DISCREET LINK WIT DA BI DUDE i MET WHILE TRICK OR TREATING WIT HIS KIDS WAIT TIL THE END , WE BOTH BUST CRAZY 💦 *drops soon* RETWEET IF U LUV THIS FROTTING SHYT #retwet #frot #nutt #bbc #bigblackdick #bigdick
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
!["Where the hell are the [NHIs] in all this? Why aren't they coming out?" ~Semivan "What I experienced, you know, physical marks the whole thing, and my wife, worse." ~Semivan on their abduction "I would be very careful giving these entities that are f**king with you, like, all this great credit and putting them on a pedestal." ~DeLonge to Chris Bledsoe "It's indifferent to man." ~Vallée to Semivan "Are we evil when we go fishing and we hurt fish? Are we considered evil to the fish"? ~DeLonge Jay Stratton's, "got orbs flying around in his house, scaring the hell out of his wife and his kids." ~Semivan ( I enjoyed this episode because a lot of this is where I am when it comes to thinking about the phenomenon. I'm not saying this is the truth but it definitely resonates with me.) ~~~ Jim Semivan: "When we started 'To The Stars,' a while back, we took a little bit of flack because we were talking about...we weren't going along with the idea that the phenomenon was always a great, beneficial thing. We were saying, like, 'Look, let's just wait. There's been instances where it hasn't been...' I always like to use Chris Bledsoe as an example. He's just a dear, dear man, but when you listen to his story, up close and personally, and you could see the absolute fear that he went through, and his family went through, when he first encountered these beings, and this phenomena, and then later on how it transformed him into a very, very deeply spiritual man and healer. So you see this dichotomy. "And if you talk to Chris, Chris will tell you, 'No, this is a beneficial thing.' And then, you know, you run into guys like Keel, and even Jacques Vallée to a certain extent, where they'll tell you, 'Well, no, no, hold on a second.' Because I remember when when I had my experience, I was visited. It was years after my experience, I had met John Alexander at a conference and John put me in touch with some people. And then next thing I know, Jacques Vallée, you know, the guy, right? The house god of TTS calls me up and says, 'Can I come out and see you?' "So he flew out from San Francisco, came to my house in Virginia, and spent the day with my wife and I. And we had some very, very long, involved conversations about this. And I asked him, I said, 'Well, you know, what I experienced, you know, physical marks the whole thing, and my wife worse.' (That may be the first time he's said he had physical marks from his abduction-like experience with his wife when he was in grad school. We don't know details of what his wife experienced.) Semivan: "I said (to Vallée), 'Do you think this is evil?' And he said, 'I don't know, I don't think anybody knows. But I will tell you one thing: What I do know is that you can say that it's basically indifferent. It's indifferent to man. In other words, people get harmed by walking into it or getting caught in it, but it doesn't seem to have an evil intention, per se.'" (Reminds me of what Lue Elizondo said to Curt Jaimungal) Lue: "What if it turns out that a lot of the things that we thought were one way, aren’t. Are we prepared to have that honest question with ourselves? Are we prepared to recognize that we’re not at the top of the food chain, potentially?” (Most humans are indifferent to the welfare of most beings that are below us on the food chain. If we're driving and hit a squirrel, and they get hurt or killed, we may feel bad for a little bit, but we get on with our business and enjoy the rest of our day. How many cows, chickens and pigs are killed every day so we can eat them? Most humans, including me, don't give that a second thought. Indifference. That indifference may be happening with an intelligence (or multiple intelligences) that's above us on the food chain. And I'm not saying they're eating us, although that can't be ruled out 100%. I'm saying "they" just do their thing and if we get hurt or killed, it's not a huge deal to them. Indifference. And maybe some of them enjoy messing with us?) Semivan: "But then when you read Keel and you know, you read the Mothman and and a lot of these other stories like 'The Mojave Incident.' Well, holy cow! You look at this stuff. And, you know, you get these hobgoblins flying around, you know, with Jay Stratton. He's got orbs flying around in his house, scaring the hell out of his wife and his kids. I don't see, I don't know where there's any kind of a spiritual turn to that where you could look at all that and all of a sudden you say, 'Oh, now I'm a better person.'" (Most of us have known that Axelrod in "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" is Jay Stratton but that's the first time one of his colleagues/friends has said it. And I agree: What's the purpose of orbs scaring, and leaving marks on, his kids? And the wolf that his wife, kids and their friends say they saw? Why? To make them better people? It makes zero sense to me.) Semivan: "It happened with Chris (Bledsoe) and, you know, great for him. Sure, as hell didn't happen to me. And I don't think it happened to Jay Stratton, either. I think it gave Jay a different outlook as with me, but sh*t, I mean, nothing I couldn't have got from reading books. What do you think?" Tom DeLonge: "I think like, yeah, you know, the idea of what we might call something evil, but to that, it's like, you know, are we evil when we go fishing and we hurt fish? You know, are we considered evil to the fish? So it's things looking out for its own interest." (100%. Someone asked me about good vs. evil last night and I wrote back, "Not about good vs. evil. About survival and food chain. Somber.") DeLonge: "The thing that I look at, you know, a lot of the ideas of good and evil come from like, religion, all different types of religions where it really defines the metaphysical nature of who we are and what we're living in. But I look at religion... I cannot think of one religion that hasn't left a wake of destruction. I mean, literally, every single one has done so much harm. And the one pattern in all these religions is that most of them, outside of the pagan ones, have really tried to just to get us to believe that the creator of the universe is some kind of human, or something. It's not like a source, an energy, it's like, it's a Jesus or an Allah, or it's a Buddha, or I don't know. Buddhism doesn't really say that, but you know what my point is. It's trying to humanize something. "And so, to me, it's like when Chris Bledsoe, or some of these others that have these kinds of spiritual experiences, these are the exact same experiences that are written about throughout the entire Bible, in the Quran, and like, all these other texts. And all of them are really setting the stage for us to worship the UFO and their occupants, to some degree." (You see this a lot with the folks who think we're dealing with ETs here to uplift humanity. The Space Brothers theory. I don't know the truth but, to me, it doesn't seem like that's the answer.) DeLonge: "And that, to me, is the one strong pattern, is to confuse us and not let us know of our own spiritual nature to source consciousness." (I've said many times that I believe a lot of this is about human potential and our untapped capabilities in the psi (psychic, pk, consciousness, etc.) area) DeLonge: "And as long as we don't know that, then we will think that, 'Okay, the aliens like, f**ked with our DNA and made us like this,' or 'The Tall Whites showed up and they were the Greek gods, too, and they gave us philosophy and all this whatever.' It's like we're always like, giving some kind of humanized form credit for everything. "And the one thing that's common in all these religions is that it's not giving credit to source energy that allows us to heal, that allows us to be telepathic, that allows us to have telekinesis, that allows us to have, like, compassion in energy to healing. Like, whether you do Reiki and meditate, or whether you sit and pray, it doesn't matter. Why does it work in every religion? Because it's source energy, it's not about the religion." (The one thing I could never get behind is healing because there was no data to back it up. That was until I was shown the work of Bill Bengston. Tons of data. How does it work? I don't know. Nobody does.) DeLonge: "But if you look at who's responsible for all the religions? Well, it's whatever UFO the Star of Bethlehem was, or whatever UFO the Fatima thing was, or whatever the Tall White was that met with Joseph Smith and started the Mormon religion was. Whatever the Jinn are that are in the Koran, or whatever the Demons are there in the Old Testament, they seem to be the things that come in, that take you in your sleep, and make you think things and deceive you. It's all the same." (Deception, deception, deception. A lot of this is very similar to what David Icke (and others) has written about.) DeLonge: "So you have all these things f**king with you, as the good ones and the bad ones. But all the religions, the pattern is, is never ever, ever let humans know the physics of their existence. Which is meditate, you can heal somebody and have all your information you need, or pray. It's the same thing, it doesn't matter. "That's more like my line of thinking is, is why it's so important for us to understand the true nature of spirituality, and why I step back when I hear the Chris Bledsoe stories. And it's wonderful that he's gotten to a place that it's helping him, because I really do like him as a person, and I really respect and honor his experiences because I firsthand have heard them from him. And he's just a wonderful human. I mean, it was an incredible story. But I told him personally, I said, I would be very careful giving these entities that are f**king with you, like, all this great credit and putting them on a pedestal, because these are the same groups that have been doing a lot of weird s*it throughout time, good and bad.' (Again, I think Bledsoe has had real experiences but IMO, his interpretation of what he's dealing with is off.) DeLonge: "And that, to me, seems, you know, that seems suspect. You know, it seems like if there is any really, true, beautiful, great force, and entities representing that force, like your angels in the Bible. I mean, even in the Bible, people would, you know, when they saw an angel, they would collapse on the ground in extreme fear, and like, they couldn't even look at them. It was like the scariest thing that's ever happened. And that doesn't sound like a real loving interaction to me (laughs). That sounds like some scary shit, you know? "So I think whatever would represent true love and unparalleled love, that doesn't seem to be showing up and f**king with our society and our timelines, and our behaviors, and trying to manage us. It's letting us do it on our own, you know, like, figure it out on your own, you know? But everything else that's showing up, seems to have its own interest at heart." (I think TD is saying that a loving/caring intelligence wouldn't try to manipulate us into doing things that just benefit THEM. And that's what appears to be going on. "They" only care about themselves. If there were ones here who truly cared about us, they would leave us alone and let us figure it on our own.) Semivan: "I tend to agree with you on this. I did a podcast a while back and somebody related to this. They were talking about why there hasn't been Disclosure? And I said, 'Well, you know, there's two sides of this story.' I said, 'You have the non human-intelligences, you know, or the phenomenon, and then you have the governments.' And I said 'Well, where the hell are the non-human intelligences in all this? Why aren't they coming out? They pretty sneakily running around, and they meet people in weird, obscured circumstances, make their experiences sound crazy. Yet, they sort of wanna be known, but they don't wanna be known.' As I mentioned to somebody once, 'They'll screw around with you but you can't take them home to meet your parents. They're not landing on the White House lawn for a reason.' I'm not quite sure what that is."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1773078284487798811/ext_tw_video_thumb/1773040319740948480/pu/img/LNfQpFjqV8ZVbffs.jpg)
![[Trans] PROUD OF WIN ACTOR 🐰: Sawasdee krub 😊 🎤: How do you feel about receiving these awards? 🐰: Today, I received awards from the Thai Box Office Awards, via LINE TODAY votes. I’m so happy to win in both the Series and Movie categories. I’d like to thank all my fans for voting for me. I regularly check Twitter and see how everyone boosted one another in voting. Thank you so much for that. 🥹 🎤: You won in both categories with the highest votes! How do you feel? 🐰: I’m really happy, especially for the movie award. It’s my first time working on an international project, and I’m so glad to be part of it. 😊 I’m also thankful that everyone still supports me and looks forward to my projects. Once again, thank you to my fans for voting and always being there for me. These awards are motivation for me to keep improving myself. 💚 🎤: Yesterday was a reunion for you guys. How was it? 🐰: It made me really happy. I’ve missed the times when we were all together. Yesterday, we kept saying, “We miss moments like these so darn much!” Just taking pictures together by the sidewalk reminded us of when we traveled for fan meets overseas. We haven’t gathered like this in almost a year. I can’t even remember the last time we were all together. 🎤: How fun was it yesterday? 🐰: We’ve already planned who will be the host for our next meal! Every time we meet, we take turns treating each other. #dew_jsu was the host this time, and he said, “I’ll book Omakase 🍣 because next time it’s P’Win’s turn!” 😅😂 So I made sure to fully book my schedule. Sorry, can’t make it! 😆 🎤: Did anyone tease #hirunkit_ about bringing a new friend into the group? 🫣☺️ 🐰: Of course! 😆 But actually, it doesn’t have to be just the F4 gang, anyone who’s our friend is always welcome. 🥰 🎤: How is his new friend, #skywongravee ? 🐰: Sky is a really nice person. From the moment we met, I felt like we clicked instantly like there was some invisible connection. I always feel comfortable around him, and I’m happy to have him as a friend. 😊 🎤: Even though you guys hadn’t seen each other for a while, did you notice that you guys were still in sync? It was so cute to watch! 😊 🐰: We’re always in sync, it’s the bond we share. Even if we don’t see each other for years, when we reunite, it feels like no time has passed. We talk like we meet every day. That connection between the four of us is always there. We’ll definitely plan another get-together because this one was too short! 🎤: Your group of friends is growing! 🐰: Yes, the more, the merrier! We welcome everyone. 🎤: Any upcoming projects? 🐰: Please stay tuned! This year, I have #Enigma2, which will air soon, and #ScarletHeartTH, which will start filming soon. 😅 🎤: Last question—have you asked Sky & Nani for lucky lottery numbers? 😂 🐰: LOL, I did! I asked them for their license plate numbers. 😇 #TBOAwards2024xWin #winmetawin Winmetawin](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1897481727532212668/amplify_video_thumb/1897481626285957120/img/fMbHhZxLyk1yVG9H.jpg)
!["We do it again. We do it again. We do it again. Because, this can't be. The problem is..it be. No matter how skeptical you are, be as skeptical as you'd like, but there it is." ~Bengston (This is what Mick West said he doesn't find interesting and thus, he doesn't want to interview Bengston. The truth? IMO, he's scared shitless to take on Bengston as there's too much data to refute. Psi (or whatever this is) is real and this is one of the more interesting claims in the world. How could you NOT be interested in this? How about you, Michael Shermer?) "We re-injected the mice without any treatment, and the mice were immune to cancer." ~Bengston (It's the 1970s on Long Island. A skeptical Bill Bengston is working as a lifeguard at the town pool and meets a guy, Ben, who claims to be psychic. No matter what tests Bengston comes up with, Ben passes with flying colors. Then Ben starts healing people. But how to know if they were being healed with Ben's psi or something more prosaic? Did they change their diet? Supplements? Conventional medicine? Not everybody came back so it was very hard to know. So Bengston moves to the lab where Ben would try to cure mice of a cancer that has killed every mouse ever injected within 27 days max. At the last minute, Ben drops out and Bengston is forced to be the healer.) ~ Bill Bengston: "If you watch a few hundred healings, at first it's exhilarating, but after a while it's frustrating. Because you don't know what, why, where, when, any of those things that someone interested in serious inquiry might be interested in. You were just looking at people coming in, some benefit occurred. People leaving. Sometimes they didn't come back. Sometimes it took more than one treatment. Sometimes it happened pretty quick. I think I was the fastest ever (Bengston says Ben healed his back after one short treatment). But what did? "So you come in, you have x, it's a famous algebraic disease. You have x, and you leave better. Now maybe it's the multiple treatments, you know, whatever it may be. But you leave better. What did it? Was it time? Because people get better over time. Was it belief? I didn't think it was belief, because I wasn't a believer. I was an experiencer, but not a believer. Was it the food you ate, the food you stopped eating, the grapefruit you had in the morning? I can't...I don't have the head to wrap myself around clinical questions like that. I never know why something happens, because there's too many variables and such. "And so, after watching a couple hundred healings, taking part in a couple hundred healings, I decided to...I gotta go past this. And I ran into another guy who was watching this, somewhat parallel to me. A geologist, pretty well known (David Krinsley ~Joe). And we said, 'What can we do to test this? You know, the phenomenon is seriously interesting. What could we do to really test it so that if healing occurs, there's no viable counter hypothesis.' "And at the time, he was the head of the geology department at City University of New York, and he said, 'I got some favors owed me, let me see what I can find out in the biology department. I'm pretty good friends with the chairman of the biology department there.' "And so he met with the biology chair, and he said, 'Well, let me poke around in my department and see what we can do.' And he said, 'I got the perfect study. There's a mouse model of cancer that has 100% fatality. Never been an extension of life past a month after it's been injected with cancer. There's thousands of journal articles written about this mouse and this cancer. Everybody around the world knows this mouse and this cancer. If you're in oncology, you know this mouse and this cancer, and [there] has never been a cure.' "I said, 'Let's do it. Let's find out what we can do.' "And at the time, I had no idea what to expect. So I was thinking, 'Well, maybe we can extend the life towards a month. Maybe it won't be a normal curve distribution, maybe it'll be a negatively-skewed distribution. And maybe the mouse will live to the end of their lifespan and all that. "We had no idea what to expect. "So we got a cage of mice. I held the cage of mice for an hour at a time in the lab at Queens College, City University, and we watched as the tumors grew. And I was sure this was failing. And incidentally, I'm almost always wrong. I expected, if we got to the mice right after injection and we treated them a couple times, enough, every day - we didn't know - if we treated them every day, they wouldn't develop cancer. I was thinking, you know, it's something like radiation. You know, you go, 'Zzt, zzt,' and you zap the mice and the tumors, or the cancer cells die, or something along those lines. I was thinking conventional oncology. "And so, I put my hands around the cage of mice, treated them every day, the tumors started to grow anyway, and I wanted to call off the experiment. You know, it shows you how much I believe. I got talked into going a couple extra days, and the tumors developed these blackened areas. And I said, 'Let's call it off, didn't work. You know, we tried it. Didn't work.' "Go a couple more days. Tumors started to ulcerate, and so there was this raw part of a tumor. And I said, 'Would you pay attention? It doesn't work!' Couple more days. And then the tumors suddenly imploded, and the mice were cured. They weren't remitted, they were cured. And by that, I mean it wasn't a suppression of symptoms, it wasn't a temporary reduction in symptoms. It was...there was no cancer in the mouse at all. "And it's farther than that. We re-injected the mice without any treatment, and the mice were immune to cancer. Now that's reasonably interesting. "So, first thing you do is, I, as a skeptic, go, 'Umm, this doesn't make any sense (laughs). Let's do it again. But let's not do it with just me, let's do it with some volunteers.' "So I had a couple of faculty volunteers who thought this thing was insane, and they were right. So I had a couple of faculty volunteers, they got a couple of student volunteers. All non-believers, no experience in any of this hocus pocus. Taught 'em the little technique that I had developed. They treated the mice, the exact same pattern: Tumor grows, blackened area, ulceration, implosion, full lifespan cure. "We do it again. We do it again. We do it again. Because, this can't be. The problem is..it be." (Both laugh) "It's just, you know, no matter how skeptical you are, be as skeptical as you'd like, but there it is. You know, I deny this gravity, you know? I don't believe in gravity. There is gravity. I don't believe in this healing. There is healing. "I just finished, recently, my twentieth mouse experiment, I'm a little slow. I've done it in, I think, six medical schools, equal number of other biology labs. And I just finished at Tokyo University, multiple strains of cancer and details you don't care about. "And so, I have done, at this point, twenty mouse experiments, multiple medical schools, many cell experiments. I've done many experiments. That's the really short version. A hundred years truncated into a couple of paragraphs."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1891577612453179483/ext_tw_video_thumb/1891542527817469952/pu/img/SlWpIJFWshTl1l69.jpg)
!["I'm telling the administration...that if they don't release those [videos I've seen], then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." ~Burlison (Transcript and comments by me on one of my fav segments in a long time.) ~ Will Cain: "Missouri Republican Congressman, Rep. Eric Burlison, joins me now. Congressman, thanks for being with us here today. You and I, Congressman, I think we've had a very candid conversation together. We have both talked about the fact that I am open and curious about this subject of UAPs, but I do feel like we're at a place where evidence needs to start meeting expectations. What we've seen today, what does this tell us? Does this meet any expectation?" Burlison: "I think that there's...we have to take a step back and recognize the historic nature of this. Every president prior to President Trump has really demurred any kind of questions on this. They dismissed them, they would not talk about it. People would, if anything, snicker or sneer anytime this kind of subject came up. So the fact that we have a president who is open and willing and trying to be transparent is something to celebrate. "That being said, I think that this is a teaser, this is a kind of a, you know, something to open up with. This was the low-hanging fruit kind of videos and content for this administration to release. A lot of this has been...some of this has been out there before. It's not been acknowledged, right? So, you're looking at Apollo 17 video..." Cain: "I've seen the same thing said by Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office. That this is sort of the beginning, and there will be other releases that could leave Americans with a holy crap moment. I believe that's a direct quote from Congressman Tim Burchett." (This is what Burchett tweeted today: Burchett: "The 1st drop will be big but in comparison to what is coming they will be a drop in the bucket. I would say 'Holy Crap' is coming." I hope so. Or people are going to be upset that the videos and evidence didn't meet the hype, and you may see a lot of people losing interest in this topic. Last month, he told Elizabeth Vargas: “I’ve seen pictures and video of things that defy any reason that we have." ~Burchett And also last month, he told NEWSMAX: “If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up. You'd be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff... And for the record, I'm not suicidal and I don't take risks.” ~Burchett (That's some major hype there and, again, I hope future videos live up to it. I'm gonna guess that Burlison is NOT a fan of getting people's expectation up like that.) Cain: "My question for you, or the congressman, would be: Why? Why slow roll this out like it's a season of 'Game of Thrones'? Like, why would Episode 1 be somewhat uninspiring - leave us with more questions than answered - if there's something coming after the teaser? What's the point in staging the release?" Burlison: "So, again, this...just from talking with the White House and this administration, this is not an easy thing to do. There's not one huge repository of all of these documents and videos and photos. Despite what most people believe, they're really...at least we haven't found that one, you know, big repository. So what the Agency is doing is going and finding, first and foremost, the items that are readily available to be released. And they wanna be quick...move quickly and release those." (Okay, so they haven't located the best videos yet? Then what was Burchett shown? And if what he was shown is really THAT amazing, why haven't those videos or photos been released? Drip, drip? The excuse that they haven't been able to locate them yet doesn't hold water IF Burchett's take is accurate and they showed him SOMETHING that blew his mind and will blow our minds. Or, did he just hype it up and whatever he saw is really not that impressive? As I've asked several times in the past: Do these amazing videos actually exist?) Burlison: "I would ask you, would you prefer to have them wait for, you know, years, what would probably take years if they were to do a comprehensive study and then release it all at once, in one big batch? I would prefer that they release it as they find it, and I think that that's...this administration wants to be transparent and do that." (Great! How about releasing what Burchett was referring to in his interviews?) Cain: "My criticism is not for the decisions of the administration." (Well, if the Trump administration isn't releasing the best of the best videos that they already have in their possession because they're afraid of how Americans (and the world) might react (fear and panic), then they DO deserve some criticism, right?) Cain: "My criticism is for the expectation built by many out there that have these conversations, that there will soon be a bomb to drop when it comes to revelations about aliens." (Burchett, and then Rep. Anna Paulina Luna with her repeated comments about interdimensional beings. Luna: "...this is something you can go back and watch with the Congressional hearings - but I was actually able to ask some of the witnesses, 'What are these things?' And they keep saying interdimensional. "I wouldn't call them aliens. I really like what Grusch calls it. He says that they're interdimensional beings and he's very specific about that." Grusch has NEVER said that, nor has any witness who testified in front of Congress, so I have no idea where she's getting that from.) Cain: "And, if that's true, are we trying to prepare the American people with a slow drip, drip, drip tease of this stuff? If not, then Congressman, I would say, if this is all we've got, then I'm not sure that there's anything the American government really has that tells us anything about the existence of aliens? I'm just beginning to feel like this entire story is teased out always just beyond our reach." (That's why we need just ONE (for starters) clear and close-up video of an object performing maneuvers that we thought were impossible. And as of right now, we don't have that. I've said this many times. Does that type of video exist?) Burlison: "I can sense your frustration. I've experienced it personally myself. I've seen videos that I think are in the process of being declassified, so I think that there is more to come. If they're not going to be declassified, I'll probably do an effort to release them myself under Speech and Debate." (In short, the Speech or Debate clause says that a Senator or Representative can speak freely about anything, or share anything, in either house of Congress and have absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability. I'll link to an example in the replies.) Burlison: "But again, a lot of the footage that I've seen is similar to what has been released today. There's some that are pretty interesting, and especially given the environment and the circumstances of the videos. Whether they are videos of UAP that are flying around Russian submarines or a video of our aircraft that are firing on some of these UAPs? I've seen those kind of videos. And so I'm teasing that because I know that...I'm telling the administration, through you (Will Cain) at this moment, that if they don't release those, then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." (How much better are those videos than what we've seen today?) Cain: "Can I say one more thing about this, congressman? I expect you and I will have much longer conversations like we have in the past, where we have fewer time constraints. But what I'm seeing here, and we're sharing today, and what's been released, there are probably hundreds, perhaps 1000s, of explanations for what we see on these video screens. They don't lead us directly to extraterrestrial or out-of-this-world explanations. "Is there something else? Is there some other proof that you've seen? Is there a more compelling video that can't be described or explained as a drone or a light refraction or any other thing. Again, I'm not cynically dismissing these things, as I've always mentioned to you. I'm open and curious. I just don't think the evidence is meeting the moment." (I agree with Cain. The government-released or government-acquired footage just doesn't get us over the hump with the masses and skeptics.) Burlison: "I think you and I are at the exact same place. I continue to look for these things and try to follow the narrative that people are saying. Follow the historical narrative that we have a crash retrieval program, and this is the kind of information I keep getting presented. It doesn't mean that we don't stop looking." Cain: "Fair." (If we have recovered craft and bodies of non-humans, and it can be PROVEN, then these videos from today will be forgotten instantly.) Burlison: "And I have...and so the White House and the ODNI is looking for the next places to go investigate. And I think that...and they've actually been open in asking me where those next places should be, and so we're offering..we're gonna be working to offer those locations. A lot of this, Will, is gonna be in the hands of these agencies that are quasi-private or private companies, and that's gonna be a harder dig for this, for this administration to do, but that's where I think we're gonna get to the truth." (Let's start with the "holy crap" videos Burchett hyped and saw and see if they are as good as he's claiming.) Cain: "Well, to his defense, the President hasn't made big promises about what this would reveal. I don't think I can say that about everyone who purports to have seen something that there are big revelations, and so far, the evidence in the videos haven't met the promises. I do hope we continue to see more, congressman. I hope you do fight so we can see more. Obviously, transparency and answers is what we're seeking here on what would be a gigantic issue. Congressman Burlison, thanks, as always, for your time." Burlison: "Anytime."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2052883224360268226/amplify_video_thumb/2052858049346588672/img/orKO2FR28wwc7S1J.jpg)
!["You just hate Hichilema": The dramatic fall of Zambia's president By Sishuwa Sishuwa Hakainde Hichilema stood in the queue to becoming President of Zambia for 15 years before voters finally removed him from it in August 2021. This demonstrates how badly the man wanted this job. But it has taken him only five years in office to display his unfitness for the role. When it comes to the bigger national issues, such as safeguarding our cherished democracy, getting the best out of Zambia’s mineral wealth, respecting the constitution and the rule of law, fighting corruption beyond rhetoric, genuine promotion of national unity and equitable distribution of appointments to public service positions, sorting out the cost-of-living crisis and the deplorable conditions of life for most Zambians, Hichilema has lamentably failed. In fact, I would go as far as saying that the President has become a clear and present danger to Zambia’s economy, to our democracy, our constitutional order, our nationhood and its 'One Zambia Nation' foundation, and to the lives of ordinary Zambians. Voting Hichilema out of office will be the highest expression of patriotism. As I have previously stated, I am convinced that Hichilema will lose the election on 13 August. The only thing that can save him from defeat is pre-ballot death (of any candidate) or industrial scale vote-rigging. I really hope that we Zambians will never again elect a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag. In addition to his policy failures on major issues of public concern, one reason why Hichilema is losing the election (unless he rigs it on an industrial scale) is because of having extremist supporters, mostly Zambezi supremacists, who dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership actions as hate speech and consequently enable his continued failure to be receptive to criticism, to reflect on the feedback provided by the governed, and to change for the better. When citizens (be it the Catholic Bishops, opposition parties, civic actors, or ordinary Zambians like me) raise governance concerns, they do so in the spirit of accountable democratic governance. They do not do so because they hate the president as a person, hate his ethnic identity, or hate where he was born. I insist that a better Zambia is possible but we won’t get it if we treat criticism of presidential leadership failure as expression of hate. Unfortunately, even Hichilema himself has embraced this warped thinking that any criticism of his leadership actions is hate speech. This attitude has deprived him of the much needed feedback on his leadership performance and capacity to listen to divergent views, consequently impoverishing his presidency. We must embrace the unfamiliar, eschew haste in passing judgement, and be more tolerant and understanding. These qualities are especially essential to those in public leadership roles. I once raised concern that we seem to have prepared different standards for this president compared to those who came before him. If a leader can only provide five hours of electricity to the people in a day, they have failed. If a leader can only increase the cost of living, they have failed. If a leader…I can go on. In addition to denying the president the benefit of legitimate public feedback on his performance, misconstruing criticism as hate makes it look like the responsibility of holding our public leaders to account falls on those who either love him or hail from the region where the president does not come from. If his supporters and Tongas, Lozis and Zambians from Northwestern Province join in calling out the wrongs of Hichilema, he will no longer play the tribal card of reducing all criticism of his leadership to ethnic hatred. In the uncritical minds of some of the president's supporters, I criticise Hichilema because I hate him! Most of the individuals who hold this view are people who repeatedly criticise me on this platform, even when their criticism is quite often devoid of reason or substance. I do not think those who criticise me do so because they hate me. I think they criticise me, even if I hold no elected public office, simply because they have a different take, different opinions, on things. Why is it so hard to apply the same logic to my criticism of an elected public leader like Hichilema who is accountable to us, the public? I have been providing regular political commentaries on Zambian affairs since 2009. Why was my much stronger criticism of Hichilema's predecessors, namely Rupiah Banda, Michael Sata, and Edgar Lungu, not considered hatred of these individual leaders? In fact, many of the individuals who today accuse me of harbouring hatred for Hichilema were people who were very happy with my much stinging criticism of the leadership failures of his predecessors. When I called Sata a tribalist and undemocratic leader who did not listen to advise, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Sata's supporters said I was bitter and a Hichilema supporter. When I called Lungu a tribalist and corrupt leader, and provided evidence in support of my conclusions, they were happy to cheer me on, even as Lungu's supporters said I was bitter and petitioned the police to arrest me for sedition. Some of Hichilema's supporters, as part of the enjoyment of their exercise of the right to free expression, even insult me, call me names, or outrightly declare that they dislike me. Of course I would prefer content-based discussion, but if the best that anyone's mind can do is to insult me, I will consider their actions as part of the right to free expression. I recognise that people have the right to dislike me, to call me names, to wish me whatever they desire, to feel however they want about me. I have no problem with all this. I do not speak to be liked or secure the validation of anyone. I speak to express myself and I respect the right of other people to do the same. As I have repeatedly stated, free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with; it is also for people we despise and opinions that we do not support. The important point is not the position I take on a given issue of public interest. It is the reasoning advanced in support of said position. If I say Hichilema is a lying, tribal, corrupt, unpatriotic, vindictive, hypocritical, lawless, and undemocratic scumbag, what is important is not simply this description; it is the reasons and evidence I have adduced in support of this conclusion. Anyone is welcome to challenge my conclusions or evidence, to say "I disagree with your argument for this and that reason." What I totally reject is the idea that criticism of a president's leadership actions amounts to hate; it does not. If I point out that Hichilema is failing to ensure adequate ethnic diversity in public appointments and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is a sham and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema is a compulsive liar and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has eroded Zambia’s democracy and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to reduce the cost of living, as per his campaign promise, and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema (working in cohort with his friend Situmbeko Musokotwane) has facilitated the extraction of the country’s mineral wealth by multinational corporations without ensuring sufficient returns in revenue collection for Zambia and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. If I point out that Hichilema has failed to…and provide evidence in support of this assertion, anybody else is welcome to demonstrate weakness in my stated point of view. Simply dismissing my criticism as an expression of my alleged hatred for Hichilema is most unhelpful. Those who do so are depriving me the opportunity to learn what I do not know and Hichilema the opportunity to adjust his leadership style and change for the better. While I do not hesitate to share my opinions on matters of public concern, I also retain the intellectual integrity of one who is willing to abandon their point of view if its weakness can be shown. I have repeatedly stated that I harbour no hatred against Hichilema. What I hate is his bad leadership, whose meaning I have explained in the article below. There is no constitutional democracy in the world that requires citizens to love their elected leaders. Loving individuals is the responsibility of their spouses and family members. Once these individuals step up to hold elective public office, we owe them one thing: accountability or feedback on their performance. No elected public leader or their supporter should burden me or another person with any demand for affirmation or affection. In a functioning democracy, the duty of citizens is to hold their elected leaders to account so that they deliver basic services and do not undermine accountable democratic governance. This is what I have been doing across different administrations, including this one. As early as December 2021, when I analysed Hichilma's first 100 days in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2022, when he was celebrating one year in office, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2023, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In 2024, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. In fact, as did his predecessor in 2021 in response to my criticism of the abuse of state institutions to fix critics and opponents, the president asked his supporters to report me to the police for alleged hate speech against him! In 2025, I raised governance concerns of his leadership in the hope that he could address them so that they do not grow into bigger problems. He did not listen. This year and for the many reasons that I shared in the interview on the link below, Hichilema is losing the election because he did not listen to criticism that we, as citizens, raised about his performance. He is also losing the election because of his extremist supporters who, in addition to a wilful but harmful failure to hold him to account, dismiss legitimate criticism of his leadership from other people as hate speech. What a pity! What a wasted opportunity! I have just read a story on a ruling party platform casually dismissing Global Witness's report that "Ahead of Zambia's general election...First Quantum Minerals and its associates have been running a decades-long covert influence campaign distorting the copper-rich nation's democracy" and that the Canadian firm has "become his [Hichilema's] largest funder in the upcoming 2026 election after pledging up to $50 million in support." The report adds that "FQM has reaped enormous benefits: major changes to Zambia's tax regime have save the company $771 million between 2022 and 2025, and it has been shielded from legal scrutiny." Rather than interrogating these grave concerns, the publisher, the Zambian Watchdog which is run from State House, is treating the issue so casually when Global Witness, a very credible international outlet, raises serious corruption and governance allegations. In January 2019, I raised questions about Hichilema's relationship with foreign mining firms, but was told by his supporters that I just hate him. Today, we are ere. The net result is that Hichilema, who in opposition politics had positioned himself as the reformist leader Zambia needed to reclaim its democracy, eliminate corruption, unite the country, and set it on the path to economic recovery, has, in power, turned out to be nearly everything he detested about his predecessor and, in some cases, much worse. Under his watch, corruption has thrived on a massive scale, the economy is a shambles, ethnic divisions have worsened, Zambia’s previously principled foreign policy has been shredded into something unrecognisable, and democracy is essentially non-existent. The man who was expected to lead reform has instead transitioned into an aspiring despot. Unless he rigs the election, or eliminates his main rival, Zambians should prepare for a new administration after 13 August. Many voters have reached a point of no return and it is too late for Hichilema to change their mind. A combination of failure to listen and the "you just hate Hichilema" brigade has destroyed his once promising presidency. I see many people expressing surprise at the huge turnout at Brian Mundubile's rallies. What they miss is that the turnout reflects the revulsion against Hichilema rather than genuine support for Brian. Even if Brian was not there, voters would have rallied behind another candidate through which to express their opposition to Hichilema as a result of his major policy failures. As early as 2023, wen I noticed Hichilema's direction of travel, I warned that the greatest opposition that he and the UPND face is a politically alert and informed citizenry, not an opposition party: “The biggest opposition that Hichilema faces is the people, particularly if he fails to lower the cost of living and tackle the huge unemployment outside the health and education sectors. They can stop opposition rallies like Edgar Lungu and the PF tried to do but if Zambians would have decided in a year or two that Hichilema must go at the next election, there is nothing that he can do to stop them....Even if Hichilema tries to, he cannot stop the people’s will. Even if he succeeds in killing the PF and in his manoeuvres to block his main political opponents from running in 2026, another platform and another candidate to serve as the outlet of opposition will be found. The voters will support any visionary patriot they see as better placed to be used as the vehicle for removing Hichilema just like they chose him as the vehicle for removing Lungu. Please tell him”. Hichilema did not listen. Again. This continued failure to listen prompted my conclusion two years later that "Many Zambians may not know yet who they will vote for in the 2026 presidential election, but they already know who they won’t vote for." The truth is that I tried to warn Hichilema in good time and at different points that he was heading in the wrong direction. The President, dripping with arrogance, did not listen. Think of it this way. A bus (representing a political party in power) is transporting passengers (active citizens) from Intercity terminus (2021, being the departure point of where we did not want to be anymore) to Nakonde (2026, being the arrival point of destination before subsequently deciding whether to book the same bus for the return trip). After leaving Intercity, some passengers notice that the bus is heading towards Livingstone (a wrong destination that takes us back to before 2021). A few of us (active citizens) decide to stand up (holding the leader to account) and confront both the driver (the president) and his conductor (Minister of Finance), demanding an explanation for why we are heading to Livingstone when we were promised that we woud be taken to Nakonde. Other passengers, mainly those who came from the ethnic group of the driver and conductor, defended the duo even before it could respond to our concerns. They repeatedly told us that "You just hate the driver. Please sit down!" One or two relatives of the conductor joined in support, saying the "The driver and the conductor are excellent and one of them has even won awards for stellar performance on his duties, including his remarkable capacity to understand direction of travel"! That is how some passengers kept quiet. I kept on talking, especially after we reached Choma in the hope that if we turned atthat point, we woudl not wast more time. I talked because I could not get off the bus at undesigned stations, so the only solution was to appeal to the driver to change course. I explained that it would be an act of extreme irresponsibility on my part as an active passenger to wait until the bus has reached Livingstone before holding the driver to account about the direction of travel. That is why I tried to warn the driver that we were headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, other passengers said we should just sit back comfortably, enjoy the ride which included some morsels of food delivered by the bus, and trust the driver because other drivers before him were much worse. In the end, we arrived in Livingstone, our undesired destination. Just when we were arriving, we saw another bus, loading passing from there directly to Nakonde. The driver, upon realising the cost of his failure to listen and the disappointment in the eyes of the passengers, urged everyone to sit down, promising that he would take us to Nakonde if we give him more time. With the exception of those who came from the driver's ethnic group and the auxiliary ones, most passengers, who had shown great faith in his driving skills by paying (voting) the fare for the bus as their mode of transport from Intercity to Nakonde, have left the bus for the other. These include those who had adopted silence during the journey after realising that the driver, aided by the choir mentioned, was not a listening kind. As I write this post, the alternative bus is almost full. The same passengers who accused those of us who, along the way, advised the driver to change course, of harbouring hatred for the driver are now wondering why nearly everyone is leaving the bus we came with for an alternative one that is promising to take us directly to Nakonde. One of the driver's supporters, reiterating the driver's earlier appeal that we should stick to the bus that brought us to Livingstone, just shouted at us a moment ago: "The alternative bus will take you to a wrong destination. Its driver cannot be trusted; just stick to this one because you won't have to pay a new fare". The supporter is overlooking the point that we are already at a wrong destination, the current driver has betrayed our trust, and that we would rather repose our trust in another person. It is not good to remain on a bus, driven by a person who does not listen, out of the fear that an alternative one might be driven by someone who could be worse. Let us try the alternative bus. If its driver takes us to a wrong destination, we will disembark from the bus we are about to jump onto, as we have done before, and find another one until we reach Nakonde. For me and other active passengers, such has been the the current driver's betrayal of our trust that we have reached a point of no return. We cannot trust this driver anymore, especially that when we tried to correct him, no one explained to us why our concerns were unfounded. We were just told that we hate hate the driver or his ethic group or or the province where he comes from. Recently, Dr Lee Habasonda, a lecturer in political science at the University of Zambia, told Reuters (watch the video clip on the link below) that electoral success is a matter of thresholds – of grievances, feelings, frustrations, etc. Lee’s view is that once a certain threshold or tipping point has been reached, "no matter your manifesto, ideology, lies" or whatever those in power do or say, the voters will "decide to change government" because they would have reached a point of no return. Emotionally, many Zambian voters, including some that I know who voted for Hichilema in 2021, have passed that threshold where no matter what Hichilema or UPND does, these voters will reject him. This is because the threshold, or the point of no return, has been reached. As Lee argued, those in power "may say we have already won this election when they campaign but the political coalitions and realignment" suggest otherwise. When the opposition wins next month, we will need to advise them to get non-sycophants at State House and in the critical posts in the civil service. It is important that they understand that unless there is a clear shift away from the harmful culture we have raised concerns about, we will be compelled to challenge them with the same resolve we previously applied to both the PF and UPND governments. On my part, I promise that I will always be on the side of the people. You will not find me in government even after the election. Once Hichilema is out of office, I will leave him alone and my attention will shift to holding to account the next set of public leaders. As I made clear in 2021, I am content serving as an academic and I will work, as part of my civic duty, to hold the new Government to account as I did with previous Governments. I am not available for or interested in any form of government job. For now, Iet me continue listening to the attached song. Chalo chesu.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2078449842368483816/amplify_video_thumb/2078427007344427008/img/tCO3n_fY3sOVQlej.jpg)
