Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Framework Computer has Hitler Particles, Says GNOME Spokesman Framework Computer has endorsed DHH's Omarchy Linux & Hyprland. Leftist Open Source Activists call Framework "Far Right, Fascist, White Supremacist, Transphobic, Motherf***ers".

LundukeJournal's profile picture

The Lunduke Journal

24,873 subscribers

99,818 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

GNOME Foundation Discusses Refusing Funds from Framework Computer Framework Computer is offering monthly financial support to the GNOME Foundation. Framework also supports Omarchy Linux & Hyprland, which GNOME activists call "Fascist", so GNOME may refuse those funds.
9:00

GNOME Foundation Discusses Refusing Funds from Framework Computer Framework Computer is offering monthly financial support to the GNOME Foundation. Framework also supports Omarchy Linux & Hyprland, which GNOME activists call "Fascist", so GNOME may refuse those funds.

The Lunduke Journal

18,478 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Omarchy Linux Hits 150,000 Installs This Month Alone "Nazi! Fascist! Hitler Particles!" The Leftist Extremists of Open Source have been attacking DHH's Omarchy Linux non-stop. The result? Massive adoption from normal people.
11:32

Omarchy Linux Hits 150,000 Installs This Month Alone "Nazi! Fascist! Hitler Particles!" The Leftist Extremists of Open Source have been attacking DHH's Omarchy Linux non-stop. The result? Massive adoption from normal people.

The Lunduke Journal

28,641 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Finally, a browser automation framework for Agents that actually works in production (open-source)! Typical browser automation tools like Selenium or Playwright require you to hard-code automation. These are brittle since one change in the website can disrupt the full workflow. On the other hand, high-level Agents like OpenAI Operator can be unpredictable in production. Stagehand is an open-source framework that bridges the gap between: - brittle traditional automation like Playwright, Selenium, etc. and - unpredictable full-agent solutions like OpenAI Operator. Key features: - Use AI when you want to navigate unfamiliar pages. - Use code (Playwright) when you know exactly what to do. - Preview AI actions before running them. - Cache repeatable actions to save tokens. - Compatible with SOTA computer use models with just one line of code. - Available in both Python and TypeScript SDK. Stagehand also has an open-source MCP server. Find a link to the repo in the comments! 👉 Over to you: Would you use this instead of Selenium?
0:24

Finally, a browser automation framework for Agents that actually works in production (open-source)! Typical browser automation tools like Selenium or Playwright require you to hard-code automation. These are brittle since one change in the website can disrupt the full workflow. On the other hand, high-level Agents like OpenAI Operator can be unpredictable in production. Stagehand is an open-source framework that bridges the gap between: - brittle traditional automation like Playwright, Selenium, etc. and - unpredictable full-agent solutions like OpenAI Operator. Key features: - Use AI when you want to navigate unfamiliar pages. - Use code (Playwright) when you know exactly what to do. - Preview AI actions before running them. - Cache repeatable actions to save tokens. - Compatible with SOTA computer use models with just one line of code. - Available in both Python and TypeScript SDK. Stagehand also has an open-source MCP server. Find a link to the repo in the comments! 👉 Over to you: Would you use this instead of Selenium?

Avi Chawla

101,419 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The APC, President Tinubu and those who work with him suffer what in economics we call the "illusion of money"... By the devaluation of the naira to the dollar, it gives you an illusion as if additional money is coming in, but that money has no purchasing power,' says SDP's Adebayo. I sympathise with Mr Morka [APC spokesman], and I understand now that if this is the framework of their own analysis, even 50 years is not enough to get it right, he added #SundayPolitics
9:58

The APC, President Tinubu and those who work with him suffer what in economics we call the "illusion of money"... By the devaluation of the naira to the dollar, it gives you an illusion as if additional money is coming in, but that money has no purchasing power,' says SDP's Adebayo. I sympathise with Mr Morka [APC spokesman], and I understand now that if this is the framework of their own analysis, even 50 years is not enough to get it right, he added #SundayPolitics

Channels Television

45,652 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

🚀 Introducing PantheonOS ( A Fully Open-Source Agent OS for Science PantheonOS began as a research project in my Stanford lab and has since evolved into a vision to redefine data science in the era of AI—starting with computational biology, especially single-cell and spatial genomics. PantheonOS is a general agent platform built from the ground up. It is arguably the first distributed agent framework designed for scientific data analysis. 🔑 Key Features 1. Multi-Agent Collaboration – Built-in paradigms for distributed, cross-machine cooperation among agents and toolsets. 2. Native Toolset Support – Python, R, Julia, LaTeX, and more—designed for real scientific workflows. 3. Modular & Extensible – Developer-friendly design with shallow wrappers, plus LLM-driven toolset generation. 4. Evolvable Agents – Capable of evolving large-scale code projects to achieve superhuman performance (e.g., evolving upon the original Harmony [I Korsunsky, 2019, Nature Biotechnology] and Scanorama [BL Hie, 2019, Nature Biotechnology] implementations), and even evolving the system itself to adapt to new fields. 🎉 Stepwise Release Strategy We’re releasing PantheonOS in stages: Pantheon-CLI (today!), followed by Pantheon-Lab, Pantheon-Notebook, Pantheon-Slack, and more. 🌟 Pantheon-CLI Highlights - We're not just building another CLI tool. We're defining how scientists will interact with data in the AI era. - Open, Powerful, Python-First – The first fully open-source, endlessly extendable scientific “vibe analysis” framework. - Mixed Programming Magic – Combine Python, natural language, R, or Julia—seamlessly in the same environment. - PhD-Level Assistant – A command-line agent for complex real-world genomics and beyond, handling workflows at the PhD level. - Privacy by Design – Run entirely offline with local LLMs—your data never leaves your computer. ✅ Proven Applications (10 Demonstrations) Computational biology: 1. ATAC-seq: From raw reads to peak matrix 2. RNA-seq: From raw reads to expression matrix 3. Complex single-cell workflows (PhD-level) 4. Hybrid natural language + R for Seurat annotation 5. Learning from web tutorials + invoking single-cell foundation models 6. Cell segmentation on 10x Genomics HD Visium data And beyond: 7. Mixed Python & R programming examples 8. Molecular docking & structural analysis 9. Exploratory factor analysis for behavioral survey data 10. Customer segmentation & finance analytics 🌐 Learn More & Get Started Website: Pantheon-CLI Documentation: GitHub Repo: 💬 Join our community: PantheonOS Slack: PantheonOS Discord:
1:16

🚀 Introducing PantheonOS ( A Fully Open-Source Agent OS for Science PantheonOS began as a research project in my Stanford lab and has since evolved into a vision to redefine data science in the era of AI—starting with computational biology, especially single-cell and spatial genomics. PantheonOS is a general agent platform built from the ground up. It is arguably the first distributed agent framework designed for scientific data analysis. 🔑 Key Features 1. Multi-Agent Collaboration – Built-in paradigms for distributed, cross-machine cooperation among agents and toolsets. 2. Native Toolset Support – Python, R, Julia, LaTeX, and more—designed for real scientific workflows. 3. Modular & Extensible – Developer-friendly design with shallow wrappers, plus LLM-driven toolset generation. 4. Evolvable Agents – Capable of evolving large-scale code projects to achieve superhuman performance (e.g., evolving upon the original Harmony [I Korsunsky, 2019, Nature Biotechnology] and Scanorama [BL Hie, 2019, Nature Biotechnology] implementations), and even evolving the system itself to adapt to new fields. 🎉 Stepwise Release Strategy We’re releasing PantheonOS in stages: Pantheon-CLI (today!), followed by Pantheon-Lab, Pantheon-Notebook, Pantheon-Slack, and more. 🌟 Pantheon-CLI Highlights - We're not just building another CLI tool. We're defining how scientists will interact with data in the AI era. - Open, Powerful, Python-First – The first fully open-source, endlessly extendable scientific “vibe analysis” framework. - Mixed Programming Magic – Combine Python, natural language, R, or Julia—seamlessly in the same environment. - PhD-Level Assistant – A command-line agent for complex real-world genomics and beyond, handling workflows at the PhD level. - Privacy by Design – Run entirely offline with local LLMs—your data never leaves your computer. ✅ Proven Applications (10 Demonstrations) Computational biology: 1. ATAC-seq: From raw reads to peak matrix 2. RNA-seq: From raw reads to expression matrix 3. Complex single-cell workflows (PhD-level) 4. Hybrid natural language + R for Seurat annotation 5. Learning from web tutorials + invoking single-cell foundation models 6. Cell segmentation on 10x Genomics HD Visium data And beyond: 7. Mixed Python & R programming examples 8. Molecular docking & structural analysis 9. Exploratory factor analysis for behavioral survey data 10. Customer segmentation & finance analytics 🌐 Learn More & Get Started Website: Pantheon-CLI Documentation: GitHub Repo: 💬 Join our community: PantheonOS Slack: PantheonOS Discord:

evo-devo

17,356 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Zack Polanski, "Twitter, I still refuse to call it X" "I feel very conflicted. It's clearly an awful place to be, full of fascist content, far right content, misinformation" "How do we story tell in places where there are 35 million users on Twitter but 3.5 million users on Bluesky where I much prefer to be" Carole Cadwalladr, "I'm also conflicted with Twitter" "We are in a real conundrum" "We have to be where people are" "That's my philosophy on this" "The abuse on Twitter is a walk in the park compared to what I got in the Brexit years" "This idea that it was great in the past and now it's not, that's for the birds" "As a source of news I find Twitter still unsurpassed" "At the same time Elon Musk is a white supremacist Putin loving madman essentially" "What has happened with Grok undressing women. What I would counter slightly to be aware of" "People saying thats it, its over, I'm going to Threads, going to Instagram - Instagram is the biggest marketplace for pedophiles in the world" "We have this document which shows that Instagram is deliberately connecting pedophiles to children" "Where's the kickback on that?" "What I like about Elon Musk is that he makes the problem visible"
4:01

Zack Polanski, "Twitter, I still refuse to call it X" "I feel very conflicted. It's clearly an awful place to be, full of fascist content, far right content, misinformation" "How do we story tell in places where there are 35 million users on Twitter but 3.5 million users on Bluesky where I much prefer to be" Carole Cadwalladr, "I'm also conflicted with Twitter" "We are in a real conundrum" "We have to be where people are" "That's my philosophy on this" "The abuse on Twitter is a walk in the park compared to what I got in the Brexit years" "This idea that it was great in the past and now it's not, that's for the birds" "As a source of news I find Twitter still unsurpassed" "At the same time Elon Musk is a white supremacist Putin loving madman essentially" "What has happened with Grok undressing women. What I would counter slightly to be aware of" "People saying thats it, its over, I'm going to Threads, going to Instagram - Instagram is the biggest marketplace for pedophiles in the world" "We have this document which shows that Instagram is deliberately connecting pedophiles to children" "Where's the kickback on that?" "What I like about Elon Musk is that he makes the problem visible"

Farrukh

79,252 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

🚨 OPERATIONAL UPDATE: TALKS ADVANCE, PRESSURE HOLDS - Reporting Window: Last 24 Hours *⃣ If you find these reports useful, PLEASE consider sharing them, this is how more people get access to clear, open source breakdowns of what’s actually happening. Diplomacy is now fully underway, but the underlying structure of the war has not changed. U.S. and Iranian officials are actively engaged in talks in Islamabad, while Israel continues operations in Lebanon and regional pressure points remain unresolved. Negotiations are real, but they are happening alongside continued military activity, not in place of it. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🧠 MY ASSESSMENT The disconnect in this phase of the war is no longer just military. It is perceptual. Iran is negotiating like a peer power. It is not operating like one. The regime has taken real damage across leadership, infrastructure, and military capability. That much is clear from weeks of sustained strikes and the cumulative effect they’ve had on its systems. At the same time, the United States and Israel retain clear escalation dominance, including the ability to threaten core Iranian infrastructure on a scale that would put the regime itself at risk. And yet, Iran continues to negotiate from a maximalist position. That is not because it holds superior leverage. It is because the leverage it does have is concentrated in disruption, not control. Hormuz remains the clearest example. Iran does not need to shut it permanently to create pressure. It only needs to make it unstable enough to raise global economic costs and force urgency into negotiations. The same applies to its proxy network. Hezbollah does not need to win in Lebanon. It only needs to remain active enough to prevent a clean separation of fronts. So the reality is more specific than either extreme. Iran is not negotiating from strength. But it is not negotiating without leverage. It is negotiating from a weakened position, using time, disruption, and regional pressure to offset what it has lost militarily. That is what makes this phase unstable. The United States is trying to convert military advantage into a negotiated outcome. Iran is trying to convert limited leverage into constraints on that outcome. Israel is continuing to act where it is not constrained. Those dynamics do not resolve cleanly. They drag. And the longer they drag, the more the outcome depends not just on capability, but on tolerance for escalation and time. Now let's break down all the different theaters contributing to this assessment: ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇵🇰 ISLAMABAD TALKS: REAL, HIGH-STAKES, BUT FAR APART The most significant development in this window is the shift to direct U.S.–Iran engagement in Pakistan. Senior delegations are now physically present in Islamabad under heavy security, with Pakistan acting as the central intermediary trying to convert a temporary ceasefire into something more durable. But the gap between the two sides remains wide: • Iran’s reported framework focuses on sanctions relief, security guarantees, and preserving proxy influence • The U.S. framework demands nuclear dismantlement, missile limits, and a permanently open Hormuz Both sides are treating these as opening positions, not final terms. At the same time, Iranian negotiators are still pushing to include Lebanon in ceasefire guarantees, a condition that continues to complicate progress. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇱🇧 LEBANON REMAINS ACTIVE Despite the diplomatic push, Lebanon remains an active combat zone. Israeli strikes continued across southern Lebanon in this window, including deadly strikes in Nabatieh and surrounding areas. Reporting indicates: • More than two dozen killed in a single strike event, including members of Lebanese security forces • Additional strikes on urban areas, shops, and infrastructure • Continued clashes on the ground, with IDF personnel wounded in exchanges along the border At the same time, Hezbollah fire has not stopped entirely, with intermittent launches toward northern Israel continuing. The key continuity point holds: Lebanon is not covered by the ceasefire structure being negotiated in Pakistan, and it is not behaving like it is. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⚓ HORMUZ: STILL UNRESOLVED The Strait of Hormuz remains the central strategic lever. U.S. officials are signaling active efforts to secure the waterway, including naval movements and mine-clearing operations, though some claims remain unverified. At the same time, Iran continues to threaten rapid retaliation against U.S. vessels operating in the area. This is the same unresolved issue sitting underneath the negotiations: • The ceasefire depends on Hormuz being open and stable • That condition has not yet been fully met • Both sides are still signaling willingness to escalate if it breaks down ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🌍 REGIONAL PRESSURE AND SPILLOVER The regional layer of the war remains active even as talks proceed. Recent reporting highlights: • Continued Iranian-linked pressure on Gulf infrastructure, which has already disrupted Saudi industrial capacity in recent days • Pakistan increasing its own military posture, including sending fighter jets to Saudi Arabia as part of broader defense coordination • European pressure, particularly from France, to expand the ceasefire framework to include Lebanon This reinforces the broader pattern: The war is no longer confined to one front, and it cannot be easily paused in one place without consequences elsewhere. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇮🇷 INTERNAL IRAN DYNAMICS Additional reporting in this window provides a clearer picture inside Iran. • Iran’s current Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, remains seriously injured from earlier strikes but is still actively governing through remote coordination • The regime continues to maintain tight control domestically, including extended internet blackouts • There are increasing indications of information control and narrative shaping as negotiations proceed Separately, reporting suggests the regime has encouraged civilians to position themselves near key infrastructure as a deterrence tactic, reinforcing a pattern of using civilian presence as part of its defensive posture. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 📌 WHAT MATTERS MOST RIGHT NOW • Direct U.S.–Iran talks are now fully underway in Pakistan, but positions remain far apart • Lebanon remains an active battlefield, with continued Israeli strikes and ongoing casualties • Hormuz is still not fully stabilized, leaving the entire diplomatic framework conditional • Regional actors are adjusting posture, including Gulf states and Pakistan, signaling continued instability • Iran continues to operate from a constrained but still functional position, both militarily and internally
0:32

🚨 OPERATIONAL UPDATE: TALKS ADVANCE, PRESSURE HOLDS - Reporting Window: Last 24 Hours *⃣ If you find these reports useful, PLEASE consider sharing them, this is how more people get access to clear, open source breakdowns of what’s actually happening. Diplomacy is now fully underway, but the underlying structure of the war has not changed. U.S. and Iranian officials are actively engaged in talks in Islamabad, while Israel continues operations in Lebanon and regional pressure points remain unresolved. Negotiations are real, but they are happening alongside continued military activity, not in place of it. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🧠 MY ASSESSMENT The disconnect in this phase of the war is no longer just military. It is perceptual. Iran is negotiating like a peer power. It is not operating like one. The regime has taken real damage across leadership, infrastructure, and military capability. That much is clear from weeks of sustained strikes and the cumulative effect they’ve had on its systems. At the same time, the United States and Israel retain clear escalation dominance, including the ability to threaten core Iranian infrastructure on a scale that would put the regime itself at risk. And yet, Iran continues to negotiate from a maximalist position. That is not because it holds superior leverage. It is because the leverage it does have is concentrated in disruption, not control. Hormuz remains the clearest example. Iran does not need to shut it permanently to create pressure. It only needs to make it unstable enough to raise global economic costs and force urgency into negotiations. The same applies to its proxy network. Hezbollah does not need to win in Lebanon. It only needs to remain active enough to prevent a clean separation of fronts. So the reality is more specific than either extreme. Iran is not negotiating from strength. But it is not negotiating without leverage. It is negotiating from a weakened position, using time, disruption, and regional pressure to offset what it has lost militarily. That is what makes this phase unstable. The United States is trying to convert military advantage into a negotiated outcome. Iran is trying to convert limited leverage into constraints on that outcome. Israel is continuing to act where it is not constrained. Those dynamics do not resolve cleanly. They drag. And the longer they drag, the more the outcome depends not just on capability, but on tolerance for escalation and time. Now let's break down all the different theaters contributing to this assessment: ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇵🇰 ISLAMABAD TALKS: REAL, HIGH-STAKES, BUT FAR APART The most significant development in this window is the shift to direct U.S.–Iran engagement in Pakistan. Senior delegations are now physically present in Islamabad under heavy security, with Pakistan acting as the central intermediary trying to convert a temporary ceasefire into something more durable. But the gap between the two sides remains wide: • Iran’s reported framework focuses on sanctions relief, security guarantees, and preserving proxy influence • The U.S. framework demands nuclear dismantlement, missile limits, and a permanently open Hormuz Both sides are treating these as opening positions, not final terms. At the same time, Iranian negotiators are still pushing to include Lebanon in ceasefire guarantees, a condition that continues to complicate progress. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇱🇧 LEBANON REMAINS ACTIVE Despite the diplomatic push, Lebanon remains an active combat zone. Israeli strikes continued across southern Lebanon in this window, including deadly strikes in Nabatieh and surrounding areas. Reporting indicates: • More than two dozen killed in a single strike event, including members of Lebanese security forces • Additional strikes on urban areas, shops, and infrastructure • Continued clashes on the ground, with IDF personnel wounded in exchanges along the border At the same time, Hezbollah fire has not stopped entirely, with intermittent launches toward northern Israel continuing. The key continuity point holds: Lebanon is not covered by the ceasefire structure being negotiated in Pakistan, and it is not behaving like it is. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⚓ HORMUZ: STILL UNRESOLVED The Strait of Hormuz remains the central strategic lever. U.S. officials are signaling active efforts to secure the waterway, including naval movements and mine-clearing operations, though some claims remain unverified. At the same time, Iran continues to threaten rapid retaliation against U.S. vessels operating in the area. This is the same unresolved issue sitting underneath the negotiations: • The ceasefire depends on Hormuz being open and stable • That condition has not yet been fully met • Both sides are still signaling willingness to escalate if it breaks down ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🌍 REGIONAL PRESSURE AND SPILLOVER The regional layer of the war remains active even as talks proceed. Recent reporting highlights: • Continued Iranian-linked pressure on Gulf infrastructure, which has already disrupted Saudi industrial capacity in recent days • Pakistan increasing its own military posture, including sending fighter jets to Saudi Arabia as part of broader defense coordination • European pressure, particularly from France, to expand the ceasefire framework to include Lebanon This reinforces the broader pattern: The war is no longer confined to one front, and it cannot be easily paused in one place without consequences elsewhere. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇮🇷 INTERNAL IRAN DYNAMICS Additional reporting in this window provides a clearer picture inside Iran. • Iran’s current Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, remains seriously injured from earlier strikes but is still actively governing through remote coordination • The regime continues to maintain tight control domestically, including extended internet blackouts • There are increasing indications of information control and narrative shaping as negotiations proceed Separately, reporting suggests the regime has encouraged civilians to position themselves near key infrastructure as a deterrence tactic, reinforcing a pattern of using civilian presence as part of its defensive posture. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 📌 WHAT MATTERS MOST RIGHT NOW • Direct U.S.–Iran talks are now fully underway in Pakistan, but positions remain far apart • Lebanon remains an active battlefield, with continued Israeli strikes and ongoing casualties • Hormuz is still not fully stabilized, leaving the entire diplomatic framework conditional • Regional actors are adjusting posture, including Gulf states and Pakistan, signaling continued instability • Iran continues to operate from a constrained but still functional position, both militarily and internally

Inside_Israel_Intel

15,357 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

New short course: LLMs as Operating Systems: Agent Memory, created with Letta, and taught by its founders Charles Packer and Sarah Wooders. An LLM's input context window has limited space. Using a longer input context also costs more and results in slower processing. So, managing what's stored in this context window is important. In the innovative paper MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems, its authors (which include the instructors) proposed using an LLM agent to manage this context window. Their system uses a large persistent memory that stores everything that could be included in the input context, and an agent decides what is actually included. Take the example of building a chatbot that needs to remember what's been said earlier in a conversation (perhaps over many days of interaction with a user). As the conversation's length grows, the memory management agent will move information from the input context to a persistent searchable database; summarize information to keep relevant facts in the input context; and restore relevant conversation elements from further back in time. This allows a chatbot to keep what's currently most relevant in its input context memory to generate the next response. When I read the original MemGPT paper, I thought it was an innovative technique for handling memory for LLMs. The open-source Letta framework, which we'll use in this course, makes MemGPT easy to implement. It adds memory to your LLM agents and gives them transparent long-term memory. In detail, you’ll learn: - How to build an agent that can edit its own limited input context memory, using tools and multi-step reasoning - What is a memory hierarchy (an idea from computer operating systems, which use a cache to speed up memory access), and how these ideas apply to managing the LLM input context (where the input context window is a "cache" storing the most relevant information; and an agent decides what to move in and out of this to/from a larger persistent storage system) - How to implement multi-agent collaboration by letting different agents share blocks of memory This course will give you a sophisticated understanding of memory management for LLMs, which is important for chatbots having long conversations, and for complex agentic workflows. Please sign up here!
2:57

New short course: LLMs as Operating Systems: Agent Memory, created with Letta, and taught by its founders Charles Packer and Sarah Wooders. An LLM's input context window has limited space. Using a longer input context also costs more and results in slower processing. So, managing what's stored in this context window is important. In the innovative paper MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems, its authors (which include the instructors) proposed using an LLM agent to manage this context window. Their system uses a large persistent memory that stores everything that could be included in the input context, and an agent decides what is actually included. Take the example of building a chatbot that needs to remember what's been said earlier in a conversation (perhaps over many days of interaction with a user). As the conversation's length grows, the memory management agent will move information from the input context to a persistent searchable database; summarize information to keep relevant facts in the input context; and restore relevant conversation elements from further back in time. This allows a chatbot to keep what's currently most relevant in its input context memory to generate the next response. When I read the original MemGPT paper, I thought it was an innovative technique for handling memory for LLMs. The open-source Letta framework, which we'll use in this course, makes MemGPT easy to implement. It adds memory to your LLM agents and gives them transparent long-term memory. In detail, you’ll learn: - How to build an agent that can edit its own limited input context memory, using tools and multi-step reasoning - What is a memory hierarchy (an idea from computer operating systems, which use a cache to speed up memory access), and how these ideas apply to managing the LLM input context (where the input context window is a "cache" storing the most relevant information; and an agent decides what to move in and out of this to/from a larger persistent storage system) - How to implement multi-agent collaboration by letting different agents share blocks of memory This course will give you a sophisticated understanding of memory management for LLMs, which is important for chatbots having long conversations, and for complex agentic workflows. Please sign up here!

Andrew Ng

200,788 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨 Community Movement Builders leader calls for a “Domestic Front of Resistance” against the United States, rejects the civil-rights framework, and calls for “Wartime" against the goverment On a call featuring Kamau Franklin (Community Movement Builders), Erica Caines (Black Alliance for Peace), and Laurick Ingram (Black Men Build), Franklin delivered some of the most openly revolutionary rhetoric you’ll hear from figures routinely treated as respectable “movement leaders.” This wasn’t about reform, voting rights, or policy advocacy. It was a declaration that America is an “empire,” that politics is now wartime, and that activists should build “community self-defense” infrastructure to confront the state—because weakening the U.S. at home, in his view, helps revolutionary causes abroad. On opening a domestic front against the “empire” “Part of our work is to open up a domestic front of resistance… Because if the empire is busy battling here, it can’t do as much over there.” On replacing civil-rights posture with confrontation “We’re dealing with an empire, we’re dealing with wartime. This is not a time of know your rights. This is a time of community self-defense, of organizing our community to block these folks out so they can’t do as much harm as they’ve done to us in the past.” On mirroring wartime logic inside the movement “They understand it’s wartime, so our movement should reflect that as well.” On rejecting allegiance to the United States “Our connection… is not to America. It is to the oppressed masses all around the world.” On Sending Arms to Venezuela and Gaza “To the point of us being internally colonized, we have no political power. So when we talk about how much we can do for Gaza or how much we can do for Venezuela. We can’t send nobody no arms. But the least we can do is speak to our neighbor about the confusion that they’re watching on TV every day.” On pushing “militant” left politics (and blaming U.S. “propaganda” for holding it back) “…the propaganda of that state has remained so strong and blinding that in a lot of ways, it has impaired us from being able to put forth militant left radical ideas that are resonating with our people.” And the nostalgia for the Cold War-era “left bloc” “There are not a lot of socialist states… there’s no Soviet Union no more.” Franklin even laments that the USSR isn’t around anymore—either to bankroll the cause or to give them somewhere to run. That’s a pretty stunning thing to admit out loud. Then Laurick Ingram (Black Men Build) takes it even further—openly canonizing Assata Shakur as a “national hero” and lamenting that the country didn’t shut down in her honor. “Assata became an ancestor last year and that’s a national hero for us, right?... She should have parades, she should have a memorial… It should have been shut down everything, all over the U.S. when she passed, and it wasn’t.” What’s being laid out here is a rejection of the civil-rights tradition in favor of an insurrectionary framework: America cast as an “empire,” politics framed as war, “community self-defense” replacing constitutional rights, allegiance transferred from the United States to transnational revolutionary movements, and the glorification of a convicted cop-killer as a heroic symbol. And no, this isn’t metaphor or edgy venting. It’s a blueprint for parallel power and internal conflict, delivered on a platform shared by leaders from Community Movement Builders, Black Alliance for Peace, and Black Men Build—groups that routinely intersect with nonprofits, universities, and local political ecosystems.
2:57

🚨 Community Movement Builders leader calls for a “Domestic Front of Resistance” against the United States, rejects the civil-rights framework, and calls for “Wartime" against the goverment On a call featuring Kamau Franklin (Community Movement Builders), Erica Caines (Black Alliance for Peace), and Laurick Ingram (Black Men Build), Franklin delivered some of the most openly revolutionary rhetoric you’ll hear from figures routinely treated as respectable “movement leaders.” This wasn’t about reform, voting rights, or policy advocacy. It was a declaration that America is an “empire,” that politics is now wartime, and that activists should build “community self-defense” infrastructure to confront the state—because weakening the U.S. at home, in his view, helps revolutionary causes abroad. On opening a domestic front against the “empire” “Part of our work is to open up a domestic front of resistance… Because if the empire is busy battling here, it can’t do as much over there.” On replacing civil-rights posture with confrontation “We’re dealing with an empire, we’re dealing with wartime. This is not a time of know your rights. This is a time of community self-defense, of organizing our community to block these folks out so they can’t do as much harm as they’ve done to us in the past.” On mirroring wartime logic inside the movement “They understand it’s wartime, so our movement should reflect that as well.” On rejecting allegiance to the United States “Our connection… is not to America. It is to the oppressed masses all around the world.” On Sending Arms to Venezuela and Gaza “To the point of us being internally colonized, we have no political power. So when we talk about how much we can do for Gaza or how much we can do for Venezuela. We can’t send nobody no arms. But the least we can do is speak to our neighbor about the confusion that they’re watching on TV every day.” On pushing “militant” left politics (and blaming U.S. “propaganda” for holding it back) “…the propaganda of that state has remained so strong and blinding that in a lot of ways, it has impaired us from being able to put forth militant left radical ideas that are resonating with our people.” And the nostalgia for the Cold War-era “left bloc” “There are not a lot of socialist states… there’s no Soviet Union no more.” Franklin even laments that the USSR isn’t around anymore—either to bankroll the cause or to give them somewhere to run. That’s a pretty stunning thing to admit out loud. Then Laurick Ingram (Black Men Build) takes it even further—openly canonizing Assata Shakur as a “national hero” and lamenting that the country didn’t shut down in her honor. “Assata became an ancestor last year and that’s a national hero for us, right?... She should have parades, she should have a memorial… It should have been shut down everything, all over the U.S. when she passed, and it wasn’t.” What’s being laid out here is a rejection of the civil-rights tradition in favor of an insurrectionary framework: America cast as an “empire,” politics framed as war, “community self-defense” replacing constitutional rights, allegiance transferred from the United States to transnational revolutionary movements, and the glorification of a convicted cop-killer as a heroic symbol. And no, this isn’t metaphor or edgy venting. It’s a blueprint for parallel power and internal conflict, delivered on a platform shared by leaders from Community Movement Builders, Black Alliance for Peace, and Black Men Build—groups that routinely intersect with nonprofits, universities, and local political ecosystems.

Stu Smith

80,613 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Diplomatic crisis with the US is in no one’s interest: The civil rights organisation AfriForum says the current diplomatic crisis with the US is not in anyone’s interest in South Africa and could have been prevented if the ANC leadership had not ignored AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement’s efforts to help find solutions. AfriForum emphasises that, as an organisation, it remains committed to helping find solutions to this crisis in the best interest of everyone in the country. According to Kallie Kriel, CEO of AfriForum, ANC leaders have so far actively prevented attempts to find solutions by, among other things, inviting the Iranian ambassador to the ANC headquarters and making anti-American statements. “Ronald Lamola, Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, acted directly against South Africa’s interests by publicly accusing President Donald Trump of having a ‘white supremacy’ agenda, despite his role as minister to promote international relations. Lamola disregarded the possibility of retaliation for his statements, and now we are all reaping the bitter fruits of that,” says Kriel. Referring to Trump’s latest statements on social media about farm murders and property rights, Kriel says that concrete steps must be taken to combat farm murders and protect property rights, as this is the best way to tackle these issues. According to Kriel, AfriForum has therefore already made several proposals to the ANC’s leaders to serve as solutions in this regard. AfriForum proposes, among other things, the following solutions for combating farm murders and protecting property rights: Farm Murders • President Ramaphosa should be urged to unconditionally condemn the “Kill the Boer” chant, which is a call for ethnic violence against Afrikaners. • The South African government should at least acknowledge the fact that farm murders are accompanied by excessive torture and violence. • Farm murders should be declared a priority crime, as is already the case with numerous other crimes, including rhino poaching. • The government should decide that the South African Police Service (SAPS) should officially and in a planned manner collaborate with farm and neighbourhood watches nationwide that operate within the framework of the law. Expropriation Act • The South African government must commit itself to protecting property rights. • Section 12(3) of the Expropriation Act, which allows for expropriation without compensation, must be revoked. • Section 19(2) of the Expropriation Act, which allows for expropriation to take place before a court decision is reached, must be amended.
1:27

Diplomatic crisis with the US is in no one’s interest: The civil rights organisation AfriForum says the current diplomatic crisis with the US is not in anyone’s interest in South Africa and could have been prevented if the ANC leadership had not ignored AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement’s efforts to help find solutions. AfriForum emphasises that, as an organisation, it remains committed to helping find solutions to this crisis in the best interest of everyone in the country. According to Kallie Kriel, CEO of AfriForum, ANC leaders have so far actively prevented attempts to find solutions by, among other things, inviting the Iranian ambassador to the ANC headquarters and making anti-American statements. “Ronald Lamola, Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, acted directly against South Africa’s interests by publicly accusing President Donald Trump of having a ‘white supremacy’ agenda, despite his role as minister to promote international relations. Lamola disregarded the possibility of retaliation for his statements, and now we are all reaping the bitter fruits of that,” says Kriel. Referring to Trump’s latest statements on social media about farm murders and property rights, Kriel says that concrete steps must be taken to combat farm murders and protect property rights, as this is the best way to tackle these issues. According to Kriel, AfriForum has therefore already made several proposals to the ANC’s leaders to serve as solutions in this regard. AfriForum proposes, among other things, the following solutions for combating farm murders and protecting property rights: Farm Murders • President Ramaphosa should be urged to unconditionally condemn the “Kill the Boer” chant, which is a call for ethnic violence against Afrikaners. • The South African government should at least acknowledge the fact that farm murders are accompanied by excessive torture and violence. • Farm murders should be declared a priority crime, as is already the case with numerous other crimes, including rhino poaching. • The government should decide that the South African Police Service (SAPS) should officially and in a planned manner collaborate with farm and neighbourhood watches nationwide that operate within the framework of the law. Expropriation Act • The South African government must commit itself to protecting property rights. • Section 12(3) of the Expropriation Act, which allows for expropriation without compensation, must be revoked. • Section 19(2) of the Expropriation Act, which allows for expropriation to take place before a court decision is reached, must be amended.

Kallie Kriel

28,012 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Is the Right Demanding Censorship of Tucker Carlson: A Textbook Business Strategy Case Study Analysis! "TPUSA needs to carefully decide who they choose to elevate as an "ambassador" for its brand." In the heated world of political discourse, accusations of censorship fly from all sides. But when it comes to high-profile figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, the question arises: Is the right truly demanding their silencing, or is something more nuanced at play? A recent controversy at Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has brought this debate into sharp focus, forcing us to examine the boundaries between free speech, organizational integrity, and leadership accountability. At its core, the issue boils down to a simple analogy: A keynote speaker at a major event is akin to an executive ambassador for the hosting organization. They don't just represent themselves; they embody the group's values, mission, and public image. For the right, which often decries the "censorious left" for blacklisting conservative voices, this principle cuts both ways. If large influencers on the right are acting in ways that undermine core ideals, it's not hypocrisy to call them out; it's consistency. Leaders, after all, are the architects of an organization's mission. Executives bear the responsibility for strategically executing that vision, including shaping the messaging that reaches audiences. When an executive veers off course; straying from the mission or strategy, it's the leader's duty to rein in the rogue official. This isn't about suppression; it's about stewardship. Ignore it, and you risk diluting the very purpose that drew people to the cause in the first place. Apply this business-like strategy framework to the TPUSA fiasco, and the picture becomes clearer. The decision to platform Tucker Carlson who has alligned himself alongside venomous individuals like Nick Fuentes; often labeled a "Nazi" for his far-right, white nationalist views; presents a profoundly difficult choice for any conservative leader committed to American principles. Carlson, once a Fox News staple, has built a career on provocative commentary. Yet, a closer look at his show reveals a pattern: He's amplified some of the most egregious guests imaginable, individuals whose rhetoric and actions stand in direct opposition to the American experiment. These aren't fringe missteps; they're antithetical to the foundational values of liberty, pluralism, and opportunity that TPUSA claims to champion. Inviting such figures doesn't just risk alienating allies; it actively counters the organization's stated mission of empowering young conservatives to defend freedom and build a stronger America. Fuentes, in particular, has drawn widespread condemnation for his Holocaust denial, antisemitism, and calls for a "white Christian" America, views that clash violently with the inclusive conservatism many on the right aspire to. As the leader of any organization, be it a corporation, nonprofit, or political movement, you're obligated to "walk the talk." That phrase isn't just motivational poster fodder; it demands action, especially when it requires making very difficult decisions. In TPUSA's case, disinviting Carlson as a keynote speaker isn't an act of censorship but a necessary course correction. It will respresent a stand for the mission over personal alliances, strategy over spectacle. Critics on the right might cry foul, equating this with the left's cancel culture playbook. But here's the distinction: True censorship seeks to erase voices from the public square entirely. This is about curating a platform that aligns with an organization's goals, not banning Carlson or Fuentes from speaking elsewhere. They remain free to broadcast their views on their own channels, to millions of followers. The appropriate choice is to debate these individuals at other venue choices, not at an annual TPUSA conference. TPUSA needs to carefully decide who they choose to elevate as an "ambassador" for its brand. In the end, this episode underscores a broader truth for the conservative movement: Free speech is sacred, but it's not a blank check for leaders to platform poison. If the right wants to reclaim moral high ground, it must hold its own accountable, just as it demands of the left. Tough calls like this aren't weakness; they're the mark of principled leadership. Only then can the movement truly advance its vision without being derailed by its own extremes. As the TPUSA team finalizes the blueprint for the December 2025 AmericaFest conference with Tucker Carlson slotted as the marquee keynote speaker a singular, searing imperative crystallizes: the resolve to sideline him from that premier keynote speaker ambassador role to a panelist at another event in a debate with large influencers like Ben Shapiro, James Lindsay, or Dinesh D'Souza at a conservative forum outside the TPUSA brand appears to be the only viable solution.
0:52

Is the Right Demanding Censorship of Tucker Carlson: A Textbook Business Strategy Case Study Analysis! "TPUSA needs to carefully decide who they choose to elevate as an "ambassador" for its brand." In the heated world of political discourse, accusations of censorship fly from all sides. But when it comes to high-profile figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, the question arises: Is the right truly demanding their silencing, or is something more nuanced at play? A recent controversy at Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has brought this debate into sharp focus, forcing us to examine the boundaries between free speech, organizational integrity, and leadership accountability. At its core, the issue boils down to a simple analogy: A keynote speaker at a major event is akin to an executive ambassador for the hosting organization. They don't just represent themselves; they embody the group's values, mission, and public image. For the right, which often decries the "censorious left" for blacklisting conservative voices, this principle cuts both ways. If large influencers on the right are acting in ways that undermine core ideals, it's not hypocrisy to call them out; it's consistency. Leaders, after all, are the architects of an organization's mission. Executives bear the responsibility for strategically executing that vision, including shaping the messaging that reaches audiences. When an executive veers off course; straying from the mission or strategy, it's the leader's duty to rein in the rogue official. This isn't about suppression; it's about stewardship. Ignore it, and you risk diluting the very purpose that drew people to the cause in the first place. Apply this business-like strategy framework to the TPUSA fiasco, and the picture becomes clearer. The decision to platform Tucker Carlson who has alligned himself alongside venomous individuals like Nick Fuentes; often labeled a "Nazi" for his far-right, white nationalist views; presents a profoundly difficult choice for any conservative leader committed to American principles. Carlson, once a Fox News staple, has built a career on provocative commentary. Yet, a closer look at his show reveals a pattern: He's amplified some of the most egregious guests imaginable, individuals whose rhetoric and actions stand in direct opposition to the American experiment. These aren't fringe missteps; they're antithetical to the foundational values of liberty, pluralism, and opportunity that TPUSA claims to champion. Inviting such figures doesn't just risk alienating allies; it actively counters the organization's stated mission of empowering young conservatives to defend freedom and build a stronger America. Fuentes, in particular, has drawn widespread condemnation for his Holocaust denial, antisemitism, and calls for a "white Christian" America, views that clash violently with the inclusive conservatism many on the right aspire to. As the leader of any organization, be it a corporation, nonprofit, or political movement, you're obligated to "walk the talk." That phrase isn't just motivational poster fodder; it demands action, especially when it requires making very difficult decisions. In TPUSA's case, disinviting Carlson as a keynote speaker isn't an act of censorship but a necessary course correction. It will respresent a stand for the mission over personal alliances, strategy over spectacle. Critics on the right might cry foul, equating this with the left's cancel culture playbook. But here's the distinction: True censorship seeks to erase voices from the public square entirely. This is about curating a platform that aligns with an organization's goals, not banning Carlson or Fuentes from speaking elsewhere. They remain free to broadcast their views on their own channels, to millions of followers. The appropriate choice is to debate these individuals at other venue choices, not at an annual TPUSA conference. TPUSA needs to carefully decide who they choose to elevate as an "ambassador" for its brand. In the end, this episode underscores a broader truth for the conservative movement: Free speech is sacred, but it's not a blank check for leaders to platform poison. If the right wants to reclaim moral high ground, it must hold its own accountable, just as it demands of the left. Tough calls like this aren't weakness; they're the mark of principled leadership. Only then can the movement truly advance its vision without being derailed by its own extremes. As the TPUSA team finalizes the blueprint for the December 2025 AmericaFest conference with Tucker Carlson slotted as the marquee keynote speaker a singular, searing imperative crystallizes: the resolve to sideline him from that premier keynote speaker ambassador role to a panelist at another event in a debate with large influencers like Ben Shapiro, James Lindsay, or Dinesh D'Souza at a conservative forum outside the TPUSA brand appears to be the only viable solution.

Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior

17,765 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

👇Pakistan: Iran has yet to confirm attendance, and the decision to join talks before the ceasefire expires at 4:50am PST on April 22 is “critical.” Against this backdrop, there is increased skepticism of Pakistan as a mediator in Iran. For example, today this Iranian state TV analyst argued that the mediation process is stacked against Iran, with Pakistan acting in a way that leans toward the U.S., amplifies American-favored optics, and risks putting Iran at a strategic and narrative disadvantage in negotiations. Below is an English translated transcript of what this host says: "It hasn't actually happened, if I'm not mistaken. "According to the account we had, Asim Munir came to Tehran, received our text, and was supposed to deliver this text to the American side, which naturally he should have delivered. "But as far as I know—and we were just discussing this in the editorial office—we haven't received a response yet as to whether this text can be [acceptable], and I say even if you do receive one, with this procedure you are following, you go and sit down and the other side says, 'Well, I don't accept this at all,' and in the middle of this, there is a—in colloquial terms they say—there's another 'bug' we have here. Look. "And it's this—let me say this too—and it's that it seems that, in fact, our mediator, who is the Pakistani side, is not a mediator who stands exactly in the middle. Meaning, if he is going to lean, he leans toward the American side. "Look, this thing that is happening—this Al Jazeera news that you mentioned—where the Pakistani side says, 'Our expectation is, we expect the negotiations to take place tomorrow, we are waiting'—sir, the Iranian side is [standing] firm until this very moment saying 'I am not coming.' "On what basis are you expecting and preparing things there? "Look, at the very least, the result is that you are currently creating a media, psychological, and public opinion pressure in favor of the Americans and against the Iranians. "What does that mean? "It means Vance comes there, takes his souvenir photo, and then says, 'See, we wanted to reach an agreement but the Iranians didn't come.' "This is a reality that the mediator side—let's call them the mediator, right? "Yes, they are the mediator—yes, as I was saying, that side must observe [neutrality] and say, 'Sir, these two people—' I mean, that incident that happened, have the Pakistanis even acknowledged it until now? No. "That the Iranians—the very thing that the President of the United States himself came and reposted Araghchi's posts with a 10-point framework—they came, and then Vance came and basically said, "'No, these are all canceled, let's sit and talk based on these 15 or 16 points of ours.' "This is not a very reasonable thing at all; our mediator is not very much on that side [neutral]."
1:57

👇Pakistan: Iran has yet to confirm attendance, and the decision to join talks before the ceasefire expires at 4:50am PST on April 22 is “critical.” Against this backdrop, there is increased skepticism of Pakistan as a mediator in Iran. For example, today this Iranian state TV analyst argued that the mediation process is stacked against Iran, with Pakistan acting in a way that leans toward the U.S., amplifies American-favored optics, and risks putting Iran at a strategic and narrative disadvantage in negotiations. Below is an English translated transcript of what this host says: "It hasn't actually happened, if I'm not mistaken. "According to the account we had, Asim Munir came to Tehran, received our text, and was supposed to deliver this text to the American side, which naturally he should have delivered. "But as far as I know—and we were just discussing this in the editorial office—we haven't received a response yet as to whether this text can be [acceptable], and I say even if you do receive one, with this procedure you are following, you go and sit down and the other side says, 'Well, I don't accept this at all,' and in the middle of this, there is a—in colloquial terms they say—there's another 'bug' we have here. Look. "And it's this—let me say this too—and it's that it seems that, in fact, our mediator, who is the Pakistani side, is not a mediator who stands exactly in the middle. Meaning, if he is going to lean, he leans toward the American side. "Look, this thing that is happening—this Al Jazeera news that you mentioned—where the Pakistani side says, 'Our expectation is, we expect the negotiations to take place tomorrow, we are waiting'—sir, the Iranian side is [standing] firm until this very moment saying 'I am not coming.' "On what basis are you expecting and preparing things there? "Look, at the very least, the result is that you are currently creating a media, psychological, and public opinion pressure in favor of the Americans and against the Iranians. "What does that mean? "It means Vance comes there, takes his souvenir photo, and then says, 'See, we wanted to reach an agreement but the Iranians didn't come.' "This is a reality that the mediator side—let's call them the mediator, right? "Yes, they are the mediator—yes, as I was saying, that side must observe [neutrality] and say, 'Sir, these two people—' I mean, that incident that happened, have the Pakistanis even acknowledged it until now? No. "That the Iranians—the very thing that the President of the United States himself came and reposted Araghchi's posts with a 10-point framework—they came, and then Vance came and basically said, "'No, these are all canceled, let's sit and talk based on these 15 or 16 points of ours.' "This is not a very reasonable thing at all; our mediator is not very much on that side [neutral]."

Sina Toossi

40,629 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🚨 BREAKING: Senior Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzouk indicates that Hamas is open to relinquishing weapons capable of striking beyond Gaza’s borders as part of phase 2 ceasefire negotiations. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have thus far rejected any talk of unilateral disarmament. And Abu Marzouk drew a clear line between light arms needed for self-defense and long-range weapons that could threaten Israel — suggesting that discussions on disarming the latter would be on the table once talks move to the second phase. He emphasized that phase 1 remains incomplete, with Israel “violating the agreement, obstructing aid deliveries, and continuing strikes that have killed more than 250 Palestinians in 21 days.” “All such issues,” he said, “would be discussed through dialogue — within a framework that respects the goals of all parties: the mediators, the international actors, the Palestinian people, and yes, even Israel’s concerns about future calm. But that dialogue must balance everyone’s interests — not just impose the will of one side.” Responding to the U.S.-backed proposal for a UN-mandated international force to disarm Hamas, Abu Marzouk explained: “Now, what weapons are we talking about? If you mean weapons whose range goes beyond the buffer zone, I say this is understandable — because such weapons could threaten the other side. But when you talk about disarming all weapons in general, that makes no sense. It has no meaning. When I carry light arms whose range doesn’t even reach 400 or 500 meters — and in some areas they talk about 1,000 meters — what exactly is the point of removing those? The only outcome is chaos in the very areas they claim to want stability. But if the weapons in question genuinely threaten the surroundings, then yes — that’s something that can be discussed and talked about. That’s why I’ve said we haven’t yet entered that phase of dialogue, the phase meant to achieve everyone’s goals. Our goal is stability. Our goal is to prevent war. Our goal is to avoid new threats and to make sure there’s no repetition of October 7. Their goals are their own — but we also have ours. We care about protecting our people, about social peace, about reconstruction, and about bringing life back to our people. That’s what matters to us — our people’s safety, dignity, and happiness. Not turning Gaza into an American sphere of influence or a place for business deals, or what they call a ‘Riviera.’ That is not in our minds, nor in the minds of the Palestinian people.” Source: الجزيرة مباشر
3:51

🚨 BREAKING: Senior Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzouk indicates that Hamas is open to relinquishing weapons capable of striking beyond Gaza’s borders as part of phase 2 ceasefire negotiations. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have thus far rejected any talk of unilateral disarmament. And Abu Marzouk drew a clear line between light arms needed for self-defense and long-range weapons that could threaten Israel — suggesting that discussions on disarming the latter would be on the table once talks move to the second phase. He emphasized that phase 1 remains incomplete, with Israel “violating the agreement, obstructing aid deliveries, and continuing strikes that have killed more than 250 Palestinians in 21 days.” “All such issues,” he said, “would be discussed through dialogue — within a framework that respects the goals of all parties: the mediators, the international actors, the Palestinian people, and yes, even Israel’s concerns about future calm. But that dialogue must balance everyone’s interests — not just impose the will of one side.” Responding to the U.S.-backed proposal for a UN-mandated international force to disarm Hamas, Abu Marzouk explained: “Now, what weapons are we talking about? If you mean weapons whose range goes beyond the buffer zone, I say this is understandable — because such weapons could threaten the other side. But when you talk about disarming all weapons in general, that makes no sense. It has no meaning. When I carry light arms whose range doesn’t even reach 400 or 500 meters — and in some areas they talk about 1,000 meters — what exactly is the point of removing those? The only outcome is chaos in the very areas they claim to want stability. But if the weapons in question genuinely threaten the surroundings, then yes — that’s something that can be discussed and talked about. That’s why I’ve said we haven’t yet entered that phase of dialogue, the phase meant to achieve everyone’s goals. Our goal is stability. Our goal is to prevent war. Our goal is to avoid new threats and to make sure there’s no repetition of October 7. Their goals are their own — but we also have ours. We care about protecting our people, about social peace, about reconstruction, and about bringing life back to our people. That’s what matters to us — our people’s safety, dignity, and happiness. Not turning Gaza into an American sphere of influence or a place for business deals, or what they call a ‘Riviera.’ That is not in our minds, nor in the minds of the Palestinian people.” Source: الجزيرة مباشر

Drop Site

164,489 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Mehdi Hasan Mehdi Hasan says he can debunk Israel's defenders in under 60 seconds. His method? Reading a list of names really fast. That's not an argument. That's a filibuster with a bibliography. Fine. Start the clock. Here's the problem with his fifty sources: it's one source wearing fifty costumes. The UN cites Amnesty. Amnesty cites a different UN report. That one cites the BBC. The BBC cites UNRWA. UNRWA cites the Gaza Ministry of Health. The Gaza Ministry of Health is Hamas. Even a member of his own genocide scholars association has a name for this: "citation washing." Congratulations. You just traced fifty "independent" voices back to one terrorist press office. Now, a few of his star witnesses. The International Association of Genocide Scholars? $30 and you're in. Emperor Palpatine is a member. So is Cookie Monster. Amnesty? Their own report — page 101 — calls the established legal standard too "cramped" to reach a genocide finding. The law as written wouldn't convict Israel, so they loosened the law. B'Tselem said the quiet part louder — their report openly adopts "a broader analytical framework" than the legal definition. That's lawyer-speak for "we changed the rules." The UN? The General Assembly passed 17 resolutions against Israel in 2024. Seven against the entire rest of the planet combined. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia — one each. Sudan, where actual mass slaughter is happening right now? Zero. And here's a name Mehdi will never read off his list: Alice Wairimu Nderitu. The UN's own Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Their in-house expert. The one person whose entire job was answering this exact question. She looked at the evidence, looked at the law, and refused to call Gaza a genocide. Her reward? "Hounded, day in, day out. Bullied, hounded, with protection from nobody." Her words. Then her contract quietly wasn't renewed. She said the pressure to declare a genocide "never happened for any other war. Not for Ukraine, not for Sudan, not for Democratic Republic of Congo." The UN's genocide expert said no — so the UN got a new genocide expert. Oh, and one more name he forgot: the jihadist terrorist group Hamas. The original proponent of the genocide libel — the source his fifty sources trace back to. Somehow they didn't make the list. Neither did any of the scholars, military experts, former hostages, survivors, and millions of common-sense humans united in rejecting the claim. Instead of rattling off a list of "because they said so," how about evidence? Millions of warning leaflets. Humanitarian corridors. Polio vaccines. 130 babies born a day. The Jewish birth rate during the Holocaust was statistically zero. That's what genocide looks like. Fifty sources quoting each other isn't fifty sources. It's an echo chamber with footnotes. So, Mehdi's big question: Who do I believe? Wrong question. It's not about Who. It's about What. I believe incontrovertible evidence. Population data. Millions of tons of aid. Hard casualty numbers. Weighed against the actual legal definition — not a list of people and organizations quoting each other. Because I fact-check. Time.
1:23

Mehdi Hasan Mehdi Hasan says he can debunk Israel's defenders in under 60 seconds. His method? Reading a list of names really fast. That's not an argument. That's a filibuster with a bibliography. Fine. Start the clock. Here's the problem with his fifty sources: it's one source wearing fifty costumes. The UN cites Amnesty. Amnesty cites a different UN report. That one cites the BBC. The BBC cites UNRWA. UNRWA cites the Gaza Ministry of Health. The Gaza Ministry of Health is Hamas. Even a member of his own genocide scholars association has a name for this: "citation washing." Congratulations. You just traced fifty "independent" voices back to one terrorist press office. Now, a few of his star witnesses. The International Association of Genocide Scholars? $30 and you're in. Emperor Palpatine is a member. So is Cookie Monster. Amnesty? Their own report — page 101 — calls the established legal standard too "cramped" to reach a genocide finding. The law as written wouldn't convict Israel, so they loosened the law. B'Tselem said the quiet part louder — their report openly adopts "a broader analytical framework" than the legal definition. That's lawyer-speak for "we changed the rules." The UN? The General Assembly passed 17 resolutions against Israel in 2024. Seven against the entire rest of the planet combined. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia — one each. Sudan, where actual mass slaughter is happening right now? Zero. And here's a name Mehdi will never read off his list: Alice Wairimu Nderitu. The UN's own Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Their in-house expert. The one person whose entire job was answering this exact question. She looked at the evidence, looked at the law, and refused to call Gaza a genocide. Her reward? "Hounded, day in, day out. Bullied, hounded, with protection from nobody." Her words. Then her contract quietly wasn't renewed. She said the pressure to declare a genocide "never happened for any other war. Not for Ukraine, not for Sudan, not for Democratic Republic of Congo." The UN's genocide expert said no — so the UN got a new genocide expert. Oh, and one more name he forgot: the jihadist terrorist group Hamas. The original proponent of the genocide libel — the source his fifty sources trace back to. Somehow they didn't make the list. Neither did any of the scholars, military experts, former hostages, survivors, and millions of common-sense humans united in rejecting the claim. Instead of rattling off a list of "because they said so," how about evidence? Millions of warning leaflets. Humanitarian corridors. Polio vaccines. 130 babies born a day. The Jewish birth rate during the Holocaust was statistically zero. That's what genocide looks like. Fifty sources quoting each other isn't fifty sources. It's an echo chamber with footnotes. So, Mehdi's big question: Who do I believe? Wrong question. It's not about Who. It's about What. I believe incontrovertible evidence. Population data. Millions of tons of aid. Hard casualty numbers. Weighed against the actual legal definition — not a list of people and organizations quoting each other. Because I fact-check. Time.

Jonah Platt

308,647 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce

The Cosmological Argument Without the Kalami Baggage The reason I know Hijab hasn't carefully read Ibn Taymiyya on these questions is that he says something like this without seeming to notice what it actually does to the route he's taking. If he really sat with those discussions, the point he's making in this clip would not look like support for his strategy at all. He says he does not know anyone who accepts an infinite regress of causes, and that's true. But once that much is already out the way, this whole shift to an Avicennan framework with all the baggage it comes with should already start looking a lot less appealing. Let me explain why. If an infinite regress of causes is impossible, then all you need in order to reach the conclusion Hijab wants to reach is just one thing that came into being after not existing at all. All you need is one instance of temporal origination. Your own coming into existence and the things happening right in front of you give you exactly that. And unless you're now going to retreat from even this to satisfy the skeptic, you already have all you need. Not just from what's all around you, but from within your very self. You have, in your very own existence, something that came into being after not existing, and therefore requires a cause that brought it into being, a self-sufficient cause whose existence is not itself from something else. And regardless of whether the sequence of temporally originated things extends infinitely into the past or not, it still follows that the whole series cannot sufficiently explain the temporally originated thing in question, because if an infinite regress of causes is impossible, then the series cannot just hang there without terminating in a self-sufficient cause. So once he's already granted that much, the conclusion he's after is already right there in substance. But if that's the case, why abandon this clearly more straightforward route in favor of Ibn Sina's? Why leave behind the immediate and obvious reality of temporal origination and retreat into a highly abstract metaphysical framework with all the theological baggage it comes with? Part of the answer is that there's a significant amount of kalami pressure still doing work in the background, whether he sees it clearly or not. He's still being pulled by a picture in which that one temporally originated thing right in front of him somehow does not yet feel enough, and in which there's still a need to rule out a beginningless past of any kind at all before the argument is secure. And since fighting through this kalami route comes with its own heavy costs, Ibn Sina's more abstract starting point becomes appealing precisely because it seems to float above that whole battlefield entirely. That whole picture doesn't just come from nowhere. It belongs to a framework shaped by Mu'tazili-Ash'ari atomist commitments and by the Avicennan alternative that presents itself as the way out. But that's precisely the false dichotomy that Ibn Taymiyya's engagement with these schools exposes. And that's why I said at the start that Hijab clearly has not absorbed those discussions. I say this because nobody exposes how this whole dilemma gets manufactured in the first place more clearly than Ibn Taymiyya. Once you follow both of these approaches through to where they actually lead, the picture roughly looks like this: On the kalami side, the world is temporally originated, but there's no temporal cause and no temporally specifying reason for why it began when it did rather than before or after. On the Avicennan side, the idea of a temporally originated world without a temporally specifying reason for why it began at one moment rather than another is rejected, and what that drives them to is an eternal world flowing necessarily from a timeless source. The first side is left saying that the world did not exist and then suddenly came into being, when absolutely nothing changed in the first "non-existence" state to bring the "existence" state about. No new act, no new cause, no new specification of any kind. Just non-existence, and then existence, with nothing in between that accounts for the difference. And this isn't just the ordinary sense of "why this moment rather than another" as if time was already flowing in the background and there was succession of some sort. The issue is that there's no succession there at all, and yet somehow a first occurrence appears without anything new accounting for it. The second side, on the other hand, tries to avoid that mess by denying the beginning altogether. But then it runs into a worse problem, because if the world flows necessarily from an eternally sufficient cause, then by right, there shouldn't be temporally originated things happening right in front of us at all. If the sufficient cause is eternally what it is and its effect follows necessarily, then nothing genuinely new should ever come to be. And yet things do come to be and events do occur right before our eyes. So that picture ends up in something far worse than the kalami one, because it leaves the very occurrences we're constantly witnessing impossible to account for in the first place. This choice between denying any kind of beginningless past on one side, or accepting an eternal emanation of the world from a timeless source on the other, only starts looking meaningful once certain premises about God have already been quietly accepted in the background. Brother Hijab is either knowingly or unknowingly operating within a system that traps you between these two options. Part of what Ibn Taymiyya's critiques are meant to show is that this whole "menu" is already the product of framework-level concessions that didn't need to be made in the first place. The whole force of Ibn Sina's move depends on those prior concessions. If you deny real volitional attributes and deny that God's willing and acting are themselves genuinely real and successive (as opposed to being reduced to mere effects within creation), then of course you're going to be left staring at the world's coming into existence and finding nothing in God that accounts for it. And that's exactly the pressure Ibn Sina exploits. He isn't exposing some universal difficulty that falls equally on every conception of God. He's taking advantage of a problem that only becomes a problem once those earlier denials are already in place. From our side, that whole pressure is manufactured by a prior departure from what revelation teaches plainly and what a sound fitrah and uncorrupted reason recognize naturally about God. He acts when He wills. He does what He wills. One thing genuinely follows another by His act and decisive will. He truly answers when called upon. He creates, commands, speaks, loves, is pleased, is angered, and does what He wills when He wills. This is not some later philosophical patchwork brought in to rescue a weak position. It's the direct meaning of what was revealed to the prophets (peace be upon them) and the most natural and intelligible understanding of the Creator in the first place. The whole metaphysical mess we've been walking through only begins after that is set aside and people start trying to reconstruct coherence in its absence. The dilemma that pushes Hijab toward Ibn Sina simply does not arise for those who never made that initial concession. But even if all of that is set aside and Ibn Sina is taken on his own terms, his approach doesn't solve this manufactured problem anyway. It makes it worse. If the world proceeds from an eternally complete cause that necessarily produces its effect without interval or delay, the very occurrence of events within the world becomes unintelligible. If the sufficient cause is eternally what it is and its effect follows necessarily from it, then why are new things happening at all? Why is anything coming to be? Why is there succession? Either everything that proceeds from that cause should always have been exactly as it is, in which case the occurrence of new events becomes impossible to make sense of, or events are somehow happening without anything genuinely bringing them into being, which is even worse. Hijab's own position sits uncomfortably between both of these frameworks without actually being grounded in either of them. On the kalami side, the denial of real volitional attributes is driven by the famous dalil al-a'rad that Ash'aris inherited from the Mu'tazila. A flawed argument whose anti-past-infinitude burden Hijab himself seems uneasy about defending, and one that even scholars within the kalami tradition have never fully settled among themselves. On the Avicennan side, the denial of volitional attributes is tied to the composition argument, which is even more obviously flawed than the first, and which Hijab himself effectively rejects the moment he wants to affirm real attributes of God elsewhere. So he's neither willing to fully own the kalami grounds nor willing to accept the Avicennan ones, and yet he remains caught between both frameworks in a way that has him selectively borrowing loaded conclusions from each while rejecting the very premises that would at least give either position a fighting chance at internal coherence. As for the position that actually makes sense, the one that does not require any of this maneuvering and doesn't come loaded with any of these burdens, that's the one he keeps stepping around. He already has temporal origination staring him right in the face, not just in the world around him but in his very own existence. And once he grants the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes, that's already all he needs to arrive at the conclusion he's after. And yet instead of taking the direct route that's right there in front of him, he moves into inherited frameworks with all the speculative premises and theological costs that come with them, and then has to spend his time patching around the problems those frameworks generate. That's what happens when you reach for the most sophisticated-looking formulation without a sufficiently clear view of what drove people into those frameworks to begin with, and without a clear understanding of what they had to give up along the way to stay in them.
0:31

The Cosmological Argument Without the Kalami Baggage The reason I know Hijab hasn't carefully read Ibn Taymiyya on these questions is that he says something like this without seeming to notice what it actually does to the route he's taking. If he really sat with those discussions, the point he's making in this clip would not look like support for his strategy at all. He says he does not know anyone who accepts an infinite regress of causes, and that's true. But once that much is already out the way, this whole shift to an Avicennan framework with all the baggage it comes with should already start looking a lot less appealing. Let me explain why. If an infinite regress of causes is impossible, then all you need in order to reach the conclusion Hijab wants to reach is just one thing that came into being after not existing at all. All you need is one instance of temporal origination. Your own coming into existence and the things happening right in front of you give you exactly that. And unless you're now going to retreat from even this to satisfy the skeptic, you already have all you need. Not just from what's all around you, but from within your very self. You have, in your very own existence, something that came into being after not existing, and therefore requires a cause that brought it into being, a self-sufficient cause whose existence is not itself from something else. And regardless of whether the sequence of temporally originated things extends infinitely into the past or not, it still follows that the whole series cannot sufficiently explain the temporally originated thing in question, because if an infinite regress of causes is impossible, then the series cannot just hang there without terminating in a self-sufficient cause. So once he's already granted that much, the conclusion he's after is already right there in substance. But if that's the case, why abandon this clearly more straightforward route in favor of Ibn Sina's? Why leave behind the immediate and obvious reality of temporal origination and retreat into a highly abstract metaphysical framework with all the theological baggage it comes with? Part of the answer is that there's a significant amount of kalami pressure still doing work in the background, whether he sees it clearly or not. He's still being pulled by a picture in which that one temporally originated thing right in front of him somehow does not yet feel enough, and in which there's still a need to rule out a beginningless past of any kind at all before the argument is secure. And since fighting through this kalami route comes with its own heavy costs, Ibn Sina's more abstract starting point becomes appealing precisely because it seems to float above that whole battlefield entirely. That whole picture doesn't just come from nowhere. It belongs to a framework shaped by Mu'tazili-Ash'ari atomist commitments and by the Avicennan alternative that presents itself as the way out. But that's precisely the false dichotomy that Ibn Taymiyya's engagement with these schools exposes. And that's why I said at the start that Hijab clearly has not absorbed those discussions. I say this because nobody exposes how this whole dilemma gets manufactured in the first place more clearly than Ibn Taymiyya. Once you follow both of these approaches through to where they actually lead, the picture roughly looks like this: On the kalami side, the world is temporally originated, but there's no temporal cause and no temporally specifying reason for why it began when it did rather than before or after. On the Avicennan side, the idea of a temporally originated world without a temporally specifying reason for why it began at one moment rather than another is rejected, and what that drives them to is an eternal world flowing necessarily from a timeless source. The first side is left saying that the world did not exist and then suddenly came into being, when absolutely nothing changed in the first "non-existence" state to bring the "existence" state about. No new act, no new cause, no new specification of any kind. Just non-existence, and then existence, with nothing in between that accounts for the difference. And this isn't just the ordinary sense of "why this moment rather than another" as if time was already flowing in the background and there was succession of some sort. The issue is that there's no succession there at all, and yet somehow a first occurrence appears without anything new accounting for it. The second side, on the other hand, tries to avoid that mess by denying the beginning altogether. But then it runs into a worse problem, because if the world flows necessarily from an eternally sufficient cause, then by right, there shouldn't be temporally originated things happening right in front of us at all. If the sufficient cause is eternally what it is and its effect follows necessarily, then nothing genuinely new should ever come to be. And yet things do come to be and events do occur right before our eyes. So that picture ends up in something far worse than the kalami one, because it leaves the very occurrences we're constantly witnessing impossible to account for in the first place. This choice between denying any kind of beginningless past on one side, or accepting an eternal emanation of the world from a timeless source on the other, only starts looking meaningful once certain premises about God have already been quietly accepted in the background. Brother Hijab is either knowingly or unknowingly operating within a system that traps you between these two options. Part of what Ibn Taymiyya's critiques are meant to show is that this whole "menu" is already the product of framework-level concessions that didn't need to be made in the first place. The whole force of Ibn Sina's move depends on those prior concessions. If you deny real volitional attributes and deny that God's willing and acting are themselves genuinely real and successive (as opposed to being reduced to mere effects within creation), then of course you're going to be left staring at the world's coming into existence and finding nothing in God that accounts for it. And that's exactly the pressure Ibn Sina exploits. He isn't exposing some universal difficulty that falls equally on every conception of God. He's taking advantage of a problem that only becomes a problem once those earlier denials are already in place. From our side, that whole pressure is manufactured by a prior departure from what revelation teaches plainly and what a sound fitrah and uncorrupted reason recognize naturally about God. He acts when He wills. He does what He wills. One thing genuinely follows another by His act and decisive will. He truly answers when called upon. He creates, commands, speaks, loves, is pleased, is angered, and does what He wills when He wills. This is not some later philosophical patchwork brought in to rescue a weak position. It's the direct meaning of what was revealed to the prophets (peace be upon them) and the most natural and intelligible understanding of the Creator in the first place. The whole metaphysical mess we've been walking through only begins after that is set aside and people start trying to reconstruct coherence in its absence. The dilemma that pushes Hijab toward Ibn Sina simply does not arise for those who never made that initial concession. But even if all of that is set aside and Ibn Sina is taken on his own terms, his approach doesn't solve this manufactured problem anyway. It makes it worse. If the world proceeds from an eternally complete cause that necessarily produces its effect without interval or delay, the very occurrence of events within the world becomes unintelligible. If the sufficient cause is eternally what it is and its effect follows necessarily from it, then why are new things happening at all? Why is anything coming to be? Why is there succession? Either everything that proceeds from that cause should always have been exactly as it is, in which case the occurrence of new events becomes impossible to make sense of, or events are somehow happening without anything genuinely bringing them into being, which is even worse. Hijab's own position sits uncomfortably between both of these frameworks without actually being grounded in either of them. On the kalami side, the denial of real volitional attributes is driven by the famous dalil al-a'rad that Ash'aris inherited from the Mu'tazila. A flawed argument whose anti-past-infinitude burden Hijab himself seems uneasy about defending, and one that even scholars within the kalami tradition have never fully settled among themselves. On the Avicennan side, the denial of volitional attributes is tied to the composition argument, which is even more obviously flawed than the first, and which Hijab himself effectively rejects the moment he wants to affirm real attributes of God elsewhere. So he's neither willing to fully own the kalami grounds nor willing to accept the Avicennan ones, and yet he remains caught between both frameworks in a way that has him selectively borrowing loaded conclusions from each while rejecting the very premises that would at least give either position a fighting chance at internal coherence. As for the position that actually makes sense, the one that does not require any of this maneuvering and doesn't come loaded with any of these burdens, that's the one he keeps stepping around. He already has temporal origination staring him right in the face, not just in the world around him but in his very own existence. And once he grants the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes, that's already all he needs to arrive at the conclusion he's after. And yet instead of taking the direct route that's right there in front of him, he moves into inherited frameworks with all the speculative premises and theological costs that come with them, and then has to spend his time patching around the problems those frameworks generate. That's what happens when you reach for the most sophisticated-looking formulation without a sufficiently clear view of what drove people into those frameworks to begin with, and without a clear understanding of what they had to give up along the way to stay in them.

Abdul Rahman (TAP)

21,583 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

I am the Director of Summit Outcomes for the Presidential Advance Team. My job is to land in a foreign capital and leave with a word the President can say on the tarmac. We landed in Beijing 6 days after rolling back the tariffs we spent 4 years imposing. 145% to 30%. The average rate before the trade war was approximately 3%. In Geneva, we called this "creating the conditions for productive dialogue." The conditions were that we had already conceded. I want to be clear: Beijing was a success. We went in with 7 objectives. We left with 3 photo categories, a tentative agreement China has not confirmed, and a bag of burner phones we threw off Air Force One on the tarmac. Diplomacy. My team prepared the deliverables matrix in March. 241 line items organized by urgency, feasibility, and what we call "headline potential." The President reviewed it for 4 minutes. He circled "big deal" and "historic" and wrote "MORE" next to the Boeing section. That became the strategy. Boeing was the centerpiece. 500 aircraft was the White House number we briefed to reporters before departure. 300 was the floor. The Chinese offered 200. Their commerce ministry released the number before we could brief the press. Boeing stock dropped 4.73% that afternoon. Boeing referred questions about the order to the White House. The company receiving the aircraft could not confirm it was receiving aircraft. We called it "fantastic." In Washington, "fantastic" means the other side named the number and the market already priced in your failure. I should note: in 2017, the President announced $250 billion in deals during his first China trip. 300 aircraft. An $84 billion shale gas investment in West Virginia from China Energy Investment Corporation. I can tell you the exact amount of that investment that materialized. Zero. The shale facility was never built. The 2017 Boeing order was renegotiated twice and partially canceled during the trade war the President started 8 months later. There is a binder in my office labeled "2017 OUTCOMES: DO NOT REFERENCE." It is 3 inches thick. It has not been opened in 4 years. We do not reference it because the outcomes are the reference. The agricultural package was what we call a "scaffolding commitment." Billions in purchases over 3 years, structured so the announcement is front-loaded and the verification is someone else's administration. U.S. Trade Representative Greer said "double-digit billions." Beijing's Commerce Ministry issued a statement about "deepening cooperation in agricultural trade." Those are not the same sentence. By design. My deputy maintains a glossary of every term we have invented for agreements that are not agreements. It is 41 pages. He updates it after each summit. Last quarter he added "scaffolding commitment," "streamlined licensing framework," and "mutual recognition of shared concerns." He is in line for a promotion. NVIDIA was the quiet win. H200 chips approved for approximately 10 Chinese companies. We don't say "approved." We say "under a streamlined licensing framework." The chips ship. The export controls remain "in effect." The framework is the loophole wearing a lanyard. The controls exist because these chips in Chinese hands threaten American national security. The chips are shipping to Chinese hands. The controls remain in effect. Both of these are true. Fentanyl was discussed for 9 minutes. Both sides agreed it was a problem. Both sides agreed to continue discussing it. We added it to the deliverables matrix under "ongoing mutual engagement." The previous version of the matrix also listed it under "ongoing mutual engagement." That was in 2023. I copied the line item from the 2023 matrix into the 2026 version. Changed the date. The language was identical. But Taiwan. Taiwan was the deliverable we didn't put on the matrix. I watched the Taiwan exchange from the overflow room on a 12-second delay. I had the contingency statement drafted in 3 versions: "productive exchange," "frank discussion," and "both sides reaffirmed their respective positions." I used none of them. There was no contingency for silence. Chairman Xi released his remarks before the meeting was over. While the President was still seated across the table, Chinese state media published the transcript. "Clashes and even conflicts." His bluntest language on Taiwan in the history of the relationship, released to 1.4 billion people while we were still pouring tea. We called this "sequencing." The President was asked whether he would defend Taiwan if China attacked. He chose not to answer. We wrote that down as "a strong listen." The $14 billion arms sale. Already approved by Congress. The largest in the history of the Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan's parliament spent months appropriating the $25 billion to proceed with this package and the $11 billion tranche approved last year. They finally secured the funding this month. The President told Fox News it was "a very good negotiating chip." He used the word "chip." Referring to the defense of 24 million people. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense sent our office a letter requesting clarity on the delivery timeline. 3 pages. It referenced specific weapons systems by name: F-16V Block 70 fighters, HIMARS launchers, Harpoon coastal defense missiles. The letter was addressed to me. I filed it under "pending." On Air Force One, a reporter asked about the 1982 Six Assurances, the framework in which the United States committed not to consult with Beijing before selling arms to Taiwan. The President said: "What am I going to do, say I don't want to talk to you about it because I have an agreement wrote in 1982? No, we discussed arms sales." 44 years of bipartisan Taiwan policy, dismissed in 2 sentences at 38,000 feet. We are calling this "a modernized approach to alliance management." Our readout mentioned trade, agriculture, energy, and regional stability. It did not mention Taiwan. I wrote it. Their readout opened with Taiwan. I have staffed 7 summits across 2 administrations. This is the first where I could not draft a single deliverable as a success without a qualifier. In my office there is a laminated card that lists every synonym for "undecided" that polls above 40% approval. "Active review" is 3rd. "Determination" is 7th. Both tested well with independents in the Midwest. He also said: "Taiwan would be very smart to cool it a little bit. China would be very smart to cool it a little bit." He was eating a cheeseburger. He said this while eating a cheeseburger. Secretary Rubio told NBC that Taiwan arms sales "did not feature prominently." This is accurate in the same way that the iceberg did not feature prominently in the Titanic's itinerary. Representative McCaul, Republican of Texas, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the United States must "arm Taiwan so they can defend themselves." He said Xi was "very aggressive" regarding Taiwan during the summit and that "most of what Xi talked about was Taiwan." Representative Meeks, Democrat of New York, ranking member of the same committee, said Xi has "leverage over the president" but not "over the United States Congress and the American people." He noted that Congress already approved the package. "The president is the one that's holding it up." Representative Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, compared Taiwan to Ukraine. He called both "fortresses of democracy on the front lines." Speaker Johnson said Taiwan needs to "stay independent and secure." The bipartisan consensus was that something had gone wrong. The bipartisan action was press quotes. No vote. No resolution. No hearing scheduled. 4 members of Congress from both parties said the right words to reporters and then went to lunch. That's how the system processes alarm. I monitor 14 accounts we classify as "aligned messaging amplifiers." Within 4 hours of the Taiwan exchange, 9 went silent. 2 pivoted to fentanyl. 1 posted 3 words: "Not like this." It received 280,000 impressions in 90 minutes. He deleted it and posted about the border instead. The President patted Chairman Xi on the back 7 times during the Zhongnanhai garden walk. We counted. He called him "my friend" in 4 languages, 2 of which he does not speak. He asked if other world leaders had been invited to the compound. They had. Putin was there last year. The President asked if his tour was longer. 15 CEOs flew with us to Beijing. Their combined net worth approaches $1 trillion. Cook. Musk. Jensen Huang. Larry Fink from BlackRock. Jane Fraser from Citigroup. David Solomon from Goldman Sachs. Stephen Schwarzman from Blackstone. Kelly Ortberg from Boeing. The CEO of Visa. The CEO of Mastercard. The CEO of Qualcomm. Illumina. Micron. Cargill. GE Aerospace. Musk and Huang rode on Air Force One. The others flew commercial. Tesla's Shanghai factory produces approximately half of the company's vehicles worldwide. Musk's presence on Air Force One was noted by my counterintelligence liaison. No further action was taken. We organized the state banquet seating chart by net worth. I am told this was the President's suggestion. They came for market access. Xi told them China would "open further to American business." That was the deliverable. Those 5 words. No specifics. No timeline. No sectors named. 15 chief executives flew to Beijing and received a sentence. Chairman Xi has delivered this sentence at every summit I have staffed. It has not once been followed by a named sector, a timeline, or a specific commitment. It is received as news each time. 43 lobby badges in a Ziploc bag. That's what my team collected from the CEOs after the garden tour. Standard protocol. The badges were embossed with the Great Hall of the People seal. Several executives asked if they could keep them. We said no. One asked twice. 15 executives with combined access to American financial, defense, and technology infrastructure had spent 3 hours inside the Great Hall of the People. We secured the lobby badges. The S&P 500 futures dropped 1% on the morning after the summit. The KOSPI fell 6.12%. China's CSI 300 fell 1.12%. UBS told clients that "much increasingly scarce jet fuel has been burned to produce nothing of real substance." Fortune's headline was "Wall Street sees nothing of real substance." The markets liked the anticipation. The markets did not like the deliverables matrix. Iran was the item we listed as "mutual recognition of shared concerns." The President told reporters they "feel very similar." Xi sat in silence. China's Foreign Ministry did not comment on any commitment regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The President then told reporters the United States "doesn't need the Strait of Hormuz open at all." Oil hit $109 per barrel. Deutsche Bank flagged it as a market-killing statement within the hour. The President described Iran as "a little bit crazy." This was during a toast. Over Peking duck. Rare earths. I prepared a 40-page brief on critical mineral dependency. Supply chain maps for 14 minerals. $1.2 trillion in dependent U.S. industries. Roughly 4% of GDP. The President circled the GDP figure and wrote "big." In the meeting, he asked Chairman Xi if rare earths were "the things in magnets." They are. They are also in every F-35, every Patriot missile battery, and every MRI machine in the country. The discussion lasted 11 minutes. 3 of them were about magnets. No agreement on export licenses. China exposed our dependency last year and has not let us forget it. The Supreme Court struck down our tariffs separately, which was helpful context for the discussions. Fentanyl received 9 minutes. Magnets received 3. We are calling the rare earth outcome "a foundation for continued engagement." There is a poster in the Advance Team office that says "A foundation is not a building." It has been there since my first summit. No one has removed it. On the flight home, my team collected every item the Chinese government had distributed. The credentials. The pins. The keepsakes. The rose seeds Chairman Xi offered for the White House Rose Garden. Standard counterintelligence protocol. All of it went into a bag and off the plane before wheels-up. We threw away the roses. We kept the talking points. The Boeing order grew on the flight home. 500 before departure. 200 in Beijing. 750 somewhere over the Pacific. Boeing had not confirmed 200. The President told reporters on Air Force One it was "a pretty historic couple days." I wrote the line that preceded it: "Tonal reset with significant forward momentum." He used "fantastic" instead. In previous administrations, a tonal reset preceded the deliverables. In this administration, the tonal reset is the deliverable. He has used "fantastic" for every summit since 2017. I have not checked whether the word still polls well. I am told it does. Beijing has not confirmed any of the agreements announced by U.S. officials. This is consistent with the 2017 visit, where $250 billion in deals were announced and an estimated $10 billion materialized. It is consistent with the October summit, where pledges were also made and also not fulfilled. We have a term for this in the Advance Team. We call it "precedent." I have already labeled the binder for 2026. We go back in September. Same matrix. New line items. The verification will be someone else's administration. The President has already asked for the word "monumental." I am told it polls well.
0:54

I am the Director of Summit Outcomes for the Presidential Advance Team. My job is to land in a foreign capital and leave with a word the President can say on the tarmac. We landed in Beijing 6 days after rolling back the tariffs we spent 4 years imposing. 145% to 30%. The average rate before the trade war was approximately 3%. In Geneva, we called this "creating the conditions for productive dialogue." The conditions were that we had already conceded. I want to be clear: Beijing was a success. We went in with 7 objectives. We left with 3 photo categories, a tentative agreement China has not confirmed, and a bag of burner phones we threw off Air Force One on the tarmac. Diplomacy. My team prepared the deliverables matrix in March. 241 line items organized by urgency, feasibility, and what we call "headline potential." The President reviewed it for 4 minutes. He circled "big deal" and "historic" and wrote "MORE" next to the Boeing section. That became the strategy. Boeing was the centerpiece. 500 aircraft was the White House number we briefed to reporters before departure. 300 was the floor. The Chinese offered 200. Their commerce ministry released the number before we could brief the press. Boeing stock dropped 4.73% that afternoon. Boeing referred questions about the order to the White House. The company receiving the aircraft could not confirm it was receiving aircraft. We called it "fantastic." In Washington, "fantastic" means the other side named the number and the market already priced in your failure. I should note: in 2017, the President announced $250 billion in deals during his first China trip. 300 aircraft. An $84 billion shale gas investment in West Virginia from China Energy Investment Corporation. I can tell you the exact amount of that investment that materialized. Zero. The shale facility was never built. The 2017 Boeing order was renegotiated twice and partially canceled during the trade war the President started 8 months later. There is a binder in my office labeled "2017 OUTCOMES: DO NOT REFERENCE." It is 3 inches thick. It has not been opened in 4 years. We do not reference it because the outcomes are the reference. The agricultural package was what we call a "scaffolding commitment." Billions in purchases over 3 years, structured so the announcement is front-loaded and the verification is someone else's administration. U.S. Trade Representative Greer said "double-digit billions." Beijing's Commerce Ministry issued a statement about "deepening cooperation in agricultural trade." Those are not the same sentence. By design. My deputy maintains a glossary of every term we have invented for agreements that are not agreements. It is 41 pages. He updates it after each summit. Last quarter he added "scaffolding commitment," "streamlined licensing framework," and "mutual recognition of shared concerns." He is in line for a promotion. NVIDIA was the quiet win. H200 chips approved for approximately 10 Chinese companies. We don't say "approved." We say "under a streamlined licensing framework." The chips ship. The export controls remain "in effect." The framework is the loophole wearing a lanyard. The controls exist because these chips in Chinese hands threaten American national security. The chips are shipping to Chinese hands. The controls remain in effect. Both of these are true. Fentanyl was discussed for 9 minutes. Both sides agreed it was a problem. Both sides agreed to continue discussing it. We added it to the deliverables matrix under "ongoing mutual engagement." The previous version of the matrix also listed it under "ongoing mutual engagement." That was in 2023. I copied the line item from the 2023 matrix into the 2026 version. Changed the date. The language was identical. But Taiwan. Taiwan was the deliverable we didn't put on the matrix. I watched the Taiwan exchange from the overflow room on a 12-second delay. I had the contingency statement drafted in 3 versions: "productive exchange," "frank discussion," and "both sides reaffirmed their respective positions." I used none of them. There was no contingency for silence. Chairman Xi released his remarks before the meeting was over. While the President was still seated across the table, Chinese state media published the transcript. "Clashes and even conflicts." His bluntest language on Taiwan in the history of the relationship, released to 1.4 billion people while we were still pouring tea. We called this "sequencing." The President was asked whether he would defend Taiwan if China attacked. He chose not to answer. We wrote that down as "a strong listen." The $14 billion arms sale. Already approved by Congress. The largest in the history of the Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan's parliament spent months appropriating the $25 billion to proceed with this package and the $11 billion tranche approved last year. They finally secured the funding this month. The President told Fox News it was "a very good negotiating chip." He used the word "chip." Referring to the defense of 24 million people. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense sent our office a letter requesting clarity on the delivery timeline. 3 pages. It referenced specific weapons systems by name: F-16V Block 70 fighters, HIMARS launchers, Harpoon coastal defense missiles. The letter was addressed to me. I filed it under "pending." On Air Force One, a reporter asked about the 1982 Six Assurances, the framework in which the United States committed not to consult with Beijing before selling arms to Taiwan. The President said: "What am I going to do, say I don't want to talk to you about it because I have an agreement wrote in 1982? No, we discussed arms sales." 44 years of bipartisan Taiwan policy, dismissed in 2 sentences at 38,000 feet. We are calling this "a modernized approach to alliance management." Our readout mentioned trade, agriculture, energy, and regional stability. It did not mention Taiwan. I wrote it. Their readout opened with Taiwan. I have staffed 7 summits across 2 administrations. This is the first where I could not draft a single deliverable as a success without a qualifier. In my office there is a laminated card that lists every synonym for "undecided" that polls above 40% approval. "Active review" is 3rd. "Determination" is 7th. Both tested well with independents in the Midwest. He also said: "Taiwan would be very smart to cool it a little bit. China would be very smart to cool it a little bit." He was eating a cheeseburger. He said this while eating a cheeseburger. Secretary Rubio told NBC that Taiwan arms sales "did not feature prominently." This is accurate in the same way that the iceberg did not feature prominently in the Titanic's itinerary. Representative McCaul, Republican of Texas, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the United States must "arm Taiwan so they can defend themselves." He said Xi was "very aggressive" regarding Taiwan during the summit and that "most of what Xi talked about was Taiwan." Representative Meeks, Democrat of New York, ranking member of the same committee, said Xi has "leverage over the president" but not "over the United States Congress and the American people." He noted that Congress already approved the package. "The president is the one that's holding it up." Representative Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, compared Taiwan to Ukraine. He called both "fortresses of democracy on the front lines." Speaker Johnson said Taiwan needs to "stay independent and secure." The bipartisan consensus was that something had gone wrong. The bipartisan action was press quotes. No vote. No resolution. No hearing scheduled. 4 members of Congress from both parties said the right words to reporters and then went to lunch. That's how the system processes alarm. I monitor 14 accounts we classify as "aligned messaging amplifiers." Within 4 hours of the Taiwan exchange, 9 went silent. 2 pivoted to fentanyl. 1 posted 3 words: "Not like this." It received 280,000 impressions in 90 minutes. He deleted it and posted about the border instead. The President patted Chairman Xi on the back 7 times during the Zhongnanhai garden walk. We counted. He called him "my friend" in 4 languages, 2 of which he does not speak. He asked if other world leaders had been invited to the compound. They had. Putin was there last year. The President asked if his tour was longer. 15 CEOs flew with us to Beijing. Their combined net worth approaches $1 trillion. Cook. Musk. Jensen Huang. Larry Fink from BlackRock. Jane Fraser from Citigroup. David Solomon from Goldman Sachs. Stephen Schwarzman from Blackstone. Kelly Ortberg from Boeing. The CEO of Visa. The CEO of Mastercard. The CEO of Qualcomm. Illumina. Micron. Cargill. GE Aerospace. Musk and Huang rode on Air Force One. The others flew commercial. Tesla's Shanghai factory produces approximately half of the company's vehicles worldwide. Musk's presence on Air Force One was noted by my counterintelligence liaison. No further action was taken. We organized the state banquet seating chart by net worth. I am told this was the President's suggestion. They came for market access. Xi told them China would "open further to American business." That was the deliverable. Those 5 words. No specifics. No timeline. No sectors named. 15 chief executives flew to Beijing and received a sentence. Chairman Xi has delivered this sentence at every summit I have staffed. It has not once been followed by a named sector, a timeline, or a specific commitment. It is received as news each time. 43 lobby badges in a Ziploc bag. That's what my team collected from the CEOs after the garden tour. Standard protocol. The badges were embossed with the Great Hall of the People seal. Several executives asked if they could keep them. We said no. One asked twice. 15 executives with combined access to American financial, defense, and technology infrastructure had spent 3 hours inside the Great Hall of the People. We secured the lobby badges. The S&P 500 futures dropped 1% on the morning after the summit. The KOSPI fell 6.12%. China's CSI 300 fell 1.12%. UBS told clients that "much increasingly scarce jet fuel has been burned to produce nothing of real substance." Fortune's headline was "Wall Street sees nothing of real substance." The markets liked the anticipation. The markets did not like the deliverables matrix. Iran was the item we listed as "mutual recognition of shared concerns." The President told reporters they "feel very similar." Xi sat in silence. China's Foreign Ministry did not comment on any commitment regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The President then told reporters the United States "doesn't need the Strait of Hormuz open at all." Oil hit $109 per barrel. Deutsche Bank flagged it as a market-killing statement within the hour. The President described Iran as "a little bit crazy." This was during a toast. Over Peking duck. Rare earths. I prepared a 40-page brief on critical mineral dependency. Supply chain maps for 14 minerals. $1.2 trillion in dependent U.S. industries. Roughly 4% of GDP. The President circled the GDP figure and wrote "big." In the meeting, he asked Chairman Xi if rare earths were "the things in magnets." They are. They are also in every F-35, every Patriot missile battery, and every MRI machine in the country. The discussion lasted 11 minutes. 3 of them were about magnets. No agreement on export licenses. China exposed our dependency last year and has not let us forget it. The Supreme Court struck down our tariffs separately, which was helpful context for the discussions. Fentanyl received 9 minutes. Magnets received 3. We are calling the rare earth outcome "a foundation for continued engagement." There is a poster in the Advance Team office that says "A foundation is not a building." It has been there since my first summit. No one has removed it. On the flight home, my team collected every item the Chinese government had distributed. The credentials. The pins. The keepsakes. The rose seeds Chairman Xi offered for the White House Rose Garden. Standard counterintelligence protocol. All of it went into a bag and off the plane before wheels-up. We threw away the roses. We kept the talking points. The Boeing order grew on the flight home. 500 before departure. 200 in Beijing. 750 somewhere over the Pacific. Boeing had not confirmed 200. The President told reporters on Air Force One it was "a pretty historic couple days." I wrote the line that preceded it: "Tonal reset with significant forward momentum." He used "fantastic" instead. In previous administrations, a tonal reset preceded the deliverables. In this administration, the tonal reset is the deliverable. He has used "fantastic" for every summit since 2017. I have not checked whether the word still polls well. I am told it does. Beijing has not confirmed any of the agreements announced by U.S. officials. This is consistent with the 2017 visit, where $250 billion in deals were announced and an estimated $10 billion materialized. It is consistent with the October summit, where pledges were also made and also not fulfilled. We have a term for this in the Advance Team. We call it "precedent." I have already labeled the binder for 2026. We go back in September. Same matrix. New line items. The verification will be someone else's administration. The President has already asked for the word "monumental." I am told it polls well.

Peter Girnus 🦅

97,655 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Hope Not Hate is a far left activist group that works with the Labour Party and British intelligence services to smear Labour’s opponents (and anyone to the right of Stalin) as “far right”. One of its senior staff members, Liron Velleman, was sentenced last week for child sex offences. (The others have not yet been caught). As well as being part of Hope Not Hate, Liron was also a Labour Party politician. I mean you can’t say the warning signs weren’t there. The only thing he’s missing from the full paedophile CV is being a BBC presenter. Despite being a demonstrable danger to children, Liron Velleman wasn’t given a jail sentence; his sentence was suspended, so he walked free from the court (he was spotted in the pub afterwards having a celebratory drink with his parents). This is an unusually lenient sentence for such crimes. I have so many questions. > Hope Not Hate specialise in online monitoring - they monitored my online presence, until they realised I’d hit puberty. Did Liron use the techniques and equipment provided to him by Hope Not Hate to commit his crimes? > Why is an organisation that’s so blatantly a political smear campaign group run by the Labour Party able to present itself as a non-partisan “anti fascist” organisation? > Why does an organisation that positions itself as a moral arbiter have so many sex offenders and violent criminals on its books? Other Hope Not Hate staff members have admitted to crimes such as attacking women with hammers. > Why is taxpayers’ money given to this shower of shite? But I’m going to look at why so many left-wing activists are paedophiles. Remember when Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself during a Black Lives Matter riot and shot three random left-wing rioters who were attacking him? It turned out that one of them was a convicted paedophile and another one was convicted of violence against women. Why were two out of three of the left-wing activists, the purest of the pure, who call themselves Antifa fighting against the scourge of “fascism”, objectively terrible people? THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND LEFTIST DEVIANCE There’s a psychological term “moral licensing”, where people who think that they’re doing good feel that their virtuosity gives them some sort of credit, a deposit of good karma, that then entitles them to do something bad later, as if the universe owes them. Similarly, psychologists use the term “moral cleansing”, the psychological tendency of people to engage in good deeds to restore their moral self-worth after committing an immoral act or correct some malevolent fault. So paedophiles like Liron Velleman think that working for Hope Not Hate will offset their crimes. By doing what they perceive as “good” or presenting themselves as virtuous, they will reset the balance, or build up credits they can spend noncing kids. It goes deeper than that. The essence of leftism is to prioritise the communal above individual rights, so nobody has autonomy over their bodies. We use our bodies to work, to earn money. Leftists don’t believe that the individual should own the fruits of their labour. They think that this effort, anything produced by it, is the property of the state. Extreme leftists see themselves as emblems of the state, so feel entitled to take this for themselves, whether that’s as money, as slavery (as we see under communist regimes) or, at the extreme end, as child abuse. Look how unconcerned leftists are about paedophilia, how they talk about grooming gangs. They excuse the crimes and accuse anyone who campaigns on behalf of the girls of being “grifters” because nobody on the left can even envisage that somebody might authentically be repulsed by these crimes. They think that the only possible motivation is financial. And we should remember that left-wing people are all spiteful communist mutants motivated by envy and hatred and are disgustingly ugly. Look at the boss of Hope Not Hate, Nick Lowles, who employs paedophiles, communists, men who attack women. As Wittgenstein said, morality and aesthetics are the same. PAEDOPHILES SEEK ESTABLISHMENT POWER And we also need to look at why Liron Velleman got such a lenient sentence. We know that the establishment is biased towards itself, and Liron was part of the establishment. Paedophiles - such as Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and those in the church - tend to move themselves close to power and authority to give themselves the opportunity to commit their crimes, and also the influence to cover those crimes up. Liron Velleman was so embedded in the establishment that he even helped draft the government’s Online Safety Bill, a piece of legislation aimed at keeping children safe on the internet. This is like Jeffrey Epstein drafting a babysitting bill. If you want to keep children safe online, you’d statistically have a higher impact if you locked up everyone who helped draft the Online Safety Bill. While sentencing, Liron’s judge even said that a mitigating factor was that he was a Labour councillor? How is that a mitigating factor? That’s a big red flag right there, and that red flag has a hammer and sickle on it. Look how entitled Liron felt to protection from the establishment. After his trial, he went for a celebratory drink with his parents in a local pub. Someone spotted him and confronted him. Liron’s party immediately called the police on the man filming adults in a public place. They know the police will take this very seriously. That’s exactly what the police are there for. Not for protecting children in Rotherham, but for protecting an establishment nonce being spoken to in public. Look at the bizarrely, incongruously harsh sentences handed down to people on the right, such as Sam Melia, who was jailed printing and distributing stickers that said such awful things as “It’s OK to be white”. And Lucy Connolly, who tweeted then deleted her indifference to hotels containing migrants being burnt down “for all I care”. This insane focus on the supposed “far-right” doesn’t make sense. I’d feel much more comfortable leaving my children in the care of an average far-right bigot than the average far-left activist. I think we need to recalibrate our morality.
12:05

Hope Not Hate is a far left activist group that works with the Labour Party and British intelligence services to smear Labour’s opponents (and anyone to the right of Stalin) as “far right”. One of its senior staff members, Liron Velleman, was sentenced last week for child sex offences. (The others have not yet been caught). As well as being part of Hope Not Hate, Liron was also a Labour Party politician. I mean you can’t say the warning signs weren’t there. The only thing he’s missing from the full paedophile CV is being a BBC presenter. Despite being a demonstrable danger to children, Liron Velleman wasn’t given a jail sentence; his sentence was suspended, so he walked free from the court (he was spotted in the pub afterwards having a celebratory drink with his parents). This is an unusually lenient sentence for such crimes. I have so many questions. > Hope Not Hate specialise in online monitoring - they monitored my online presence, until they realised I’d hit puberty. Did Liron use the techniques and equipment provided to him by Hope Not Hate to commit his crimes? > Why is an organisation that’s so blatantly a political smear campaign group run by the Labour Party able to present itself as a non-partisan “anti fascist” organisation? > Why does an organisation that positions itself as a moral arbiter have so many sex offenders and violent criminals on its books? Other Hope Not Hate staff members have admitted to crimes such as attacking women with hammers. > Why is taxpayers’ money given to this shower of shite? But I’m going to look at why so many left-wing activists are paedophiles. Remember when Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself during a Black Lives Matter riot and shot three random left-wing rioters who were attacking him? It turned out that one of them was a convicted paedophile and another one was convicted of violence against women. Why were two out of three of the left-wing activists, the purest of the pure, who call themselves Antifa fighting against the scourge of “fascism”, objectively terrible people? THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND LEFTIST DEVIANCE There’s a psychological term “moral licensing”, where people who think that they’re doing good feel that their virtuosity gives them some sort of credit, a deposit of good karma, that then entitles them to do something bad later, as if the universe owes them. Similarly, psychologists use the term “moral cleansing”, the psychological tendency of people to engage in good deeds to restore their moral self-worth after committing an immoral act or correct some malevolent fault. So paedophiles like Liron Velleman think that working for Hope Not Hate will offset their crimes. By doing what they perceive as “good” or presenting themselves as virtuous, they will reset the balance, or build up credits they can spend noncing kids. It goes deeper than that. The essence of leftism is to prioritise the communal above individual rights, so nobody has autonomy over their bodies. We use our bodies to work, to earn money. Leftists don’t believe that the individual should own the fruits of their labour. They think that this effort, anything produced by it, is the property of the state. Extreme leftists see themselves as emblems of the state, so feel entitled to take this for themselves, whether that’s as money, as slavery (as we see under communist regimes) or, at the extreme end, as child abuse. Look how unconcerned leftists are about paedophilia, how they talk about grooming gangs. They excuse the crimes and accuse anyone who campaigns on behalf of the girls of being “grifters” because nobody on the left can even envisage that somebody might authentically be repulsed by these crimes. They think that the only possible motivation is financial. And we should remember that left-wing people are all spiteful communist mutants motivated by envy and hatred and are disgustingly ugly. Look at the boss of Hope Not Hate, Nick Lowles, who employs paedophiles, communists, men who attack women. As Wittgenstein said, morality and aesthetics are the same. PAEDOPHILES SEEK ESTABLISHMENT POWER And we also need to look at why Liron Velleman got such a lenient sentence. We know that the establishment is biased towards itself, and Liron was part of the establishment. Paedophiles - such as Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and those in the church - tend to move themselves close to power and authority to give themselves the opportunity to commit their crimes, and also the influence to cover those crimes up. Liron Velleman was so embedded in the establishment that he even helped draft the government’s Online Safety Bill, a piece of legislation aimed at keeping children safe on the internet. This is like Jeffrey Epstein drafting a babysitting bill. If you want to keep children safe online, you’d statistically have a higher impact if you locked up everyone who helped draft the Online Safety Bill. While sentencing, Liron’s judge even said that a mitigating factor was that he was a Labour councillor? How is that a mitigating factor? That’s a big red flag right there, and that red flag has a hammer and sickle on it. Look how entitled Liron felt to protection from the establishment. After his trial, he went for a celebratory drink with his parents in a local pub. Someone spotted him and confronted him. Liron’s party immediately called the police on the man filming adults in a public place. They know the police will take this very seriously. That’s exactly what the police are there for. Not for protecting children in Rotherham, but for protecting an establishment nonce being spoken to in public. Look at the bizarrely, incongruously harsh sentences handed down to people on the right, such as Sam Melia, who was jailed printing and distributing stickers that said such awful things as “It’s OK to be white”. And Lucy Connolly, who tweeted then deleted her indifference to hotels containing migrants being burnt down “for all I care”. This insane focus on the supposed “far-right” doesn’t make sense. I’d feel much more comfortable leaving my children in the care of an average far-right bigot than the average far-left activist. I think we need to recalibrate our morality.

Leo Kearse - see me on tour! Links in bio

69,758 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🚨 OPERATIONAL UPDATE: ISRAEL U.S. WAR WITH THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC - Reporting Window: LAST 24 HOURS • Iran widened its fire again with a broad evening missile barrage on central Israel and continued attacks across the Gulf, including a drone strike that hit a fuel tank at Kuwait International Airport • Israel intensified strikes across Iran, with reported hits in Tehran, Qazvin and Alborz industrial areas, plus continued pressure on missile infrastructure and launch cells • Hezbollah kept the northern front active, including a direct rocket hit on a building in Kiryat Shmona, while Israel deepened its Lebanon campaign and Katz publicly framed the objective as a security zone up to the Litani • The diplomatic track moved forward, but only in the strangest possible way: Trump says talks are progressing, Iran still publicly denies direct negotiations, and multiple reports now point to JD Vance as Tehran’s preferred American interlocutor • The big picture is unchanged: the war is still live on every major front, but the center of gravity is shifting toward a contest over how it ends, who gets to define victory, and whether the Gulf will stay adjacent to the war or be pulled fully into it The most important thing to understand about the last 24 hours is that this was not a quiet period masked by negotiations. It was the opposite. The battlefield remained active from Tehran to southern Lebanon to Kuwait, even as Washington and Tehran edged further into a murky negotiation channel. That is what gives the last day its character: not de escalation, but simultaneous escalation and diplomacy, both moving at once. Open source reporting reflects the same picture, with repeated indications of strikes in Tehran and Qazvin, attacks near Baghdad airport, a Kuwait airport fuel fire, and a large Iranian barrage toward central Israel late in the window. **Special thanks to Michael W for your continued contribution to the open-source intel picture behind these updates. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🚀 IRANIAN MISSILE FIRE ON ISRAEL Iran kept up the pressure on Israel in two different ways over this window. Earlier in the cycle, a cluster warhead strike wounded nine people in Bnei Brak, with additional damage in Petah Tikva, while Hezbollah fire from Lebanon killed a woman near Mahanayim Junction and wounded several more in Kiryat Shmona. Later, near the end of the reporting window, Iran launched another broad barrage toward central Israel, with warnings stretching across Gush Dan, Sharon, Wadi Ara, Samaria, Judea and the Dead Sea region. Open source reporting you provided tracked that second wave in real time, showing how broad the alert footprint was even though initial reports indicated no immediate casualties from that specific evening barrage. This is what stands out operationally: Iran’s missile campaign is not gone, but it looks increasingly built around selective disruption rather than the huge opening barrages of the war. The salvos are still dangerous, still capable of civilian casualties and still capable of producing visually dramatic and politically effective moments, but they are landing against a backdrop of steadily intensifying strikes on Iran’s launch network. That makes each successful hit feel more deliberate and more strategic. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✈️ THE AIR CAMPAIGN OVER IRAN KEPT MOVING Israel’s strike campaign inside Iran also remained broad and geographically layered. Reuters reported renewed Israeli strikes as talks were being floated through intermediaries. Open source intelligence adds texture to that by showing repeated reporting from open source channels of impacts in eastern and western Tehran, the Alborz industrial zone in Qazvin province, and additional blasts reported across Khuzestan and other regions. There were also repeated reports of targeted assassination attempts in east Tehran, which fits the broader pattern of not just degrading launchers and production nodes, but also hunting the people tied to them. The color here matters. This no longer looks like a campaign limited to air defenses and obvious military compounds. The picture from the last 24 hours is of a system being pressed from multiple angles at once: missile depots, industrial support zones, launch crews, command elements and regime infrastructure in and around Tehran. Open source reporting reinforces that sense of breadth, especially the repeated references to Qazvin and Alborz secondary explosions and to ongoing heavy activity over Tehran. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⚡ THE ENERGY WAR IS STILL HOT The clearest new regional energy development in this window was Kuwait. Reuters reported that a drone attack hit a fuel tank at Kuwait International Airport, causing a fire but no casualties. That matters not because the material damage was catastrophic, but because it again shows Iran or Iran aligned actors reaching directly for civilian and logistical energy infrastructure in Gulf states. This was not an abstract threat anymore. It was a live strike on a functioning international hub. Your outbox tracked the same event quickly and repeatedly, alongside additional open source reporting about nearby attacks and power disruptions in Kuwait. At the same time, the diplomatic and military discussion around the Strait of Hormuz kept shaping everything else. Markets moved on talk of a U.S. proposal and possible hosted talks in Pakistan or Turkey. Oil eased on negotiation optimism, but the underlying structure of the crisis remains the same: Iran still retains the ability to disrupt shipping and energy confidence without fully “closing” the Strait in a formal sense. That is why even modest signs of diplomacy can move oil sharply, and why even a localized drone strike in Kuwait still carries outsized weight. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇱🇧 LEBANON IS NOT A SIDESHOW The northern front kept boiling. Reuters reported that Israel now intends to occupy a swathe of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, with Defense Minister Israel Katz explicitly describing a “security zone” concept. That is not rhetoric you use if you still think this is a short punitive phase. At the tactical level, Hezbollah continued to demonstrate that it can still impose costs, including a direct rocket hit on a building in Kiryat Shmona and earlier casualties in the north. Meanwhile, open source reporting pointed to Israeli strikes in Nabatieh, Rashidiya, Bchamoun and broader southern Lebanese infrastructure, which matches the picture of sustained pressure rather than episodic retaliation. The broader meaning is straightforward. Israel is signaling that if the Iran war ends inconclusively on the Iranian front, it does not intend to leave Hezbollah’s northern threat structure intact and simply hope for the best. Lebanon is being shaped now as part of the endgame, not just the current fight. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇮🇶 IRAQ STAYED ACTIVE TOO Iraq remained active in the background, but it should not be treated as background noise. Open source intel reporting includes repeated reporting on a targeted U.S. strike on a vehicle near Baghdad airport and continued militia related activity tied to U.S. positions and proxy structures. That comes after the prior cycle’s major strikes on PMF and militia command nodes. It fits the larger pattern we have now seen for weeks: Iraq is not the main theater, but it is still one of the places where the war keeps trying to widen horizontally. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🌍 THE NEGOTIATION TRACK GOT STRANGER, NOT CLEARER Trump is still publicly presenting the talks as real progress. Reuters reports that Pakistan conveyed a U.S. proposal, with Pakistan or Turkey possible venues, and that Washington has floated a broader framework dealing with nuclear capability, missiles and proxies. At the same time, Iran continues to publicly deny meaningful direct talks and has toughened its public stance, insisting on guarantees, compensation and no rollback of its missile deterrent. What makes the last 24 hours more interesting is the growing focus on who would even talk for the United States. Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post reporting both indicate that JD Vance is increasingly central to the diplomacy, with Tehran reportedly preferring him over Witkoff and Kushner. The diplomatic track here appears as both real and deeply unstable, with questions about who on the Iranian side actually holds authority and whether Washington is now seeking an end state short of outright regime collapse. That shift matters because it tells us something important: Washington increasingly seems to be searching for an off ramp that still looks like victory, while Israel and Gulf allies appear much less comfortable with ending this war before Iran’s military and proxy architecture are degraded further. That tension is now one of the defining features of the conflict. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 📌 WHAT MATTERS MOST RIGHT NOW 1️⃣ The war is still fully active across multiple fronts Iran hit central Israel again, Kuwait airport was struck, Lebanon stayed hot and Israel kept pounding targets inside Iran. Negotiations did not replace combat. They were layered on top of it. 2️⃣ The pressure on Iran’s internal military system keeps deepening The accumulating pattern of strikes in Tehran, Qazvin, Alborz and other areas suggests a campaign that is still broadening the target set, not narrowing it. Open source reporting in your files strongly supports that picture. 3️⃣ The diplomatic track is real, but it is not clean Trump is selling progress. Iran is denying direct talks. Vance is becoming more central. And nobody looking at the battlefield would conclude that the war is genuinely close to stopping on its own. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ BOTTOM LINE The last 24 hours painted a clearer picture than some of the recent reporting windows. This is no longer just a war of salvos and counterstrikes. It is now a war over end states. Iran is still trying to prove it can widen the cost map, not just hit Israel but keep the Gulf under pressure too. Israel is still trying to prove that sustained, system level degradation inside Iran can continue even while diplomacy swirls overhead. And Washington is trying to find a formula that can stop the war without looking like it backed down. That is why the reporting feels different now. The battlefield is still violent, but the arguments over how this ends are becoming just as important as the strikes themselves.
2:04

🚨 OPERATIONAL UPDATE: ISRAEL U.S. WAR WITH THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC - Reporting Window: LAST 24 HOURS • Iran widened its fire again with a broad evening missile barrage on central Israel and continued attacks across the Gulf, including a drone strike that hit a fuel tank at Kuwait International Airport • Israel intensified strikes across Iran, with reported hits in Tehran, Qazvin and Alborz industrial areas, plus continued pressure on missile infrastructure and launch cells • Hezbollah kept the northern front active, including a direct rocket hit on a building in Kiryat Shmona, while Israel deepened its Lebanon campaign and Katz publicly framed the objective as a security zone up to the Litani • The diplomatic track moved forward, but only in the strangest possible way: Trump says talks are progressing, Iran still publicly denies direct negotiations, and multiple reports now point to JD Vance as Tehran’s preferred American interlocutor • The big picture is unchanged: the war is still live on every major front, but the center of gravity is shifting toward a contest over how it ends, who gets to define victory, and whether the Gulf will stay adjacent to the war or be pulled fully into it The most important thing to understand about the last 24 hours is that this was not a quiet period masked by negotiations. It was the opposite. The battlefield remained active from Tehran to southern Lebanon to Kuwait, even as Washington and Tehran edged further into a murky negotiation channel. That is what gives the last day its character: not de escalation, but simultaneous escalation and diplomacy, both moving at once. Open source reporting reflects the same picture, with repeated indications of strikes in Tehran and Qazvin, attacks near Baghdad airport, a Kuwait airport fuel fire, and a large Iranian barrage toward central Israel late in the window. **Special thanks to Michael W for your continued contribution to the open-source intel picture behind these updates. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🚀 IRANIAN MISSILE FIRE ON ISRAEL Iran kept up the pressure on Israel in two different ways over this window. Earlier in the cycle, a cluster warhead strike wounded nine people in Bnei Brak, with additional damage in Petah Tikva, while Hezbollah fire from Lebanon killed a woman near Mahanayim Junction and wounded several more in Kiryat Shmona. Later, near the end of the reporting window, Iran launched another broad barrage toward central Israel, with warnings stretching across Gush Dan, Sharon, Wadi Ara, Samaria, Judea and the Dead Sea region. Open source reporting you provided tracked that second wave in real time, showing how broad the alert footprint was even though initial reports indicated no immediate casualties from that specific evening barrage. This is what stands out operationally: Iran’s missile campaign is not gone, but it looks increasingly built around selective disruption rather than the huge opening barrages of the war. The salvos are still dangerous, still capable of civilian casualties and still capable of producing visually dramatic and politically effective moments, but they are landing against a backdrop of steadily intensifying strikes on Iran’s launch network. That makes each successful hit feel more deliberate and more strategic. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✈️ THE AIR CAMPAIGN OVER IRAN KEPT MOVING Israel’s strike campaign inside Iran also remained broad and geographically layered. Reuters reported renewed Israeli strikes as talks were being floated through intermediaries. Open source intelligence adds texture to that by showing repeated reporting from open source channels of impacts in eastern and western Tehran, the Alborz industrial zone in Qazvin province, and additional blasts reported across Khuzestan and other regions. There were also repeated reports of targeted assassination attempts in east Tehran, which fits the broader pattern of not just degrading launchers and production nodes, but also hunting the people tied to them. The color here matters. This no longer looks like a campaign limited to air defenses and obvious military compounds. The picture from the last 24 hours is of a system being pressed from multiple angles at once: missile depots, industrial support zones, launch crews, command elements and regime infrastructure in and around Tehran. Open source reporting reinforces that sense of breadth, especially the repeated references to Qazvin and Alborz secondary explosions and to ongoing heavy activity over Tehran. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⚡ THE ENERGY WAR IS STILL HOT The clearest new regional energy development in this window was Kuwait. Reuters reported that a drone attack hit a fuel tank at Kuwait International Airport, causing a fire but no casualties. That matters not because the material damage was catastrophic, but because it again shows Iran or Iran aligned actors reaching directly for civilian and logistical energy infrastructure in Gulf states. This was not an abstract threat anymore. It was a live strike on a functioning international hub. Your outbox tracked the same event quickly and repeatedly, alongside additional open source reporting about nearby attacks and power disruptions in Kuwait. At the same time, the diplomatic and military discussion around the Strait of Hormuz kept shaping everything else. Markets moved on talk of a U.S. proposal and possible hosted talks in Pakistan or Turkey. Oil eased on negotiation optimism, but the underlying structure of the crisis remains the same: Iran still retains the ability to disrupt shipping and energy confidence without fully “closing” the Strait in a formal sense. That is why even modest signs of diplomacy can move oil sharply, and why even a localized drone strike in Kuwait still carries outsized weight. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇱🇧 LEBANON IS NOT A SIDESHOW The northern front kept boiling. Reuters reported that Israel now intends to occupy a swathe of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, with Defense Minister Israel Katz explicitly describing a “security zone” concept. That is not rhetoric you use if you still think this is a short punitive phase. At the tactical level, Hezbollah continued to demonstrate that it can still impose costs, including a direct rocket hit on a building in Kiryat Shmona and earlier casualties in the north. Meanwhile, open source reporting pointed to Israeli strikes in Nabatieh, Rashidiya, Bchamoun and broader southern Lebanese infrastructure, which matches the picture of sustained pressure rather than episodic retaliation. The broader meaning is straightforward. Israel is signaling that if the Iran war ends inconclusively on the Iranian front, it does not intend to leave Hezbollah’s northern threat structure intact and simply hope for the best. Lebanon is being shaped now as part of the endgame, not just the current fight. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🇮🇶 IRAQ STAYED ACTIVE TOO Iraq remained active in the background, but it should not be treated as background noise. Open source intel reporting includes repeated reporting on a targeted U.S. strike on a vehicle near Baghdad airport and continued militia related activity tied to U.S. positions and proxy structures. That comes after the prior cycle’s major strikes on PMF and militia command nodes. It fits the larger pattern we have now seen for weeks: Iraq is not the main theater, but it is still one of the places where the war keeps trying to widen horizontally. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🌍 THE NEGOTIATION TRACK GOT STRANGER, NOT CLEARER Trump is still publicly presenting the talks as real progress. Reuters reports that Pakistan conveyed a U.S. proposal, with Pakistan or Turkey possible venues, and that Washington has floated a broader framework dealing with nuclear capability, missiles and proxies. At the same time, Iran continues to publicly deny meaningful direct talks and has toughened its public stance, insisting on guarantees, compensation and no rollback of its missile deterrent. What makes the last 24 hours more interesting is the growing focus on who would even talk for the United States. Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post reporting both indicate that JD Vance is increasingly central to the diplomacy, with Tehran reportedly preferring him over Witkoff and Kushner. The diplomatic track here appears as both real and deeply unstable, with questions about who on the Iranian side actually holds authority and whether Washington is now seeking an end state short of outright regime collapse. That shift matters because it tells us something important: Washington increasingly seems to be searching for an off ramp that still looks like victory, while Israel and Gulf allies appear much less comfortable with ending this war before Iran’s military and proxy architecture are degraded further. That tension is now one of the defining features of the conflict. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 📌 WHAT MATTERS MOST RIGHT NOW 1️⃣ The war is still fully active across multiple fronts Iran hit central Israel again, Kuwait airport was struck, Lebanon stayed hot and Israel kept pounding targets inside Iran. Negotiations did not replace combat. They were layered on top of it. 2️⃣ The pressure on Iran’s internal military system keeps deepening The accumulating pattern of strikes in Tehran, Qazvin, Alborz and other areas suggests a campaign that is still broadening the target set, not narrowing it. Open source reporting in your files strongly supports that picture. 3️⃣ The diplomatic track is real, but it is not clean Trump is selling progress. Iran is denying direct talks. Vance is becoming more central. And nobody looking at the battlefield would conclude that the war is genuinely close to stopping on its own. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ BOTTOM LINE The last 24 hours painted a clearer picture than some of the recent reporting windows. This is no longer just a war of salvos and counterstrikes. It is now a war over end states. Iran is still trying to prove it can widen the cost map, not just hit Israel but keep the Gulf under pressure too. Israel is still trying to prove that sustained, system level degradation inside Iran can continue even while diplomacy swirls overhead. And Washington is trying to find a formula that can stop the war without looking like it backed down. That is why the reporting feels different now. The battlefield is still violent, but the arguments over how this ends are becoming just as important as the strikes themselves.

Inside_Israel_Intel

23,818 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🔥👽 This is REALLY good! 👽🔥 "In my view, there absolutely is an adversarial actor in our world. There is a human-engagement program underway. I don't think it's the rainbow that everyone kind of hopes that it is." ~Reed (IMO, Reed Summers is an unsung, VERY important voice in this community, and what he says in this clip, currently, resonates with me in a big way. Take the time to read or watch. Then we have what Ross Coulthart says about the "deliberate lifting of consciousness" and "frequency," which is more on the side of love, light and space brothers. I don't see that right now, and none of my contacts have ever mentioned it. If it's there, maybe its hands are tied with how it can help us?) ~ "Genetic interventions, cultural influence, right? Social engineering. All of these could be at play in a subversive sense. NHI is operating in a strategic silence, in a state of non-disclosure. Intelligence indicates intent, intentful engagement indicates a program. And so what is their program? We talk about the Legacy-human program. What about the non-human program? ~Reed ~ Ross: "I've been told that the United States has developed quite advanced weaponry, particularly plasma-beam technology that might, in part, have been inspired by what they've seen or recovered from non-human technology. I think, also, just to add the concern of NHI with what humanity is doing. There's also a very deliberate lifting of consciousness. And I really am struck by what Chris (Bledsoe - Chris Bledsoe) says about the frequency. This is something that I'm getting from so many people. That the level of intensity of public reporting of their engagement with NHI, of a clear intent by NHI, to essentially give up on governments from ever disclosing. But to raise human consciousness and awareness. "And I think they're doing this, increasingly (laughs), through direct engagement with individuals. I've got many friends and colleagues and people I've interviewed - witnesses - who've had incredible experiences. I've just been recording for a TV show, something that we're doing here in Australia, where people are inviting or summoning the phenomenon. And there seems to be an interest in the phenomenon engaging with humans much, much more overtly. And I do think that stems from a concern about us primitive monkeys playing with matches." (Were they concerned when this abduction-like event allegedly happened to Jim Semivan and his wife? Semivan: "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." Source: Engaging The Phenomenon's interview with Jim ~ Jim Garrison: "But Reid, speak to us about this interplay between malevolence and benevolence." Reed: "Sure, well, and you described, Jim, the first part of my life in which I was focused primarily on supporting my father, Marshall (Vian Summers and The Allies of Humanity), who had direct encounters with NHI, communications with NHI." (Was Marshall really in contact with extraterrestrial intelligence, known as The Allies of Humanity? I don't know. But a lot of what he has said rings true to me. Doesn't mean it's true. Read one transcript I did in 2021: “It’s Probably Not Human” – Elizondo, Blumenthal & The Allies Of Humanity ~ Reed: "And my family felt the full force and impact of what that was like, as well as what comes with it ("it" being his dad's alleged contact with ET intelligence). Which is, what might be called the hitchhiker effect, the anomalous effects that attend those who have been selected by the phenomenon without their understanding or knowing why." (Add another few names to the list of people who have now said they experienced the hitchhiker effect: Jay Stratton, George Knapp, Kelleher, Davis, Bigelow, Brandon Fugal, Thomas Winterton, Semivan, and more. That includes poltergeist-like events, shadow people, orbs, etc.) Reed: ""But my later work is really about assessing intent with a structured framework. I think we need to step back from belief systems, hopeful or fearful interpretations, and lay out the spectrum of possibilities, right? From curiosity on the left, salvation and assistance, even further on the left, to transaction, integration on the right, or even something more hostile. And in the end, intent is all about human outcomes. We can't know their consciousness. The project, in my mind right now, is not, let's set out to understand what they're like, who they are, how they think, how they cognate. That's impossible, in my perspective. But we can assess the real human outcomes that stem from the hazard and the risk and the possible threat of a non-human factor acting upon. Like a forcing, an environmental or evolutionary-forcing upon humanity at a historically-unprecedented time." (From what I have seen, whatever this is, has, overall, NOT helped humanity. If that's happening, it's going on behind the scenes. I know some experiencers report having their lives changed in a positive way, and some say they have been healed of illnesses. But others say their lives have been ruined and they've been hurt, intentionally or not, by coming in close contact with the phenomenon. Also, various people have come down with several auto-immune diseases after close contact, and some of that was detailed in the must-read book, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." jakebarber also mentioned that. Is it multiple intelligences with multiple intents, or one intelligence mixing in some positive outcomes as a propaganda effort? We don't know.) Reed: "And there are significant signals and indicators in the history of the phenomenon that give very good anchors for assessing intent, and for going from possibilities to probabilities and ultimately making a starting assessment, which informs the research pathway, which is the other part of my work in supporting the human institute, devising an intelligent, scientific research and investigatory citizen-led effort to uncover the phenomenon, to disclose it, to interrogate its activity, lest we just be interrogated, unknowingly, ourselves. So, a lot of good work to do there." (Interrogate the activity of the phenomenon. I really like that approach. Let's not assume anything.) Reed: "But, in my view, when you look at all that the sensor data has given us, technologically, when you corroborate that with the geographic, circumstantial [and] temporal aspects of how the phenomena appears, who it manifests to, and the considerable problem it presents to the international community and to national laws and frameworks that govern territorial sovereignty, these incursions into sensitive sites and the potential, programmatic engagement with civilians in the form of physical NHI-initiated contact - abductions - it builds a picture. It bounds those possibilities into a zone of probabilities. "And whether it's a transactional presence, whether it's an integrative or one that wants to integrate with humanity, or ultimately replace humanity, I think there are multiple possibilities at play and multiple intents at play. Although, I don't think it's the rainbow that everyone kind of hopes that it is. It's not, everything the Universe has to offer is gonna come all at once, now, and function harmoniously in our skies and oceans. No. The hostile intent will not tolerate a beneficial actor who themselves would have to arm themselves and militarily confront the hostile actor, which we do not see indications of." (My translation: If, there's a benevolent intelligence here that wants to help humanity break free from the chains of an alleged malevolent intelligence that may be using us, the benevolent force would need to somehow arm themselves in order to militarily take on this malevolent force, potentially, defeat them, and rescue us from a bad predicament. And we see no evidence of that.) Reed: "So, you know, we have analogs in our own human history to this, the natives of the new world. They looked out on the quay and they saw the ships, different flags, different vessels, and they assumed it's gotta be either the angels from the spirit realm - it has to comport to our belief system - or a variety of intentions, and we should work with and collaborate. And it may not be that way. "It's not about, it's all hostile or it's all beneficial or benevolent. In my mind, it's exo-systemic. It's an ecosystem arriving on our shores at a specific 20th-century moment in which we have detonated nuclear weapons, we have flashed the Universe with technology capability, and we have triggered an engagement event. This is really what this is. And a program to engage humanity over a longitudinal time period." (I think it was here and intersecting with us a long time before we first detonated our nukes.) Karla Turner: "We know from some of our own research that the abduction phenomenon has affected families going back four generations and that would be around the turn of the century (1900). In my husband's family, his grandmother had an encounter with a non-human entity that led her off into a swampy area where there was a period of missing before she was returned, when she was only five-years old. That was 1903. So if you think it's new and you think it's something the media has spread, you start looking into the cases and find out how far back it's goes in some of these families' generations. I know of an African American family in East Texas that has had it going on since the early 1900s and it's still going on today with that same family. Three to four generations is fairly typical." ~ Reed: "And so, we need to step back and really look at the human project of getting our act together to diplomatically engage now and in the future, to manage the NHI presence internationally, and coordinate responses, lest we divide and conquer ourselves over this issue. And that's where the reframing of disclosure as fundamentally belonging to the human species, being one that should, I think, be framed in first principles - to Karl Nell's point - with a naturalistic framework, a science-informed, data-driven framework. "And with that, we go out into the field and collect evidence on the phenomenon. We go out to where it is interacting with people. That's the key missing data set that would be necessary to inform decision makers." (We had that with AAWSAP and can have it again. Plus, the Vallée/AAWSAP Capella database of approximately 250,000 cases. Using AI and the best human minds on this planet, all of that may inform us of the intent of these alleged NHI actors.) Reed: "In my view, there absolutely is an adversarial actor in our world. There is a human-engagement program underway. And that's not the whole story, but if that is true, that should marshal our human response above all other possibilities, initially, because we may wake up in 30 years and find that we are not the human beings we used to be. Genetic interventions, cultural influence, right? Social engineering. All of these could be at play in a subversive sense." (If it's true, it should be the most important thing for human beings to address, ASAP. We need to find out now.) Reed: "And, you know, NHI is operating in a strategic silence, in a state of non-disclosure. They're operating covertly and selectively with military-defense organizations, internationally, which are already in competition." (I'd like to hear more about the claim that NHI are operating covertly and selectively with military-defense organizations. We've all heard those claims but is there evidence of that?) Reed: "And that, to me, is another one of a number of alarming signals that should just command us to take a cautionary response. And and we've gotta get out there and use the best of science, research and investigation to do reconnaissance - reconnai-science, as I call it, on behalf of the human interest, and not just national interests." Garrison: "Yeah, that's a profound way to put it, Reed. You know that we've triggered an interaction event." Reed: "And so, intelligence indicates intent, intentful engagement indicates a program. And so what is their program? We talk about the Legacy-human program. What about the non-human program? We do not query that nearly as much as we should. And in my view, disclosure. How do we get disclosure moving? If we recenter the controversy not on human actors, human governments, but on the non- human presence itself, that allows the human actors a way to rapidly and catastrophically disclose their involvements, which is what is keeping this back in part. Thank you."
8:24

🔥👽 This is REALLY good! 👽🔥 "In my view, there absolutely is an adversarial actor in our world. There is a human-engagement program underway. I don't think it's the rainbow that everyone kind of hopes that it is." ~Reed (IMO, Reed Summers is an unsung, VERY important voice in this community, and what he says in this clip, currently, resonates with me in a big way. Take the time to read or watch. Then we have what Ross Coulthart says about the "deliberate lifting of consciousness" and "frequency," which is more on the side of love, light and space brothers. I don't see that right now, and none of my contacts have ever mentioned it. If it's there, maybe its hands are tied with how it can help us?) ~ "Genetic interventions, cultural influence, right? Social engineering. All of these could be at play in a subversive sense. NHI is operating in a strategic silence, in a state of non-disclosure. Intelligence indicates intent, intentful engagement indicates a program. And so what is their program? We talk about the Legacy-human program. What about the non-human program? ~Reed ~ Ross: "I've been told that the United States has developed quite advanced weaponry, particularly plasma-beam technology that might, in part, have been inspired by what they've seen or recovered from non-human technology. I think, also, just to add the concern of NHI with what humanity is doing. There's also a very deliberate lifting of consciousness. And I really am struck by what Chris (Bledsoe - Chris Bledsoe) says about the frequency. This is something that I'm getting from so many people. That the level of intensity of public reporting of their engagement with NHI, of a clear intent by NHI, to essentially give up on governments from ever disclosing. But to raise human consciousness and awareness. "And I think they're doing this, increasingly (laughs), through direct engagement with individuals. I've got many friends and colleagues and people I've interviewed - witnesses - who've had incredible experiences. I've just been recording for a TV show, something that we're doing here in Australia, where people are inviting or summoning the phenomenon. And there seems to be an interest in the phenomenon engaging with humans much, much more overtly. And I do think that stems from a concern about us primitive monkeys playing with matches." (Were they concerned when this abduction-like event allegedly happened to Jim Semivan and his wife? Semivan: "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." Source: Engaging The Phenomenon's interview with Jim ~ Jim Garrison: "But Reid, speak to us about this interplay between malevolence and benevolence." Reed: "Sure, well, and you described, Jim, the first part of my life in which I was focused primarily on supporting my father, Marshall (Vian Summers and The Allies of Humanity), who had direct encounters with NHI, communications with NHI." (Was Marshall really in contact with extraterrestrial intelligence, known as The Allies of Humanity? I don't know. But a lot of what he has said rings true to me. Doesn't mean it's true. Read one transcript I did in 2021: “It’s Probably Not Human” – Elizondo, Blumenthal & The Allies Of Humanity ~ Reed: "And my family felt the full force and impact of what that was like, as well as what comes with it ("it" being his dad's alleged contact with ET intelligence). Which is, what might be called the hitchhiker effect, the anomalous effects that attend those who have been selected by the phenomenon without their understanding or knowing why." (Add another few names to the list of people who have now said they experienced the hitchhiker effect: Jay Stratton, George Knapp, Kelleher, Davis, Bigelow, Brandon Fugal, Thomas Winterton, Semivan, and more. That includes poltergeist-like events, shadow people, orbs, etc.) Reed: ""But my later work is really about assessing intent with a structured framework. I think we need to step back from belief systems, hopeful or fearful interpretations, and lay out the spectrum of possibilities, right? From curiosity on the left, salvation and assistance, even further on the left, to transaction, integration on the right, or even something more hostile. And in the end, intent is all about human outcomes. We can't know their consciousness. The project, in my mind right now, is not, let's set out to understand what they're like, who they are, how they think, how they cognate. That's impossible, in my perspective. But we can assess the real human outcomes that stem from the hazard and the risk and the possible threat of a non-human factor acting upon. Like a forcing, an environmental or evolutionary-forcing upon humanity at a historically-unprecedented time." (From what I have seen, whatever this is, has, overall, NOT helped humanity. If that's happening, it's going on behind the scenes. I know some experiencers report having their lives changed in a positive way, and some say they have been healed of illnesses. But others say their lives have been ruined and they've been hurt, intentionally or not, by coming in close contact with the phenomenon. Also, various people have come down with several auto-immune diseases after close contact, and some of that was detailed in the must-read book, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." jakebarber also mentioned that. Is it multiple intelligences with multiple intents, or one intelligence mixing in some positive outcomes as a propaganda effort? We don't know.) Reed: "And there are significant signals and indicators in the history of the phenomenon that give very good anchors for assessing intent, and for going from possibilities to probabilities and ultimately making a starting assessment, which informs the research pathway, which is the other part of my work in supporting the human institute, devising an intelligent, scientific research and investigatory citizen-led effort to uncover the phenomenon, to disclose it, to interrogate its activity, lest we just be interrogated, unknowingly, ourselves. So, a lot of good work to do there." (Interrogate the activity of the phenomenon. I really like that approach. Let's not assume anything.) Reed: "But, in my view, when you look at all that the sensor data has given us, technologically, when you corroborate that with the geographic, circumstantial [and] temporal aspects of how the phenomena appears, who it manifests to, and the considerable problem it presents to the international community and to national laws and frameworks that govern territorial sovereignty, these incursions into sensitive sites and the potential, programmatic engagement with civilians in the form of physical NHI-initiated contact - abductions - it builds a picture. It bounds those possibilities into a zone of probabilities. "And whether it's a transactional presence, whether it's an integrative or one that wants to integrate with humanity, or ultimately replace humanity, I think there are multiple possibilities at play and multiple intents at play. Although, I don't think it's the rainbow that everyone kind of hopes that it is. It's not, everything the Universe has to offer is gonna come all at once, now, and function harmoniously in our skies and oceans. No. The hostile intent will not tolerate a beneficial actor who themselves would have to arm themselves and militarily confront the hostile actor, which we do not see indications of." (My translation: If, there's a benevolent intelligence here that wants to help humanity break free from the chains of an alleged malevolent intelligence that may be using us, the benevolent force would need to somehow arm themselves in order to militarily take on this malevolent force, potentially, defeat them, and rescue us from a bad predicament. And we see no evidence of that.) Reed: "So, you know, we have analogs in our own human history to this, the natives of the new world. They looked out on the quay and they saw the ships, different flags, different vessels, and they assumed it's gotta be either the angels from the spirit realm - it has to comport to our belief system - or a variety of intentions, and we should work with and collaborate. And it may not be that way. "It's not about, it's all hostile or it's all beneficial or benevolent. In my mind, it's exo-systemic. It's an ecosystem arriving on our shores at a specific 20th-century moment in which we have detonated nuclear weapons, we have flashed the Universe with technology capability, and we have triggered an engagement event. This is really what this is. And a program to engage humanity over a longitudinal time period." (I think it was here and intersecting with us a long time before we first detonated our nukes.) Karla Turner: "We know from some of our own research that the abduction phenomenon has affected families going back four generations and that would be around the turn of the century (1900). In my husband's family, his grandmother had an encounter with a non-human entity that led her off into a swampy area where there was a period of missing before she was returned, when she was only five-years old. That was 1903. So if you think it's new and you think it's something the media has spread, you start looking into the cases and find out how far back it's goes in some of these families' generations. I know of an African American family in East Texas that has had it going on since the early 1900s and it's still going on today with that same family. Three to four generations is fairly typical." ~ Reed: "And so, we need to step back and really look at the human project of getting our act together to diplomatically engage now and in the future, to manage the NHI presence internationally, and coordinate responses, lest we divide and conquer ourselves over this issue. And that's where the reframing of disclosure as fundamentally belonging to the human species, being one that should, I think, be framed in first principles - to Karl Nell's point - with a naturalistic framework, a science-informed, data-driven framework. "And with that, we go out into the field and collect evidence on the phenomenon. We go out to where it is interacting with people. That's the key missing data set that would be necessary to inform decision makers." (We had that with AAWSAP and can have it again. Plus, the Vallée/AAWSAP Capella database of approximately 250,000 cases. Using AI and the best human minds on this planet, all of that may inform us of the intent of these alleged NHI actors.) Reed: "In my view, there absolutely is an adversarial actor in our world. There is a human-engagement program underway. And that's not the whole story, but if that is true, that should marshal our human response above all other possibilities, initially, because we may wake up in 30 years and find that we are not the human beings we used to be. Genetic interventions, cultural influence, right? Social engineering. All of these could be at play in a subversive sense." (If it's true, it should be the most important thing for human beings to address, ASAP. We need to find out now.) Reed: "And, you know, NHI is operating in a strategic silence, in a state of non-disclosure. They're operating covertly and selectively with military-defense organizations, internationally, which are already in competition." (I'd like to hear more about the claim that NHI are operating covertly and selectively with military-defense organizations. We've all heard those claims but is there evidence of that?) Reed: "And that, to me, is another one of a number of alarming signals that should just command us to take a cautionary response. And and we've gotta get out there and use the best of science, research and investigation to do reconnaissance - reconnai-science, as I call it, on behalf of the human interest, and not just national interests." Garrison: "Yeah, that's a profound way to put it, Reed. You know that we've triggered an interaction event." Reed: "And so, intelligence indicates intent, intentful engagement indicates a program. And so what is their program? We talk about the Legacy-human program. What about the non-human program? We do not query that nearly as much as we should. And in my view, disclosure. How do we get disclosure moving? If we recenter the controversy not on human actors, human governments, but on the non- human presence itself, that allows the human actors a way to rapidly and catastrophically disclose their involvements, which is what is keeping this back in part. Thank you."

Joe Murgia

46,717 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

//The Wire//2300Z September 11, 2025// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSIN REMAINS AT LARGE AS THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES. MULTIPLE HOAX SWATTING INCIDENTS REPORTED AT UNIVERSITIES AROUND THE NATION. CUBAN ILLEGAL ARRESTED AFTER BRUTAL MURDER AT DALLAS HOTEL. SHOOTING REPORTED AT US NAVAL ACADEMY IN ANNAPOLIS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -HomeFront- Utah: The situation regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk continues to develop, with many new details coming to light overnight. At the moment, multiple individuals seem to be involved in this case in one way or another: One actual shooter, and many more persons that caused confusion during the initial reaction to the shooting. The individual identified as George Zinn was initially arrested after he verbally confessed to the crime, stating that he was the shooter. He screamed "I did it" and "shoot me" immediately as the shot was heard. This could have been a case of mental illness (as Zinn has a criminal history that reflects such and he was known to authorities for this kind of thing) or this could also have been an intentional act of diversion to allow the real shooter time to escape. Whatever the intent was, this did function as a diversionary tactic, and the shooter was able to egress from the area. Nevertheless, local reports state that Zinn was released from custody. Another unidentified individual was initially arrested at the scene as well, in possession of a pellet rifle. No further information regarding this individual's status at this time. Idaho: A fight broke out at a candlelight vigil at the Idaho Capitol (which was arranged to memorialize Charlie Kirk) when leftist activists began to interrupt proceedings. Several leftist demonstrators were removed after they attempted to gain entry to the crowd and scream obscenities during the vigil. Colorado: Yesterday afternoon a school shooting was reported at Evergreen High School near Denver. Local authorities state that Desmond Holly, a 16-year-old student at the school, shot two students before taking his own life. Texas: Yesterday afternoon a woman was beheaded at a motel in Dallas. Local authorities state that Yordanis Cobo-Martinez, an illegal migrant from Cuba, murdered his employer (Chandra Nagamallaiah) with a machete after a brief argument at the Downtown Suites Hotel. Cobo-Martinez was arrested at the scene. Maryland: This afternoon, an active shooter was reported at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. This is a developing situation at this time, but initial reports indicate that a former Midshipmen returned to the institution to conduct the attack. Early reports indicate as many as 1-3 casualties, however the scene is still locked down at this time. More details to follow as information becomes available. USA: This afternoon the recent wave of swatting calls flared up again, with several calls being made around Boston this afternoon. An active shooter situation was reported at the University of Massachusetts (UMass), which turned out to be a hoax. Several other locations around Boston were also host to swatting incidents, which also were hoaxes. This morning a bomb threat was called in to the DNC headquarters in Washington, which was also confirmed to be a hoax. Throughout the afternoon the University of Central Florida also reported a similar hoax being called in at their campus. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: When it comes to risk assessment and mitigation, making decisions based on details that are speculative is acceptable if time is of the essence, such as when a high-profile assassin is still on the loose. However, it would be wise to focus on the details that help with that assessment, rather than getting dragged down rabbit holes that eat up time that we don't have. Panicking helps no one, and though it is a challenging skill to develop when the general mood is that of extreme anger, remaining calm and collected during a crisis is the option that will help the most people. The real distinction that must be noted is whether or not the persons that caused diversions, knew of the attack ahead of time. Several people were observed cheering in the crowd, George Zinn shouted and was tackled, and others were behaving suspiciously in and around the venue during the bedlam after the shooting. Right now there is not much linking all of these individuals together definitively, beyond the common goal of disrupting events. For a terror cell to be indicated, the individuals identified would have to know each other and have communicated ahead of time, which is not possible to determine at the moment based on open source information. The individual spotted on top of the roof before the shooting (the person who appears to have been the actual shooter) might not have been the actual shooter either. The exceptionally graphic video evidence of the attack might be playing tricks on the eyes; the wound that was visible in the video evidence so far may have in actuality been an exit wound for a shot that came from Kirk's 4 o' clock position. Some video evidence supports this, however much higher quality footage (such as from the professional media equipment recording the rally) will be necessary to determine if that is a viable line of investigative effort. Again, focusing on details that can help find the killer and eliminate future threats is worth the speculation, especially as the FBI has stated that they recovered the rifle used to conduct the attack from a wooded treeline near the campus. This rifle appears to have sported an optic which was mounted too far too the rear to provide a feasible shooting platform. This detail has caused many to doubt that this rifle was the one used in the shooting (as in, it's yet another decoy), or that the shooter did not have the experience to know that the scope was in the wrong position for it to be used properly. In short: If this rifle was used, the suspect is either of a very small body type (much smaller than the suspects sought so far), or they are now sporting a facial wound caused by the recoil of the firearm driving the scope into their face. Or, this rifle was not used at all, and whomever staged it did not have the forethought to position the scope correctly. As with most high-profile events like this, some discrepancy among the initial details is very much expected. However, there is a LOT of debate right now regarding whether or not the murder of Charlie Kirk was a professional assassination. Right now, all of the evidence in the public eye suggests that Kirk could have been killed in a more coordinated manner (as in more than one person might have been involved), but also by someone displaying very amateur tradecraft. On the other hand, if the multiple misdirections were deliberately planted to confuse and slow down investigative efforts, this would be a strong indicator of more organized planning. Sometimes the most likely explanation is the simplest, and based on the sheer number of people celebrating his murder the chances of this being one of the usual suspects is rather high, even though the door must remain open to other possibilities. The cold hard truth right now is that regardless of how Kirk was killed, he was killed for a reason. And right now there are millions of people celebrating his murder, both online and in the real world. It is this important observation that will have lasting impact for some time, both in terms of societal shift, but also in terms of real-world threats and security concerns. Charlie Kirk was a moderate conservative. Despite what the mainstream media says, he was one of the few conservative commentators willing to actually speak face-to-face with his opposition and debate them in open forum. He was not a politician or an elected official who could make policy; the most impact that he could possibly have had was simply to change minds by speaking to people. He could have made a living shouting his ideas from a safe podcast studio, but he chose instead to speak to people in person at these types of public debates over the years. There are a thousand people in the public eye more "radical" than he was, yet he was the one killed for it. Much like many other political assassinations throughout history, sometimes the more impactful events involve the removal of the last peaceful option, or the last peaceful moderate. Time will tell if this troubling idea is true, but it's possible that with Charlie Kirk died the last hope for reconciliation between a large portion of the United States. The knee-jerk reactions of this horrific murder being that of joy and celebration from a large number of people, is abhorrent to the degree of indicating that there is little chance of cooperation or lasting peace with a good portion of the nation. Regardless of one's political beliefs, this is a sobering reminder in the context of how millions of people are now openly calling for the violent murder of conservatives, solely for the crime of not being politically liberal. Even in "far-right" circles, which agreed with Kirk on nearly zero issues, the general mood is that of mourning. The *actual* "far-right" in this country has shown more decency for a man who they did not agree with and a man who has admonished them publicly, than most center-left personalities who have bloodlust in their hearts regarding this case. More broadly, this means that these types of attacks will unfortunately continue. Whether it's organic or not can be argued later, but what's clear is that most big voices on the political left are either openly calling for continued violence, or are behaving without a single shred of human decency. Most Democrat politicians interviewed today by the media on this event have become belligerent on the subject, with some going so far as to interrupt a moment of silence for Kirk at the Capitol. A similar incident was observed today at the European Parliament as well. There is already enough spin, distraction, commentary, and speculation regarding the exact details of the murder. What would be a more productive line of effort is to be aware of the societal atmospherics surrounding this case (as in the threats that continue to persist), but not dwelling on the evil that is consuming the world. Acknowledge where we are at, conduct risk assessments, and mitigate those risks as best you can. Despair and apathy will solve no problems, and there will be plenty of opportunity to keep focus on moving forward and doing good wherever possible. More details on this case will come in due time, but until then more localized threats and individuals that seek to continue this violence are a bigger priority to be aware of. Analyst: S2A1 Research: //END REPORT//
9:13

//The Wire//2300Z September 11, 2025// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSIN REMAINS AT LARGE AS THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES. MULTIPLE HOAX SWATTING INCIDENTS REPORTED AT UNIVERSITIES AROUND THE NATION. CUBAN ILLEGAL ARRESTED AFTER BRUTAL MURDER AT DALLAS HOTEL. SHOOTING REPORTED AT US NAVAL ACADEMY IN ANNAPOLIS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -HomeFront- Utah: The situation regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk continues to develop, with many new details coming to light overnight. At the moment, multiple individuals seem to be involved in this case in one way or another: One actual shooter, and many more persons that caused confusion during the initial reaction to the shooting. The individual identified as George Zinn was initially arrested after he verbally confessed to the crime, stating that he was the shooter. He screamed "I did it" and "shoot me" immediately as the shot was heard. This could have been a case of mental illness (as Zinn has a criminal history that reflects such and he was known to authorities for this kind of thing) or this could also have been an intentional act of diversion to allow the real shooter time to escape. Whatever the intent was, this did function as a diversionary tactic, and the shooter was able to egress from the area. Nevertheless, local reports state that Zinn was released from custody. Another unidentified individual was initially arrested at the scene as well, in possession of a pellet rifle. No further information regarding this individual's status at this time. Idaho: A fight broke out at a candlelight vigil at the Idaho Capitol (which was arranged to memorialize Charlie Kirk) when leftist activists began to interrupt proceedings. Several leftist demonstrators were removed after they attempted to gain entry to the crowd and scream obscenities during the vigil. Colorado: Yesterday afternoon a school shooting was reported at Evergreen High School near Denver. Local authorities state that Desmond Holly, a 16-year-old student at the school, shot two students before taking his own life. Texas: Yesterday afternoon a woman was beheaded at a motel in Dallas. Local authorities state that Yordanis Cobo-Martinez, an illegal migrant from Cuba, murdered his employer (Chandra Nagamallaiah) with a machete after a brief argument at the Downtown Suites Hotel. Cobo-Martinez was arrested at the scene. Maryland: This afternoon, an active shooter was reported at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. This is a developing situation at this time, but initial reports indicate that a former Midshipmen returned to the institution to conduct the attack. Early reports indicate as many as 1-3 casualties, however the scene is still locked down at this time. More details to follow as information becomes available. USA: This afternoon the recent wave of swatting calls flared up again, with several calls being made around Boston this afternoon. An active shooter situation was reported at the University of Massachusetts (UMass), which turned out to be a hoax. Several other locations around Boston were also host to swatting incidents, which also were hoaxes. This morning a bomb threat was called in to the DNC headquarters in Washington, which was also confirmed to be a hoax. Throughout the afternoon the University of Central Florida also reported a similar hoax being called in at their campus. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: When it comes to risk assessment and mitigation, making decisions based on details that are speculative is acceptable if time is of the essence, such as when a high-profile assassin is still on the loose. However, it would be wise to focus on the details that help with that assessment, rather than getting dragged down rabbit holes that eat up time that we don't have. Panicking helps no one, and though it is a challenging skill to develop when the general mood is that of extreme anger, remaining calm and collected during a crisis is the option that will help the most people. The real distinction that must be noted is whether or not the persons that caused diversions, knew of the attack ahead of time. Several people were observed cheering in the crowd, George Zinn shouted and was tackled, and others were behaving suspiciously in and around the venue during the bedlam after the shooting. Right now there is not much linking all of these individuals together definitively, beyond the common goal of disrupting events. For a terror cell to be indicated, the individuals identified would have to know each other and have communicated ahead of time, which is not possible to determine at the moment based on open source information. The individual spotted on top of the roof before the shooting (the person who appears to have been the actual shooter) might not have been the actual shooter either. The exceptionally graphic video evidence of the attack might be playing tricks on the eyes; the wound that was visible in the video evidence so far may have in actuality been an exit wound for a shot that came from Kirk's 4 o' clock position. Some video evidence supports this, however much higher quality footage (such as from the professional media equipment recording the rally) will be necessary to determine if that is a viable line of investigative effort. Again, focusing on details that can help find the killer and eliminate future threats is worth the speculation, especially as the FBI has stated that they recovered the rifle used to conduct the attack from a wooded treeline near the campus. This rifle appears to have sported an optic which was mounted too far too the rear to provide a feasible shooting platform. This detail has caused many to doubt that this rifle was the one used in the shooting (as in, it's yet another decoy), or that the shooter did not have the experience to know that the scope was in the wrong position for it to be used properly. In short: If this rifle was used, the suspect is either of a very small body type (much smaller than the suspects sought so far), or they are now sporting a facial wound caused by the recoil of the firearm driving the scope into their face. Or, this rifle was not used at all, and whomever staged it did not have the forethought to position the scope correctly. As with most high-profile events like this, some discrepancy among the initial details is very much expected. However, there is a LOT of debate right now regarding whether or not the murder of Charlie Kirk was a professional assassination. Right now, all of the evidence in the public eye suggests that Kirk could have been killed in a more coordinated manner (as in more than one person might have been involved), but also by someone displaying very amateur tradecraft. On the other hand, if the multiple misdirections were deliberately planted to confuse and slow down investigative efforts, this would be a strong indicator of more organized planning. Sometimes the most likely explanation is the simplest, and based on the sheer number of people celebrating his murder the chances of this being one of the usual suspects is rather high, even though the door must remain open to other possibilities. The cold hard truth right now is that regardless of how Kirk was killed, he was killed for a reason. And right now there are millions of people celebrating his murder, both online and in the real world. It is this important observation that will have lasting impact for some time, both in terms of societal shift, but also in terms of real-world threats and security concerns. Charlie Kirk was a moderate conservative. Despite what the mainstream media says, he was one of the few conservative commentators willing to actually speak face-to-face with his opposition and debate them in open forum. He was not a politician or an elected official who could make policy; the most impact that he could possibly have had was simply to change minds by speaking to people. He could have made a living shouting his ideas from a safe podcast studio, but he chose instead to speak to people in person at these types of public debates over the years. There are a thousand people in the public eye more "radical" than he was, yet he was the one killed for it. Much like many other political assassinations throughout history, sometimes the more impactful events involve the removal of the last peaceful option, or the last peaceful moderate. Time will tell if this troubling idea is true, but it's possible that with Charlie Kirk died the last hope for reconciliation between a large portion of the United States. The knee-jerk reactions of this horrific murder being that of joy and celebration from a large number of people, is abhorrent to the degree of indicating that there is little chance of cooperation or lasting peace with a good portion of the nation. Regardless of one's political beliefs, this is a sobering reminder in the context of how millions of people are now openly calling for the violent murder of conservatives, solely for the crime of not being politically liberal. Even in "far-right" circles, which agreed with Kirk on nearly zero issues, the general mood is that of mourning. The *actual* "far-right" in this country has shown more decency for a man who they did not agree with and a man who has admonished them publicly, than most center-left personalities who have bloodlust in their hearts regarding this case. More broadly, this means that these types of attacks will unfortunately continue. Whether it's organic or not can be argued later, but what's clear is that most big voices on the political left are either openly calling for continued violence, or are behaving without a single shred of human decency. Most Democrat politicians interviewed today by the media on this event have become belligerent on the subject, with some going so far as to interrupt a moment of silence for Kirk at the Capitol. A similar incident was observed today at the European Parliament as well. There is already enough spin, distraction, commentary, and speculation regarding the exact details of the murder. What would be a more productive line of effort is to be aware of the societal atmospherics surrounding this case (as in the threats that continue to persist), but not dwelling on the evil that is consuming the world. Acknowledge where we are at, conduct risk assessments, and mitigate those risks as best you can. Despair and apathy will solve no problems, and there will be plenty of opportunity to keep focus on moving forward and doing good wherever possible. More details on this case will come in due time, but until then more localized threats and individuals that seek to continue this violence are a bigger priority to be aware of. Analyst: S2A1 Research: //END REPORT//

S2 Underground

16,913 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce