in half. There's a reason content like this stops people mid-scroll and doesn't let go. It's not really about kangaroos. It's about a feeling almost everyone is quietly starving for: proof that connection across an impossible gap is still possible. That something wild, wary, and instinct-driven can still choose closeness. In a world where even people struggle to trust each other, watching an animal that has every biological reason not to trust anyone — decide to trust anyway — hits something deeper than "aww." It hits the same nerve that made you stop and stare the last time you saw two strangers help each other for no reason. The same nerve that makes rescue videos, reunion videos, "coming home" videos rack up hundreds of millions of views no matter how many times the format repeats. We are wired to seek proof that softness survives in a world that keeps telling us it doesn't. This video is that proof, wearing fur. Now here's the thing that will actually make you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. There is a specific frame in this video where the entire dynamic flips. Where you stop watching "a kangaroo" and start watching "a mother." The difference is enormous and almost nobody notices it consciously the first time, they just feel it — a shift in the chest, a small catch in the breath, and they don't know why until they rewatch it and actually look for what changed. I'm not going to tell you which frame it is. You'll know it when you feel it. And once you've seen it, you'll understand why people who work with rescued or hand-raised kangaroos talk about them the way new parents talk about their kids — with this specific mixture of exhaustion and reverence, like they've been let in on a secret the rest of the world doesn't know is right there in the daylight the whole time, just going unnoticed by everyone in too much of a hurry to actually look. Here's a fact that will sit with you long after this post: joeys communicate with their mothers primarily through touch and proximity, not sound. A healthy joey barely vocalizes. Silence, for a joey, usually means safety. The moment a joey starts making noise is often the moment something is wrong — a signal, a distress call, a break in the norm. Which means every quiet second in this video isn't empty. It's the sound of everything being exactly as it should be. Contentment doesn't announce itself either. It just exists, unremarked, easy to miss if you're expecting drama. Most people are trained by algorithms to expect the loud moment. The jump-scare cut. The dramatic reveal. This isn't that kind of video, and that's exactly why it works on a level louder content can't touch. There is no trick here. No forced angle. No moment engineered for a thumbnail. Just an animal, in a state most people will never witness in their lifetime, on camera, being real. You will not get this from a zoo enclosure behind glass. You will not get this from a nature documentary narrated over stock drone footage. Documentary crews spend months, sometimes years, waiting for unscripted, undirected, genuine wild behavior like this — and even then, half the time the animal senses the camera and the moment never comes. What you're about to see is the version of nature that doesn't perform for anyone. It just happens to have been caught. That's worth more than people give it credit for. Let's talk about scale for a second, because it recalibrates everything. An adult kangaroo can deliver a kick strong enough to break bone. Their hind legs are built for sudden, explosive force — evolved for fighting off dingoes, for defending against threats many times more aggressive than a curious human. A kangaroo that feels cornered or threatened is not an animal you want anywhere near you. This is not a small, harmless creature performing tricks. It is a powerful wild animal capable of real damage, choosing, in this exact moment, not to use any of that power. That choice is the entire video. Every second of calm you see on screen is a second where a kick, a scratch, a bolt for distance was the more "natural" default option — and it didn't happen. Instead: stillness. Proximity. Something closer to peace than instinct usually allows. People underestimate how remarkable that restraint actually is because the animal looks soft. Fur does that. It disguises power as gentleness in our minds before we even process what we're looking at. But strip away the cuteness bias for one second and look at what's actually happening biologically: a wild animal engineered by evolution for wariness and self-defense is choosing trust over instinct, in real time, on camera, for you. That's not something you see every day. That's not something most people will ever see in person, not even once in an entire lifetime. And it's sitting right there, one tap away. There's a version of this story that plays out constantly in nature and almost never gets filmed: the version where the trust never comes. Where the animal stays wary its entire life, where every human interaction ends the second the animal has an exit route, where the gap between species never closes even an inch. That's actually the statistical default. That's what "wild animal" usually means in practice — permanent, unbridgeable distance, no matter how much time passes. This video is the exception you almost never get to see. And exceptions, by definition, don't repeat on command. You can't schedule this. You can't force it into existing on a Tuesday afternoon because you need content. It either happens or it doesn't, and when it does, someone lucky enough to be holding a camera captures something the rest of us don't get. You're one of the lucky ones today. You get to see it too. Here's something people don't think about: what happens to footage like this after the camera stops rolling? The relationship doesn't end when the clip does. Whatever trust was built to make this moment possible keeps existing, keeps deepening, long after anyone stopped filming. The video you're about to watch is a single frozen cross-section of something much longer, much slower, much more patient than fifteen or thirty seconds could ever fully capture. Which means what you're seeing isn't the whole story. It's a highlight pulled from something bigger — a relationship, a history, a slow-built trust that took real time to construct and will keep existing whether or not anyone's watching. That's actually the most reassuring part of all of this. It's not a one-off stunt for the algorithm. It's a snapshot of something ongoing, something real, something that existed before the phone came out and kept existing after it went back in someone's pocket. That's a very different feeling than most viral content gives you. Most viral content is a closed loop — what you see is all there is, manufactured specifically to be seen, with nothing behind it. This is the opposite. This is a small window into something much larger than the video itself, and once you sense that, you start watching it differently. You start looking for what it implies rather than just what it shows. Let's go back to the mother for a second, because everything in this video ultimately orbits around her. Maternal instinct in kangaroos is so strong it can override basic self-preservation. There are documented cases of kangaroo mothers refusing to abandon injured joeys even when fleeing would have meant their own survival. Refusing to leave, even when every other instinct screams to run. That's not a Disney embellishment. That's observed, recorded animal behavior, the kind field researchers write papers about because it defies simple explanations of self-interest. So when you watch a mother in this state — calm, present, unhurried — you're not just watching an animal relax. You're watching the single most protective creature in the scene voluntarily lower its guard. Not because it forgot to be careful. Because, in this specific moment, with this specific presence nearby, it decided carefulness wasn't necessary. That decision is not nothing. That decision is everything. If you've ever had a genuinely anxious animal — a rescue dog that flinched at every hand for months, a cat that hid for weeks before finally sitting on your lap — you already know this feeling in your body even if you've never thought about it in these words. You know the specific, quiet triumph of the first time a scared creature decides you're safe. It's not loud. It's not dramatic. It's just a small shift, and it means more than almost anything else that animal could do. Now imagine that same feeling, except the animal isn't a domesticated pet bred for six thousand years to eventually trust a human. Imagine it's a wild mother kangaroo, entirely unindebted to your species, deciding the exact same thing. That's what you're about to watch. Here's the last thing I'll say before you go see it for yourself, because I think it matters more than any single fact I've already given you. We spend so much time online watching things designed to make us feel something — outrage engineered for clicks, drama engineered for watch time, conflict engineered for engagement. Almost none of it is real in the way this is real. Almost none of it exists independent of the platform that's showing it to you. This does. This kangaroo, this mother, this joey, this quiet unscripted trust — none of it needed you to exist. It was happening whether or not it ever made it to a screen. You're not watching content that was built for you. You're watching a moment of the actual world that someone happened to catch and decided to share. That distinction matters more than people realize. It's the difference between watching a performance and witnessing something true. Everyone can sense that difference on some level, even if they can't articulate it — it's why certain videos feel hollow the second they end, and others sit with you for the rest of the day. This is the second kind. Go watch it. Not for the aww, though you'll get that too. Watch it for the two seconds where instinct loses to trust, where a powerful, wary, wild animal decides a human is safe, where something ancient and untamed chooses softness anyway. Watch it for the frame you won't notice until the second time through. Watch it because moments like this are rarer than almost anything else the internet shows you, and rare things deserve more than a passive scroll past. You'll know exactly which second I meant the moment you see it. And once you do, you'll probably watch it again — not because you missed something the first time, but because now you know what you're actually looking at, and it hits completely differently the second time around. That's the real test of whether something is genuinely special or just briefly novel: does it get better once you understand it, or does it lose its shine the moment the surprise wears off? This gets better. Every rewatch reveals one more tiny detail you missed under the weight of the first, bigger emotional hit — the exact angle of an ear, the precise moment a body goes still, the breath held right before everything relaxes. Small things. Human-scale things, if kangaroos had a human scale. The kind of details that only reveal themselves once the initial "aww" has worn off enough for you to actually look. That's the mark of something worth your attention in a feed built almost entirely around things that aren't. So here's the only ask: don't just let this autoplay past you like everything else today. Actually watch it. Full attention, even if just for the length of a single held breath. It costs you nothing and it's one of maybe a handful of genuinely rare things you'll come across this week, buried in an endless river of things that are anything but. Somewhere out there, right now, a wild kangaroo mother is calm around a human she has every biological reason to fear. That single fact alone should be enough to make you want to see how it happened. Let's talk about something people almost never mention when they talk about kangaroos: how absurdly efficient their bodies actually are, and why that matters for understanding what restraint really costs a wild animal like this. A kangaroo's hop isn't just a way of moving. It's one of the most energy-efficient forms of locomotion in the entire animal kingdom. Their tendons act like giant rubber bands, storing and releasing elastic energy with almost no metabolic cost, which is why a kangaroo can cover huge distances at high speed while barely raising its heart rate. Past a certain speed, it actually becomes more efficient for a kangaroo to hop faster, not slower — the opposite of almost every other animal on earth. Why does that matter here? Because an animal built like that has almost nothing to lose by fleeing. Running isn't costly for a kangaroo the way it is for, say, a heavier, slower prey animal. There's no real biological argument for "staying is easier than leaving." Fleeing is cheap. Fleeing is basically free. Which means every second a kangaroo chooses to stay instead of bolt is a second it actively decided against the easiest possible option. That's not an animal that "couldn't be bothered to run." That's an animal that had every reason to leave, at almost no cost to itself, and chose not to. Sit with that for a second, because it reframes the entire video. This isn't laziness or indifference dressed up as trust. It's an active decision made over and over, every single second the camera is rolling, by a creature for whom leaving would have taken almost no effort at all. Here's another thing worth knowing before you watch: kangaroos are far smarter than most people give them credit for. Studies on kangaroo cognition have found they're capable of intentional communication with humans — deliberately looking at a person, then looking at an object, then back at the person again, the same gaze-alternation behavior researchers use as a gold-standard test for interspecies communication in dogs. Wild kangaroos aren't supposed to do that. Domesticated animals do that. Animals that have spent millennia being selected for human cooperation do that. Kangaroos were never bred for any of it. And yet, under the right conditions, some of them do it anyway. Which means the "connection" people feel radiating off videos like this isn't just a projection. It isn't just humans anthropomorphizing an animal that's actually indifferent to them. There's a real, measurable capacity for intentional engagement sitting underneath the fur — a capacity most people assume only exists in dogs, elephants, dolphins, the "smart" animals we've decided deserve credit for having inner lives. Kangaroos rarely make that list. Maybe they should. Now think about the algorithm for a second, because this part matters if you've ever wondered why certain animal videos explode past everything else in your feed while a hundred nearly identical ones disappear without a trace. Platforms don't reward "cute." Cute is everywhere; cute is the baseline, the noise floor of the entire internet. What actually stops a scroll and holds it is specificity — a moment that couldn't have happened just anywhere, to just anyone, with just any animal. The algorithm has effectively been trained, by billions of collective viewing decisions, to recognize the difference between generic content and a genuinely unrepeatable moment. And it rewards the second kind disproportionately, because it knows — better than we consciously do — that unrepeatable is the one thing viewers actually crave and almost never get. That's the quiet reason something like this travels the way it does. It's not marketing. It's not a trick. It's the platform correctly identifying that you're looking at something it can't manufacture on demand, and putting it in front of as many people as possible before the window closes. Here's a myth worth busting while we're at it, because it changes how you'll watch every future animal video, not just this one. People assume wild animals that appear "comfortable" around humans have been habituated through food — that somewhere off camera, there's a hand full of treats explaining all of it away. Sometimes that's true. Often it isn't. Genuine trust-based bonds, the kind built through slow, repeated, low-pressure exposure rather than bribery, tend to look calmer, quieter, and far less food-motivated than the habituated version. An animal trained through treats orients toward the treat. An animal that trusts you orients toward you. Watch for that distinction. It's subtle, but once you know to look for it, you'll never unsee it — in this video, and in every animal video you watch after this one. There's also a slower, sadder truth sitting underneath all of this that's worth acknowledging honestly, because it's part of why moments like this hit as hard as they do: most wild animals never get the chance to reach this state with a human at all. Not because they're incapable of it, but because most human contact with wildlife is fear, distance, or conflict. Roadways. Habitat loss. Encounters that end badly for one side or the other. The overwhelming majority of interactions between wild kangaroos and humans are neutral at best and dangerous at worst — for the kangaroo far more often than for the person. Which is exactly why the rare exception matters as much as it does. It's not just heartwarming in isolation. It's heartwarming because it's fighting the statistical odds of what usually happens when these two worlds intersect. Every calm, trusting moment like this is quietly making the case that the outcome doesn't have to be conflict by default — that with enough patience, enough respect for the animal's pace, enough restraint from forcing anything, something gentler is possible instead. That's a bigger idea than one video can carry on its own, but this video is a small, real piece of evidence for it. And evidence like that is worth more than another opinion piece ever could be, because you can't argue with something you're watching happen in real time in front of you. One more angle before you go find it and watch it yourself. Think about how many hours of your own life you've spent watching things that gave you nothing back — content built purely to fill fifteen seconds of dead time between one task and the next, forgotten before you've even finished swallowing whatever you were drinking while you watched it. That's most of what a feed is. Filler. Noise dressed up as content, optimized for exactly long enough to keep you from closing the app, and not one second longer. This isn't that. This is the rare kind of thing that actually leaves a residue — a specific image that resurfaces uninvited hours later, while you're doing something completely unrelated, because some part of your brain flagged it as meaningful and refused to fully let it go. Most content doesn't earn that. Most content isn't built to earn that. It's built to be replaced by the next thing thirty seconds later, forever, in an endless chain that leaves nothing behind. You'll know within the first few seconds whether this is one of the rare exceptions. Trust that instinct. It's the same instinct that made you stop scrolling long enough to read all the way down to this line instead of bouncing off after the first sentence like you do with almost everything else that crosses your screen today. That instinct is rarely wrong. One last thought, and then I'll stop talking and let the thing speak for itself. Somewhere between the jellybean-sized joey that shouldn't have survived its own birth, the mother who could kill with one kick and chose stillness instead, and the two-second frame you won't notice until you watch it twice — there's a version of this video that never existed. The version where the timing was off by a week, where the trust hadn't built far enough yet, where the camera wasn't rolling, where the moment happened anyway but nobody was there to see it and it simply evaporated into the ordinary, unwitnessed life of a wild animal in the bush. That version happens constantly. It's the default. It's what "wild animal" statistically means, every single day, all over the world, completely unseen. This is the version that didn't evaporate. This is the one that got caught. Not manufactured. Not staged. Not built for you in a studio, in a script, in an editing room designed to make you feel something on command. Just real, and rare, and lucky enough to have a lens pointed at it at the exact right second. You don't get many of those in a lifetime, let alone in a single scroll through your phone on an otherwise ordinary day. This is one of them.

Nobody prepares you for the moment a wild animal decides to trust you. Not "gets used to you." Not "tolerates you." Trusts you — the way a mother trusts someone with the one thing she would die protecting. It doesn't happen because you're kind. Kindness is cheap. Every predator in the bush can fake calm long enough to get close. Trust is not given for kindness. It's given for consistency, for stillness, for the thousand tiny signals a mother reads before she decides you are not a threat to the only life she's carrying. And once you understand that, you understand why what's in this video is not "cute." It's rare. It's the kind of rare that biologists spend entire careers chasing and never fully catch on camera. Here's the part almost nobody knows about kangaroo mothers, and once you know it, you will never look at a pouch the same way again. A kangaroo joey is born the size of a jellybean. Blind. Hairless. Barely more developed than an embryo. It has exactly one job the second it's born: crawl, unassisted, through its mother's fur, into the pouch, and find a teat — with no help from her at all. She doesn't guide it. She doesn't touch it. It's on its own, immediately, in a climb that takes minutes but might as well be a lifetime. Most don't make it. The ones that do spend the next 190 days growing inside that pouch, permanently attached to a single teat, while their mother hops, forages, runs from threats, and lives an entire dangerous life with a developing creature sealed against her body the whole time. Now sit with that for a second. Everything you're about to feel watching this video is built on top of that fact. The pouch isn't a cute detail. It's the most extreme parental investment in the entire animal kingdom, running quietly, invisibly, every single second — and most people scroll past kangaroos their whole life without knowing any of it. This is why the moment in this video hits differently. It's not staged tenderness. It's not a trained animal doing a trick for treats. It's an instinct thousands of generations deep, deciding, in real time, whether the human in front of it gets access to the most guarded thing in its world. And it says yes. Watch what that "yes" actually looks like. Watch the exact second it happens. Because most people miss it — they're looking at the wrong thing, waiting for something big and dramatic, when the real moment is small, quiet, and over in under two seconds. Blink and it's gone. That's the whole point. Trust from a wild animal never announces itself. It just happens, and if you're not paying attention, you miss the most important part of the entire video. Here's something else that will change how you see this. Kangaroos are not naturally social with other species. They are not dogs. They did not evolve for ten thousand years alongside humans, selectively bred generation after generation for affection and eye contact and cooperation. A kangaroo owes you nothing. Its entire evolutionary history says: keep your distance, stay alert, trust nothing that isn't kangaroo. So when you see a wild-born kangaroo choosing proximity — choosing it, not tolerating it — you are watching something closer to a diplomatic breakthrough between two species than a "cute animal moment." It is the exception to millions of years of instinct. And exceptions like that don't happen because an animal is "friendly." They happen because someone, somewhere, earned it slowly, patiently, without ever forcing a single second of it. That's the part that should actually get your attention. Not the fur. Not the ears. The patience behind it that you never see, because patience isn't visual — it's just time, quietly spent, off camera, for weeks, maybe months, before the fifteen seconds you're about to watch were even possible. Think about how many hours of nothing happened before this. Think about how many times the answer was "not yet." Think about how many people would have given up. That's what's actually being shown to you here, hidden inside something that looks simple. The result. Not the process. Just the result — and the process is the part that would actually break most people's patience in half. There's a reason content like this stops people mid-scroll and doesn't let go. It's not really about kangaroos. It's about a feeling almost everyone is quietly starving for: proof that connection across an impossible gap is still possible. That something wild, wary, and instinct-driven can still choose closeness. In a world where even people struggle to trust each other, watching an animal that has every biological reason not to trust anyone — decide to trust anyway — hits something deeper than "aww." It hits the same nerve that made you stop and stare the last time you saw two strangers help each other for no reason. The same nerve that makes rescue videos, reunion videos, "coming home" videos rack up hundreds of millions of views no matter how many times the format repeats. We are wired to seek proof that softness survives in a world that keeps telling us it doesn't. This video is that proof, wearing fur. Now here's the thing that will actually make you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. There is a specific frame in this video where the entire dynamic flips. Where you stop watching "a kangaroo" and start watching "a mother." The difference is enormous and almost nobody notices it consciously the first time, they just feel it — a shift in the chest, a small catch in the breath, and they don't know why until they rewatch it and actually look for what changed. I'm not going to tell you which frame it is. You'll know it when you feel it. And once you've seen it, you'll understand why people who work with rescued or hand-raised kangaroos talk about them the way new parents talk about their kids — with this specific mixture of exhaustion and reverence, like they've been let in on a secret the rest of the world doesn't know is right there in the daylight the whole time, just going unnoticed by everyone in too much of a hurry to actually look. Here's a fact that will sit with you long after this post: joeys communicate with their mothers primarily through touch and proximity, not sound. A healthy joey barely vocalizes. Silence, for a joey, usually means safety. The moment a joey starts making noise is often the moment something is wrong — a signal, a distress call, a break in the norm. Which means every quiet second in this video isn't empty. It's the sound of everything being exactly as it should be. Contentment doesn't announce itself either. It just exists, unremarked, easy to miss if you're expecting drama. Most people are trained by algorithms to expect the loud moment. The jump-scare cut. The dramatic reveal. This isn't that kind of video, and that's exactly why it works on a level louder content can't touch. There is no trick here. No forced angle. No moment engineered for a thumbnail. Just an animal, in a state most people will never witness in their lifetime, on camera, being real. You will not get this from a zoo enclosure behind glass. You will not get this from a nature documentary narrated over stock drone footage. Documentary crews spend months, sometimes years, waiting for unscripted, undirected, genuine wild behavior like this — and even then, half the time the animal senses the camera and the moment never comes. What you're about to see is the version of nature that doesn't perform for anyone. It just happens to have been caught. That's worth more than people give it credit for. Let's talk about scale for a second, because it recalibrates everything. An adult kangaroo can deliver a kick strong enough to break bone. Their hind legs are built for sudden, explosive force — evolved for fighting off dingoes, for defending against threats many times more aggressive than a curious human. A kangaroo that feels cornered or threatened is not an animal you want anywhere near you. This is not a small, harmless creature performing tricks. It is a powerful wild animal capable of real damage, choosing, in this exact moment, not to use any of that power. That choice is the entire video. Every second of calm you see on screen is a second where a kick, a scratch, a bolt for distance was the more "natural" default option — and it didn't happen. Instead: stillness. Proximity. Something closer to peace than instinct usually allows. People underestimate how remarkable that restraint actually is because the animal looks soft. Fur does that. It disguises power as gentleness in our minds before we even process what we're looking at. But strip away the cuteness bias for one second and look at what's actually happening biologically: a wild animal engineered by evolution for wariness and self-defense is choosing trust over instinct, in real time, on camera, for you. That's not something you see every day. That's not something most people will ever see in person, not even once in an entire lifetime. And it's sitting right there, one tap away. There's a version of this story that plays out constantly in nature and almost never gets filmed: the version where the trust never comes. Where the animal stays wary its entire life, where every human interaction ends the second the animal has an exit route, where the gap between species never closes even an inch. That's actually the statistical default. That's what "wild animal" usually means in practice — permanent, unbridgeable distance, no matter how much time passes. This video is the exception you almost never get to see. And exceptions, by definition, don't repeat on command. You can't schedule this. You can't force it into existing on a Tuesday afternoon because you need content. It either happens or it doesn't, and when it does, someone lucky enough to be holding a camera captures something the rest of us don't get. You're one of the lucky ones today. You get to see it too. Here's something people don't think about: what happens to footage like this after the camera stops rolling? The relationship doesn't end when the clip does. Whatever trust was built to make this moment possible keeps existing, keeps deepening, long after anyone stopped filming. The video you're about to watch is a single frozen cross-section of something much longer, much slower, much more patient than fifteen or thirty seconds could ever fully capture. Which means what you're seeing isn't the whole story. It's a highlight pulled from something bigger — a relationship, a history, a slow-built trust that took real time to construct and will keep existing whether or not anyone's watching. That's actually the most reassuring part of all of this. It's not a one-off stunt for the algorithm. It's a snapshot of something ongoing, something real, something that existed before the phone came out and kept existing after it went back in someone's pocket. That's a very different feeling than most viral content gives you. Most viral content is a closed loop — what you see is all there is, manufactured specifically to be seen, with nothing behind it. This is the opposite. This is a small window into something much larger than the video itself, and once you sense that, you start watching it differently. You start looking for what it implies rather than just what it shows. Let's go back to the mother for a second, because everything in this video ultimately orbits around her. Maternal instinct in kangaroos is so strong it can override basic self-preservation. There are documented cases of kangaroo mothers refusing to abandon injured joeys even when fleeing would have meant their own survival. Refusing to leave, even when every other instinct screams to run. That's not a Disney embellishment. That's observed, recorded animal behavior, the kind field researchers write papers about because it defies simple explanations of self-interest. So when you watch a mother in this state — calm, present, unhurried — you're not just watching an animal relax. You're watching the single most protective creature in the scene voluntarily lower its guard. Not because it forgot to be careful. Because, in this specific moment, with this specific presence nearby, it decided carefulness wasn't necessary. That decision is not nothing. That decision is everything. If you've ever had a genuinely anxious animal — a rescue dog that flinched at every hand for months, a cat that hid for weeks before finally sitting on your lap — you already know this feeling in your body even if you've never thought about it in these words. You know the specific, quiet triumph of the first time a scared creature decides you're safe. It's not loud. It's not dramatic. It's just a small shift, and it means more than almost anything else that animal could do. Now imagine that same feeling, except the animal isn't a domesticated pet bred for six thousand years to eventually trust a human. Imagine it's a wild mother kangaroo, entirely unindebted to your species, deciding the exact same thing. That's what you're about to watch. Here's the last thing I'll say before you go see it for yourself, because I think it matters more than any single fact I've already given you. We spend so much time online watching things designed to make us feel something — outrage engineered for clicks, drama engineered for watch time, conflict engineered for engagement. Almost none of it is real in the way this is real. Almost none of it exists independent of the platform that's showing it to you. This does. This kangaroo, this mother, this joey, this quiet unscripted trust — none of it needed you to exist. It was happening whether or not it ever made it to a screen. You're not watching content that was built for you. You're watching a moment of the actual world that someone happened to catch and decided to share. That distinction matters more than people realize. It's the difference between watching a performance and witnessing something true. Everyone can sense that difference on some level, even if they can't articulate it — it's why certain videos feel hollow the second they end, and others sit with you for the rest of the day. This is the second kind. Go watch it. Not for the aww, though you'll get that too. Watch it for the two seconds where instinct loses to trust, where a powerful, wary, wild animal decides a human is safe, where something ancient and untamed chooses softness anyway. Watch it for the frame you won't notice until the second time through. Watch it because moments like this are rarer than almost anything else the internet shows you, and rare things deserve more than a passive scroll past. You'll know exactly which second I meant the moment you see it. And once you do, you'll probably watch it again — not because you missed something the first time, but because now you know what you're actually looking at, and it hits completely differently the second time around. That's the real test of whether something is genuinely special or just briefly novel: does it get better once you understand it, or does it lose its shine the moment the surprise wears off? This gets better. Every rewatch reveals one more tiny detail you missed under the weight of the first, bigger emotional hit — the exact angle of an ear, the precise moment a body goes still, the breath held right before everything relaxes. Small things. Human-scale things, if kangaroos had a human scale. The kind of details that only reveal themselves once the initial "aww" has worn off enough for you to actually look. That's the mark of something worth your attention in a feed built almost entirely around things that aren't. So here's the only ask: don't just let this autoplay past you like everything else today. Actually watch it. Full attention, even if just for the length of a single held breath. It costs you nothing and it's one of maybe a handful of genuinely rare things you'll come across this week, buried in an endless river of things that are anything but. Somewhere out there, right now, a wild kangaroo mother is calm around a human she has every biological reason to fear. That single fact alone should be enough to make you want to see how it happened. Let's talk about something people almost never mention when they talk about kangaroos: how absurdly efficient their bodies actually are, and why that matters for understanding what restraint really costs a wild animal like this. A kangaroo's hop isn't just a way of moving. It's one of the most energy-efficient forms of locomotion in the entire animal kingdom. Their tendons act like giant rubber bands, storing and releasing elastic energy with almost no metabolic cost, which is why a kangaroo can cover huge distances at high speed while barely raising its heart rate. Past a certain speed, it actually becomes more efficient for a kangaroo to hop faster, not slower — the opposite of almost every other animal on earth. Why does that matter here? Because an animal built like that has almost nothing to lose by fleeing. Running isn't costly for a kangaroo the way it is for, say, a heavier, slower prey animal. There's no real biological argument for "staying is easier than leaving." Fleeing is cheap. Fleeing is basically free. Which means every second a kangaroo chooses to stay instead of bolt is a second it actively decided against the easiest possible option. That's not an animal that "couldn't be bothered to run." That's an animal that had every reason to leave, at almost no cost to itself, and chose not to. Sit with that for a second, because it reframes the entire video. This isn't laziness or indifference dressed up as trust. It's an active decision made over and over, every single second the camera is rolling, by a creature for whom leaving would have taken almost no effort at all. Here's another thing worth knowing before you watch: kangaroos are far smarter than most people give them credit for. Studies on kangaroo cognition have found they're capable of intentional communication with humans — deliberately looking at a person, then looking at an object, then back at the person again, the same gaze-alternation behavior researchers use as a gold-standard test for interspecies communication in dogs. Wild kangaroos aren't supposed to do that. Domesticated animals do that. Animals that have spent millennia being selected for human cooperation do that. Kangaroos were never bred for any of it. And yet, under the right conditions, some of them do it anyway. Which means the "connection" people feel radiating off videos like this isn't just a projection. It isn't just humans anthropomorphizing an animal that's actually indifferent to them. There's a real, measurable capacity for intentional engagement sitting underneath the fur — a capacity most people assume only exists in dogs, elephants, dolphins, the "smart" animals we've decided deserve credit for having inner lives. Kangaroos rarely make that list. Maybe they should. Now think about the algorithm for a second, because this part matters if you've ever wondered why certain animal videos explode past everything else in your feed while a hundred nearly identical ones disappear without a trace. Platforms don't reward "cute." Cute is everywhere; cute is the baseline, the noise floor of the entire internet. What actually stops a scroll and holds it is specificity — a moment that couldn't have happened just anywhere, to just anyone, with just any animal. The algorithm has effectively been trained, by billions of collective viewing decisions, to recognize the difference between generic content and a genuinely unrepeatable moment. And it rewards the second kind disproportionately, because it knows — better than we consciously do — that unrepeatable is the one thing viewers actually crave and almost never get. That's the quiet reason something like this travels the way it does. It's not marketing. It's not a trick. It's the platform correctly identifying that you're looking at something it can't manufacture on demand, and putting it in front of as many people as possible before the window closes. Here's a myth worth busting while we're at it, because it changes how you'll watch every future animal video, not just this one. People assume wild animals that appear "comfortable" around humans have been habituated through food — that somewhere off camera, there's a hand full of treats explaining all of it away. Sometimes that's true. Often it isn't. Genuine trust-based bonds, the kind built through slow, repeated, low-pressure exposure rather than bribery, tend to look calmer, quieter, and far less food-motivated than the habituated version. An animal trained through treats orients toward the treat. An animal that trusts you orients toward you. Watch for that distinction. It's subtle, but once you know to look for it, you'll never unsee it — in this video, and in every animal video you watch after this one. There's also a slower, sadder truth sitting underneath all of this that's worth acknowledging honestly, because it's part of why moments like this hit as hard as they do: most wild animals never get the chance to reach this state with a human at all. Not because they're incapable of it, but because most human contact with wildlife is fear, distance, or conflict. Roadways. Habitat loss. Encounters that end badly for one side or the other. The overwhelming majority of interactions between wild kangaroos and humans are neutral at best and dangerous at worst — for the kangaroo far more often than for the person. Which is exactly why the rare exception matters as much as it does. It's not just heartwarming in isolation. It's heartwarming because it's fighting the statistical odds of what usually happens when these two worlds intersect. Every calm, trusting moment like this is quietly making the case that the outcome doesn't have to be conflict by default — that with enough patience, enough respect for the animal's pace, enough restraint from forcing anything, something gentler is possible instead. That's a bigger idea than one video can carry on its own, but this video is a small, real piece of evidence for it. And evidence like that is worth more than another opinion piece ever could be, because you can't argue with something you're watching happen in real time in front of you. One more angle before you go find it and watch it yourself. Think about how many hours of your own life you've spent watching things that gave you nothing back — content built purely to fill fifteen seconds of dead time between one task and the next, forgotten before you've even finished swallowing whatever you were drinking while you watched it. That's most of what a feed is. Filler. Noise dressed up as content, optimized for exactly long enough to keep you from closing the app, and not one second longer. This isn't that. This is the rare kind of thing that actually leaves a residue — a specific image that resurfaces uninvited hours later, while you're doing something completely unrelated, because some part of your brain flagged it as meaningful and refused to fully let it go. Most content doesn't earn that. Most content isn't built to earn that. It's built to be replaced by the next thing thirty seconds later, forever, in an endless chain that leaves nothing behind. You'll know within the first few seconds whether this is one of the rare exceptions. Trust that instinct. It's the same instinct that made you stop scrolling long enough to read all the way down to this line instead of bouncing off after the first sentence like you do with almost everything else that crosses your screen today. That instinct is rarely wrong. One last thought, and then I'll stop talking and let the thing speak for itself. Somewhere between the jellybean-sized joey that shouldn't have survived its own birth, the mother who could kill with one kick and chose stillness instead, and the two-second frame you won't notice until you watch it twice — there's a version of this video that never existed. The version where the timing was off by a week, where the trust hadn't built far enough yet, where the camera wasn't rolling, where the moment happened anyway but nobody was there to see it and it simply evaporated into the ordinary, unwitnessed life of a wild animal in the bush. That version happens constantly. It's the default. It's what "wild animal" statistically means, every single day, all over the world, completely unseen. This is the version that didn't evaporate. This is the one that got caught. Not manufactured. Not staged. Not built for you in a studio, in a script, in an editing room designed to make you feel something on command. Just real, and rare, and lucky enough to have a lens pointed at it at the exact right second. You don't get many of those in a lifetime, let alone in a single scroll through your phone on an otherwise ordinary day. This is one of them.

Earth Unveiled

40,003 次观看 • 23 天前

The following is a message from Diana Bloom, an anonymous Iranian activist living in Germany who is being threatened with potentially extremely dangerous "exposure" by what appears to be a lunatic. I am passing this message on since Diana has deleted her account for her own protection and safety. To note, I don't think I should be involved with this crazy Evil Evi woman or her OSINT dramas whatsoever since she went bonkers the other day, but she is acting in defamatory ways and with malicious recklessness in a way that endanger an anonymous Iranian dissident I believe to be good, so I must pass this along. A MESSAGE FROM DIANA BLOOM This is a post in two parts. Part one is a brief summary of what has happened so far. Part two addresses the defamatory claims being made about me. PART 1 - [JL: Diana's explanation and responses] For everyone who doesn’t understand what led to this point, here’s the shortest summary possible: Evi [Kokalari] and I had been friendly in DMs since the end of June. She messaged me first. After [DataRepublican] published her piece on the State Department, I asked Evi not to go too hard against DR. Evi did anyway, and James Lindsay defended DR. I didn’t like the way Evi went after James, including citing Milo. So I unfollowed and removed Evi. She confronted me in DMs, and I explained why. Evi then made a post attacking James that started and ended with me and used my profile picture. I responded once, as politely as I could. Evi then repeatedly threatened to dox me, so I deactivated my account. Now, regarding the substance of the accusations she has made so far: 1. I am not a man. My name is not Derek. 2. I am Iranian. 3. I do know stuff about American politics because (and that is the boring truth) German television is really bad. So I’ve only watched English/American stuff for the past, I don’t know, 15 years, podcasts, late night shows, etc. I didn’t think about it, I just did. Little did I know that that would give me an understanding of the inner dynamics of what’s going on within the Republican Party that would tie back to the Iranian people’s cause in 2026. Believe me, I’m still baffled by it whenever I pause to think about it. But that’s the truth, and here we are. 4. I am not in the United States. I shared a blog, and the provider of that blog (a big, common one) is in the United States. My VPN location is sometimes in the United States. Not me. 5. I am not responsible for the content of people defending me. I have no control over it. It’s not my content, and I keep my distance whenever I see problematic stuff. Many accounts defended me, but going to look for one that has done/said problematic stuff to tie it back to me is not right or fair. I am not responsible. I have nothing to do with it. 6. I wanted to help DR because Evi was threatening to go after her hard, and I didn’t think DR deserved that. I meant no harm, I wanted to help. I made a mistake, and I regret it now, but my intention wasn’t bad at that moment in time. 7. Evi herself was the first to come into my DMs and tell me not to fight with an account named Stephanie. So I did Evi that favor. Meaning: Evi came into my DMs first and tried to calm down a public disagreement between me and someone else. When I did this in defense of DR, I did the same thing Evi had done before. I would never think to accuse Evi of restricting my right to free speech because of it. 8. Publishing private DMs from someone without their permission is wrong. It is something both Evi and Stephanie have now done. Both have shared private messages from me without my permission. 9. Part of Evi’s “sources” seem to be Azi Yazdi (granddaughter of Khomeini’s first foreign minister), Benji, and Nima Yamini, as well as his ghost accounts (I have blocked multiple of them by now). If you know any of them, you know this is insane. None of them are reliable. It’s like using Milo as a source against James Lindsay. This is not about truth but about a (malicious) takedown to silence me and get me out of the way. 10. Evi has threatened to dox me (there is no doubt) multiple times, and she keeps going after me. This puts my life and my family’s lives in Iran in real danger, but she doesn’t care. She keeps going, and I can’t stop her. She keeps putting out one lie after another, and it traps me in a forever loop of defending myself. If I don’t respond to more and more accusations from her against me, rest assured, my silence should never be taken as agreement with the lies she puts out there. Be sure there is always context, a counterargument, counterevidence, etc., that would show that none of what she shares is fair or true. But it’s a forever war that is meant to drain me. So me not commenting on her stuff moving forward is never, ever, ever an admission that she is right about something. It’s just a rejection of playing a game I cannot win. To ALL the people who wrote/shared one or multiple posts and comments in my defense: Thank you very, very, very much. I’ve seen it, and I am grateful. But I think it’s best for my own and my family’s safety, as well as for the whole situation, that I step away and stay away from X. I hope that’s understandable. And Evi, for the last time: if you are not malicious, please just stop. Let me out of this. I am not your target. Just leave me and, through doxxing/"exposing", my family out of it moving forward. I beg of you, please. PART 2 - proof - [JL: The following are direct quotes from Evi indicating her intention to "expose" Diana, which she tries to claim is different than "doxxing," though for all practical purposes the effect will be the same and this is a distinction without a difference. The video below shows all of these quotes from her own posts.] 1. “I’m getting enough information on her from her own community. I may share it…” 2. “Either log back in with your real name, or I will start exposing you. And trust me, you will not like that.” 3. “So stop provoking me. If you continue, I will look much deeper into who you are and what your actual role is behind this anonymous account.” 4. “You know what...WAR IT IS. I will start with Diana!! STAY TUNED” 5. “So I will take those words seriously and dig as deep as I can” 6. “The identities of the "Iranian activists" would never have been called into question had they not attacked my right to freedom of speech in my own country.” 7. Someone: “She deleted her account because she’s concerned for her safety and the safety of her relatives in Iran your threats to dox her” Evi: “She should be...but if she turns out to be clean, I shall protect her identity. But trust me, she is not who she claims to be” 8. “Last I checked, Support on X is against fake accounts. Why are we being threatened for wanting to know the true identity of certain accounts…” 9. “Do you think I know who Diana bloom is? No but I need to find out at this point” 10. “... because I asked one of their group operatives from Germany to debate me using her/his true identity, or I would expose who’s behind the account.” 11. “So I don’t know what you’re all thinking, but this isn’t simply about Diana being scared of the IRGC in Iran. The IRGC has been significantly weakened and has plenty of other things to worry about. There are thousands of Iranian accounts fighting for Iran’s freedom under their own names while still having family members back in Iran. At this point, I think people have every right to ask who is actually behind these anonymous accounts… After a few more new posts on her feed, I was forced to tell her to either come back on X and do this under her real name, or I would expose who she was, so at least we would be having this discussion on equal grounds.” 12. “Don’t freaking interfere with other people’s business like that retard did and no one comes after you. So go ahead down and sue me and I will push harder to expose her and you and anyone else…” MY OWN [JL's] COMMENTS, which Diana has nothing to do with and doesn't know I'm appending here. I now believe Evi is likely to be a malignant narcissist who is incapable of admitting that she is wrong. She will not stop in her behavior, and she will aim to harm anyone who attempts to intervene. I do not recommend you do this. I recommend you mark, avoid, and block. Fighting with her will only fuel her because she simply cannot admit that she's wrong about all of this and can only double down in increasingly insane, dangerous, and reckless ways, including toward Diana and her safety. She believes everything she sees that's trying to talk sense into her about any of this is part of an elaborate "op" that "disrespects her free speech" (which isn't a thing, by the way). No one is silencing her. People are just trying to talk sense into her to stop spreading defamation and reckless "exposure" of people who she will put at risk with it and who do not in any way deserve it, people she considered friends and allies until literally four days ago when she suddenly blew up. Therefore, not only is her reckless belief hermetically sealed against any disagreement, she turns any disagreement into proof of allegedly coordinated attacks against her from a network that simply doesn't exist. As a response, in her malignancy, she is threatening to damage, "expose," or otherwise reputationally harm anyone who even tries politely to talk sense into her, much less to disagree with her or oppose her. I strongly recommend everyone realize what they're getting into if they work with or ally themselves with this crazy woman going forward. You do so at your own risk. I can attest from watching her over the last few days that her research abilities, at least when agitated, are so sloppy as to be beyond worthless, even dangerous. The post I'm quoting below is proof of that. She's trying to prove Diana is secretly an American because she's too sloppy and stupid to realize that a Wordpress domain has an American location. She isn't doing research in good faith or with fidelity on this issue, or about me. She is looking for any information she can to hurt people who have upset her. In fact, she is presently being sued for defamation by an Albanian singer (Evi is an Albanian immigrant to the United States and a U.S. citizen for at least a couple decades), so we might recognize this bad behavior and poor praxis as a pattern with her. I can provide just from the last few days, as can others, much evidence that she's simply grasping at the nastiest straws she can find to try to harm people she has suddenly decided are her opponents because of her jealous outburst at DataRepublican and her narcissistic injury at being called on it. The sloppiness and outright retardation of her "fact" finding and "analysis" are so shocking that it's hard not to laugh even given how horrifically dangerous it is. We can therefore infer this sloppiness, recklessness, and malice-when-opposed to be at least partially true of her other "research" against her other targets, by extension. That's a shame because many of those targets are worthy of real scrutiny, which she is undermining with her loose cannon. Therefore, I insist her OSINT "research" is at best worthless and at worst maliciously harmful. In either case, it cannot be engaged by people who want to make a positive difference in the world, so mark and avoid. Evi seems good at making connections. She was quite positively in my own DMs for a while, trying to find ways to work productively together, even suggesting we start an alternative to CPAC (lol). She appears to be friends with both Eric Trump and Don Jr., though the relationship with the former appears to be more solid. She seems to have worked behind the scenes with a lot of relatively prominent Republican groups. I find all of this incredibly concerning after the events of this week, even though I wouldn't have beforehand. My own assessment from this stupid and nasty drama is that Evi's primary motivation is that she is pathologically envious of DataRepublican and her influence, likely believing it should be her in DataRepublican's place. As we can see, she isn't nearly careful or accurate enough for that. Mark and avoid. Further, though, while DataRepublican has no driving interest to be who or what she is and is doing it in service to the best of her abilities (which are considerable but still limited and imperfect as are anyone's), Evi appears to covet the role, which she has demonstrated she cannot possibly handle responsibly. Again, mark and avoid. Block if you will. I will not unblock her for this post or in the future. You can think of that whatever you want. I will rarely, almost never, say anything about her except in the defense of others she is wantonly and recklessly attacking. I will NEVER interact with her directly again, no arguments, no back and forth, no dunks, nothing. My involvement here is pure exposure and nothing else. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

James Lindsay, anti-Communist

57,651 次观看 • 1 个月前

🔴 I listen to the pro-regime side a lot. That means I do not just painfully listen through hours of what the regime lobbyists talk about in podcasts and interviews, but also to what the Woke Right says. I listen to their lies and try to get an understanding of the truth. Remember: Propaganda is always a mix of both. I listen to projection, deflection, and try to detect which accusation is a confession. Sometimes it's one word. Between two hours of coordinated propaganda, the truth seems to slip through. One word that caught my attention, that nobody else listening to this might have caught. In his recent interview with Russian agent "America is a cancer," Elizabeth Lane (or whatever her real name is), Tucker has a moment where he talks about how disappointed he is that he couldn't deliver on his (assigned) job: to prevent Trump, through his personal relationship and manipulation, from starting a war with the Islamic Republic. Tucker failed, and he is still not over it. He has talked about it multiple times and always displays how this personal failure gets to him. Then Tucker explains what he thinks Trump's plan or vision was when he started the war: kill the Ayatollah, the regime would collapse, and then a pro-Western leader - he corrects himself, "king or something" - would be in Iran. You tell me who Tucker was referring to when describing Trump's vision for a free Iran. I take from this detail the following things: ▪️Trump is aware of the Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi's popularity and massive political base inside Iran. He is aware that a free Iran after elections will include the Crown Prince leading Iran. And he was counting on that part of the equation when he started the war to be the outcome. ▪️All of the noise the regime lobby made up - that Trump called him the "loser prince," that Trump doesn't like the Crown Prince, doesn't take him seriously - we all knew that it was regime propaganda, but I want to reiterate that it was, and continues to be, all just lies. ▪️The part that remains open in my head to this day is: what changed? How did people inside the White House (Vance including regime lobbyists as Vance's friends and advisers) change Trump's mind? Regarding the rest, here is my assessment: ▪️Everything they describe here that the pro-Iran side is doing (vs. the pro-regime side they are both on) is what THEY are doing themselves. They had placed certain "operatives" in Trump's orbit, and they thought they could control/manipulate Trump and put him in The Truman Show. ▪️They did fail in part. Trump did and does listen to people like the late Lindsey Graham, Mark R. Levin, and Laura Loomer. They keep naming these people specifically over and over again. They hate that they can't get rid of them. They are all glad that Lindsey Graham is no longer with us. ▪️They do mention Charlie Kirk as well - as part of "their allegiance". I could write a novel about how I think all of this fits together, what truly happened and what didn't. I did write a long text explaining it, but I deleted it again. It's a different topic for a different time. I'll just repeat the obvious: Nobody has profited politically more from Charlie's death than the Woke Right. And again: Russia, the regime, and the Woke Right are all joining forces to get Tyler Robinson to walk free. Nobody is trying harder to save the man who killed Charlie by blaming everyone else (especially Israel) for his death. They put the deflection campaign out there one hour after his death (narrative control). ▪️There is one part of the interview where the Russian agent talks about how you can control Trump (anyone, for that matter) by the intel you present him with and the decisions that person makes based on that intel. I agree with her 100%. It is what I've been saying the entire time: This is a war of information, with some people surrounding Trump telling him the truth and these people surrounding Trump manipulating him in favor of saving the regime. ▪️Tucker emphasizes again how mad he is that he/they can no longer feed Trump false intel ("he lives in a biosphere where no new information comes in"). Their frustration about losing this power to some degree is a good sign. ▪️Tucker also put Marco Rubio on that list of people he considers problematic. After naming Mark Levin, he directly names Rubio. My observation is that they left Rubio out of their 'campaign of taking people down' until they saw that Vance was losing support and Rubio was gaining it instead. Now the regime's media is producing LEGO videos targeting Rubio. The Woke Right will, this is my guess, start escalating its attacks against Rubio moving forward. ▪️Why? Because they are all politically united and aligned behind the following things: 1. blaming Israel for everything, 2. making Vance (their guy) president in 2028, and 3. saving the Islamic Republic.

🔴 I listen to the pro-regime side a lot. That means I do not just painfully listen through hours of what the regime lobbyists talk about in podcasts and interviews, but also to what the Woke Right says. I listen to their lies and try to get an understanding of the truth. Remember: Propaganda is always a mix of both. I listen to projection, deflection, and try to detect which accusation is a confession. Sometimes it's one word. Between two hours of coordinated propaganda, the truth seems to slip through. One word that caught my attention, that nobody else listening to this might have caught. In his recent interview with Russian agent "America is a cancer," Elizabeth Lane (or whatever her real name is), Tucker has a moment where he talks about how disappointed he is that he couldn't deliver on his (assigned) job: to prevent Trump, through his personal relationship and manipulation, from starting a war with the Islamic Republic. Tucker failed, and he is still not over it. He has talked about it multiple times and always displays how this personal failure gets to him. Then Tucker explains what he thinks Trump's plan or vision was when he started the war: kill the Ayatollah, the regime would collapse, and then a pro-Western leader - he corrects himself, "king or something" - would be in Iran. You tell me who Tucker was referring to when describing Trump's vision for a free Iran. I take from this detail the following things: ▪️Trump is aware of the Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi's popularity and massive political base inside Iran. He is aware that a free Iran after elections will include the Crown Prince leading Iran. And he was counting on that part of the equation when he started the war to be the outcome. ▪️All of the noise the regime lobby made up - that Trump called him the "loser prince," that Trump doesn't like the Crown Prince, doesn't take him seriously - we all knew that it was regime propaganda, but I want to reiterate that it was, and continues to be, all just lies. ▪️The part that remains open in my head to this day is: what changed? How did people inside the White House (Vance including regime lobbyists as Vance's friends and advisers) change Trump's mind? Regarding the rest, here is my assessment: ▪️Everything they describe here that the pro-Iran side is doing (vs. the pro-regime side they are both on) is what THEY are doing themselves. They had placed certain "operatives" in Trump's orbit, and they thought they could control/manipulate Trump and put him in The Truman Show. ▪️They did fail in part. Trump did and does listen to people like the late Lindsey Graham, Mark R. Levin, and Laura Loomer. They keep naming these people specifically over and over again. They hate that they can't get rid of them. They are all glad that Lindsey Graham is no longer with us. ▪️They do mention Charlie Kirk as well - as part of "their allegiance". I could write a novel about how I think all of this fits together, what truly happened and what didn't. I did write a long text explaining it, but I deleted it again. It's a different topic for a different time. I'll just repeat the obvious: Nobody has profited politically more from Charlie's death than the Woke Right. And again: Russia, the regime, and the Woke Right are all joining forces to get Tyler Robinson to walk free. Nobody is trying harder to save the man who killed Charlie by blaming everyone else (especially Israel) for his death. They put the deflection campaign out there one hour after his death (narrative control). ▪️There is one part of the interview where the Russian agent talks about how you can control Trump (anyone, for that matter) by the intel you present him with and the decisions that person makes based on that intel. I agree with her 100%. It is what I've been saying the entire time: This is a war of information, with some people surrounding Trump telling him the truth and these people surrounding Trump manipulating him in favor of saving the regime. ▪️Tucker emphasizes again how mad he is that he/they can no longer feed Trump false intel ("he lives in a biosphere where no new information comes in"). Their frustration about losing this power to some degree is a good sign. ▪️Tucker also put Marco Rubio on that list of people he considers problematic. After naming Mark Levin, he directly names Rubio. My observation is that they left Rubio out of their 'campaign of taking people down' until they saw that Vance was losing support and Rubio was gaining it instead. Now the regime's media is producing LEGO videos targeting Rubio. The Woke Right will, this is my guess, start escalating its attacks against Rubio moving forward. ▪️Why? Because they are all politically united and aligned behind the following things: 1. blaming Israel for everything, 2. making Vance (their guy) president in 2028, and 3. saving the Islamic Republic.

diana bloom

16,535 次观看 • 2 个月前

Ch. 14 of NITRO: The Inside Story of Hulk Hogan's heel turn - #OTD 30 Years Ago (7/7/96)! AS DAY BECAME NIGHT at the Sullivan home, Bollea deliberated his participation in the pay-per-view. “Everybody was telling him that it was the wrong thing to do,” Kevin Sullivan says. “He was getting booed out of the arena, but they were all saying, ‘this is gonna kill him’.” With no end to the discussion in sight, the wily booker casually suggested that Bollea and Young make use of his two guest rooms until the morning. “I isolated [them],” Sullivan admits. “I was just afraid that at the last minute, he was going to use his creative control [clause] and pull out.” If Sullivan could deliver Bollea to the arena by showtime, the finish of the match called for Hogan to star in the most dramatic of surprise endings. In a sequence devised by Kevin Nash, an unannounced Hulkster would shockingly interfere in the match, but only after the heels gained an unfair advantage through cheating. It would be a brilliant misdirection, Nash thought, as fans would instinctively believe Hogan’s appearance to be in support of the babyface team. “I knew there were gonna be 55 different ideas,” Nash says, thinking back to the eve of the event, “[so] I actually put a lot of thought into it. I called Scott [Hall] two or three days before that, and said ‘what do you think about this?’ “We had to make it a 2-on-2 match with Lex Luger getting injured [during the match] and going out. We would cheat to get Macho [Man] in trouble and all of a sudden Hulk comes down, which of course would mean ‘ok, here comes Hulk to make the save’. [Hall] said, ‘I love it’.” There was, however, the looming possibility that Bollea could reject his turn at the eleventh hour. Thinking ahead, Eric Bischoff developed a contingency plan in which Sting would play the role, ultimately revealing himself - despite not having prior experience with the WWF - as the ‘third man’ instead. “I remember Eric came in to the locker room,” recalls Marcus 'Buff' Bagwell, “and said [to Sting], ‘I wanna talk to you about something’. I could hear them going over the idea, and then when they got done, Sting told me what they were talking about. He said that [Eric said], ‘there are only two guys that could turn heel where it would really matter’. That would be Hogan and Sting.” “He was offering Sting the job first, [as I recall], and Sting didn’t wanna do it. He didn’t really say it wouldn’t work, but he just said, ‘it doesn’t intrigue me. I don’t wanna do it’.” According to Andre Freitas, a special effects artist who worked in costume design and character development for WCW, the proposed Sting swerve was to involve the use of a doppelganger - or ‘phony’ Sting - presumably in an effort to fool fans that the real character had switched sides. “That was their original plan,” says Freitas. “Eric showed me a picture of Jeff Farmer (a lower-card wrestler) and said ‘can you make him Sting?’ I told him that they have similar bodies...then we looked at Sting’s hair and Jeff’s hair...and talked about all that stuff. I did a head cast for [Farmer] and some prosthetic and test make-ups. But when they secured Hogan, we didn’t do [the angle].” ----------- Amazingly, even as Bash at the Beach began, Bischoff continued to consider Plan B. “I remember walking by this perforated wall in the Ocean Center,” divulges Nash, “and Eric said to me, ‘Hulk is with Sullivan, and he’s not sure he’s gonna do it yet’. It was up in the air.” Meanwhile, viewers of the pay-per-view - and, for that matter, WCW’s own production staff - speculated as to the identity of the third man. “They were trying to ‘work’ everyone,” asserts Jason Douglas, a WCW producer backstage at his first pay-per-view event. “‘Rocket’ (staff member Rick Sancher) came up to me - they were kinda testing me because I was new on the road - and said ‘hey, I think it’s gonna be [WWF wrestler] Bret Hart’. I guess it was to see if I would leak something, and so I was just like ‘oh, cool, Bret Hart’.” In reality, aside from Bischoff, Bollea, Young, Hall, Nash and Sullivan, the turn would be concealed from everyone - even the announcers, according to orders from Bischoff - as to ensure their most realistic reactions. With less than an hour before the main event began, production staffer Woody Kearce discovered a revealing clue in the parking lot. A Hulk Hogan motorcycle had appeared mysteriously in one of the spaces, sparking another round of backstage conjecture. Finally, with what Sullivan recalls as “thirty minutes” and Bischoff remembers as “forty-five to sixty minutes” left on the air, Bollea belatedly arrived at the Ocean Center. The mood suddenly changed. Upon realizing that his star had been convinced, Bischoff began to relax. “Once he got to the building, I recall a sense of calm,” he reveals. “All of the anxiety, all of the tension, all of the worry, all of the effort to make sure things stayed quiet...all of that just kind of dissipated. It was like fog lifting when the sun comes out - it all just went away. I was thinking, ‘it is what it is, there’s nothing more I can do...so let’s just roll with it’.” To cement the turn, Bollea knew, he would have to deliver a monumental post-match promo to explain his actions. While typically, he enjoyed using Bischoff as a sounding board to rehearse interviews, the need for complete privacy - on this occasion - was unquestionably paramount. And so, away from prying eyes - and ears - the two met up in the most unglamorous of clandestine locations - a utility closet. In the midst of the run-through, Bischoff stopped to emphasize an important point: When you grab that microphone, I want you to say...‘this is the beginning of the new...world...order’. The phrase - ‘new world order’ - lingered auspiciously in the air. Bischoff surprised himself with the utterance, realizing slowly that the term encapsulated everything that the invasion storyline could represent. In 1990, then-president George H.W. Bush famously utilized the same expression in a speech to Congress, although its origin could actually be traced back to the 28th President, Woodrow Wilson. But if Bischoff was unsure as to the source of his spontaneous inspiration, perhaps the answer could be found closer to home - on the preceding Nitro, just six days earlier, announcer Larry Zybysko serendipitously made the following proclamation: “This Sunday, I promise you, there will be a new world order of wrestling…” Fans at the Ocean Center waited anxiously to see if Zybysko’s prophecy would materialize; for after all the hoopla, it was suddenly time for the main event. Before the opening bell, the audience was already on its feet for ring announcer@Michael_Buffer’s pre-match introductions. As Hall and Nash sauntered to the ring for The Hostile Takeover match, Buffer set the scene with theatrical aplomb: “Ladies and gentleman, at this time, let me introduce the men whose plan and goal is to takeover the WCW with force and hostility. We were told there would be three of these interlopers, and I must apologize as I have been informed - as you can see - there are only two. Ladies and gentleman, introducing...the Outsiiiiiders!” In a moment that played off perfectly on television, Sting’s entrance music began - and quickly ended - as ‘Mean Gene’ Okerlund traipsed cautiously into the ring. After exchanging quizzical looks with Buffer and referee Randy Anderson, Okerlund confronted the Outsiders to get some answers, an inspired plot device designed to build the tension even further. “Gentleman,” began Okerlund, “if I could have your attention...I don’t have police protection with me at this time, but I wanna confront you in front of this full house here at the Ocean Center, and millions of others watching across the country and around the world. I don’t see three men here tonight. Where is your partner?” Responding in a manner consistent with their WWF characters, Hall and Nash assured Okerlund that the third man was present - and ready. “Let me tell you something,” announced a confident Nash, “we got enough to handle it right now, right here.” Once more, Sting’s entrance music blared from the arena speakers, this time preceding the man himself, accompanied by Luger and Savage. “Here we go!” screamed color commentator Bobby Heenan as the wrestlers passed an unusually large contingent of security personnel on the entrance way. “The war is on!” Less than two minutes into the bout, Luger collapsed to the outside, a move in accordance with Nash’s plan to even the sides before the climactic reveal. “Now it’s two against two!” yelled Heenan. After a brief delay, the concerned crowd looked on as Luger left the arena on a stretcher, leaving Sting and Savage alone to fight valiantly for WCW. As the match progressed, the contemptible Outsiders used every trick to stall their opponent’s momentum, until a revitalized Savage began a furious rally at the fifteen-and-a-half minute mark. The invaders were suddenly down, but not out - as with the referee distracted, Nash landed a low-blow to bring the Macho Man to his knees. All four men lay on the canvas, exhausted, as referee Anderson started a ten count. As Anderson yelled ‘ONE’, several rows of spectators rose to their feet. Within seconds, the reaction diffused from section to section, the noise level increasing with each passing beat. On the live broadcast, viewers at home caught glimpse of a familiar figure making his way down the ramp. “Hulkamania!” screamed Dusty Rhodes on commentary while Hogan walked methodically towards the ring. Noticeably, the Hulkster seemed oddly disaffected - even out-of-character - but after exchanging the briefest of glances with the crowd, he continued stride with the din reaching fever pitch. “Whose side is he on?” bellowed Heenan, a question that seemed inexplicable given the history of Hogan’s on-screen persona. “Whose side is he on?” repeated Heenan, who as longtime fans could recall, had opposed Hogan for years as a manager in the WWF. For that reason, the comment flew over the heads of most (but not all) viewers; meanwhile, the live crowd was cheering as if their team had won the World Series. Nash and Hall retreated to the floor as Hogan tore off his shirt, an apparent signal that the archetypal good guy was here to save the day again. “Who’s bad now boys?” taunted play-by-play man Tony Schiavone on commentary, confident that WCW’s honor was no longer in jeopardy. Savage lay prone on the mat as Hogan surveyed the scene. Above the cheapest of cheap seats, peeking through a curtain with palpable anticipation, was Eric Bischoff. “I knew that something big was about to happen,” he recalls. “It was either gonna be a big failure, or a big success.” Seemingly out of nowhere, with his unsuspecting devotees enveloped in celebration, Hulk backed up to the corner. With the coldness of a serial killer, the once-honorable hero shockingly shoved referee Anderson, and executed his patented finishing move - the leg drop - to the helpless Macho Man below. The audience became completely, utterly unglued. “I was standing back with the announcers,” remembers Michelle Baines, newly hired as a production assistant. “One of the producers turned to me and said, ‘you need to go to the back’. “‘I said, ‘what do you mean?’ “She said, ‘it’s gonna get ugly real quick’.” “She was right - the crowd turned ugly quick.” In retrospect, it was clear that even as Hogan’s body approached the canvas - contact with Savage just milliseconds away - the gravity of the assault started to hit home. “What has he done?” questioned a crestfallen Rhodes, “is he the third man? What the hell is going on here?” Heenan was even more direct - “Hulk Hogan has betrayed WCW! He is the third man in this picture!” A breathless Schiavone could barely muster more than three words: Oh My God, he repeated. Oh My God, he continued, as Hogan high-fived a grinning Hall and Nash. The courageous Sting, stumbling to his feet to stop the injustice, was quickly dispatched, and in the coup de grace, Hogan tossed Anderson to the floor. Sardonically, he covered Savage for the pin, the contest now clearly a farce. “I hope you love it,” a disappointed Rhodes wailed on commentary. “You just sold your soul to the devil.” The third man was a mystery no more, and Hall, Nash, and Hogan raised their hands in victory to a genuinely astonished audience. The immediate outrage, which first gave way to shock, was now inspiring unmitigated rage. Simultaneously, the evil trio continued to taunt, pose, and antagonize while the announcers lamented WCW’s future. As Sting and Savage hobbled back to the locker room, a visibly distraught Okerlund returned to conduct an explanatory interview, based around the one Hogan and Bischoff had mapped out earlier. “Mean Gene,” commanded Hogan, “the first thing you need to do is to tell these people to shut up if you wanna hear what I gotta say.” For the next four minutes, Hogan rationalized his turn with remarkable clarity. “The first thing you gotta realize, brother, is this right here is the future of wrestling. You can call this the new...world...order of wrestling. These two men right here came from a great big organization up north, and everybody was wondering who the third man was. Well, who knows more about that organization than me, brother? I made that organization a monster. I made people rich up there. I made the people that ran that organization rich up there. And when it all came to pass, the name Hulk Hogan, the man Hulk Hogan, got bigger than the whole organization!” Bischoff watched from his secretive seat in amazement - he had not seen, nor had anyone, this intensity of emotion on display at a wrestling show before. It was almost as if the assembled masses had lost themselves in the performance, perhaps even forgetting, if only for a moment, that they were witnesses to a pre-determined event. Hogan’s actions had ostensibly interrupted their critical faculties; in other words, they had suspended their disbelief by reacting to the incident as if it were real. Moreover, the shock was manifesting in the most volatile ways imaginable, as in an incident edited out of future showings of the pay-per-view, a rather large man, likely intoxicated, ran into the ring before being knocked down by Hall and Nash. Concurrently, a stream of debris rained down from the stands, with one object hitting Okerlund, and the rest filling the ring in a stunningly unique visual. Hogan continued as the trash piled up around him, even referencing Ted Turner in his diatribe: “Billionaire Ted promised me movies brother. Billionaire Ted promised me millions of dollars. And Billionaire Ted promised me world caliber matches. And as far as Billionaire Ted, Eric Bischoff, and the entire WCW goes, I’m bored brother! That’s why I want these two guys here, these so-called Outsiders. These are the men I want as my friends. They are the new blood of professional wrestling, and not only are we going to take over the whole wrestling business...with Hulk Hogan, the new blood and the monsters with me, we will destroy everything in our path, Mean Gene.” “Look at all the crap in this ring,” responded Okerlund. “This is what’s in the future for you if you want to hang around the likes of this man Hall, and this man Nash.” Hogan raised his finger as if to stop the interviewer midstream, the perfect line instantly coming to mind. “As far as I’m concerned, all this crap in the ring represents these fans out here,” he boomed defiantly. “For two years, I held my head high,” ranted Hogan, alluding to his rather uninspired WCW tenure. “I did everything for the charities. I did everything for the kids. And the reception I got when I came out here, you fans can stick it brother! Because if it wasn’t for Hulk Hogan, you people wouldn’t be here. If it wasn’t for Hulk Hogan, Eric Bischoff would still be selling meat from a truck in Minneapolis. And if it wasn’t for Hulk Hogan, all of these ‘Johnny come latelys’ that you see out here wrestling wouldn’t be here. I was selling the world out, brother, while they were bumming gas to put in their car to get to high school!” In closing, Hogan foreshadowed the future state of affairs in WCW with a prophetic preview of coming storylines: “With Hulk Hogan and the new world organization of wrestling, brother...me and the new blood by my side...whatcha gonna do when the new world organization runs wild on you? Whatcha gonna do? What are you gonna do??” Despite mistakenly bungling the ‘new world order’ phrase at the conclusion of his speech, Hogan still provided the perfect punctuation to a sensational heel turn. His promo, inarguably the most dynamic of his career, came across as strikingly authentic (“it felt real, because it was real’,” offered a proud Eric Bischoff upon reflection years later). On commentary, Schiavone - who most inspiredly suggested that Hogan had planned to double-cross WCW all along, since his debut in 1994 no less - added to the realism with some mournful final comments: “We have seen the end of Hulkamania,” he grieved. “Hulk Hogan, you can go to hell! We’re outta here. Straight to hell.” ---- To the layman, there appeared an obvious explanation for the feverous crowd response that accompanied Hogan’s turn. Clearly, the element of surprise - one of the key elements of Nitro’s success - had been exploited to a masterful degree (“nobody on earth thought that the third man was going to be Hulk Hogan,” highlights Nash). To Kevin Sullivan, however, there were several layers of story at play. “People thought that it was an invasion from the WWF,” he begins, implying that the success of the angle could be correlated to its realism. “They really bought into it, and when Hogan turned heel...they were sure of it. “So while Hogan gets the credit for the reaction, it was [Nash and Hall] who set the whole thing up. Those guys built the foundation of heat, and when Hogan came down, it just blew up.” “We were red hot coming off WWF television,” agrees Nash, “and then you had the biggest turn in the world on top of that. The biggest babyface of all-time finally turned heel!” To the ever-meticulous Sullivan, always a keen observer of the nuances present in a wrestling angle, an often overlooked element was also noteworthy. “He did it to Randy [Savage],” the booker emphasizes, speaking of Hogan’s betrayal. “People knew there was real-life heat there. That helped out too, but everyone played an intricate part. “Lightning...you can’t catch it in a bottle but one time.” The above is an excerpt from the book, NITRO: The Incredible Rise and Inevitable Collapse of Ted Turner's WCW. Amazon USA: Amazon UK: Amazon Canada: Amazon Australia: 17+ Hour Audiobook Available at Audible and Apple Books Audible USA: Audible UK: Audible Canada: Audible Australia: Apple Books: Ultimate NITRO Bundle: Deep Cuts - Wrestling Stories in 60 Seconds! David Penzer AdFreeShows.com 83 Weeks with Eric Bischoff On This Day in WWE Allan Conrad the Mortgage Guy IandrewDiceClay WCW Archive Because WCW WCW4Life ᴀʀᴅᴀ Öᴄᴀʟ 90s WWE Secrets of WCW Nitro #WCW #nWo #HulkHogan #BashattheBeach #HeelTurn #Wrestling #WrestlingBooks #OTD #WWE #WorldChampionshipWrestling #Nitro

Ch. 14 of NITRO: The Inside Story of Hulk Hogan's heel turn - #OTD 30 Years Ago (7/7/96)! AS DAY BECAME NIGHT at the Sullivan home, Bollea deliberated his participation in the pay-per-view. “Everybody was telling him that it was the wrong thing to do,” Kevin Sullivan says. “He was getting booed out of the arena, but they were all saying, ‘this is gonna kill him’.” With no end to the discussion in sight, the wily booker casually suggested that Bollea and Young make use of his two guest rooms until the morning. “I isolated [them],” Sullivan admits. “I was just afraid that at the last minute, he was going to use his creative control [clause] and pull out.” If Sullivan could deliver Bollea to the arena by showtime, the finish of the match called for Hogan to star in the most dramatic of surprise endings. In a sequence devised by Kevin Nash, an unannounced Hulkster would shockingly interfere in the match, but only after the heels gained an unfair advantage through cheating. It would be a brilliant misdirection, Nash thought, as fans would instinctively believe Hogan’s appearance to be in support of the babyface team. “I knew there were gonna be 55 different ideas,” Nash says, thinking back to the eve of the event, “[so] I actually put a lot of thought into it. I called Scott [Hall] two or three days before that, and said ‘what do you think about this?’ “We had to make it a 2-on-2 match with Lex Luger getting injured [during the match] and going out. We would cheat to get Macho [Man] in trouble and all of a sudden Hulk comes down, which of course would mean ‘ok, here comes Hulk to make the save’. [Hall] said, ‘I love it’.” There was, however, the looming possibility that Bollea could reject his turn at the eleventh hour. Thinking ahead, Eric Bischoff developed a contingency plan in which Sting would play the role, ultimately revealing himself - despite not having prior experience with the WWF - as the ‘third man’ instead. “I remember Eric came in to the locker room,” recalls Marcus 'Buff' Bagwell, “and said [to Sting], ‘I wanna talk to you about something’. I could hear them going over the idea, and then when they got done, Sting told me what they were talking about. He said that [Eric said], ‘there are only two guys that could turn heel where it would really matter’. That would be Hogan and Sting.” “He was offering Sting the job first, [as I recall], and Sting didn’t wanna do it. He didn’t really say it wouldn’t work, but he just said, ‘it doesn’t intrigue me. I don’t wanna do it’.” According to Andre Freitas, a special effects artist who worked in costume design and character development for WCW, the proposed Sting swerve was to involve the use of a doppelganger - or ‘phony’ Sting - presumably in an effort to fool fans that the real character had switched sides. “That was their original plan,” says Freitas. “Eric showed me a picture of Jeff Farmer (a lower-card wrestler) and said ‘can you make him Sting?’ I told him that they have similar bodies...then we looked at Sting’s hair and Jeff’s hair...and talked about all that stuff. I did a head cast for [Farmer] and some prosthetic and test make-ups. But when they secured Hogan, we didn’t do [the angle].” ----------- Amazingly, even as Bash at the Beach began, Bischoff continued to consider Plan B. “I remember walking by this perforated wall in the Ocean Center,” divulges Nash, “and Eric said to me, ‘Hulk is with Sullivan, and he’s not sure he’s gonna do it yet’. It was up in the air.” Meanwhile, viewers of the pay-per-view - and, for that matter, WCW’s own production staff - speculated as to the identity of the third man. “They were trying to ‘work’ everyone,” asserts Jason Douglas, a WCW producer backstage at his first pay-per-view event. “‘Rocket’ (staff member Rick Sancher) came up to me - they were kinda testing me because I was new on the road - and said ‘hey, I think it’s gonna be [WWF wrestler] Bret Hart’. I guess it was to see if I would leak something, and so I was just like ‘oh, cool, Bret Hart’.” In reality, aside from Bischoff, Bollea, Young, Hall, Nash and Sullivan, the turn would be concealed from everyone - even the announcers, according to orders from Bischoff - as to ensure their most realistic reactions. With less than an hour before the main event began, production staffer Woody Kearce discovered a revealing clue in the parking lot. A Hulk Hogan motorcycle had appeared mysteriously in one of the spaces, sparking another round of backstage conjecture. Finally, with what Sullivan recalls as “thirty minutes” and Bischoff remembers as “forty-five to sixty minutes” left on the air, Bollea belatedly arrived at the Ocean Center. The mood suddenly changed. Upon realizing that his star had been convinced, Bischoff began to relax. “Once he got to the building, I recall a sense of calm,” he reveals. “All of the anxiety, all of the tension, all of the worry, all of the effort to make sure things stayed quiet...all of that just kind of dissipated. It was like fog lifting when the sun comes out - it all just went away. I was thinking, ‘it is what it is, there’s nothing more I can do...so let’s just roll with it’.” To cement the turn, Bollea knew, he would have to deliver a monumental post-match promo to explain his actions. While typically, he enjoyed using Bischoff as a sounding board to rehearse interviews, the need for complete privacy - on this occasion - was unquestionably paramount. And so, away from prying eyes - and ears - the two met up in the most unglamorous of clandestine locations - a utility closet. In the midst of the run-through, Bischoff stopped to emphasize an important point: When you grab that microphone, I want you to say...‘this is the beginning of the new...world...order’. The phrase - ‘new world order’ - lingered auspiciously in the air. Bischoff surprised himself with the utterance, realizing slowly that the term encapsulated everything that the invasion storyline could represent. In 1990, then-president George H.W. Bush famously utilized the same expression in a speech to Congress, although its origin could actually be traced back to the 28th President, Woodrow Wilson. But if Bischoff was unsure as to the source of his spontaneous inspiration, perhaps the answer could be found closer to home - on the preceding Nitro, just six days earlier, announcer Larry Zybysko serendipitously made the following proclamation: “This Sunday, I promise you, there will be a new world order of wrestling…” Fans at the Ocean Center waited anxiously to see if Zybysko’s prophecy would materialize; for after all the hoopla, it was suddenly time for the main event. Before the opening bell, the audience was already on its feet for ring announcer@Michael_Buffer’s pre-match introductions. As Hall and Nash sauntered to the ring for The Hostile Takeover match, Buffer set the scene with theatrical aplomb: “Ladies and gentleman, at this time, let me introduce the men whose plan and goal is to takeover the WCW with force and hostility. We were told there would be three of these interlopers, and I must apologize as I have been informed - as you can see - there are only two. Ladies and gentleman, introducing...the Outsiiiiiders!” In a moment that played off perfectly on television, Sting’s entrance music began - and quickly ended - as ‘Mean Gene’ Okerlund traipsed cautiously into the ring. After exchanging quizzical looks with Buffer and referee Randy Anderson, Okerlund confronted the Outsiders to get some answers, an inspired plot device designed to build the tension even further. “Gentleman,” began Okerlund, “if I could have your attention...I don’t have police protection with me at this time, but I wanna confront you in front of this full house here at the Ocean Center, and millions of others watching across the country and around the world. I don’t see three men here tonight. Where is your partner?” Responding in a manner consistent with their WWF characters, Hall and Nash assured Okerlund that the third man was present - and ready. “Let me tell you something,” announced a confident Nash, “we got enough to handle it right now, right here.” Once more, Sting’s entrance music blared from the arena speakers, this time preceding the man himself, accompanied by Luger and Savage. “Here we go!” screamed color commentator Bobby Heenan as the wrestlers passed an unusually large contingent of security personnel on the entrance way. “The war is on!” Less than two minutes into the bout, Luger collapsed to the outside, a move in accordance with Nash’s plan to even the sides before the climactic reveal. “Now it’s two against two!” yelled Heenan. After a brief delay, the concerned crowd looked on as Luger left the arena on a stretcher, leaving Sting and Savage alone to fight valiantly for WCW. As the match progressed, the contemptible Outsiders used every trick to stall their opponent’s momentum, until a revitalized Savage began a furious rally at the fifteen-and-a-half minute mark. The invaders were suddenly down, but not out - as with the referee distracted, Nash landed a low-blow to bring the Macho Man to his knees. All four men lay on the canvas, exhausted, as referee Anderson started a ten count. As Anderson yelled ‘ONE’, several rows of spectators rose to their feet. Within seconds, the reaction diffused from section to section, the noise level increasing with each passing beat. On the live broadcast, viewers at home caught glimpse of a familiar figure making his way down the ramp. “Hulkamania!” screamed Dusty Rhodes on commentary while Hogan walked methodically towards the ring. Noticeably, the Hulkster seemed oddly disaffected - even out-of-character - but after exchanging the briefest of glances with the crowd, he continued stride with the din reaching fever pitch. “Whose side is he on?” bellowed Heenan, a question that seemed inexplicable given the history of Hogan’s on-screen persona. “Whose side is he on?” repeated Heenan, who as longtime fans could recall, had opposed Hogan for years as a manager in the WWF. For that reason, the comment flew over the heads of most (but not all) viewers; meanwhile, the live crowd was cheering as if their team had won the World Series. Nash and Hall retreated to the floor as Hogan tore off his shirt, an apparent signal that the archetypal good guy was here to save the day again. “Who’s bad now boys?” taunted play-by-play man Tony Schiavone on commentary, confident that WCW’s honor was no longer in jeopardy. Savage lay prone on the mat as Hogan surveyed the scene. Above the cheapest of cheap seats, peeking through a curtain with palpable anticipation, was Eric Bischoff. “I knew that something big was about to happen,” he recalls. “It was either gonna be a big failure, or a big success.” Seemingly out of nowhere, with his unsuspecting devotees enveloped in celebration, Hulk backed up to the corner. With the coldness of a serial killer, the once-honorable hero shockingly shoved referee Anderson, and executed his patented finishing move - the leg drop - to the helpless Macho Man below. The audience became completely, utterly unglued. “I was standing back with the announcers,” remembers Michelle Baines, newly hired as a production assistant. “One of the producers turned to me and said, ‘you need to go to the back’. “‘I said, ‘what do you mean?’ “She said, ‘it’s gonna get ugly real quick’.” “She was right - the crowd turned ugly quick.” In retrospect, it was clear that even as Hogan’s body approached the canvas - contact with Savage just milliseconds away - the gravity of the assault started to hit home. “What has he done?” questioned a crestfallen Rhodes, “is he the third man? What the hell is going on here?” Heenan was even more direct - “Hulk Hogan has betrayed WCW! He is the third man in this picture!” A breathless Schiavone could barely muster more than three words: Oh My God, he repeated. Oh My God, he continued, as Hogan high-fived a grinning Hall and Nash. The courageous Sting, stumbling to his feet to stop the injustice, was quickly dispatched, and in the coup de grace, Hogan tossed Anderson to the floor. Sardonically, he covered Savage for the pin, the contest now clearly a farce. “I hope you love it,” a disappointed Rhodes wailed on commentary. “You just sold your soul to the devil.” The third man was a mystery no more, and Hall, Nash, and Hogan raised their hands in victory to a genuinely astonished audience. The immediate outrage, which first gave way to shock, was now inspiring unmitigated rage. Simultaneously, the evil trio continued to taunt, pose, and antagonize while the announcers lamented WCW’s future. As Sting and Savage hobbled back to the locker room, a visibly distraught Okerlund returned to conduct an explanatory interview, based around the one Hogan and Bischoff had mapped out earlier. “Mean Gene,” commanded Hogan, “the first thing you need to do is to tell these people to shut up if you wanna hear what I gotta say.” For the next four minutes, Hogan rationalized his turn with remarkable clarity. “The first thing you gotta realize, brother, is this right here is the future of wrestling. You can call this the new...world...order of wrestling. These two men right here came from a great big organization up north, and everybody was wondering who the third man was. Well, who knows more about that organization than me, brother? I made that organization a monster. I made people rich up there. I made the people that ran that organization rich up there. And when it all came to pass, the name Hulk Hogan, the man Hulk Hogan, got bigger than the whole organization!” Bischoff watched from his secretive seat in amazement - he had not seen, nor had anyone, this intensity of emotion on display at a wrestling show before. It was almost as if the assembled masses had lost themselves in the performance, perhaps even forgetting, if only for a moment, that they were witnesses to a pre-determined event. Hogan’s actions had ostensibly interrupted their critical faculties; in other words, they had suspended their disbelief by reacting to the incident as if it were real. Moreover, the shock was manifesting in the most volatile ways imaginable, as in an incident edited out of future showings of the pay-per-view, a rather large man, likely intoxicated, ran into the ring before being knocked down by Hall and Nash. Concurrently, a stream of debris rained down from the stands, with one object hitting Okerlund, and the rest filling the ring in a stunningly unique visual. Hogan continued as the trash piled up around him, even referencing Ted Turner in his diatribe: “Billionaire Ted promised me movies brother. Billionaire Ted promised me millions of dollars. And Billionaire Ted promised me world caliber matches. And as far as Billionaire Ted, Eric Bischoff, and the entire WCW goes, I’m bored brother! That’s why I want these two guys here, these so-called Outsiders. These are the men I want as my friends. They are the new blood of professional wrestling, and not only are we going to take over the whole wrestling business...with Hulk Hogan, the new blood and the monsters with me, we will destroy everything in our path, Mean Gene.” “Look at all the crap in this ring,” responded Okerlund. “This is what’s in the future for you if you want to hang around the likes of this man Hall, and this man Nash.” Hogan raised his finger as if to stop the interviewer midstream, the perfect line instantly coming to mind. “As far as I’m concerned, all this crap in the ring represents these fans out here,” he boomed defiantly. “For two years, I held my head high,” ranted Hogan, alluding to his rather uninspired WCW tenure. “I did everything for the charities. I did everything for the kids. And the reception I got when I came out here, you fans can stick it brother! Because if it wasn’t for Hulk Hogan, you people wouldn’t be here. If it wasn’t for Hulk Hogan, Eric Bischoff would still be selling meat from a truck in Minneapolis. And if it wasn’t for Hulk Hogan, all of these ‘Johnny come latelys’ that you see out here wrestling wouldn’t be here. I was selling the world out, brother, while they were bumming gas to put in their car to get to high school!” In closing, Hogan foreshadowed the future state of affairs in WCW with a prophetic preview of coming storylines: “With Hulk Hogan and the new world organization of wrestling, brother...me and the new blood by my side...whatcha gonna do when the new world organization runs wild on you? Whatcha gonna do? What are you gonna do??” Despite mistakenly bungling the ‘new world order’ phrase at the conclusion of his speech, Hogan still provided the perfect punctuation to a sensational heel turn. His promo, inarguably the most dynamic of his career, came across as strikingly authentic (“it felt real, because it was real’,” offered a proud Eric Bischoff upon reflection years later). On commentary, Schiavone - who most inspiredly suggested that Hogan had planned to double-cross WCW all along, since his debut in 1994 no less - added to the realism with some mournful final comments: “We have seen the end of Hulkamania,” he grieved. “Hulk Hogan, you can go to hell! We’re outta here. Straight to hell.” ---- To the layman, there appeared an obvious explanation for the feverous crowd response that accompanied Hogan’s turn. Clearly, the element of surprise - one of the key elements of Nitro’s success - had been exploited to a masterful degree (“nobody on earth thought that the third man was going to be Hulk Hogan,” highlights Nash). To Kevin Sullivan, however, there were several layers of story at play. “People thought that it was an invasion from the WWF,” he begins, implying that the success of the angle could be correlated to its realism. “They really bought into it, and when Hogan turned heel...they were sure of it. “So while Hogan gets the credit for the reaction, it was [Nash and Hall] who set the whole thing up. Those guys built the foundation of heat, and when Hogan came down, it just blew up.” “We were red hot coming off WWF television,” agrees Nash, “and then you had the biggest turn in the world on top of that. The biggest babyface of all-time finally turned heel!” To the ever-meticulous Sullivan, always a keen observer of the nuances present in a wrestling angle, an often overlooked element was also noteworthy. “He did it to Randy [Savage],” the booker emphasizes, speaking of Hogan’s betrayal. “People knew there was real-life heat there. That helped out too, but everyone played an intricate part. “Lightning...you can’t catch it in a bottle but one time.” The above is an excerpt from the book, NITRO: The Incredible Rise and Inevitable Collapse of Ted Turner's WCW. Amazon USA: Amazon UK: Amazon Canada: Amazon Australia: 17+ Hour Audiobook Available at Audible and Apple Books Audible USA: Audible UK: Audible Canada: Audible Australia: Apple Books: Ultimate NITRO Bundle: Deep Cuts - Wrestling Stories in 60 Seconds! David Penzer AdFreeShows.com 83 Weeks with Eric Bischoff On This Day in WWE Allan Conrad the Mortgage Guy IandrewDiceClay WCW Archive Because WCW WCW4Life ᴀʀᴅᴀ Öᴄᴀʟ 90s WWE Secrets of WCW Nitro #WCW #nWo #HulkHogan #BashattheBeach #HeelTurn #Wrestling #WrestlingBooks #OTD #WWE #WorldChampionshipWrestling #Nitro

WCWNitroBook

53,506 次观看 • 2 个月前