Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Found It! What's Next? ProSauce Finder | Tsuyu Asui X Katsuki Bakugo Artist/Animator " Misfitbite🔞 Characters Are From My Here Academia {#psfinderreborn #saucefinder #prosaucefinder #sauce #source #nsfw #animation #r34 #rule34 #hiddengem}

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

I've been pretty busy lately, I can't share what for yet, but I had a little bit of time to help provide some changes to Tokengo Kda recently. From a technical standpoint, I am satisfied with where we are. My only goal was to build something that anyone could use. Keep following the wall of text to see what's coming next for the site. This also gets asked, but there is no funding source other than tokens created and donations, which are much appreciated. Advanztek | Building Your Ideas took over the platform after my initial concept for a myriad of reasons. I still help support but plan to get others involved more for regular issues as I want to spend my time working on things like a new back end, enabling real-time stats that can be published on the site and X. This will enable the things I couldn't see myself directly supporting(not that I didn't want to). Trading leaderboards, trending tokens, and real-time stats popping up on the site like large buys are all coming as a result. FunnyOMG99 has been a private source of support, and I thank you for that. Kabir has been helping behind the scenes with styling/format and is updating as well. Advanztek is building the new leaderboard UI, and I've offered for him to take over the game bots I cannot operate myself for Telegram(these are f*ing cool and finally get to see the light of day). Where the site goes from here will be interesting. I've debated if the IDE should be separate, and soon it will end up with a version in my sandbox to really make it a robust tool. Easier ways to get token trading immediately, locking LP, burning LP, and some other features should be added/unhidden very soon. Some quality-of-life improvements for token names should be made soon as well. Following Tokengo Kda is good, as that handle will start to provide more updates, but I know many people follow me directly for this information. Thank you to azzacalabaza for editing the video attached. Also, big thanks to the people who are testing the live data test site. We've made several changes since this was done a few days back based on feedback. If you want to join and check it out, just dm me on Telegram for the link. Now LFG and have a great weekend!

Amir

26,419 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Gary Melton Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton is a former Green Beret who constantly hides behind the title of "Green Beret" whenever he is challenged. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: X is full of propagandists and coordinated accounts. One reason they operate on X instead of platforms like Instagram is that comments are harder to control and delete, a flood of trolls can quickly overwhelm a discussion and that is the Goal. There is a well-known psychological principle called the mere-exposure effect, which describes how people can develop a preference for an idea simply because they encounter it repeatedly. Combined with the illusory truth effect, constant repetition can make false claims feel true. The goal is often to attack and discredit people who challenge a narrative while flooding comment sections with repeated talking points until others begin accepting them as fact. Gary Melton has repeatedly made false claims about me. He claimed that I do not have a law degree, which I showed him on live show next day! I Then he said that I only started my career after Charlie died and even suggested that I am a Russian agent. I showed video from 7 years ago me working as a journalist on the ground, proof every single time he lied. Every one of these claims was challenged with evidence, yet he continued repeating them and never apologized for it. As I looked further into the people around him, I found Jennifer Griffin, who presents herself as a producer. From what I could find, her background appears to emphasize military involvement and volunteer work she claims she did, I found a few interesting details she was not happy about, she supports and has obvious ties with Ukrainian military it is all in her pictures posts on linkedIn. That caught my attention because I already viewed Gary as someone spreading misinformation, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I warned Gary that if he continued making false statements about me, I would continue researching him and his crew. Shortly afterward, Jennifer changed the visibility of her LinkedIn profile took down her pictures and blocked me. That told me that she is guilty as hell of something. Innocent people do not delete stuff. She also blocked me on X, allowing her to continue making accusations while preventing me from responding directly to her audience. Gary appears unusually focused on attacking both me and Candace Owens and everyone who ever challenges his lies, he blocked all my followers and veterans who challenged him. He is mentally unstable. A significant portion of his online activity seems devoted to criticizing us rather than engaging with the facts being presented. The situation became more serious when Gary edited one of my videos and distributed it while misrepresenting what I said. He claimed that I was receiving illegal information from the FBI as a foreign agent. He called me a Russian operative, which is a very serious allegation. That demoted moron can't tell the difference between Russia and the country of Georgia. Every single ting he said is completely false. What I actually said was that friends who worked for the FBI, which they have, which are now former FBI and NYPD personnel conduct their own investigations and have access to resources and databases that I do not personally have access to. Gary lied to the FBI and said I'm a Russian agent who has a secret source apparently in the FBI and is illegally getting information. It's one thing to troll someone and lie about someone's degree and it is whole another thing to go so far to Lie to the FBI. Gary crossed a line. Disagreements, criticism, and even false accusations about my background are one thing. Falsely accusing someone of criminal conduct specifically and lying to the FBI about it is another matter entirely. I challenged Gary that if he thinks I'm a russian agent to directly reach out to the head of FBI FBI Director Kash Patel and report it. Instead Gary chose to lie to the FBI. Because of these claims, I reached out to the FBI myself. If someone is making allegations that I am engaged in criminal activity or acting as a foreign agent, those allegations should be supported by evidence and when they are not then a man making them should be looked at and investigated and punished! As far as I know lying to the FBI is a crime and rightfully so! Here is how mentally deranged he is, just look at his wall. And this man calls himself a Green Beret. He is a shame to the American military and the honorable men and women who serve do not deserve someone like Gary tarnishing their reputation by hiding behind military credentials. And Gary you are a pussy and you will always be a pussy. A man who runs from a debate can not be anything else.

ELIZABETH LANE

23,530 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

NEW: Here's what NYC mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa and his wife Nancy Sliwa really think of Jews and Israel, in addition to criticizing Israel's June 2024 hostage rescue, accusing Israel of "slaughter," and complaining that the ICC should have acted against Israel sooner: 1. Accusing Israel of intentionally provoking the 10/7 massacre in order to attack Gaza. See video posted by Nancy Sliwa on November 9, 2023. 2. Responding with a derisive GIF and the caption "please leave," on October 8, 2023, in response to the mayor's tweets which acknowledged the slaughter and kidnapping of Israelis and condemned protests against Israel, as Israelis were still fighting Hamas terrorists in the country and struggling to determine which of their loved ones had been murdered or kidnapped. 3. Responding with a dismissive GIF image to the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) Federation of New York's October 10, 2023 post on Twitter/X in which UJA thanked Mayor Adams for standing with Jews and Israel and for attending a gathering in NYC in recognition of the 1,200 innocent people (including 47 Americans) who were murdered by Hamas in Israel on October 7th. 4. Responding with the same GIF was used in direct response to Adams' tweet as well, on the same day. 5. Responding with four question marks to a video of an Israeli neighborhood singing the Israeli national anthem, Hatikva ("the Hope") on October 10, 2023. 6. Calling Israelis "animals who drop bombs on innocent folks" on October 9, 2023. 7. Accusing Israel of "indiscriminately bombing both" hostages and Hamas on June 9, 2024. (One of the separate posts that Sliwa was already criticized for in recent days was also a response to this June 2024 rescue by Israel of several hostages from Gaza; Nancy Sliwa criticized it, explicitly calling Israel's successful effort to rescue those hostages "disgusting," and then both she and Curtis explicitly lied about it right here on X when asked in recent days. (See one of my replies to this thread for links to their deceitful replies.) And, last but not least (for now)... 8. Responding to a video posted on August 29, 2024 of a young terrorist stabbing Israeli soldiers in Jerusalem, by saying, dismissively, "What's your point?" The point, Mr. and. Mrs. Sliwa, is that you are despicable Jew-haters of the lowest order. You must leave the NYC mayoral race immediately. You are evil. You can never hold public office in New York or anywhere else in America. Never. Images of #1-3 are in below, along with a video of #1. Images of #4-8, and links to all of this, can be found in the next posts. Curtis and Nancy Sliwa are full-blown Jew-haters. This is not just antizionism. This is raw and unfiltered antisemitism. This is total disregard for Jews, on the bloodiest days for Jews in nearly a century. All decent people must reject Sliwa immediately. Curtis and Nancy Sliwa wanted Mamdani to win. It is undeniable. This is the antisemitic horseshoe in action. They fooled everyone.

Ben Badejo

189,734 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

(1/2) Last night's Aidan Kearney meltdown over his falling out with Karen Read on an X Space is the peak of catharsis and real-time online toxicity: It starts with the the bombshell claim about Aidan recorded Karen Read, moves to Karen's newly-released texts about being "done" with Aidan after "someone" sent a recording of that conversation to David Yannetti and Alan Jackson, then spirals into ad hominems, and ends with Kearney storming off to counter-publish. The flood of primary source documents posted on online overnight, thus, acts as the host's (Chris) victory lap over Kearney. FULL TRANSCRIPT; *(Cleaned for grammar/spelling, punctuated for flow, and line-broken for readability. Some errors are expected.)* **Aidan:** Am I on? **Host/Other:** You're on. **Aidan:** So who are you? Who is this? **Chris:** Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter who I am. **Aidan:** Well, it does. You're some fucking kangaroo court motherfucker talking about her. What the fuck do you know about anything? **Chris:** Well, I don't know exactly what you've been doing. **Aidan:** So what are your sources? What are your sources? What are your sources you're talking about? Huh? You don't know your sources? What do you talk about? No, your sources. Shut up. Let's see 'em. Let's see your sources. **Lily:** Hang on, Aidan. I'm the host. I'm Lily. **Aidan:** Yes, Lily. Hi, Lily. How are you? **Lily:** I'm good. I'm just going to wait. I know you may not know it, Chris, but you know me. And so I just wanted to say hi. **Aidan:** Yeah, I know, but this Koala motherfucker is up here making shit up, running his mouth nonsense. Let's see the receipts. I mean, what were you talking to Karen Read about? What are you talking about? Who the fuck are you? **Chris:** I'm asking you flat out: Did you or did you not record her phone calls between yourself and Karen? **Aidan:** I did not. I did not. **Chris:** Okay, so Karen is lying? **Aidan:** You talked to Karen Read? Karen isn't talking to anyone in the media, but she's talking to this call-the-motherfucker. That's what you're telling me right now. **Chris:** Like I said, If you want to go down this hill, stand ten toes down." **Aidan:** I'm calling you out because you're making shit up. **Chris:** Who? I'm not making anything up. I'm not making anything up. I'm not making anything up. **Aidan:** So let's see it. Let's see the fucking evidence. Let's see your communications with Karen Read where she says that. Let's see it. **Lily:** Hang on. Chris, you're going to have to provide the receipts. **Chris:** I'm going to tell you, the guy who's doing this—you know, he's going to put them out. **Chris:** Do you really want to prove it? You want to prove it to me? I've got all the mistakes that come out. I can't. Literally. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. What's that? Let's see it. Let's see it. Produce it. Tweet it out right now. **Aidan:** So I'm denying it—like, hardcore, 100%. I'm the guy you have to deny it to. I don't, because you've become a bit of a fuck-up. It's about as fucking legitimate as Lindsey trying to be a rake. Let's fucking see it, motherfucker. You got it, right? 'Cause I—accusations—I always bring fucking receipts. Where's your receipt, bitch? **Aidan:** You got 'em? **Chris:** I've got 'em now. I think you want me to be saying—to be honest—hang a room on the fucker with no receipt. **Aidan:** You got 'em? Yes or no? **Chris:** I've got a receipt. Where's your fuck? **Chris:** You just need, bro—you just need to like chill, because you're gonna have a lot of fucking neck on your face, because I don't really care. **Chris:** I said to the people who bought this story: If I end up having egg on my face, I'll put everyone's name in it, and I'm given—I have a... Just shut your fucking mouth for one fucking minute. **Aidan:** Right. Let's see it. **Chris:** I've just messaged the person. **Aidan:** Joe Flipp, you want to talk about a fucking psychopath? That motherfucker is—just, Joe Flipp. Really want to fucking go there?" 'Cause it's Joe. You can just say it's Nick from Philadelphia, isn't it? Yeah, I know all about Nick from Philadelphia. If you fucking want to go there and the fucking hell—that psychopath—what Olivia Lambo went through. You just don't want to come out. Does he want to talk about all that? Does he want to launch? **Chris:** Okay? You know what? How was your lunch with Meredith the other week. Fuck it. I don't care. How was your lunch with Meredith? How's your lunch with Meredith? **Aidan:**What the fuck? **Chris:** Chat, what, what am I talking about? How is your lunch with Meredith here? We got—you know what you want to do? You want to carry on and be a fuck with me here? I like you—always up. **Chris:** How was your lunch with Meredith a couple weeks ago, and what did you play for her? What the fuck are you talking about? Yeah, what the fuck am I talking about? You know exactly what I'm talking about. And I'm trying to do this respectfully, but you come in hot like you always do. So now I'm just gonna fucking do it. How was your lunch with Meredith the other week? **Aidan:** I didn't have one with Meredith. Yeah, bullshit. Okay, so that's it. So someone else is lying now. **Chris:** So you're gonna call Meredith a liar? Why? Meredith's a liar? **Aidan:** Are you talking to Meredith? **Chris:**I'm not talking to Meredith. **Aidan:** What are you talking about? **Chris:** Okay, well, so you have great Meredith in an Oscar. If you said that to Meredith, you just spread rumors. That's what you do—you don't spread any rumors. I want to laugh tonight about this. **Erika Walsh:** I warned you, Chris, about this last night. **Aidan:** You got no—Joe Flipp—fucking feeding you nonsense. That slimy psychopath, fucking nut job who called in Olivia's entire family to harass them—to the point where she had the fucking... Nothing to do with Olivia. And Joe's Flipp— **Chris:* this is to do with you. Stop deflecting, that motherfucker. **Aidan:** I'm telling you this—he's the one telling you this. **Chris:** I've been told by three different people. Three different people. There's people in this chat who know about this. There's people in chat—they won't stand up and say anything, but I know the people who know about this. **Aidan:** Bring all these lame cons up one by one so I can slam 'em down one by one, because none of you motherfuckers got a receipt to back up any of this shit. None of you do. Bring it. By adding them. **Chris:** Stand by. Stand by. Stand by. **Joe Flipperhead:** You have the text, bro. You know I saw the screenshot. **Aidan:** So we gonna talk about what you did to Olivia Lambo? We have a lot of things, dude. **Joe:** You're deflecting. When you... **Aidan:** You want to go there? Mark Bedderow? Oh, of being in on a fucking conspiracy against you? To tell us—if when we told you Olivia Lambo... You made us fucking get on a FaceTime with her because you thought she was dead. You thought you were being catfished by her, fucking... I was, and so we agreed to do a Zoom call with her. And when I called you and I told you Olivia Lambo is real—I just saw her face. What did you do? You accused me and Mark Bedderow of lying to you, of being in on it, because you are a fucking psychopathic motherfucker. And I didn't put it there because I don't want to fuck... **Joe:** Yeah, you did put it out there, though. If you want to get into the Olivia thing, that's fine, and I'll go down that road. But you're calling me a psychopath You fucking recorded Karen Read's fucking calls and sent them to people. **Chris:** I'm just gonna keep muting him because he's yelling. You can say it. **Aidan:** Is this Lily's space or yours? **Joe:** I have the text, dude. I'll put it on one of our... Your—She told me she's fucking done with you, dude. **Aidan:** All right. I'm going on my own right now. I'm calling out fucking Joe Flipp-ed life. If I get muted one more fucking time. I'm gonna do a whole fucking... Thank you. I'm publishing all your fucking texts—the whole world can see what a fucking sadistic psychopath you are. You controlling predator piece of shit. You fucking go there. **Chris:** This is completely the actions of a normal innocent person. **Aidan:* You're a pyscho freak. **Joe:** Yeah, says the guy that recorded Karen. **Aidan:** Oh, yeah, let's hear it. See the fucking recording. Can I hear it? **Joe:** I got the text saying you recorded. But the text says there's a recording, so where's the fucking recording? *Aidan:** Hey, let's hear Joe. Why? I just got asked if I'm—what would you say if I'm a massage in this? Like, go— **Joe:** Why does Liv still text me to this day? **Aidan:** You text her. Oh, you want to see the receipts, dude? I've seen the receipts—all of them. Okay, I got all the receipts. **Joe:** You got the August ones, the September ones where she misses me and hates how things ended? You got those? Fuck, I see 'em. Publish 'em. I will do it. I don't plan—I talk about you. Go for it. **Chris:** You're doing everything back. **Joe:** When I told you how she wouldn't FaceTime me for three months, how she puts up month-old pictures if you wouldn't fucking... **Aidan:** Yeah, you know why? You know why she wouldn't do that? She's just not into you. Ever have you do this with every girl you fucking talk to? **Joe:**You said to me, after reading the text from her sister— **Chris:** Says the guy who is swining on a 19-year old. **Joe:** You said Aidan, that she said to you, "she's love with you," bro. That's what you said. She's in love with you. That's what you said. Yeah, when her sister—and then he can get you caught by somebody. Let's just get back to you. Deflection from Aidan, who doesn't want to be on the line. **Joe:** As you wish—she wouldn't FaceTime me. She wouldn't meet up with me, and she lied to me constantly. Yeah, why would she meet up? **Aidan:** Maybe she's just not that into you. Ever think about that? Maybe she's just not that into you. Maybe you saw the text. I know, I know—it's hard for you to accept that the girl just doesn't want you. You have to accept the person doesn't want nothing to do with you, isn't it? I did, and you got clingy and possessive. And so she fucking stopped talking to you, so you called her mother and you talked—you don't even know because you're psychotic, bro. I'm fucking... you. *Joe:** You're just deflecting, bro. This is fucking pathetic. I'm not your one. She's talking about this. **Aidan:** I got no fucking thing—you—you are a fucking psychopath. **Joe:** You're first of all—she doesn't want you to fucking be talking about this because why? **Aidan:** You're the one fucking airing it out now, motherfucker. **Chris:** You're the one airing it because you got caught recording Karen. **Aidan:** So let's hear the recording. Let's play the recording. You got a recording of me, right? **Joe:** I know you did it, dude. **Aidan:** What? **Joe:** I know you recorded. Are you lying? Karen Read's a liar? All right, am I...? **Aidan:** You are the fucking coward. Where's the recording? What recording you talking about? You're—you're— **Joe:** You're accusing Karen Read of lying about this? **Aidan:** Yes. **Joe:** You're really—are you really serious? How many fucking—serious? **Aidan:** Let's hear the fucking recording. **Lily** Chris or Joe? Please play it. Did it? You didn't have... for people. Can you please provide a receipt? Just like I think it's fair. **Joe:** Aidan has it. **Aidan:: I thought you had it. I thought you had it. Let's hear it. Let's hear the recording. **Joe:** All right, you sent me the text that I sent. You haven't... **Aidan:** Yeah, let's—so let's hear the actual recording. Does it exist, though? **Joe:** So Karen is lying. **Aidan:: Karen Read would never lie (sarcastic tone). Oh, yeah. **Chris:** True color. *Joe:** So yeah, let me just run this: You recorded it. You recorded the conversation. You showed it to people, and then the very next day she randomly accused you of fucking doing it. That's what happened. That's what your story is, right? **Aidan:** There's no fucking recording. **Joe:** There is, dude. Where is it? **Aidan:** So let me hear it. Play it. **Joe:** I don't fucking have it. **Aidan:** Oh, you don't know if there's a recording, do you? Thank you. Because you're full of shit. I know—I just fucking caught you. That's what you just said. Those—bring it up here. I talked to somebody—bring her up here. Bring Karen Read up here, bro. You talked to her? Bring her on up here. **Joe:** I spoke to somebody that you played the recording for. Okay, oh—you know, just—I just say I've already said it, so just say it. Okay, I said I wanted to not say her name, but you know who—you played it for. **Aidan:** I haven't played it for anyone just— there's no recording. **Joe:** Stop fucking lying. Let's hear it from the point. *Aidan:** Let's hear it. Let's hear it. **Joe:** Aidan, this is fucking crazy, dude. **Aidan:** I'm not the one that fucking caught it—got blocked by Olivia's mother, and fucking brother... **Joe** Here we go. This is deflecting, and dude—that's admitting how fucking guilty you are right here. **Aidan:** Let's hear a fucking recording. You said you got a fucking recording, right? **Joe:** Nobody said that. We said—oh, Karen Read doesn't want to talk to you anymore because you recorded her calls, set them to people, and it got back to her. **Chris:** I got a question for you, Aidan, I didn't know—so sure. When you went on your little pity party and then you— **Joe:** The worst part is you lied to everybody acting on it. You had no idea what was wrong and why she she fucking set you straight—trying to get sympathy. That, my friend, is fucking psychotic. **Aidan:** Okay, okay, sure thing. Yeah, you said I sent the recording out. Where's the recording? *Joe:** Dude? It's not—I'm not obligated to fucking get the recording. **Aidan:** Oh, yeah, you wouldn't want to back it up, right? **Joe:** You're so—you're going to go on record that Karen is lying? Say it. You're caling Karen Read a liar about this. **Aidan:** There is no fucking recording. **Joe:** You're lying, dude. It's fucking crazy. This is what's here. It—play the note. You played it for somebody. You got it. I don't got it. **Aidan:** Let's hear you play it. You're the one that says there's a fucking record. **Chris:** I mean, that's—you have a history of recording people. **Lily:** Wait, we have—well, I feel like we have a responsibility as me as a host to Chris and... You're both—you're actually both not providing a receipt, and I'm—Aidan is actually asking for a receipt. I have to—for the recording. **Joe and Chris** He has—asking for the recording. **Lily:** You guys—she has which he sent to—we know I said. So who has it? One of the receipts. I know you're not gonna have— **Aidan:: you don't have the recording because— **Lily:** Just fucking say it. Karen doesn't want the recording out there. **Aidan:** What recording? There's no recording. **Joe:** Never even asked her for it, to be honest with you. **Aidan:** And so you wait—yeah, you never asked. Thank you—you never asked. **Joe:** Karen is fucking so done with you, bro. She sent—she told me about this completely unsolicited. **Lily:**That's beside the point, and I'm not the first—(Joe) Karen's done with him, ..but what the fuck—just post the fucking receipt for him. **Chris:** You can't come on here saying he has it, Lily. He's seen the same thing you've seen. He's even seen the same thing that I showed you. **Lily:** I know. You don't come on here and say I've got this, and then Aidan demands a receipt—you deserve. Okay... **Joe:** He's deflecting, asking for a recording he knows about the text. **Lily:** Yeah, I know, Joe. I get what you're saying, and I respect every—like what you're saying, but he's denying it. **Joe:** Fine, I'll post the fuck—I'll post them right now. I really don't give a fuck. **Lily:** Thank you. And that's immense—he can—he can then riff like whatever he can. I can't—I'm so like nervous. I've got dry mouth because... Then Aidan can like look at those, and he at least has—you know exactly what's been spoken about. He's just denying it. I can't say that, and I get it, but he is asking for the receipt, which is fair. And **Joe:** I'll even add the text message when he came on here initially. He said it was all alive, right? He said he sent me—fucking text message on Monday morning. **Lily:** I see it. We've established that now. We established that Aidan's denying it, so just post the receipt that you have, and then he can actually reflect on that and—and do you see what I mean? He's not gonna turn around now and say actually it is true. But if you've got the receipt, he can then say, "I will—this is x, y and z there." I just think it's fair—like... **Aidan:** Now, yeah, what he has is a screenshot that he claims is from Karen Read. It was— **Joe:** You're saying it's not from Karen Read. **Aidan:** I don't—there's no fucking name on the top. **Joe:** Yeah, I have it. Do you want me to read? **Aidan:** Okay, so there was an allegation? I'm reading. **Joe:** Do I have a text from you saying I was sent the same thing the morning after the verdict? Did you not say that to me? **Aidan:** Yes, you sent me the same thing the morning after the verdict. **Joe:** Okay, so then she sent it to me too. **Aidan:** Yeah, she knows—she said to me the morning after the Wilbur—she after the morning after the show, she said that she was sent a 30-minute fucking tape. Where's the fuck? What tape? Okay, she's not fucking accusing me. I have no—there's no fucking tape. There's no tape. She thinks I recorded her because I fucking told people about the conversation. That's it. **Joe:** You're telling me you didn't? **Aidan:: And I'm telling you I fucking didn't. You're wrong. **Joe:** 100% You're lying, dude. **Aidan:** Okay, so prove it. Let's see it. You got evidence, right? You like evidence? You got Any? **Joe**: I mean—I—a screenshot of—how many people did you send it to? **Aidan:** Zero, because there's no recording. **Joe:** There is. **Aidan:** Let's hear it. Play it. Let's play it. Let's go. **Joe:** Let's hold on. Let's hold on. Can I go real quick? So you come in here calling it—you were making fun of Chris because he's an Australian motherfucker. He doesn't have nothing, right? You said there was no text, no proof. And then now we're transitioning to the recording because I don't have the recording. Okay, so you think Karen Read is just fucking lying about this? How would she know? How would she know what about the recording? **Aidan:** There is no recording. **Joe:** You're telling me you didn't show it to anybody? Is that really what you're gonna tell people? **Aidan:**There's no recording to share with anyone. Okay, okay. Well, I mean, you got evidence, right? To back this up. **Joe:** Yeah, right. **Aidan:: You got something, right? Yeah, yeah. Did you been right? I mean, you have that, right? You have that right because you wouldn't say something—because if you know I had it, right? **Joe:** I have—why Karen Read won't speak to you. **Aidan:** You have a screenshot of a conversation with Karen Read. You don't have an actual fucking audio, though. **Joe:** I have—in Karen Read's words. Why do you think she would lie about this? **Aidan:** Do I think she would lie about having a recording? **Joe:** She wouldn't lie about this. Explain that one—about having a recording. **Aidan:** Yes, I know she's lying about that. **Joe:** Why, though? **Aidan:** I don't know why Karen is acting the way she is. It's unfortunate. Yeah, and honestly, I'm not the one—you're a fucking airing it all out right now. That's odd that Karen would green-light you coming on here and fucking doing this. That's kind of odd. Because I love you—notice, but like—kind of yeah, we raised 1.1 million fucking dollars for a little... Here I know—here, I'm here. I'm here. There's still a— **Chris;** there's no because you—still a fucking snake. Yeah, I know. He records people's phone calls. **Aidan:: Let's hear the tape. Let's hear the tape. You're the one making—you guys got nothing. Nothing. Nothing. I just sent the fucking text out. Just say—there you go, buddy. **Aidan:** Okay, so Karen Read is green-lighting this sort of drama? That's what you're saying? **Joe:** I asked her. I said—you asked her? She said yes, go ahead. I said, do you want your side out there? She said, 'sure. You're gonna read it? Sure. I told many people my side. This is my last straw. I would never and have never betrayed him. Meanwhile, he has put me in harm's way in a huge way multiple times.' **Aidan:** I put her—fucking words, okay? Not mine. Yep. Okay. I put Karen Read in harm's way? I went to jail for Karen Read. I don't know if you're familiar. **Chris:** You didn't go to jail for Karen Read, you fuck. **Aidan:** Oh, really? Then what am I on bail for? What is—the full—what's the full? **Chris:** You went to jail for Karen Read? You went to jail because of Lindsey. You went to jail because you're a fucking dick. **Aidan:** Why was I on bail? I think you're a fuck—while you're on bail. I'm saying because—why would I care? Maybe someone in the night— **Chris:** hey, you're full of shit. You're a fucking hell. **Aidan:** What the fuck was I on bail for? **Joe** Because they may know that—if you didn't record it, why are you being so hush-hush about it with everybody? Why would he just tell the people what she was saying since she's lying? What do you mean hush-hush about it? **Aidan** You think I won't talk about what she texted me? But you were hinting at it because I don't want to hear the fucking drama, but apparently she does because she's—you fucking do this because you're recording. Thank you. You're telling me no recording of any fucking phone calls? What's the—what's the fight? So you weren't mocking her the past however long—every time you went on the show saying you owe everything to Karen, all that shit? How is that little white lie? **Aidan:** I owe everything to Karen? What? Why is that little sub-story? You went on two weeks—how is that mocking her? That wasn't in the recording. What recording? There's no fucking recording. **Joe:** I heard it was a 10-minute recording. Does that make sense? **Aidan:** No recording, bro. Let's hear it. You heard it. Let's hear it. **Joe:** Dude, I'm not putting that part out here. **Aidan:** She's talking about her shit. What she's texting you right now—obviously. Who egging this on, isn't she? **Joe:** Who? Okay? Okay, who? Keep playing dumb. Hey—who? **Aidan:** Mm-hmm? Believe it or not—you guys got nothing, right? **Chris;** We got good—from the horse's mouth, mate. I mean, it's not over the horse. Yeah, that's enough for me. I don't need... **Aidan:** Karen's not talking to anyone in the media. **Joe:** If you read the text message, I just reached out to her as a friend—just to reach out and say hope you're doing well. She went into this whole thing about you. **Aidan:** So you reached out—let me get this right—you reached out to her just to say hope you're doing well, and the first thing she did was complain about me? **Joe:** Yes, okay. That says it all. There we go. Where is she? Tired of me? Maybe she's fucking tired of you telling the people bullshit. **Aidan:** What—what—what—what—what bullshit have I told people? That you have no idea why she won't fucking come on your whatever it is. **Aidan:** What do you mean I have no idea why? **Joe:** That's what you've been saying—you don't know what's going on, like you feel a bit sorry for—like the thing with the fucking Howie Carr, dude. That was ridiculous. **Aidan:** What was ridiculous? You're the entire way you handled—I didn't say a word about that. **Chris:** Yes, you did. You deleted the receipt, but let's see—where did I complain about her appearance on Howie Carr? You made a lot of all quiet. Oh, this fuck it. Oh... **Joe:** Wait, but you think we're fucking dumb? Do people are fucking dumb? So where did I—after you deleted it, and then you made a post about deleting it. **Aidan:** What did I say about it? I don't remember. **Chris:** But you don't remember? Yeah, you deleted it, bro. You deleted it. Yeah, remember? You deleted it. And then you made a post about the deleting of the post. Part 2 coming later.

Grant Smith Ellis

85,913 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

I once thought of Jingdezhen (景德镇) merely as an historic porcelain-producing town, quietly tucked away in the margins of history books. To my surprise, it's not only alive but also thriving with modern flair: A friend of mine recently returned from Jingdezhen, brimming with stories-about a little duck made of broken shards, lovingly restored porcelain factories now taken over by young artists from around the world, and some sixty thousand hand-painting workshops. Listening to these tales, I couldn't help but feel: this city is so worth writing about, even though I've rarely delved into ceramics and seldom write about places I haven't yet seen for myself. Before it became the renowned "Porcelain Capital," Jingdezhen was not particularly noteworthy. Prior to the Northern Song dynasty (960–1127), the region remained rather obscure, as the most advanced ceramic workshops were concentrated in China's central plains. That changed dramatically in 1127, when the Northern Song fell to the Jurchens from the north. Waves of skilled artisans migrated southward, bringing Jingdezhen an unprecedented historical opportunity. By the Southern Song (1127–1279), the town was already producing porcelain for the imperial court, and large quantities of its wares have been found in shipwrecks in the South China Sea from this era. Under Mongol rule (1279–1368), mature blue-and-white porcelain (青花瓷) was born here. Beyond breakthroughs in painting techniques, Jingdezhen's abundant kaolin clay resources allowed artisans to create larger, thinner porcelain bodies-a true leap in craftsmanship. From then on, Jingdezhen established itself as the very heart of Chinese porcelain. During the Ming and Qing dynasties, the imperial court even established official kilns in Jingdezhen dedicated to producing porcelain exclusively for royal use. After the founding of the PRC in 1949, several large porcelain factories were set up here. Astonishingly, half a century ago, one-third of China's foreign exchange earnings came from Jingdezhen porcelain. That number alone shocked me, but what I learned next surprised me even more. In my mind, an industrial city like Jingdezhen would be turning out ceramics that were rigid in design, lacking creativity, and largely mass-produced with printed patterns rather than hand-painted ones-something without sufficient artistic value. But my colleague told me otherwise: today Jingdezhen has more than 60,000 workshops, and over 90 percent of porcelain designs are still hand-painted: Machines may guarantee standardized mass production, but Jingdezhen's true strength lies in its culture of handcrafted customization. While many former industrial hubs shifted entirely toward the service sector in the post-industrial era, Jingdezhen has remained firmly rooted in porcelain. Last year alone, the city's ceramic industry reached an output value of over 93 billion yuan, exporting to more than 80 countries and regions. Even more impressive, the city has embraced bold innovations-reimagining what porcelain can be in the 21st century. Let's take a look at a few examples. Top left: You might not expect it, but ceramic materials can be transformed into musical instruments-flutes, chimes, even stringed instruments. And not just for show-they can really play. Hit play and listen for yourself. Can you believe this sound comes from clay? Top right: Shown here are the work of a Jingdezhen artist's daughter, who returned after studying in the UK: a ceramic speaker and a beautifully engineered teacup. Ingeniously designed with clever mechanics, this teacup will not topple no matter which angle the tea is poured from. With its simple form and distinctive texture, it carries both an Oriental heritage and a modern sensibility. She shared that her daily work involves constantly negotiating the space between tradition and innovation-often engaging in passionate, sometimes stubborn, debates with elder craftsmen. But she said it's exactly in those moments of tension that the most unexpected ideas are born. At one point, Jingdezhen stood in the brink of becoming China's Detroit. Once a glorious industrial powerhouse, prosperous for centuries longer than Detroit ever was, the city began to decline in the late 1990s. Large state-owned porcelain factories shut down one after another, tens of thousands of workers were laid off, and aging dormitories fell into disrepair, some crumbling into near slums. Meanwhile, Western ceramics companies, armed with more advanced industrial techniques, took over the mass-production market, and Jingdezhen's traditional advantages steadily eroded. As the city declined, a question loomed: What should be done with the husks of its abandoned factories? Some pushed to level them for new real estate projects, while others argued for preserving the industrial heritage. In the end, the preservationists won. Many of the old facilities were restored, repurposed, and left largely intact: transformed into artists' studios, small shops, and homes for young craftspeople. The porcelain fires no longer burn only in the kilns. They now fuel the city's way of life. It is precisely this unique blend of cultural atmosphere and youthful vitality that has brought Jingdezhen back to life. Over the past decade, the city has welcomed a net population inflow of 136,000 people, more than 80 percent of them young. In their twenties and thirties, ceramic artists have set up studios in alleys and courtyards, while young visitors wander through the streets, making it feel as though every lane holds a hidden story. What's equally surprising is that Jingdezhen's charm has crossed borders. Today, a growing number of young people from the United States, Japan, France, Turkey, and beyond have chosen to live here long-term, immersing themselves in the art of ceramics. They call this ancient-yet-youthful city "China within China." At the lower left and lower right are the Imperial Kiln Museum (yes, its architecture itself resembles a kiln) and its most popular artifact. Surprisingly, this piece is actually a "reject." Made in the mid-Ming dynasty for the emperor, it is a porcelain incense burner in the form of a duck. To date, the Palace Museum in Beijing has not discovered another example like it. As for its status as a flawed piece, there are a few theories: one suggests that the designer originally intended for smoke to spout from the duck's beak, but the effect proved unsatisfactory, and the craftsmen abandoned what was, perhaps, a rather avant-garde idea; another possibility is that a more perfect version was eventually produced, but those pieces did not survive through history. In Jingdezhen, porcelain rejects from the imperial kilns of the Ming and Qing dynasties were always smashed and discarded. Over time, they formed a mountain of shards. Archaeological work on this "porcelain mountain" continues to this day, with archaeologists patiently piecing fragments back together, like working with Lego bricks. The colleague told me that among this mountain, they even found some flawless porcelain pieces. When I asked why such perfect works would also be smashed, he explained one theory: certain pieces were so difficult to fire that, had the emperor seen them, he might have happily ordered, "Make ten more!" To spare themselves endless trouble, the craftsmen may have deliberately destroyed them, pretending nothing had ever succeeded in the first place. After the duck-shaped incense burner was pieced back together and put on display, its charming form earned it the nickname Suisuiya (碎碎鸭/Broken Duck) from Chinese netizens. Quite unexpectedly, it became something of a cultural phenomenon: quirky, creative, once a "failure," now rediscovered. Many young people see themselves in "Broken Duck": imperfect, but interesting; not yet celebrated, yet deserving to be seen. Artists, too, have embraced its odd yet endearing beauty, creating popular cartoon characters. Since the beginning of this year, merchandise and spin-off IP related to the Broken Duck have already generated more than 10 million RMB in revenue. In September, Khaby Lame, the most-followed creator on TikTok, visited the Imperial Kiln Museum and posed with the duck, pulling his signature expression (Though I must admit, I still don't quite get Lame's appeal…The duck, on the other hand, I find utterly delightful). Across China, Jingdezhen has emerged as a new model for urban renewal: one that does not blindly chase GDP growth or uncritical modernization, but instead draws from its own cultural roots to find common ground between tradition and the future. Sometimes, the hope of a city is hidden in the secret of a "Broken Duck." Not because it is flawless, but because it was once overlooked, and then reappreciated. Like Jingdezhen itself, true revival is not about rebuilding, but about learning to understand who you are, and learning to see it with new eyes.

Zhai Xiang

27,928 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

My app just hit $7.8k/m in revenue. This is how I'm running ads for mobile apps. To hit 10k/m before I quit my job & fly to Vietnam 🇻🇳 Part One: Apple Ads (First $1k/m). • Repeated this a lot so to summarise: 1. $100 free ad credits, ez mode. 2. Run strict keywords on competitor names. 3. Split into tiers for countries & scale the max bid. 4. Use RevenueCat or Superwall for attribution. 5. Give ad spend & transactions to claude: find winners. 6. Measure the onboarding: tighten funnel. 7. Daily budget can be low at first, like $20. 8. The max bid is the important variable here. 9. This will get you to $1k/m. Part Two: TikSl0p Ads ($1k to $10k) • This is much harder to make profit. • But when you do, it's exponential. • Read Open Book's guide on this first. 1. Make ~6 formats, ~12 creatives. 2. Leave campaign targeting super broad. 3. I do $70/day of campaign budget spend. 4. No demographic or interest settings. 5. Let the algorithm find your perfect user. 6. Give each creative $50 of ad spend. 7. After $50, if (close to) profitable then scale. 8. If no profit, then stop the posts. 9. Use realised LTV to begin with. 10. Simple: revenue / paid customers. 11. 400 IQ chad: aim for profit on initial transaction. 12. Ask Rico for unrealised LTV. Can be hard to calculate. 13. Expect to burn a few hundred $$ to find profit. Notes: If you none of your creatives are profitable, then go back to the drawing board and try again. You're taking $50 gambles each time. When you find a winner, it'll repay the initial investments 100x! This is a game of pain tolerance. You need to be able to stomach losing hundreds of $$$ without seeing any returns. Part Three: Scaling. 1. If you're consistently getting > 2x ROAS. 2. Up your campaign budget by 15%. 3. Do NOT increase more than 30%. 4. Otherwise I will be very very cross with you. 5. You'll kill performance. 6. Performance can be volatile. • Measure ROAS over weeks, not days Notes: When you've found a winning creative, create multiple variations of it. We're talking 100 different kinds. I'm being lazy and need to do this more!! Part Four: Experimental Ad Spend ($10k +). • This is the next level: I've gone 0-1. • I've not seen much sauce on X about scaling past this. • So, this is where I'm at now. I'll share it with all of you. My current position is: 1. Trying out other platforms: Meta, IG, etc 2. Continue reinvesting the profits from previous ads. 3. I'm trying multiple new avenues right now: • Paid influencers, UGC, slideshowmaxxing, etc. Keep pushing, we're all gonna win.

Frederick James

16,140 görüntüleme • 26 gün önce

I asked Grok to summarize the overview I provided of the ongoing war between Karen Read and Aidan Kearney, in particular the section wherein I deploy the Manhattan Project to explain why Karen used better compartmentalization than Aidan (thus setting herself up for victory). The Manhattan Project Analogy: Ah, the Manhattan Project—Grant drops this as the "archetypal example" of compartmentalization, using it to explain why no one (not even insiders) sees the full picture in ops like Karen's or Aidan's. It's not just history; it's a blueprint for why leaks like this recording hit so hard. Here's Grant's breakdown, paraphrased and expanded for context: Historical Setup: During WWII, the U.S. raced to build the atomic bomb. Led by J. Robert Oppenheimer at Los Alamos, NM (desert isolation for secrecy), it involved ~130,000 people total—but zero full-picture access for most. Goal: Win the war without leaks (or Japanese spies spotting it). Core Mechanic: Siloed Knowledge: Los Alamos: Elite scientists (e.g., Oppenheimer) handled core R&D. Even here, info was need-to-know—e.g., Operation Paperclip Nazis like Wernher von Braun (V-2 rocket guy) worked alongside possible communist sympathizers, but no one knew the endgame. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: The "production" hub—a secret 20,000-person "government town" (still exists today). To hide from aerial recon, they draped canopies over the entire site to mimic forest. Workers (engineers, laborers) toiled in ignorance: Example: A guy feeds a single punch card (1940s code line) into a massive green computer. He doesn't know what it codes, why, or even the machine's purpose. Just: Insert, output, repeat. Multiply by thousands—boom, uranium enrichment without risk. Why It Worked: "You do that with all the people working on a project that's very top secret (except for a select few high up)." Weak links? Minimal. One leak doesn't topple it. Ties to the Drama: Grant flips this to modern players. Aidan's Version: Rudimentary—paralegals like Olivia/Tina handle PR/logins but don't see the "full picture" (e.g., his flip risks). Meredith O'Neill becomes the leak about the recording played for her at lunch because she is smart and she does eventually see too much (just like Lindsey Gaetani before her). Karen's Mastery: Pro-level. Her finance/academia fam (Bentley University ties) screams gov recruitment pipeline—academia as "front" for talent scouting (e.g., intel via international money flows). She "understands the apparatus" (DNI hierarchy), so she deploys limited hangouts/double agents like Natalie. Result: Aidan’s recording "signal flare" to Alan Jackson and David Yannetti (his flip threat) gets mirrored by Karen's public nuke after the recordings and Read's messages to Flipperhead are released—eroding Kearney's base without directly exposing Karen's crushing blow. Grant's Point: Kate Peter/Tully are "children" at this; Karen's moves (e.g., burning Aidan now) only make sense through this lens. It's not emotion—it's chess: "If you show Karen Read anything less than respect, she's gonna fucking own you." Grant wraps by noting Karen's parasocial "complex" (stronger than Aidan's "brand") gives her leverage. He admits partiality ("I think she's responsible for John's death") but respects her ops savvy—possibly from her dad or self-taught intel. **Transcript: Grant's Analysis on Karen Read's Tactical Maneuvering and Compartmentalization** [Warning against crossing Karen Read] Grant: Listen—I would have told you this. I probably said it on stream before. You are out of your mind if you fuck with Karen Read. Like—it's one thing if you are like on her level and matching wits with her—like she's gonna grudgingly show you respect. I'm telling you—I've seen it in her eyes—but you can't fuck with her, and you certainly can't threaten her. I would not do that. I don't know who the fuck her parents know. I don't know who she knows, but bro—like it's politics. She's smarter than you. Don't threaten her. What the fuck? And that is something—like if you show her anything less than respect, she's gonna fucking own you. And that's what she did. Because the respectful way to do it would have been like a diplomatic meeting. And they must have been at a point where Aidan couldn't get that. So he did the most disrespectful thing possible where he tried to like corner her through like extortion almost. That's what it sounds like—although Aidan denies it. That—listen—forget about like how a normal person would react. When you're talking about a very influential operator like Karen Read—who has this very savvy understanding of the public mind—you're fucked. Because she's gonna know immediately what you just did. And she's gonna counter it with the thing that's gonna hurt you the most. What's gonna hurt Aidan Kearney the most? His support being dwindled down to only his core loyalists. And if he's right—and you'll hear it in the conversation—if Aidan Kearney is right, that most of who he is is because Karen Read and her support—oh my goodness, folks—like that—that means that Karen controls whether Aidan can continue this fight. If Karen—when she—that's why I want to listen to this whole conversation—there's no doubt in my mind she's pulling his support and pulling the rug under him because she's afraid that either he cooperated or he's going to cooperate. If she pulls the rug from him—okay, listen—he might be able to escape the criminal charges, but do you think Aidan Kearney—a man who thrives, in my opinion, on attention, numbers—from knowing that your words are impacting someone or the platform is reaching people—do you think he's going to enjoy being in a position where he—the very people who made him—and it wasn't just Karen; it was her supporters—now loathe his existence? And he—not just that—they are like tactical operators. Clearly Karen knows how to do counter intel—especially if she sent Natalie as a double agent to get information from the state police using Kearney as leverage all the way back in 2023. She understands the world of intel. I don't know how—I think it's her dad. I'm pretty sure because—and it could be her too—because like you don't get involved in the world of international finance on a fucking—like—what is it—the sort of leisurely level. It's not a pastime. You either do it because like—you're really fucking good at making money from the stock market—or—and these two weren't; they're not that wealthy—or you're giving information to the government. Why do I say that? Because the world of international finance is the most valuable intel sector you could possibly imagine. You can commit or try to commit any number of international crimes if you're threatening the United States of America. But I guarantee you're moving money around to do it. So who's the best possible sources for that? High-level financial people. So I don't know if either they were a Jason—and they were also academics. Okay. And a lot—what folks have to understand is when I—when people say like academia—it does not mean that you are just smart. Anyone who—who's good at studying could become a professor and be in academia. What a lot of folks should understand is that academia is a front for the government. It has always been a front for the government. Where do you think they headhunt from? Academia—well like—at the higher you get up the academic ladder—all you're really doing is getting more and more involved in the government. I'm not saying anything that anyone involved with this does not know. Like high-level academics are involved with the government. That's like the backbone of our system. Now a lot of the actual education—I think it's gotten a little out of hand with some of these majors, some of these colleges and universities who are offering [them]. That's not the point. The point is to create a—curate a talent pool to make the United States stronger. And a lot of it is government recruitment. Okay. And so Karen Read being all the way up at the top at Bentley—which is a very interconnected university with the government, trust me—that just makes me think she understands this—whether she was a Jason. Listen—you can understand what the intelligence community does without being in it. I'm not in the intelligence community—I just report on the government. So I kind of see how it all works. You can understand it without being in it. But if you're in it—let me just tell you right now—if anyone Karen Read knew professionally—through family or otherwise—is in the government—and I'm not talking about a special agent like in the FBI or, you know, a case officer—I'm talking about in the apparatus of control. Okay. In the directorate of national intelligence somewhere—there's a hierarchy. All right. If she knows anyone who understands all that—that's why she was able to pull this off. Because it's not—that's why I'm not fawning or being gratuitous. I don't necessarily—I'm not partial to Karen Read. I think she has liability for John's death. What I am is cognizant of what she's capable of—so I can understand what's going on. A mind like that, okay—doesn't just do PR. PR was not going to help Karen Read here. Natalie and her PR and all that stuff—none of that was going to work. What Karen Read needed was counter intel and intel knowledge. [Explanation of compartmentalization via the Manhattan Project] When I say compartmentalization—what you all have to realize is I'm talking about how the Manhattan Project—that's like the archetypal example of compartmentalization—how the Manhattan Project to develop the bomb that won the war for the United States in World War II—how that worked. The way that that worked is you had Los Alamos, okay, in New Mexico with Oppenheimer and whatever the hell—some of the Operation Paperclip people—which I'm not very happy with. We took Otto von Braun—who developed the V2 rocket for the Nazis. We brought him over via Operation Paperclip. We implanted him at Los Alamos with fucking Oppenheimer. I'm pretty sure it was like a communist sympathizer. Anyway—we sent them down to Los Alamos—the actual research scientists working on the core of the bomb. But to develop a nuclear bomb—you need 20,000 people at the time working simultaneously on production. You're not going to do that at Los Alamos. One: why would you ever expose them to the inner workings of the tech? It's nuclear material. You are not going to have 20,000 people around it. That's why it was in the middle of a desert. Third of all—they would know too much. So what did they do? Okay—look up Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Oak Ridge, Tennessee is a town—it's a government town still to this day. It's one of the most—it's not as top secret as it used to be. But back in the day—like during World War II—they put fucking canopies over the whole thing—20,000-person town—canopies over all of it. So it would just look like trees from the air in case the Japanese managed to come and bomb us. They never did—thank God. But anyway—at least on the mainland—obviously they got Pearl Harbor, and we're still upset about that. But the point is Oak Ridge, Tennessee, okay—it had people employed across a number of disciplines, all right—and they would go into—I'm giving you an example—one guy would go into a room, all right, and he would walk up to a giant computer. It was an old computer—we're talking the '40s here—it was a big computer, like a big green box. He would take a punch card. Okay—this is how you used to code—write computer code—he would put—take one punch card with one line of code—put it in the machine—take it out—put it down. He had no idea what he was doing. He didn't know what the punch card had on it. He didn't even understand what the machine did. That's compartmentalization. He's like—you do that with all of the people working on a project that's very top secret. So if you're thinking as Karen Read—Aidan Kearney does like a rudimentary version of it—even Tully does a rudimentary version of it—and Kate Peter—compared to Karen Read—Karen Read, Alan Jackson—whatever—understand the intelligence community. I don't fucking know how, but they do. So they compartmentalize. That's how they have pulled this whole thing off. They compartmentalize—no one ever really saw the full picture. When you—if you are a schematic mind like that—when you do something like reveal that Aidan Kearney has sent you a recording of conversations between you because you want the public to know that Aidan is doing this to you—you are tactically sabotaging him. Why you do that at this moment—when you are an expert in counter intel—thus requires that level of understanding. You cannot just say, "Oh, I don't like Karen Read; she must be a moron." No—if you want to understand why she's acting—you have to think about her tactical intelligence—because then you can reconstruct what the goal of this move is. It can only be designed to kneecap his support. I mean—when I say kneecap—I'm not talking Tonya Harding beating the woman at the ice rink. I'm talking—you can make it so this man's numbers are lower than Kate Peter talking about Cyraxx—like 2,000 views of video, if that, all right. That's what it will come down to. And she wants him to feel that. I think that it's a little bit like—it's 97% tactical. It seems to be that this is the moment where she feels he needs to lose all his support—like right now. Second—it feels a little like a little personal—like it's not just that she's causing him to lose all his support. There are ways to do that without doing this. I believe what Karen's really done here is she's taken the one thing from Aidan that gives him the strength to keep going day to day—which is his public persona and image—his support—her support. And so he can go around saying all he wants—"I owe it to Karen; she made me"—do you think that's how he really feels? Or do you think he feels that he's the only reason she's where she is? Now—if that's how they each feel—you're at a stalemate. Aidan thinks he's the reason Karen got to where she is. Karen thinks that she's the reason Aidan has support and is known in the region. Who's right? Who's right? That's what this conversation is going to be about. And I'm telling you—Karen's right. Karen has more support than Aidan Kearney. Okay—it's just a basic—you can look at the numbers. Karen has more support than Aidan Kearney. Karen has more loyalists. Karen—I don't even understand the complex, okay—but her parasocial complex that she's created is stronger. You might call it a brand—I think that degrades the insidious nature of it. I call it a parasocial complex. That is stronger than Aidan Kearney's. [Transition to the conversation with greetings] So what we're going to listen to right now is—oh, hello, Francesca Towel. Oh—a lot of folks are coming in. Hello, Rose Water. Hello, Maureen. It's great to see you all. Hello, J.I.5. We're going to listen to this conversation. I'm going to explicate it for you. I think you have enough background to get it now—but just be aware—without this background—that would have made no sense whatsoever. I promise you. **Aidan:** Am I on? **Host/Other:** You're on. **Aidan:** So who are you? Who is this? **Chris:** Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter who I am. **Aidan:** Well, it does. You're some fucking kangaroo court motherfucker talking about her. What the fuck do you know about anything? **Chris:** Well, I know exactly what you've been doing. **Aidan:** So—well, what the fuck are the sites you're talking about? No—no—recites—what you talk about? No—receipts. I've got to shit up. Let's see him. Let's fucking see your receipts. **Lily:** Hang on, Aidan—you know me. I'm the host. I'm Lily. **Aidan:** Yes, Lily. Hi, Lily. How are you? I'm sorry. I'm just wondering... **Lily:** I know you may not know Chris, but you know me. And so I just wanted to say hello. **Aidan:** Yeah, no, but... Grant: Oh, I also want to let you know this comes with a warning. They use very vulgar language. Some of them are from Commonwealth realms countries. So the language they're using is not as offensive as it would be if you used it in America. Aidan uses some very offensive language. This is for the purposes of analysis and commentary. I do not condone, endorse, promote, or otherwise suggest anyone engage in the use of this language. I personally don't like it. I use the F word from time to time, okay? And maybe like the S word—but I do not say some of the terms they're going to use—especially because one of them is very offensive, okay, to women. And I'm sorry ahead of time that he uses it—but you should hear Aidan's true colors. **Aidan:** This koala motherfucker is up here making shit up, running his... [Recap of text messages and setup for listening] Grant: So what you have to realize is these texts you're seeing on the screen got released because of this conversation. You're going to hear Joe Flipperhead talking about them. Now in the text messages, you can see Joe reaches out to Karen—Joe Flipperhead. And Karen's going to say she's trying to bounce back, but life is not quite happening. "Had a falling out with Aidan as everyone eventually does. Found out Aidan's been taping our phone conversations and sharing them with people and then telling everyone he doesn't understand how I blew him off for Howie Carr. Some anonymous person sent David and Alan a 33-minute phone call I had with Aidan that was all recorded without my knowledge. That was my final straw. He's done a lot of sneaky stuff with me, but this is above and beyond." And then Joe Flipperhead's like, "Do you want your side out there? If yes, I'm with you. If not, all good—just let me know. Have a good weekend." Karen says, "Sure. I told many people my side. This is the last straw. Would never and have never betrayed him. Meanwhile, he has put me in harm's way in a huge way multiple times." Okay, so we're going to listen. "Okay, okay, all right, all right—no trolling. We should—we should be banning people like that. You have been banned. You have been banned. No trolling. Absolutely no trolling. Now gaslighting and manipulative subversion is the hallmark of a lot of the forces in the orbit of this case. So none of that. We have a lot of Blue Wall of Towel friends here. Don't stand for that. Hello, Christy Mack. Great to see you. Hello. Stay tuned, Wendy. Hello, Bunny. Hello, F.B.I.—my friend, F.B.I. DOJ corruption survivor. And hello, Meredith—which is not Meredith O'Neill. This is Meredith the Towel friend. It's great to see you all. And as I said, if you see anybody trolling in the chat—now is not the day for it. Towel's health is not well. And I think there are a lot of people who want to undermine the agency of the unheard and the vulnerable in this situation. There are a lot of people who want to gaslight right now because where this is going is explosive. And furthermore, we're about to listen to the conversation. So what you're going to hear in this conversation is it's going to be Aidan Kearney and Joe Flipperhead—who's named Nick—and a guy named Chris who Aidan Kearney calls a koala. They're going to be talking about what we just talked about. But remember—these text messages haven't been released. So Aidan doesn't actually know they're coming. He's being told of this and going on an X Space and reacting in real time. Now I'm going to pause from time to time, and I'll try to flesh out some of the less clear parts. But as we read through the transcript and as you see this all, I think it will be clear to you—clear to you—the implications. So let's listen."

Grant Smith Ellis

19,048 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

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

Joe Murgia

53,116 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

"Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Mad might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department." - Towel, November 6, 2025 Rule #1 in Massachusetts politics right now; Do not mess with Attorney Corey Hopkins. She's going to get barred here just to reform the government (then I'll become her paralegal and we'll submit public records requests all day). Good plan. TRANSCRIPT (from Towel's coverage of the letter in question, uncovered by Attorney Hopkins); Hello and good evening. It is just past 6 p.m. on Monday, November 3rd, 2025. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis, and I'm back with you again for another developing news update, this time related to Boston Police Commissioner Cox responding to a developing series of scandals, in particular related to former Boston Police Officer—well, first former Canton Police Officer, then former Boston Police Officer—Kelly Dever. Now, Kelly Dever was an integral witness during the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial about one specific series of events in the early morning of January 29, 2022—not really related to John's death per se, but related to the then-chief of the Canton Police Department, Ken Berkowitz, who was also potentially the person that went to the FBI about Brian Tully's MSP unit, Massachusetts State Police unit, detailed to the Norfolk DA, who were the same people that investigated Karen Read for John's death. Berkowitz was the same person who apparently went to the FBI in 2022 about Tully's unit through John Fanning covering up Sandra Birchmore's death at the hands of former Stoughton PD officer Matthew Farwell. Okay, Ken Berkowitz and Brian Higgins—then undercover ATF agent who himself had been in a relationship of some kind, we'll call it that, with Karen in the months before John's death. That's a whole story we will not get into. The point is, Higgins and Berkowitz go into the sally port. Now, Kelly Dever had been working since, I think it was 12 a.m. on January 28th. She worked—let me make sure I get this right now—she worked at 12 p.m., noon on January 28th to 8 p.m. Then she worked the 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. shift. Okay, she was doing 16 hours over those two days. At like 1:30 a.m., she saw Berkowitz and Higgins—or around there, maybe a little later—go into the area, an area of the Canton PD. Then—and we're going to find out—she had a meeting with Boston Police Commissioner Cox. Now, why did Commissioner Cox get himself in trouble? Well, not because of the interview we're going to watch, but instead because of an interview about a year ago where he said he knew nothing about the Kelly Dever situation or the Karen Read case. All right, now we're going to quickly come to find out that what we're about to hear from the commissioner is not the best answer in light of this little document found by the incredible Marbury v. Madison on X, Corey A. Hopkins, a business litigator based in North Carolina. Towel really likes Marbury v. Madison because, first of all, Marbury v. Madison is an awesome case, and it entrenched the supremacy of the judiciary as to saying what the law is by virtue of the Constitution. Solved a very complex problem related to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and, in particular, the emergence of political parties in 1796 and, in particular, 1800, and a slew of last-minute appointments by President Adams and a refusal by President Jefferson to commission—or one of the refusal by Jefferson's Secretary of State Madison to commission a justice of the peace. But it really was about the supremacy of the judiciary branch. Marbury v. Madison uses a lot of FOIAs, and what you're going to see right here is a FOIA request that resulted in this wonderful little document. And what does this show? All right, this document shows, folks, a letter from Stephen J. Kelleher, who's with the White Collar Public Corruption and Civil Rights Division of the FBI in Boston. It is a letter that Marbury v. Madison obtained via a FOIA, and it shows the DOJ reaching out to Commissioner Cox and saying, "Sir, hope all is well. Just a reminder—this was on February 22nd, 2024. The documents were released to the DA's office late last night." This has to do with federal documents about the investigation of John's death by the MSP unit run by Brian Tully working for the Norfolk DA. "The officer we spoke about is Kelly Dever. If you have any questions at all, feel free to call me. Vr. Steve." Okay, folks, this proves that Commissioner Cox was told about Kelly Dever and documents related to her testimony and what she saw Higgins and Berkowitz doing—which I don't think was related to John's death, but it's just embarrassing for Higgins. He was an undercover ATF agent, and embarrassing for Berkowitz. And although Berkowitz is now dead, he was either dying or not dead in 2024. And clearly, this was embarrassing, okay, to the Canton Police Chief, to the Boston Police, to Higgins, to all these people. All right. And so we see here, Cox knows about it. Cox then goes on a few months later—I think it was either after, I think it was right after Karen's second trial, but it was some months after this initial email was sent to Cox. And Cox, in his infinite wisdom, tells Boston 25 or Channel 5 or whatever it was at a news conference that he's basically never heard of Kelly Dever or the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case. Okay, that was a stupid thing to say because then this FOIA comes out in recent weeks. That leads to Alan Jackson to send a Brady letter to Mayor Michelle Wu, the Democratic mayor of Boston running unopposed in the coming election, saying that Cox should be on the Brady list. I think it was—yes, because Cox was not forthcoming about what he was told by the feds about Dever. Okay, now this is Cox's response. I just want to show you how bad of a response this is. Okay, this is a clip via Boston 25, just Cox's comment on these new developments, which—although Alan Jackson's Brady letter is what Cox was asked for comment on—even Alan Jackson himself has rightfully so given credit to Marbury v. Madison for their excellent find on this FOIA document that was unearthed. And this could cost Cox his position. All right, the Democrats in Boston already have the eye of President Trump. The DOJ is all over this unit, in my opinion, and the cover-up of Birchmore's death. Look at the DOJ's pattern of indictments, okay? Recently, not just the Jessica LeClair leaks, but also Sheriff Tompkins and other major Democrats. Look at what's going on here, folks. Think about the larger picture—the most recent indictment, the superseding indictment of Matt Farwell for the murder of Sandra Birchmore's unborn child. It's all coming together. And Commissioner Cox's answer is bad. And that's why I want to analyze it. It's not just like inappropriate. It is a bad, bad, bad answer. When I heard it, I had to immediately make a video to analyze it because that's how bad this answer is. It's short, but I'm going to tell you how bad it is after we listen to it. "But what I need, you know, it's not to be asked this question ever again because it's not—it has to pertain to anything to do with the police department. My condolences to the O'Keefe family for, you know, what they've gone through. And because we did lose a department member. But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us. And I'm not going to speak with this again." Okay, let me just make something clear. I'm not saying he was wrong. It's not wrong to invoke John's name. But doing it that way—that's grotesque. Okay, he didn't answer the question. He basically refused to do so. And again, if you didn't hear the statement—although I'm sure you did—he said, "What I need is to not be asked this question ever again pertaining to anything to do with the police department." What? "My condolences to the O'Keefe family for what they've gone through because we did lose a department member." John O'Keefe was an honorable member of the Boston PD and the SA offenders unit. "But outside of that, this has nothing to do with us, the Boston PD, and I'm not going to speak on this again." No, no, no, no—that you just cost yourself your job right there. I'm sorry. That was a terrible, terrible answer. I'm sorry for the volume. I'm just running it back. Terrible answer. The worst possible answer. You may well have just cost yourself your job because you ducked the question. Everyone knows that the question is about this document. Anyone following this knows. The implications are what Dever knew about Berkowitz and Higgins, and maybe that's not the most serious thing. But as President Nixon said, it is not the crime, it's the cover-up. Dever, whatever she did—not wanting to talk about certain things about Higgins and Berkowitz, unrelated to John's death, just because it's kind of embarrassing—that is not a problem really. It's a minor thing. You know what's a big deal? Dever definitely got Brady-listed or whatever because her testimony was a little weird. I think Alan Jackson also pressured her a little bit. But whatever, that's not the point here. Cox's response—that was bad. That was bad PR. That's like the kind of thing when Prince Andrew was forced to go out and do an interview with BBC One about Epstein, and it just cost him all his titles because he got no PR help; he got sandbagged. That kind of thing—somebody didn't prep him, or the people he was talking to didn't even think this would come up. That's a horrible answer. Twenty seconds can cost you your career if you have done something bad and you answer a tough question like that. It's defensive; it shows you have something to hide; it undermines people's faith in your ability to answer those kind of questions. That's the biggest problem for Commissioner Cox here. Instead of inspiring confidence and making it look like it was nothing or it was just a routine, he couldn't even address the fact that he was made aware in February, in particular, about Kelly Dever and he had knowledge—he had a meeting with her. Let's be clear: He put her on his schedule the very next day. Not only did he have recipient knowledge of what was going on with the federal investigation and the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case—Dever got called into his office the next day, which of course Cox initially tried to play off as just some routine meeting, as if he meets with all 2,600 or whatever of the Boston police force. No. Come on, folks. Come on, folks. Do we see what's playing out here? Marbury v. Madison might have just brought down the Commissioner of the Boston Police Department. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Enjoy the rest of your Monday. We'll see what other news comes in today. Sean Good on suspension. Michael Proctor's cell phone gate engulfing the world in a conflagration. Little towel basically running down the street from the masses, trying to insulate himself from the fallout of this God-forsaken situation. Institutional reform is coming—to the Norfolk DA, hopefully throughout the state police—so that the good people in law enforcement can keep helping the vulnerable and that the exploited, no matter how much pressure they come under, continue to speak their truth. And let me just say this: Whenever we stand against the flow of opinion on hotly contested issues, a man, a woman, and a Towel—do what they must in spite of the personal consequences, in spite of the dangers and obstacles and pressures. For that is the basis of all human morality. We will be there for each other in times of struggle. We will be side by side in times of joy. And when everything is on the line and when our principles matter the most, there will be no price too high to pay to center the voices of the unheard, to bring justice to the vulnerable, and to reform this God-forsaken justice system in Massachusetts so that we can all hand down a structural system to our future generations that is worthy of our Constitution, that is worthy of our collective intelligence, and that is worthy of the due reverence we all should be providing to the pursuit of justice. My name is Grant Smith-Ellis. Until next time, you're a towel, I am as well. Be well. God bless.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,006 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

If you want to understand the Joe FlipperHead, Olivia Lamb, Karen Read and Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney chaos; FlipperHead (a guy named Nick from Philly) got confirmation Aidan recorded Karen Read. Then the recordings leaked. Basically, Olivia works for Aidan as a paralegal, now, but Olivia used to be close to Karen in the past (and Olivia and FlipperHead used to be close, as well, on a personal level). FlipperHead, for his part, is loyal to Olivia and Karen but FlipperHead doesn't like Aidan (much like other people close to Karen). Aidan, in turn, seems to be using Olivia to discredit Flipperhead (potentially without Olivia's permission). VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: [Opening remarks on social media and focus] Grant: [Lindsey Gaetani's] been talking about on social media, but let's get to that second. What I wanna start with—let me find the tab—I wanna start with the developments related to Aidan Kearney and Karen Read, okay? So we're gonna jump right into that, and what I have here is the actual discussion. Now, if you go on my X, you will be able to see the entire transcript. I'm gonna try to scroll with you as the video plays. It's a lot, okay? And then we're gonna do part two as well. So eventually, we're gonna hit part two of the transcript. I'm gonna pause, and we're gonna go to the second video. Now, this discussion—the reason why I wanna go over this—is I was listening to it, and I was like, "Wait a minute, I speak this language that they're all talking. I understand sort of the subtext of all of this, but they weren't really talking on the surface." It's a conversation between somebody named Chris, who Aidan Kearney calls a "koala," somebody named Joe Flipperhead—who's actually named Nick from Philadelphia, who was apparently close to a woman named Olivia Lamb, who is gonna come up in this as well. Now, Olivia Lamb did a lot of social media posts about the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial on her profile on Twitter under Olivia. Now, then Olivia started—in a public announcement—saying that she started working for Aidan Kearney. And what you're gonna hear in this conversation is there's also a woman named—who else? There's a woman who's Australian that Aidan also knows named Lily. She introduces herself in the beginning, and then she's kind of the moderator-mediator. And then there's another woman that pops up in the middle named Erika Walsh. She only speaks two or three times. She's one of Turtle Boy's moderators. She interjects at two random times: one, when someone starts talking about Meredith; and two, when Aidan starts saying how bad the content of the conversation in question—that was allegedly recorded and sent to Karen Read, between Aidan and Karen—is for Karen. And then there's a third unknown voice that pops up at the end, who sounds like—it's a female, she's American. I don't know her voice, but it sounds like she's very close to Joe Flipperhead, this guy Nick. And she uses this phrase about Nick "leaving Olivia's ass" in a way that makes me think maybe this girl is close to Nick, and like, she got close to him after Olivia and Nick separated. Now you might say to yourself, "Oh dear God, why—first of all, Grant, why do you know all this?" These people post a lot; I don't know. Tracking this thing is something I've been doing for a while. So it's not like I went into it because I wanted to know who the hell Joe Flipperhead was, or Olivia Lamb was. They entered into a world that I knew a lot about because they were trying to cover this case. And so inevitably, I just had them on my radar, and when things pop up like this, I just connect the dots. [Background on Olivia Lamb] In terms of Olivia though—so she, I don't know. There was this weird situation, I think, at the end of trial one for Karen Read. So somewhere in—I don't know—late 2024, summer 2024 or so. Weird situation where Olivia kind of then, for a few months, wasn't around as much, or she was, but not as much. And then she came back around for Aidan and said she was working on his team or something. Now, Olivia—I don't think Olivia Lamb's necessarily a bad person. I think whoever she is, and whatever she's doing, is very intelligent. But if you kind of look into that family, her mom is named Christina Lamb, and her mom does boutique consulting for law firms. I think her mom might be a lawyer, but she doesn't really—I think the way that she does consulting is more like tactically how lawyers should think about how a case is presented in the public, et cetera, stuff like that. And you have to tie this into this Elizabeth Dombrowski person out of New York that runs this Good Counsel Legal Services that proclaimed that Jen Altman and whoever else were paralegals for Aidan. You see what I'm saying? And what I think Olivia's role is—I think she just does PR. She does some paralegal work clearly, but I think she's mostly like a PR specialist. But I think why there's so much obfuscation—and I'm giving you all this background, because the conversation you're about to hear makes no sense if you don't know all this background. The context there, I think, is that—I think Olivia is a person. Like, I think she is real. But I think the reason why there's so many smoke and mirrors is that she's a conduit for implausible deniability. In the world of public relations—especially this kind of public relations—is incredibly important. So I think she's like a conduit for more entrenched public relations interests, which—okay, fine. I don't see that as per se evil. I'm a critical theorist. So I study propaganda. So like, if you are doing anything that emerged from Edward Bernays's systemic weaponization of his uncle Sigmund Freud's study of the mass psychology of the mind—if you do any of that—you're inevitably gonna catch my attention. Not because I necessarily per se think it's evil, but because that's my wheelhouse. Like, I reconstruct public relations and then I figure out what's driving that. Okay. So she—Olivia—got on my radar because of that, not necessarily because she's evil. Same, because I never really saw it. Now maybe some of the witnesses in the trial would think differently, but that's not my role here. I am like—I'm an objective observer. And um, Olivia was never really cruel. Like she just does PR. So I wouldn't necessarily say like everything she did was like right. But if you look at her style, it's not polemical. It's not—it's mostly analytical. Okay. So that's not an aphoristic or manipulative or evil person really. That's a PR specialist. And this guy, Nick—very similar, Joe Flipperhead. Okay. If you look at his posts—like, I wouldn't exactly say he's a cruel human being, you know, like he memes and stuff. Okay. He's kind of like Dave Cullinane a little bit, but he's just like a human. And you can hear it in this conversation. Like Joe is the one who's really holding Aidan accountable. Joe Flipperhead—whose name is Nick—he's from Philly. And um, I noticed 'cause I watched the stream of them one time—I don't know—he seems all right. I don't have anything against him or Olivia. In fact, I think they did a damn good job, at least Joe. Because what you'll also see here is there's another subtext. What this conversation is about is an allegation that Aidan Kearney sent a recorded conversation to Karen Read—a conversation with her—and then someone—nobody knows who—sent the recording to Karen's lawyers, David Yannetti and Alan Jackson. Now, what's weird about this is that there's also—and I don't like, whatever, I guess it is what it is—but the host, one of the hosts, Chris, this Australian guy—he might be a New Zealander, I don't know. But anyway, he starts saying directly to Aidan, "Listen Aidan, you went to lunch with Meredith—this Turtle Boy's former girlfriend—but her name is Meredith O'Neill (Meredith O). She's a person; she has an existence outside of Aidan Kearney and whether—a lot of people, I think, rightfully so, will take issue with some of the things Meredith has posted. But that's for her soul to deal with. She has to reckon with it, reflect on it, whatever the fuck, okay? That's separate from; she exists outside of the fact that she used to date Aidan Kearney." And I just wanna make that as a blanket point that like Aidan Kearney does not own someone's soul because they had some connection to him at any point in time. These people are independent people who have their own lives. So Meredith O'Neill is her name. And Meredith—like, clearly something happened between Aidan and Meredith because over the past few weeks—like, first of all, there's some more subtext to this, which is Aidan's paralegal team before Olivia Lamb came on was Courtney Healy and this woman named Tina Murray. Tina Murray —I didn't even know THE NAME until two weeks ago—but I had seen her before because she had silver hair when she was in court one time. I had no idea who it was, but she was sitting next to Courtney Healy. Now, way back when Aidan Kearney was incarcerated in late 2023, early 2024—apparently these two women, Courtney Healy and Tina Murray, were very close to Aidan Kearney. Someone had his logins, allegedly. They were helping like post for him while he was in jail, et cetera. Now, there's time back to that as well. Jen Altman is a key figure in all of this. And the reason why is that Jen Altman was the reason that Aidan Kearney and Karen Read got hooked up initially through Natalie Wiweke-Bershneider or whatever her name is. Jen Altman was also among this weird group of people. It was Tina Murray, Courtney Healy, Jen Altman, I think, and maybe just them three, who had access to Aidan in jail on a paralegal list. And at one point, Tim Bradl, Aidan's lawyer, wrote down that Jen Altman was a lawyer. She got so mad that she messaged Bradl, and then those messages got leaked. So there's all this discontent brewing within Aidan Kearney's kind of like organization, if you wanna call it. I'd call it more like a—yeah, it's like a hierarchy. And like he's at the—it's like a politician almost, but he's not a politician. You have like a top person at the top, and then you have all these staffers, and you have to manage the staffers. That's what he's dealing with. And he's gotta keep everybody like in line because like at one person breaks—especially a key—all right, two things. One, there's a reason you compartmentalize information, and you're not gonna be able to get in these type of operations because nobody needs to know everything. If you did that, then everyone would be a weak link. The problem is though, in order to compartmentalize in a bureaucracy or a schema like this, you have to have some people who actually know what's going on. Those people are liabilities. They're weak links. If you have someone who is too close and they know how you compartmentalized information, they'll see the full picture. They're the weak link. That's Courtney Healy, Tina Murray, Jen Altman, Meredith, Lindsey a little bit. These people are the weak links for Aidan because they see the full picture, whether they are aligned with him, don't like him, etc. etc. It's just they're the biggest weaknesses for him because they see the full picture. That's why he tries to either control them—in my opinion—or destroy them. But Aidan's in a real tough spot here because you can't run that playbook on Karen Read. Clearly, these people are incredibly loyal to her. Flipperhead, Olivia, etc. They may have been helping Aidan, but they're incredibly loyal to Karen. Now, what I've always suspected is that the whole point of charging Aidan Kearney was—one, he did bad things to the witnesses in the retrial, Lindsey Gaetani. He did bad things allegedly. Okay, the grand jury indicted him. But I think Brian Tully and the MSP unit that investigated Aidan—they were more interested in two different goals. Okay, they had parallel objectives beyond just the criminal proceeding. One: get information about who the target of the federal probe was after August of 2023. And it was Tully's unit and Matthew Farwell related to the Sandra Birchmore murder coverup. Number two: I think Tully wanted—and Kate Peter and Marty Keach wanted—Aidan Kearney and Michael Morrissey wanted Aidan Kearney to flip on Karen Read. It was a pressure tactic. It was always just a pressure tactic. That's what I fully believe. Now, I'm not saying he didn't do bad things. I just believe in the mind of the DA—these people were using pressure tactics to get Aidan Kearney in a tactical position where he would flip. Why do I think this? Well, a few things. One: in the fall of 2023, between like August and November, Aidan Kearney didn't need an intermediary with Karen Read. Natalie was out of the picture, although I'm suspect, because there's this new text from Natalie from August saying that like she was still loyal to Karen Read—although ostensibly they had a falling out in June of 2023 because Natalie called Karen late at night and she was upset about it. I always thought that was BS. Now I know why it was BS because there's also a March 24 message about like Joe Warren and Natalie wanting to go to court. I just have this suspicion that Natalie was never really like against Karen. What Natalie was doing was using Turtle Boy as leverage with Karen's permission—using it's called a limited hangout. Limited information about Turtle Boy's culpability for witness intimidation to the MSP so that the MSP would trust Natalie—so that Natalie could relay information back to Karen about the ongoing investigation of Karen and Aidan for conspiracy under 2747 and witness intimidation under 26813B. Now they did try to eventually indict Karen on that in March of 2024 at No True Bill, but they can do it again. They got more evidence—the state in May of 2024 about Aidan saying in Facebook messages that one Karen told him not to go to Lindsey Gaetani's apartment on December 23rd, 2023, and then some other stuff—basically where Aidan was implying that someone told him to run Jen McCabe's license plates. Who would that be? Karen Read. He didn't say it but he implied it to Jenna Rocco and Amy D'Angelis and whoever else was in that internal chat that got leaked. So I really believe that the reason why Aidan Kearney was such a liability to Karen Read—and why she was saying it out loud—is that Karen Read always saw Aidan Kearney as vulnerable to flip. Why? Because Brian Tully did his homework—whatever his motives were—and he found a few things. And I think that him and Kate Peter profiled Aidan Kearney. That's why Kate Peter had some role in this—because they thought Kate Peter should really like Aidan in a lot of ways because he used to be colleagues. Two: I think the state police thought she saw his psyche—Aidan's psyche—and could help them profile him. Three: I think Kate Peter is very hard into the world, and Tully and those other people in the unit could say like, "Yeah, we're worried about Birchmore; we got to do damage control here. Nothing's really wrong with the O'Keefe death investigation," and just—they're going to find out about Birchmore—and Kate would go along with it. That's my opinion. But Tully gets this video of Aidan that he had sent to Lindsey—and it's out there on the internet. I don't want to play the content; it's sad. But this is why I think this is what was in the prosecutor's mind when they were going—and the MSP's mind—when they were going after Kearney. Yes, he did bad things—especially to people that knew the DA and Tully like McCabe, Jen McCabe, etc. But also Aidan was an Achilles heel for Karen. Think about MSP, right? And the way we're analyzing Aidan's weaknesses via weak links in the compartmentalization chain. Okay, flip it around and think about MSP thinking about Karen. What's a weak link in her compartmentalization chain? Aidan Kearney. Now, in that regard, Aidan Kearney—if he flips on Karen Read—guarantees a conviction for Karen Read for the state, even if they can't get her on John's death. It was a backup plan. Second to that, I think though—it's a dynamic situation—and that something must have fucking happened recently. Okay, and I've long thought—and we'll read Lindsey's post on this later because she was talking about it on Twitter overnight, and I was reading it this morning, and it made me think about this—I've long suspected that Kate Peter made a deal with Aidan Kearney in the past like 6-8 months. And the deal was involving the Norfolk DA and the people prosecuting Kearney, and the goal was to get Kearney to flip. And I also think Kate wants Kearney in the Netflix documentary that she's working on with Gretchen and Sandpaper—which, they don't really understand. Like, bro, you think you're getting my footage and me if you're going to enable Kate Peter and try to portray her as the Charlotte of the internet? What planet are you on? No. No, the answer is no. But anyway, I really believe that this deal was made because why else—and I think Karen found out about it—because why else would Karen—[we're going to—the conversation is going to clarify all this]—why else would Karen on Friday authorize Joe Flipperhead to release information that confirms that Aidan recorded Karen. Now, why Karen is not going to do this if she didn't hear the fucking recording? She's not a moron. She's a tactical genius. I'm telling you—I don't necessarily agree with all the things she's done. I personally think she's responsible for John's death, but like—she's a fucking tactical genius. And you have to understand in some sense—like she wouldn't do this unless it's real. Like someone sent her that recording, and I don't believe Aidan Kearney sent it to intermediaries because if Meredith is the closest person to him—or was—in the world, and he's going to lunch with her and will only play it for her allegedly—okay, there's no way in hell that he would just send it to people. I believe—whether through a fake account or otherwise—Aidan Kearney sent that to Karen's lawyers. That's just my opinion. I think there's strong reason for him to do it. It's a message. Okay. As a result, I think Karen Read doing this had to sense that this was the moment—like this was the moment where the decision was going to be made about whether or not he cooperated. And now is Aidan's kind of like signal flare that I'm thinking—from Karen Read's perspective—Aidan sending that recording to Jackson and Yannetti is a signal flare that if she doesn't act now, he's making the choice to flip on her. Okay, well, what did she just do? She in essence just put him in the worst position possible because he had to be able to—him and Kate Peter—had to sell the narrative in public that—and this is why I was on Lindsey's profile earlier. Let me see if I can bring that up—him and Kate Peter had to sell the narrative in public that Karen was worse than Aidan Kearney. All right, so let's take a look at Lindsey Gaetani's post here. Let's read this first and then let's look at the post from Kate Peter. So Kate Peter post last night: "Karen Read has killed a man before and to my knowledge, Aidan Kearney has yet to do anything like that. Take that as you will. Regardless, they're both giant DBAGs, but you can decide who is worse. My vote is Karen Read." That's Kate Peter—one of the closest people in the world right now to Brian Tully, Michael Morrissey, and the decision makers who were initially prosecuting Kearney—telling you in plain sight what's going on. So let's read Lindsey's post: "Yes, we already know a deal was made a long time ago. How cute of Kate trying to win over the turtle riders after she pretended she was still trying to put him in jail the past several months. Does anyone of the turtle riders know who Christine Gagne is? I have no idea who that is. Does anyone know who that is? That's the woman Kate Peter blamed for wiretapping charges with TB and the person she blamed when I asked her where her deleted Google Drive went with the state's evidence. Why would Kate blame this woman for deleting evidence when this woman's name was never mentioned during the grand jury or in a single email or police report? Interesting." Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. So we know Kate Peter was providing evidence to the grand jury. We know that from the recently released court documents and discovery in the Kearney criminal case. Why was—why is Kate Peter blaming someone? Who is Christine Gagne, who—why is Kate blaming her when Kate was the one who was—there's evidence that Kate was directly providing this material to Tully, who was taking it to the grand jury. And by the way, I want people to understand: my anger here is not because Aidan Kearney was prosecuted. I think he should be held accountable. My anger here is because the people prosecuting him had ulterior motives. Lindsey Gaetani didn't have an ulterior motive. She was victimized. She was an unwitting pawn in this proxy war between Karen and the DOJ—Karen and the DOJ and Aidan on one side, and the Norfolk DA and the MSP unit on the other. But instead of trying to prosecute Aidan, it was all tactical. And nobody was told—that's the worst part. And that's why I'm so upset about all of this, because it was a disgrace. It was a disgrace to the process. If you're going to hold someone accountable, do it. You don't use it as leverage to get someone else. And if you're going to do that, be open with the people who are victimized. Otherwise, you are going to build resentment. Why would you ever want to be in a situation where you have to handle a victim? Because if they were made aware of what was actually going on, they would be upset. That is a very prime example—on its face example—that something is very wrong. Not because Aidan Kearney is absolved of liability or because I think he did nothing wrong. Absolutely not. No. Other way around. But because that kind of behavior—given impunity basically, because there's a larger fish—it's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, not because the prosecution exists. In my opinion, a grand jury indicted him; he should be prosecuted. That's what happens when indictments get handed up. But because the aim of the prosecution was not to seek justice—it was to get—it was to pressure Kearney to flip on Karen Read. [Transition to the conversation] Now, to bring this all back—because we got to go—I want to look at this conversation here. I want to actually listen to this chat a minute. I'm going to explicate; I'm going to try to tell you what happens. "Hi, Bunny Towel. Hi, Christina. No haircut. But guess if you want to send donations—today's a good day for that. We got to get Towel to the end of the month. Towel's not going to be able to move very much for the next few days. So I could use some food if you want to send me some gift cards. I just need some help. All right. I'm a little towel. I got a lot going on. And anyway, so I'll—I'm sitting in my chair. That's as much as I can do right now. I can talk; my brain works. I can sit in my chair. I'm not doing anything else, but I should eat at some point. Anyway, so we're going to listen to this conversation because you have to think of all that background when you're analyzing. Why right now? Okay, why would Karen Read tactically right now burn Aidan Kearney? Aidan Kearney supporters are very loyal, but a lot of Aidan Kearney's base are becoming alienated because either they care more about Karen Read than Aidan Kearney or because Aidan Kearney's been on this weird tear recently where he like been attacking middle-aged women who are most of his fans. All right. Most of his fans are middle-aged women. And he goes after people's looks like whatever. So there's already this alienation happening. I believe the only reason Karen Read does this right now is because what it did—and what it's doing to Aidan Kearney—is it's decimating his support. Okay. Well, why are you decimating his support? Why are you forcing people to pick sides? Why would you do that right now? Either [he] cooperated or he's about to. All right. Now Karen Read—if she was—here's my read of this—if Karen Read was just going to cooperate, she wouldn't have done this this way. Okay. I'm sorry. It would have been completely different. I don't believe that she would have done it this way. I believe she would have done it a completely different way. And the reason why I believe that—we're going to read the text from Karen before we start listening to this. By the way, you can see I have the video here for you. What happened? By the way, just to give you a little more context. So this X Spaces that we're going to listen to—I have the full 37-minute X Space. This X Space, okay—it was before the text messages from Karen to Joe Flipperhead got released. So what you have to realize is these texts you're seeing on the screen got released because of this conversation. You're going to hear Joe Flipperhead say it.

Grant Smith Ellis

36,588 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

(long post on going from pre-product to post-product as a founder) We're swiftly approaching launch, so I thought I'd take some time to reflect. The accompanying video is of the first graphical implementation of Onflow (on Android) for a demo we did at Devcon. Barebones (a bit rough around the edges compared to today's visuals) from exactly a year ago. Onflow might prove to be the most complex protocol engineered thus far within the ZK/MPC/privacy space. ~2 years of work, 13 employees, expertise, refining, rebuilding, consulting, re-writing, auditing, novel research in MPC and ZK constructions. What goes into what we're building? First I'll outline what the scope for the initial release of Onflow is (skip to next section if this isn't interesting to you): - Be an SDK, not a standalone monolith. While we do have Onflow ID (our Onflow implementation), we never want Onflow to be centralized around 1 app. This also makes our user-by-default system so much more stronger in garnering network effects. If you've used Onflow even once, as soon as you open another app a few months later that requires compliance, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that the magic of the protocol has auto-submitted exactly what the service provider is looking for and there is no-to-little user interaction required on your end. - Privacy, privacy, privacy. My background, and a 90% of the development team at Sundial has a solid background in complex privacy schemes, zero-knowledge, academia and practical implementations. We believe compliance/KYC breaches are some of the most dangerous (both physically and virtually) data leaks that can occur, and so Onflow was built to be virtually impossible to leak any meaningful data from, even if you're delegating work to overseas staff, due to how data is stealth-schematized so support agents only see *exactly* what they need to solve your case, and nothing else. - Privacy, again. So what does privacy entail? Well. For Onflow we're utilizing so many new primitives in one, that all come from different departments. From the zero-trust infrastructure for our compliance dashboard, our never-before-seen quantum-resistant QuantMQ data dispatch protocol that is pervasive throughout the entire Onflow ecosystem, to complex routers for oracling and verifying proofs onchain (EVM and SVM initially, as recently announced). We also have our TDE, or "Trusted Data Enclave", which allows you to easily port your credentials to a new device, whether it be your laptop, or another phone, it'll all get transferred over seamlessly through a bespoke mesh-based distribution system (think Signal-type), again through QuantMQ tunnels. Now the true beauty of all of this? Some of the most senior software engineers, protocol engineers, system administrators, applied (& research) cryptographers alongside amazing visual artists, and our incredible CPO (ex-Disney, Apple, AOL and many more) all worked on their individual bits of the protocol. All with a shared love, and deep respect for privacy and great UX, came together to build the behemoth that is the inner workings of Onflow and distill it down to an SDK that takes just a dozen lines to implement, whether in an app, on a website, or in a cryptocurrency setting. One simple SDK that encapsulates hundreds of bespoke, novel and battle-tested MPC, ZK, QP protocols, and productized it into something that will make onboarding and compliance in general a one-click action going forward (for the most part), and will only be more and more normalized as more and more apps adopt this. Who is interested in using Onflow? We're very fortunate to have an exceptional product, which traditional finance, fintech and digital assets immediately recognize the importance of. Therefore, we're proud to announce that alongside our joint announcement with our day-1 deployment to Circle's Arc network, we're also entering traditional finance. Soon, users will be able to create bank accounts for short-stay overseas work solely using Onflow. We're actually surprised at the extremely positive reception from traditional finance, as you can quickly convince yourself words like "zero-knowledge" will scare what's often seen as arcane institutions, but our experience has been the polar opposite. Banks understand the importance of privacy. Banks understands utilizing privacy-enhancing tools to make the onboarding UX more convenient, and save them money and risk assessment staff when it comes to compliance. What's coming up? More privacy, more convenience. Soon you'll be introduced to the full product offerings of our initial release of Onflow. We plan to open-source every part of the stack that we're able to and provides a benefit to proliferating privacy online (such as our QuantumMQ library with bindings for C++, Rust, C#, Swift and Typescript). We plan to prove that all of the hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars spent on solid cryptographic, privacy-oriented research has not gone in vain, and we've employed and improved upon under-explored breakthroughs to make Onflow happen. What took you so long? Perfect is the enemy of (progress/good/etc.), however, being a product that de-risks businesses and transmits PII (even over quantum-proof tunnels) still require extreme rigor and a lot of systems and novel infrastructure to make sure that there is no central breach point. Version one of Onflow will support 147 jurisdictions, and we soon plan to add support for Aadhar 2.0 as well, to include India (even though they just got biometric passports, they're not as ubiquitous). We support thousands of passports and IDs and have the most comprehensive coverage out of any compliance provider with over 15,000 documents covered. Novel things take time. Onflow is truly a novel, never-before-seen approach to the full compliance stack, with inherent digital ID features as an essential part of the protocol, giving it endless possibilities. We wanted to make extremely sure that what we're releasing here in a couple of months is as solid as can be, and will offer hefty bounties to people who can successfully find a way to disrupt the protocol (one can never do too much manual review, fuzzing, external audits, etc., and we firmly believe in rewarding solo auditors for findings). Lastly. Thank you to everyone building in, researching, contributing to or otherwise promoting, privacy. Privacy is not reliant on financial turmoil, it is the first question a start-up should ask itself when making a new product class. And we're super fortunate to say that in the difficulties of navigating novel privacy, we've found extremely satisfying solutions to extremely complex problems we otherwise never would've discovered. Do not fade privacy. Privacy is a moat, and there are so many markets that are begging to be disrupted if someone with a privacy-oriented view decided to take a pragmatic look at them. Thank you.

SIGNAL

20,192 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

That was an interesting interview between myself and The Glarer tonight, as always. "If Aidan Kearney recorded Karen Read, and Kate Peter wants people to support Aidan, then I'm backing Karen." "So, I think Kate Peter, Brian Tully, Jen McCabe, Michael Morrissey—whatever—psychologically profiled Aidan and used Lindsey as an unwitting honeypot. She wasn't an agent. Kate Peter was the state agent. Lindsey was the honeypot who didn't know she was the honeypot, and Aidan fell victim to it because he doesn't think straight when he has a woman in front of him for some reason." FULL TRANSCRIPT: **Will:** You're on. Who is calling? **Grant:** Will, it's Grant. How you doing? **Will:** Grant. Is this Grant Smith Ellis, the Towel? **Grant:** Yes, it's Grant Smith-Ellis. Will, I told you [in the comment section] I'd call in, so I called in. *Will:** What's up, homie? **Grant:** Well, we got some stuff going on, and I don't know how I found myself in the position where I'm defending Karen Read. But here we go. **Will:** Of course you are, because you hate TurtleBoy, bro. Like, it's not rocket science. **Grant:** That's not really what it comes down to. I just don't like people... **Will:** Isn't it though? Come on. **Grant:** I don't like people who take advantage of women and who look at women as less intelligent than men. That's what it's about. **Will:** Okay. That's... that's all that's about, okay? So why... why... why are you exactly Team Karen Read right now? Because, actually, I'm still Team Karen Read, believe it or not. I'm just telling her: if she's accusing people, accuse them and show proof. That's all I'm saying. Is that unfair, Grant? **Grant:** No, I think you're right to ask her for the receipts. But then you have to consider the implications of if she actually shows up and proves that he was doing this to her—not just recently, but for a year and a half. What the hell was going on, Will? Why was he doing that, and why was she tolerating it? ***Will:** Why do you care? **Grant:*** Because I think that it's completely inappropriate for people to leverage a criminal trial for political purposes. **Will:** Would you care if it was two other people in the movement? Like, anybody. Like, just random. Would you care if it was Erica Walsh and Dina? **Grant:** I would care if it was Kate Peter, Jason Broyles. It doesn't matter. It's the principle. You've seen me call them all out equally. **Will:** I mean, sure, fair enough. But I mean, I stand by my position that it's a personal thing between the two of them, and it's not my fucking business. And I'm not gonna be dragged into it. **Grant:** Yeah, that's fair. And it's a zero-sum game, Will, right? So I really do believe that the filings by Bederow are true: there is an ongoing investigation of Karen and Aidan, and Kate Peter wants Aidan to flip on Karen. Okay, and so it's a zero-sum game. Someone's getting charged. Is it gonna be Karen or Aidan? I think it should be Aidan. **Will:** How do you know someone's gonna get charged? **Grant:** Because look at the filings. Look at what Bederow said. Look at the.... **Will:** What did Bederow say exactly? That... that said that somebody's gonna be charged? What are you talking about, Grant? Come on. **Grant:** Bederow, in the affidavit that I found on Defense Diaries's X within the past two days, said that there is a 2025 active investigation of Karen Read and Aidan Kearney. Thus, if one of them flips... **Will:** You don't know how to say Kearney yet. It's Carney, dude. Let's pronounce... **Grant:** Oh, I've always said Kearney. **Will:** I know, but it's actually pronounced Carney, dude. I just... I just... I just want you to look good when you're doing your live streams, dude, with all your fucking epilepsy-inducing shit that you got going on in your stream. That's fucking scary, dude. Like, I'm not even epileptic, and I go into seizures every time I watch your streams, bro. **Grant:** Hey, I remembered your name, Will, right? I try to remember how to pronounce names that matter. **Will:** I appreciate that, man. Appreciate that. Um, let me ask you this since I got you on the phone. Like, uh, what happened, dude? Why didn't you, uh, attend the deposition, bro? What happened? **Grant:** No, last week was terrible, Will. I was out in the sun and collapsed, and I'm working on actually getting a lawyer for that. So there's some rule about when you're getting counsel—there's a little bit of a delay. **Will:** So are you gonna sue God for Him being hot? **Grant:** I don't know how to respond to that question. **Will:** That's because it's sarcasm, my friend. **Grant:** Oh yeah, autistic people don't always pick up on sarcasm. **Will:** Fair enough, fair enough. **Grant:** Did you see me down at the Moakley courthouse the other day? Miss Leslie's mom called me a towel. **Will:** Wow. Wow. Um, I don't know who Miss Leslie is exactly, but... **Grant:** Oh, Jessica Leslie was the person on the Karen Read federal grand jury who leaked information to a friend, who then sent it to TurtleBoy via DM on X. **Will:** Oh, okay. Oh, okay. All right. Um, yeah. So I mean, are you... are you stoked for this deposition? Are you gonna... like, are you like... are you ready for it, bro? Are you ready to drop some bombs or what? **Grant:** I think I'll have to wait till I talk to my counsel to give you an answer on that, Will. **Will:** That's actually a very, very intelligent response. I agree with you. You should probably... I mean, because, you know, let's... let's just hear real quick. **Grant:** Will, [on the other topic], what it really comes down for me...it really comes down to; if Aidan recorded Karen, and Kate Peter wants people to support Aidan, I'm going to back Karen, alright? **Will:** Okay. So, say that one more time, please. **Grant:** So, if Aidan Kearney recorded Karen Read, and Kate Peter wants people to support Aidan, I'm backing Karen. **Will:** Okay. If Kate... if Kate Peter wants people to support Aidan, you're backing Karen out of the principle that Kate Peter is backing Aidan. So, you're backing— **Grant:** Out of the principle that I think the criminal charges brought against Aidan were brought by Kate Peter working as a PI for Marty Kraft and Brian Tully, not to actually convict Aidan, but to actually get him to flip on Karen from the jump. That was the whole point. That's why she's trying to get the Free Karen Read movement to turn on Karen now, and I think it's bullshit. **Will:** I mean, Grant, I think that what you're thinking is absolute bullshit, bro. I don't know how you're so smart and you just miss shit. It's crazy to me. You're fucking incredibly intelligent. **Grant:** So, what if I'm right on this, Will, and that the charges against Aidan were brought... the criminal charges... against Aidan weren't a setup by Lindsey; they were a setup by Tully, Kate, and Marty Kraft to flip Aidan on Karen? I'm going to be right about that. **Will:** But there's evidence—evidence that dictates that Lindsey worked as an agent and was used—used, by the way, by Tully and Mello to have Aidan's bail revoked. There's evidence to prove this. **Grant:** Yeah, but let me lay it down like this. Do you know what a psychological profile is? **Will:** Uh, I've heard of them. I've heard of them, yes. **Grant:** So, I think Kate, Tully, Jen McCabe, Morrissey—whatever—psychologically profiled Aidan and used Lindsey as an unwitting honeypot. She wasn't an agent. Kate Peter was the state agent. Lindsey was the honeypot who didn't know she was the honeypot, and Aidan fell victim to it because he doesn't think straight when he has a woman in front of him for some reason. **Will:** Grant, you're projecting, my friend. I mean, that. To be fair, though. [what you just said] might be true. But, homie, you're not thinking straight because you are fucking blinded by Lindsey. What is it with your fucking... Do you not see how crazy she is, dude? I feel like she should throw you a piece. Personally, I feel like with all the work that you're doing to support her, I feel like she should throw you at least a handy, bro. Like, come on. **Grant:** Well, let me back it up. Two questions. One, have you ever spoken to the girl for ten minutes? **Will:** No, no, I wouldn't. **Grant:** Two --well, okay-- two, the other thing is, I think we live in an overly sexualized culture. Okay, I really feel... **Will:** Is that just because you're not getting any? **Grant:** No, let me finish. I really like what Erika Kirk has been saying, and I really think that if we're going to focus on the American family and the values that made this country great, then we have to get away from this bullshit that every human interaction is about sex. That's bullshit. That's wrong. It degrades women and it degrades men. **Will:** Doesn't it always boil down to sex, though? Doesn't it always boil down to sex? **Grant:** Maybe for 97% of the population, but you want to make policy, reform the justice system? **Will:** 70%? That's generous. I'd say a good 90%. **Grant:** Yeah, but you want to reform the justice system, write policy, do good things, and do good work? You cannot be focused on sex. That's why priests don't get married. It's about more than sex. **Will:** Yeah, but priests fuck kids. So... **Grant:** Some of them do, but, listen, those people are the most egregious sinners because they take advantage of a sacred trust. **Will:** I agree. I agree. They're the worst. Absolutely, [punish] them all. **Grant:** Yeah, of course. More than [punish] them all, [punish] the people who moved them around. **Will:** Exactly. Grant, I knew I liked you, bro. I knew I did. **Grant:** Well, we're on the same page about a lot of stuff, and I'm telling you, Karen Read was... We may not agree on what happened [to John O'Keefe], but she was treated wrong by those cops as to how they texted about her. They were misogynistic, and she was treated wrong by Aidan. And I back her as to how Aidan treated her. That's the bottom line. **Grant:** Okay, so you support Karen Read because she's at odds with Aidan, basically? **Will:** Because she was treated as less than a human being by Aidan. She was degraded. She was dehumanized. **Grant:** How do you know that? **Will:** I got good sources. **Grant:** Okay. All right. **Will:** Grant, I'm going to take the next caller. Dude, thank you for calling in. Seriously, I really enjoyed our conversation. I always enjoy our conversations, dude. I appreciate you calling in. **Grant:** Anytime. We'll talk soon. **Will:** All right, bud. I'm giving Grant Smith-Ellis the Towel a fucking round of applause."

Grant Smith Ellis

62,644 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.

Arjun Mahadevan (Mr. LLC 🇺🇸)

37,744 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Analyzing Episode 60. Season 2 aka Motherhood Deconstructed I want to start this analysis with a disclaimer that I'll be writing about that kiss separately, because really, it deserves a post of its own. I'll talk about it here briefly, but this analysis will stick to the overall events of ep 60. To me, the main theme of this episode was motherhood. Be it Alya, Nare, Zerrin, Sadakat, and yes, even the dishrag. We see how these different women strive, suffer, and never stop trying to keep their children with them, all except one. So, let's begin. We start episode 60 with Alya and Cihan awaiting to conduct a DNA test on baby Simal, whom Kaya insists is his child. Long story short, Kaya is feeling a little pissed about Zerrin keeping the truth of Simal from him, and he has a point. But then, it's not like Zerrin has had a jolly good time pretending to play house with a creep like Demir. The only reason she relents is to keep her baby safe. So, it's a catch-22 situation, where both sides are right and wrong. But, it's not like we don't know these two will make up soon. What stood out to me in that sequence was Alya taking charge of ensuring Zerrin has access to her baby. She knows exactly what it is to be separated from one's child, and she's kind and brave enough to refuse to let anyone suffer through the same. So, in a way, Alya's motherhood doesn't just extend to Deniz. It encompasses her to the point where she shields all those she feels need protection. I also like the fact that she's taken Zerrin under her wing, because when the latter moves into the konak with Sadakat, she'll need all the help she can get. The next sequence begins at the hospital, where Nare is still hell-bent on continuing with the pregnancy, though at great risk to her life. This is another glimpse of motherhood the show gives us - in the shape of a woman who is so in love with her unborn child already, she's willing to risk death to bring it into the world. Contrasted to that is Sadakat, who's willing to lie or cheat to keep her daughter alive. Here is a ruthless kind of motherhood. Sadakat's love (if you can call it that) has always been wrapped in control, manipulation, and fear. But, still at the center of all her ugliness is a woman who doesn't want to lose her children. Nare is willing to die for her child, Sadakat is willing to kill Nare's child to ensure she lives - quite the compelling contrast. Different forms of motherhood, but both rooted in desperation. In the middle of all that, Meryem pops up like a bad penny. But even as she arrives in that room and Sadakat wants to keep her there, the awkward silence that envelops the space as she lingers is telling. She doesn't belong, it seems to say. But, there's another person who's starting to question their 'belonging' in this new version of the past that's come back - and of course, that's Alya. The more she sees Meryem infiltrate parts of her life beyond the konak, the more her exposed nerves are rubbed raw. This woman is so close to complete and utter exhaustion, it's heartbreaking. What's even more heartbreaking is that while she tries to be there for everyone, she herself cuts everyone off when she feels troubled. And that, to me, is where the episode quietly portrays the emotional labor aspect of being a mom. Alya mothers everyone around her. Nare, Zerrin, Kaya, and Deniz. Even Cihan at times. She absorbs pain, tries to stem chaos, protects others from falling apart, yet when it comes to her own fears and insecurities, she retreats inward completely. It's almost as if she believes she only deserves to be the shelter, never the one allowed to seek sanctuary. Because children who grow up thinking they've been abandoned grow up thinking love is a thing to be earned through caring or usefulness. So, instead of asking for comfort, they always end up providing it. But humans, even the strongest of the strong, have their limits. And, it's so clear that Alya is close to reaching hers. So, when Cihan is forced to relent and allow Mujgan and her son to the konak because Deniz wants it, Alya does what she does best - she withdraws and leaves the source of discomfort. That's why she tells Cihan she hates going to the konak now because every time she goes there, the spectre of Meryem and what she can snatch away becomes unavoidable. And, as blind as Cihan can be at times, he picks up on that. He knows exactly what she's trying to do, which is why he tries to redirect her attention to the fact that he hates going to the konak without Alya around, too. He wants to be wherever Alya is. In his own way, he's trying to tell her it doesn't matter who stays at that house; it's only home to Cihan when Alya is around. His words reach Alya, which is why she relents and visits the konak for a few hours, but then shit hits the fan again. We'll get to that, but first, let's talk about Meryem. Meryem's scene in the hospital with Mujgan reveals Meryem saying she can't tell Cihan about Serhat because she's not sure who the father is, and that she'd rather live in the hope that Serhat is the son of the man she loves, bla blah. Now, go back and think of all the versions of motherhood we've seen in this series, and indeed this episode. They all have one thing in common - that all the mothers did whatever they had to, and bore whatever came their way to ensure their babies stayed with them. No matter how much Alya, Zerrin, or Nare love their better halves, when push came to shove, they put their children first. Even Sadakat married Azem for Boran. All except one. Meryem. Meryem sent her son away and made it look like he was Mujgan's child, thereby erasing all his links to her. One could argue it was because she feared Feyyaz. But what's stopping her now? Let's assume what Meryem says is right and there's a 50 percent chance Serhat is Cihan's son. For a mother desperate to save her child from danger, those are pretty good odds, so why avoid the DNA test? Suppose Serhat turns out to be Feyyaz's son; even so, if she comes clean with Cihan, she knows he's the kind to help her, even if just to keep an innocent child safe. So, her version of motherhood sticks out like a sore thumb in the episode. In contrast, I found Alya's line, 'When it comes to my son, I put him before everything and everyone else,' much more fitting with the theme. Mothers on the defensive, who feel there's a threat to their child's wellbeing, will relent to even the most extreme measure - even if it tears their own being apart. Alya hates being away from Cihan. She hates that distance she imposes between them as much as Cihan, but she can't help it. Because the mother in her won't let her choose anything else. Which is why I say Serhat is almost like an afterthought to Meryem because his needs are never the focus. And I get the feeling that whatever Meryem is trying to hide threatens not her son, but likely the version of herself she's presented to the world. Even when I rewatched the kite flying scene, the way the camera pans into Serhat only once, but mostly focuses on Cihan and Alya after showing us Meryem is telling. Like this is a woman not going through hell because of her child, but because she's looking at a structure of acceptance she's no longer able to enter. Life at the konak, Cihan's family unit, his love for Alya and Deniz - it's everything that could have been hers once, but no longer. No matter how she tries, she no longer fits. And honestly, that’s why that sense of not belonging is even more overt in an episode about motherhood. Every other mother in this episode becomes messy because of love for their child. Nare breaks down. Zerrin panics. Sadakat manipulates openly. Alya practically emotionally disintegrates trying to hold everything together. Their feelings spill all over the place because motherhood, especially threatened motherhood, breaks people down. But Meryem remains oddly stoic throughout it all, except for a few tears. She's mostly careful and controlled, and always aware of who's watching her. Going back to the point of shit hitting the fan, when Alya discovers Meryem and Mujgan in Cihan's room, she doesn't buy Meryem's story for a bit. When Cihan tries to calm the situation, she dismantles the sorry excuse Meryem gives with two questions. In other words, her spidey senses pick up trouble, but she keeps it locked in because she doesn't want to appear as the jealous, unreasonable wife. But things come to a head anyway when Feyyaz cuts Cihan and Alya off on the road. Cihan seems to finally realize exactly the kind of trouble Meryem has unleashed in their lives when Feyyaz keeps eyeing Alya. Because to Feyyaz's psychotic mind, Cihan is keeping Meryem away from him, which makes Alya fair game. But when Cihan insists Alya return to the konak, Alya flat out refuses, and all the pressure that's been building inside her gets directed at Cihan. She knows deep down he's not at fault, but the fact that he's jumped into another situation without thinking of the danger, grates on her nerves. Which is why her default setting kicks in; she demands that Cihan bring Deniz to her and leave the apartment. Cihan, who is already reeling from Alya pulling back from him and the reality of Feyyaz targeting the only thing he truly holds dear, is desperate to stop Alya's isolation before she decides he's not worth all the misery she's suffering, and does what's worked for him once before in a desperate situation (the airport, anyone?). He forgets everything, pulls Alya in, and kisses the breath out of her. And, it works too, because for that moment, Alya stops spiraling long enough to simply feel. To stop calculating danger or bracing for abandonment. She feels loved and safe in Cihan's arms again. That's what makes that kiss so powerful. It isn't just the passion. It's the desperation behind it, on both sides. Cihan isn't kissing Alya because he wants to win an argument. He's kissing her because he's terrified, and he misses her. He's worried that if she keeps retreating inward, one day she'll retreat so far he won't be able to reach her anymore. Worried that all the fear, exhaustion, and pressure she's carrying will eventually make her decide loving him isn't worth the cost. And Alya responds because beneath all her anger, fear, and exhaustion, she loves him just as desperately. That's the irony of CihAl this season. They're not going to pieces because the love is weakening. They're going to pieces because the love has become so enormous that losing it feels catastrophic to both of them. To conclude, everything within ep 60, including the kiss, works so beautifully because technically everyone is unraveling. Every woman in this episode is fighting to protect something she loves, but the ways they do so reveal who they are at their core. Alya protects by sacrificing parts of herself. Nare protects by risking herself. Sadakat protects by controlling others. Zerrin protects by enduring humiliation. And Meryem... Meryem protects the narratives she builds. Her emotions, while visible, don't land with impact, almost as if they're missing a core ingredient. On the opposite end of the spectrum lie CihAl, whose love strips them bare, only for them to realize that retreat is no option. The only way forward for them is through - through fear, through exhaustion, through jealousy, through danger, and through every ugly and painful thing that loving someone this deeply awakens inside them. Because CihAl are incapable of loving each other halfway. Their love keeps dragging every hidden wound, every insecurity, every instinct to the surface until there is nowhere left to hide. And maybe that’s the real contrast episode 60 quietly builds toward: one side clinging to carefully maintained facades, the other being emotionally dismantled by a love too raw and overwhelming to remain controlled. Till later, happy reading, y'all. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

12,775 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

547,744 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce