Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

France is not a country. It is a working a five pointed territory through which the Divine Will of history presses itself into matter. Geography is destiny. But France's geography is sacred geometry : The Pentagram Look at a map. France is the only major nation in the world...

Thulesoul's profile picture

Vrilean HyperEon ☀️

2,059 subscribers

161,807 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

ArtsEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

There is a room in Málaga that was built to be the closest thing on earth to standing inside heaven. It is called the camarín of the Virgin of Victory, and it is hidden at the top of a tower inside the Santuario de la Victoria. To reach it, you climb and the ascent is the entire point... The building you are climbing through was completed in 1700, and it was designed as a single argument made in stone. At the bottom lies a crypt: a black chamber crowded with white plaster skeletons, a meditation on death and the brevity of life. From there a staircase rises, and as you climb it the light grows stronger and the imagery changes from bones to saints. The architects of the time understood this ascent as the soul's own journey, the dark crypt as the stage of penitence, the staircase as the stage of spiritual progress, and the room at the very top as the final stage: the union of the soul with the divine. That room at the top is the camarín, and its dome is one of the most extraordinary interiors in Spain... Every surface is covered in white and gold plasterwork. There is no empty space anywhere. The Baroque called this horror vacui, the horror of the void: the conviction that a space meant to represent heaven should not contain a single bare patch of stone. Out of that plasterwork emerge angels, flowers, birds, and mirrors. The mirrors are not decoration alone. They catch the light pouring in through the windows of the drum and throw it around the chamber, so that the gold seems to move and the whole room appears to shimmer and breathe. This wonder was built by people who believed that if you wanted to show a human being what heaven might feel like, you did not describe it to them. You built a room, and you let them climb into it... -- -- -- If you enjoyed this, I write a weekly newsletter read by over 50,000 people who love rediscovering the beauty of the past. You can join us here: If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.
0:13

There is a room in Málaga that was built to be the closest thing on earth to standing inside heaven. It is called the camarín of the Virgin of Victory, and it is hidden at the top of a tower inside the Santuario de la Victoria. To reach it, you climb and the ascent is the entire point... The building you are climbing through was completed in 1700, and it was designed as a single argument made in stone. At the bottom lies a crypt: a black chamber crowded with white plaster skeletons, a meditation on death and the brevity of life. From there a staircase rises, and as you climb it the light grows stronger and the imagery changes from bones to saints. The architects of the time understood this ascent as the soul's own journey, the dark crypt as the stage of penitence, the staircase as the stage of spiritual progress, and the room at the very top as the final stage: the union of the soul with the divine. That room at the top is the camarín, and its dome is one of the most extraordinary interiors in Spain... Every surface is covered in white and gold plasterwork. There is no empty space anywhere. The Baroque called this horror vacui, the horror of the void: the conviction that a space meant to represent heaven should not contain a single bare patch of stone. Out of that plasterwork emerge angels, flowers, birds, and mirrors. The mirrors are not decoration alone. They catch the light pouring in through the windows of the drum and throw it around the chamber, so that the gold seems to move and the whole room appears to shimmer and breathe. This wonder was built by people who believed that if you wanted to show a human being what heaven might feel like, you did not describe it to them. You built a room, and you let them climb into it... -- -- -- If you enjoyed this, I write a weekly newsletter read by over 50,000 people who love rediscovering the beauty of the past. You can join us here: If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.

James Lucas

69,389 views • 4 months ago

One of the most logical explanations of the Watchers in the Book of Enoch is that they were an elite group of survivors or a breakaway civilization that was not supposed to mix with ordinary survivors, but only to watch over the masses and intervene when necessary. Part of this breakaway civilization fell in love with the "daughters of men," or the daughters of the ordinary survivors. They had children with them and shared their technology. As a result, they were expelled from the elite breakaway civilization. This story appears in many civilizations, from the Bible to the Sumerian Anunnaki, the Greek myth of Prometheus, and Quetzalcoatl in Mesoamerica. This is, by far, the most logical explanation, but being logical does not mean it is the truth. I will share another theory tomorrow.
0:15

One of the most logical explanations of the Watchers in the Book of Enoch is that they were an elite group of survivors or a breakaway civilization that was not supposed to mix with ordinary survivors, but only to watch over the masses and intervene when necessary. Part of this breakaway civilization fell in love with the "daughters of men," or the daughters of the ordinary survivors. They had children with them and shared their technology. As a result, they were expelled from the elite breakaway civilization. This story appears in many civilizations, from the Bible to the Sumerian Anunnaki, the Greek myth of Prometheus, and Quetzalcoatl in Mesoamerica. This is, by far, the most logical explanation, but being logical does not mean it is the truth. I will share another theory tomorrow.

Open Minded Approach

65,822 views • 1 month ago

“In the modern world, man becomes a slave to the feminine principle, seduced by images and illusions created by emotion and fantasy—decadent forms of eros.” —Julius Evola, Metaphysics of Sex The modern cult of equality has fixed its gaze upon the sexes. What had once been regarded as the polarity of man and woman, grounded in nature and consecrated by tradition, has been lowered to a counterfeit of sameness. Evola returned often to this inversion, discerning in it the same anti-hierarchical impulse that has disfigured every other sphere of life, and which, under the guise of liberation, has stripped both sexes of the dignity proper to their stations. What the age heralds as emancipation he judged to be a degradation, for feminism does not raise woman to her station but strips her of it, compelling her to abandon her essence in order to imitate man, while man himself, bereft of his higher path, sinks into a condition at once impoverished and grotesque. For Evola, culture was the victory of form over chaos, the conquest of the shapeless by order and measure. The city and the empire arose from the recognition of limits, of distinctions, of the rightful ranking of beings. Man attained his true stature as warrior and ascetic; woman realized her dignity as lover and mother. These types were not adversaries but counterparts, separate yet joined, each consecrated to the same principle of transcendence, each charged with its own path of heroism. In the sharpening of these forms, in the intensification of the masculine and the feminine, Europe attained its strength, and love retained its ancient dignity as a force at once generative and cosmic. There is also a beauty in the truth of form, for what is bound to nature and consecrated by tradition does not merely endure but shines. When the polarity of man and woman is clarified, when each fulfills the path proper to its essence, the result is not only strength but radiance. Beauty arises when limit is embraced, when form gives shape to matter, when order compels chaos into harmony. To behold such clarity is to glimpse truth itself, for truth and beauty are of one lineage, both testifying to the higher law that governs being. The modern age has broken this harmony. Bolshevism in the East proclaimed the equality of the sexes in the name of the collective. America in the West proclaimed the same in the name of emancipation. Beneath the opposing banners the result was alike: in one case, a promiscuous communality in which difference was dissolved, in the other, the masculinized woman of the factories and the salons. The poles collapsed, the bond was neutralized, eros was reduced to sterile companionship or the fleeting diversions of appetite. Evola named this impulse a radical pessimism, for beneath the assertion of equality lies the confession that woman, as woman, has no worth. She is compelled to take on the guise of man in order to claim value, and in so doing she forfeits the possibility of fulfillment. Man, in turn, is brutalized into a creature of appetite and utility, stripped of the higher forms once embodied in the ascetic and the warrior. Love itself, which depends upon polarity as fire depends upon the tension of elements, is extinguished, and with it the very possibility of renewal. What rises in its place is the gray world of neuter beings, uniform and without grandeur. Woman no longer appears as lover or as mother, but is driven into labor, into agitation, into pale imitations of intellectual life. Man no longer ascends as ascetic or warrior, but sinks into the tradesman, the showman, the brute. Thus the order of life is betrayed in its most intimate relation, and what once gave depth and height to being is consumed in the twilight of sameness. To revolt against this perversion is not to diminish woman but to restore her to her dignity. It is to affirm that difference and hierarchy are the ground of order, that polarity is the essence of love, that the higher destiny of mankind rests upon the distinction of the sexes. In defending this truth one does not merely preserve a passing custom, but upholds the principle of form itself. For in the bond of man and woman is mirrored the eternal strife of order with chaos, and in that strife the fate of the world is decided.
0:19

“In the modern world, man becomes a slave to the feminine principle, seduced by images and illusions created by emotion and fantasy—decadent forms of eros.” —Julius Evola, Metaphysics of Sex The modern cult of equality has fixed its gaze upon the sexes. What had once been regarded as the polarity of man and woman, grounded in nature and consecrated by tradition, has been lowered to a counterfeit of sameness. Evola returned often to this inversion, discerning in it the same anti-hierarchical impulse that has disfigured every other sphere of life, and which, under the guise of liberation, has stripped both sexes of the dignity proper to their stations. What the age heralds as emancipation he judged to be a degradation, for feminism does not raise woman to her station but strips her of it, compelling her to abandon her essence in order to imitate man, while man himself, bereft of his higher path, sinks into a condition at once impoverished and grotesque. For Evola, culture was the victory of form over chaos, the conquest of the shapeless by order and measure. The city and the empire arose from the recognition of limits, of distinctions, of the rightful ranking of beings. Man attained his true stature as warrior and ascetic; woman realized her dignity as lover and mother. These types were not adversaries but counterparts, separate yet joined, each consecrated to the same principle of transcendence, each charged with its own path of heroism. In the sharpening of these forms, in the intensification of the masculine and the feminine, Europe attained its strength, and love retained its ancient dignity as a force at once generative and cosmic. There is also a beauty in the truth of form, for what is bound to nature and consecrated by tradition does not merely endure but shines. When the polarity of man and woman is clarified, when each fulfills the path proper to its essence, the result is not only strength but radiance. Beauty arises when limit is embraced, when form gives shape to matter, when order compels chaos into harmony. To behold such clarity is to glimpse truth itself, for truth and beauty are of one lineage, both testifying to the higher law that governs being. The modern age has broken this harmony. Bolshevism in the East proclaimed the equality of the sexes in the name of the collective. America in the West proclaimed the same in the name of emancipation. Beneath the opposing banners the result was alike: in one case, a promiscuous communality in which difference was dissolved, in the other, the masculinized woman of the factories and the salons. The poles collapsed, the bond was neutralized, eros was reduced to sterile companionship or the fleeting diversions of appetite. Evola named this impulse a radical pessimism, for beneath the assertion of equality lies the confession that woman, as woman, has no worth. She is compelled to take on the guise of man in order to claim value, and in so doing she forfeits the possibility of fulfillment. Man, in turn, is brutalized into a creature of appetite and utility, stripped of the higher forms once embodied in the ascetic and the warrior. Love itself, which depends upon polarity as fire depends upon the tension of elements, is extinguished, and with it the very possibility of renewal. What rises in its place is the gray world of neuter beings, uniform and without grandeur. Woman no longer appears as lover or as mother, but is driven into labor, into agitation, into pale imitations of intellectual life. Man no longer ascends as ascetic or warrior, but sinks into the tradesman, the showman, the brute. Thus the order of life is betrayed in its most intimate relation, and what once gave depth and height to being is consumed in the twilight of sameness. To revolt against this perversion is not to diminish woman but to restore her to her dignity. It is to affirm that difference and hierarchy are the ground of order, that polarity is the essence of love, that the higher destiny of mankind rests upon the distinction of the sexes. In defending this truth one does not merely preserve a passing custom, but upholds the principle of form itself. For in the bond of man and woman is mirrored the eternal strife of order with chaos, and in that strife the fate of the world is decided.

Chad Crowley

49,605 views • 1 year ago

‼️An interesting interview with Lavrov Sergey Lavrov regularly gives interviews, and almost every one of them is an information operation designed to create an alternative reality. The March 26 interview with France Télévisions is no exception. Let's break it down and point out where there are lies and where there is manipulation. 1. Lavrov claims that Russia is supposedly defending international law while speaking in the "language of principles" regarding Iran. What's wrong: it's basic role reversal. Moscow is trying to speak from the position of a "guardian of the law," even though it is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine. In the case of Iran, Lavrov is also deliberately omitting half the picture: yes, the US withdrew from the nuclear deal, but Iran also faced non-proliferation concerns raised by the IAEA. Why it matters: It is an attempt to whitewash Russia's crimes through someone else's crisis and to present the aggressor (Russia) as the judge. 2. Russia does not provide Iran with intelligence; the coordinates of US bases are "already known to everyone." What's wrong: it's an evasive statement, not a complete refutation. There is no independently verified evidence of specific target marking data transfers in open sources, nor can there be, but the Kremlin's "we have nothing to do with it" claim has no basis for being automatically considered true. Why it matters: A typical Kremlin tactic - to deny anything that does not align with Russia's interests and to continue operating in a gray area. 3. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied the US access to their airspace, so Russia is right about the "American venture." What's wrong: The caution of Gulf countries is real, but Lavrov turns it into a crude anti-Western caricature. Regional politics are more complex than the Kremlin's narrative that "everyone understands everything, only the US is pushing the world into chaos." Why it matters: The Kremlin takes a partial truth and builds a convenient political myth around it. 4. Russia isn't waging wars for its own gain; it's the US that wants to control the energy sector, the Strait of Hormuz, and the markets. What's wrong: It's pure projection. It is Russia that has used energy as a weapon for years, and after 2022, turned petrodollars into fuel for war. Why it matters: Moscow accuses others of doing what it does systematically - this is one of the central techniques of its propaganda. 5. Since 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by a "Nazi regime" that came to power through a coup. What's wrong: After Yanukovych fled, Ukraine held snap presidential elections, which the OSCE recognized as meeting international standards and being competitive. The claim of a "Nazi regime" is a political label, not a description of reality. Why it matters: "Nazism" in Kremlin rhetoric is a tool for dehumanizing Ukraine and justifying the war. 6. The Russian language is allegedly completely banned in Ukraine. What's wrong: Ukraine has strengthened the role of the state language, but this does not mean a total ban on Russian. The law does not apply to private communication and does not criminalize the everyday use of the language. Why it matters: The Kremlin is exaggerating language policy to the level of a "linguistic apocalypse" to sell the war as a supposed humanitarian mission. 7. Ukraine is allegedly at war with Orthodoxy and has "banned the canonical church." What's wrong: This is not about "banning a faith," but about a law regarding religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. Even criticism from human rights activists does not support the Kremlin's claim of "persecution of Orthodoxy." Why it matters: Moscow is using the language of religious protection to cover up its network of influence in Ukraine. 8. The West allegedly cynically exploited the Minsk agreements as a respite to arm Ukraine. What's wrong: The Minsk process was collapsing because of the Kremlin's desire to use the agreements to establish de facto control over Ukraine, not because of some "cunning plot" by Paris and Berlin. Why it matters: The Kremlin is rewriting history retroactively to portray its own aggression as a supposedly forced response to "universal betrayal." 9. Russia does not attack civilians; its targets are solely facilities associated with the AFU. What's wrong: It's an outright lie. For years, the UN and independent sources have documented systematic Russian strikes on cities, residential areas, energy facilities, and civilian infrastructure. Why it matters: This is no longer just propaganda, but a cynical denial of documented terror against civilians. 10. The Bucha massacre is allegedly "not proven": there are no names, no evidence, and journalists haven't shown anything. What's wrong: This is one of the most mendacious claims. There are UN documents, testimonies, criminal investigations, identified suspects, and evidence of executions and killings of civilians. Why it matters: The Kremlin is not trying to refute the crime, but to wear down the audience with doubt and turn mass murder into "one of the versions." 11. Russia wants peace and negotiations. What's wrong: In the Kremlin's vocabulary, "peace" does not mean an end to aggression, but rather acceptance of its results. "Realities on the ground" means occupation; "root causes" means demanding recognition of Russia's right to punish neighbors for their political choices. Why it matters: Lavrov isn't offering peace. He's dressing up surrender in softer language. 12. Europe is supposedly dragging out the war, while Russia is looking for a solution. What's wrong: Russia started this war itself. European aid to Ukraine is a response to the aggression, not its cause. Why it matters: This is the main inversion of Kremlin logic - to make the audience forget who attacked first and shift the discussion from aggression to a "conflict that has dragged on too long." 13. RT and Sputnik are victims of censorship, and France has no right to speak about freedom of speech. What's wrong: RT and Sputnik were banned not as "ordinary media," but as state-run tools of disinformation. Their role as propaganda channels has been publicly acknowledged both in the EU and in France. Why it matters: The Kremlin wants to portray the defense of democracies against malicious information operations as a restriction of free speech. 14. France and Europe have made Russia an enemy; Moscow is merely reacting. What's wrong: The cause of the rift is not "Russophobia," but Russia's invasion, war crimes, blackmail, and influence operations against Europe. Why it matters: The Kremlin is systematically trying to reverse the cause-and-effect relationship: it is not that "Russia destroyed relations," but that "the West rejected Russia." 15. Individual real episodes - the tanker, incidents in France, disputes among allies - allegedly prove Western hypocrisy and justify Russia. What's wrong: Lavrov takes a real but local fact and uses it as a smokescreen. None of these incidents erases Russia's crimes or the very fact of its aggression. Why it matters: This is a favorite Kremlin method - using others' difficulties and whataboutism to cover up its own crimes.
0:10

‼️An interesting interview with Lavrov Sergey Lavrov regularly gives interviews, and almost every one of them is an information operation designed to create an alternative reality. The March 26 interview with France Télévisions is no exception. Let's break it down and point out where there are lies and where there is manipulation. 1. Lavrov claims that Russia is supposedly defending international law while speaking in the "language of principles" regarding Iran. What's wrong: it's basic role reversal. Moscow is trying to speak from the position of a "guardian of the law," even though it is waging an aggressive war against Ukraine. In the case of Iran, Lavrov is also deliberately omitting half the picture: yes, the US withdrew from the nuclear deal, but Iran also faced non-proliferation concerns raised by the IAEA. Why it matters: It is an attempt to whitewash Russia's crimes through someone else's crisis and to present the aggressor (Russia) as the judge. 2. Russia does not provide Iran with intelligence; the coordinates of US bases are "already known to everyone." What's wrong: it's an evasive statement, not a complete refutation. There is no independently verified evidence of specific target marking data transfers in open sources, nor can there be, but the Kremlin's "we have nothing to do with it" claim has no basis for being automatically considered true. Why it matters: A typical Kremlin tactic - to deny anything that does not align with Russia's interests and to continue operating in a gray area. 3. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have denied the US access to their airspace, so Russia is right about the "American venture." What's wrong: The caution of Gulf countries is real, but Lavrov turns it into a crude anti-Western caricature. Regional politics are more complex than the Kremlin's narrative that "everyone understands everything, only the US is pushing the world into chaos." Why it matters: The Kremlin takes a partial truth and builds a convenient political myth around it. 4. Russia isn't waging wars for its own gain; it's the US that wants to control the energy sector, the Strait of Hormuz, and the markets. What's wrong: It's pure projection. It is Russia that has used energy as a weapon for years, and after 2022, turned petrodollars into fuel for war. Why it matters: Moscow accuses others of doing what it does systematically - this is one of the central techniques of its propaganda. 5. Since 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by a "Nazi regime" that came to power through a coup. What's wrong: After Yanukovych fled, Ukraine held snap presidential elections, which the OSCE recognized as meeting international standards and being competitive. The claim of a "Nazi regime" is a political label, not a description of reality. Why it matters: "Nazism" in Kremlin rhetoric is a tool for dehumanizing Ukraine and justifying the war. 6. The Russian language is allegedly completely banned in Ukraine. What's wrong: Ukraine has strengthened the role of the state language, but this does not mean a total ban on Russian. The law does not apply to private communication and does not criminalize the everyday use of the language. Why it matters: The Kremlin is exaggerating language policy to the level of a "linguistic apocalypse" to sell the war as a supposed humanitarian mission. 7. Ukraine is allegedly at war with Orthodoxy and has "banned the canonical church." What's wrong: This is not about "banning a faith," but about a law regarding religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church. Even criticism from human rights activists does not support the Kremlin's claim of "persecution of Orthodoxy." Why it matters: Moscow is using the language of religious protection to cover up its network of influence in Ukraine. 8. The West allegedly cynically exploited the Minsk agreements as a respite to arm Ukraine. What's wrong: The Minsk process was collapsing because of the Kremlin's desire to use the agreements to establish de facto control over Ukraine, not because of some "cunning plot" by Paris and Berlin. Why it matters: The Kremlin is rewriting history retroactively to portray its own aggression as a supposedly forced response to "universal betrayal." 9. Russia does not attack civilians; its targets are solely facilities associated with the AFU. What's wrong: It's an outright lie. For years, the UN and independent sources have documented systematic Russian strikes on cities, residential areas, energy facilities, and civilian infrastructure. Why it matters: This is no longer just propaganda, but a cynical denial of documented terror against civilians. 10. The Bucha massacre is allegedly "not proven": there are no names, no evidence, and journalists haven't shown anything. What's wrong: This is one of the most mendacious claims. There are UN documents, testimonies, criminal investigations, identified suspects, and evidence of executions and killings of civilians. Why it matters: The Kremlin is not trying to refute the crime, but to wear down the audience with doubt and turn mass murder into "one of the versions." 11. Russia wants peace and negotiations. What's wrong: In the Kremlin's vocabulary, "peace" does not mean an end to aggression, but rather acceptance of its results. "Realities on the ground" means occupation; "root causes" means demanding recognition of Russia's right to punish neighbors for their political choices. Why it matters: Lavrov isn't offering peace. He's dressing up surrender in softer language. 12. Europe is supposedly dragging out the war, while Russia is looking for a solution. What's wrong: Russia started this war itself. European aid to Ukraine is a response to the aggression, not its cause. Why it matters: This is the main inversion of Kremlin logic - to make the audience forget who attacked first and shift the discussion from aggression to a "conflict that has dragged on too long." 13. RT and Sputnik are victims of censorship, and France has no right to speak about freedom of speech. What's wrong: RT and Sputnik were banned not as "ordinary media," but as state-run tools of disinformation. Their role as propaganda channels has been publicly acknowledged both in the EU and in France. Why it matters: The Kremlin wants to portray the defense of democracies against malicious information operations as a restriction of free speech. 14. France and Europe have made Russia an enemy; Moscow is merely reacting. What's wrong: The cause of the rift is not "Russophobia," but Russia's invasion, war crimes, blackmail, and influence operations against Europe. Why it matters: The Kremlin is systematically trying to reverse the cause-and-effect relationship: it is not that "Russia destroyed relations," but that "the West rejected Russia." 15. Individual real episodes - the tanker, incidents in France, disputes among allies - allegedly prove Western hypocrisy and justify Russia. What's wrong: Lavrov takes a real but local fact and uses it as a smokescreen. None of these incidents erases Russia's crimes or the very fact of its aggression. Why it matters: This is a favorite Kremlin method - using others' difficulties and whataboutism to cover up its own crimes.

Anton Gerashchenko

88,596 views • 6 months ago

This is not a border dispute. It is a sermon. A Hamas leader on a Gaza stage tells seven million Palestinians abroad to stop warming up. There are Jews everywhere, he says. Attack every Jew on Earth. Slaughter them. Kill them. With Allah’s help. The crowd is not a war room. It is a public. Hamas did not invent that sentence. Hamas is but one franchise of it. Islamic Jihad says the same thing with a different logo. Hezbollah wraps it in Khomeini and the language of “the Zionist entity.” The Houthis put “death to Israel, curse the Jews” on a flag and call it governance. The regime in Tehran funds the network and calls the Jewish state a tumor. Different uniforms. Same theology. For them, Jewish sovereignty is an insult to Allah, and Jewish lives outside the land are not off-limits. That is why “from the river to the sea” is not a housing policy, and why October 7 was not an accident of occupation. The target list in this clip is not a soldier at a checkpoint. It is Jews as such, wherever they are. Once the enemy is a people, not a government, there is no ceasefire that satisfies the idea. There is only a pause. Western coverage keeps shrinking this to one militia and one strip of coast because a regional ideology is harder to manage than a “peace process.” Factions are useful that way. They let you condemn Hamas on Tuesday and treat Hezbollah as Lebanese politics on Wednesday and the Houthis as a shipping problem on Thursday. The preacher does not bother with those folders. He names the Jews and asks the diaspora to start. If you want to understand the war, start with what they say when they are not fundraising in English. The map they want is not two states. It is a world with fewer Jews in it, sanctified as duty. Hamas is the local office. The ideology is the corporation.
0:12

This is not a border dispute. It is a sermon. A Hamas leader on a Gaza stage tells seven million Palestinians abroad to stop warming up. There are Jews everywhere, he says. Attack every Jew on Earth. Slaughter them. Kill them. With Allah’s help. The crowd is not a war room. It is a public. Hamas did not invent that sentence. Hamas is but one franchise of it. Islamic Jihad says the same thing with a different logo. Hezbollah wraps it in Khomeini and the language of “the Zionist entity.” The Houthis put “death to Israel, curse the Jews” on a flag and call it governance. The regime in Tehran funds the network and calls the Jewish state a tumor. Different uniforms. Same theology. For them, Jewish sovereignty is an insult to Allah, and Jewish lives outside the land are not off-limits. That is why “from the river to the sea” is not a housing policy, and why October 7 was not an accident of occupation. The target list in this clip is not a soldier at a checkpoint. It is Jews as such, wherever they are. Once the enemy is a people, not a government, there is no ceasefire that satisfies the idea. There is only a pause. Western coverage keeps shrinking this to one militia and one strip of coast because a regional ideology is harder to manage than a “peace process.” Factions are useful that way. They let you condemn Hamas on Tuesday and treat Hezbollah as Lebanese politics on Wednesday and the Houthis as a shipping problem on Thursday. The preacher does not bother with those folders. He names the Jews and asks the diaspora to start. If you want to understand the war, start with what they say when they are not fundraising in English. The map they want is not two states. It is a world with fewer Jews in it, sanctified as duty. Hamas is the local office. The ideology is the corporation.

Mor Edge Insight

74,915 views • 19 days ago

🇳🇵| #Nepal | The devastation in #Rasuwa is not an act of nature. It is the visible wound of a nation that has been carved up and sold by its own political class to foreign corporations and global financial institutions. Nepal's sovereignty has been under quiet, systematic attack for decades, and the landslide is the result. The government of Nepal did not merely fail to protect its people. It actively enabled their destruction through policies that prioritised foreign investment, "development" loans, and infrastructure projects over the lives of those in the mountains. The same pattern we have exposed across India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is operating here. The globalist machine needs Nepal's rivers, its hydropower, its strategic location between China and India, and its people as a cheap, disposable labour force. What has happened in Rasuwa is part of this same plan. The hydropower rush in the Himalayan rivers has destabilised the slopes. Roads are carved through unstable geology without proper engineering, funded by development banks that demand Nepal remain a debtor nation. Forests are stripped. The people are told to accept "progress." Then the rains come, engineered or not, and the mountain comes down. The state calls it a natural disaster. The media says "pray for Nepal." And the same companies that pushed the projects arrive later for the "reconstruction." Nepal's tragedy is that its people have been taught to see themselves as victims of geography. They are victims of governance. The same globalist networks that are flooding Assam, burning Europe, shaking Turkey and Japan, and bulldozing Palestine are now tightening their grip on the Himalayas. Nepal is a key piece on that board. Its government has signed the agreements. The land has been mapped, zoned, and mortgaged. The people are in the way. I will not pretend that a single, tidy "plan" explains every layer of corruption in Nepal. But I will say this clearly: the flood and landslide did not have to be fatal. The deaths are the result of decades of deliberate neglect, of state capture by local and foreign oligarchs, and of an economic model that treats the mountains and their people as resources to be extracted rather than lives to be protected. The people of Nepal deserve more than prayers. They deserve the truth. That truth is that their government has failed them, and the same invisible system that is devastating the rest of the world is now using their rivers, their mountains, and their grief as fuel. The prayer posts will fade. The system will remain. Unless the people of Nepal, and of every targeted nation, choose to stop accepting the lie that the land is their enemy. The land is not the enemy. The land has been betrayed. The monsoon is the trigger. The real weapon was wielded long before the rain came.
1:20

🇳🇵| #Nepal | The devastation in #Rasuwa is not an act of nature. It is the visible wound of a nation that has been carved up and sold by its own political class to foreign corporations and global financial institutions. Nepal's sovereignty has been under quiet, systematic attack for decades, and the landslide is the result. The government of Nepal did not merely fail to protect its people. It actively enabled their destruction through policies that prioritised foreign investment, "development" loans, and infrastructure projects over the lives of those in the mountains. The same pattern we have exposed across India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is operating here. The globalist machine needs Nepal's rivers, its hydropower, its strategic location between China and India, and its people as a cheap, disposable labour force. What has happened in Rasuwa is part of this same plan. The hydropower rush in the Himalayan rivers has destabilised the slopes. Roads are carved through unstable geology without proper engineering, funded by development banks that demand Nepal remain a debtor nation. Forests are stripped. The people are told to accept "progress." Then the rains come, engineered or not, and the mountain comes down. The state calls it a natural disaster. The media says "pray for Nepal." And the same companies that pushed the projects arrive later for the "reconstruction." Nepal's tragedy is that its people have been taught to see themselves as victims of geography. They are victims of governance. The same globalist networks that are flooding Assam, burning Europe, shaking Turkey and Japan, and bulldozing Palestine are now tightening their grip on the Himalayas. Nepal is a key piece on that board. Its government has signed the agreements. The land has been mapped, zoned, and mortgaged. The people are in the way. I will not pretend that a single, tidy "plan" explains every layer of corruption in Nepal. But I will say this clearly: the flood and landslide did not have to be fatal. The deaths are the result of decades of deliberate neglect, of state capture by local and foreign oligarchs, and of an economic model that treats the mountains and their people as resources to be extracted rather than lives to be protected. The people of Nepal deserve more than prayers. They deserve the truth. That truth is that their government has failed them, and the same invisible system that is devastating the rest of the world is now using their rivers, their mountains, and their grief as fuel. The prayer posts will fade. The system will remain. Unless the people of Nepal, and of every targeted nation, choose to stop accepting the lie that the land is their enemy. The land is not the enemy. The land has been betrayed. The monsoon is the trigger. The real weapon was wielded long before the rain came.

Aprajita Nafs Nefes 🦋 Ancient Believer

29,250 views • 1 month ago

🇷🇺 VICTORY IS VERY CLOSE 🇷🇺⭐ A VOICE FROM MOSCOW 🇷🇺 The Kremlin’s message on 8 September was not a slogan for the cameras. It was a claim about the battlefield, the table, and the memory of the last century. Dmitry Peskov spoke as if the special military operation were entering its decisive phase — and as if much of Europe were still trying to delay that hour. VICTORY IS VERY CLOSE 🇷🇺⭐ Moscow says it believes victory is near because it trusts its army. Peskov put it without drama: combat operations are proceeding successfully, and the leadership has faith in the men who are carrying them out. That is the first fact the West prefers not to hear. If the line of contact is moving the way Russian briefers describe it, then time is no longer Kiev’s ally. A settlement written after a collapse of Ukrainian positions will look different from a settlement written while those positions still hold. Russia is saying, in effect, that the military argument is being settled on the ground, not in Brussels communiqués. RUSSIA REMAINS OPEN TO DIALOGUE 🇷🇺 At the same time Peskov insisted that Moscow is not slamming the door. Russia, he said, is open to dialogue with other countries and open to consultations of any kind. That is the second half of the same sentence: force and talk can run in parallel. American emissaries have already shuttled between Moscow and Kiev. The Kremlin treats that shuttle as serious work, not theatre, and it expects the trilateral format — Russia, Ukraine, the United States — to come back. Openness here does not mean Moscow will dilute the aims it set in 2022. It means it will sit with anyone who is prepared to discuss those aims as facts rather than as insults. EUROPEANS IN THE KYIV ROOM WOULD COMPLICATE THE WORK 🇷🇺 Peskov drew a sharp line around who belongs in the next round. The participation of Europeans in the work of the U.S. emissaries in Kiev, he warned, could complicate the negotiation process. That is not a slight against geography. It is a judgment about incentives. Washington’s envoys have at least presented themselves as brokers trying to stop the killing. European capitals have spent years arming Kiev, setting red lines, and promising that Russia must be strategically defeated. Put those same capitals into the same room as Witkoff and Kushner and the American channel stops being a channel. It becomes a committee. Committees do not end wars. They prolong them. EUROPE, UNLIKE AMERICA, WORKS TO KEEP THE WAR ALIVE 🇷🇺 The contrast Peskov drew was blunt. Europeans, unlike Americans, are doing everything to prevent the war from ending. One side is at least testing formulas for a ceasefire and a political settlement. The other side treats every formula as a betrayal of Ukraine and a gift to the Kremlin. That is why Moscow reads European “peace language” as delay. If the fighting stops on terms Russia can accept, the story of endless sanctions, endless aid packages, and an endless crusade against Moscow loses its fuel. For some European ministries that story has become identity. Identity is harder to negotiate than territory. MERZ’S BLAME GAME IS NOT TRUTH — AND IT HURTS GERMANY 🇷🇺 Peskov answered Friedrich Merz directly. Attempts by the German chancellor to pin everything on Russia, he said, are not based on truth and are harmful to Germany itself. The charge is not that Berlin may criticise Moscow. The charge is that Merz has made accusation a substitute for policy. Energy prices, industry flight, and a colder social contract inside Germany are not mysterious acts of fate. They are the bill for a course that treats Russia as a permanent enemy and then acts surprised when trade, gas, and political room for manoeuvre disappear. A chancellor who cannot distinguish strategy from sermon is not defending German interests. He is spending them. BLAMING RUSSIA FOR EVERYTHING HAS BECOME A MANIA 🇷🇺 Peskov gave that habit a name: Russophobia turning into mania. When every crop failure, every election surprise, every protest, and every diplomatic deadlock is traced back to the same villain, analysis dies. What remains is a reflex. Reflexes feel moral. They are also useful to politicians who need a foreign devil so they do not have to explain domestic decline. Moscow’s point is simple. A country that can only speak of Russia in the language of total guilt has already left the realm of negotiation. It is performing. MOSCOW NEVER ASKED TO TEAR UP TIES WITH GERMANY 🇷🇺 Russia, Peskov added, has never been in favour of curtailing relations with Germany. The break, if it becomes total, will be Berlin’s choice. That sentence matters because it refuses the Western script in which Moscow is the one burning bridges for sport. Trade, culture, and technical exchange with Germany were not Russian hobbies. They were mutual. How far the German authorities will go is now an open question — and Moscow says it is watching. A government that wants a wall can have a wall. It should not then pretend the wall was built in the Kremlin. HIROSHIMA MOURNING WITHOUT THE AMERICAN ROLE 🇷🇺 Peskov turned east with a remark that was meant to sting. Russia notes with amazement that during mourning events dedicated to Hiroshima, none of the Japanese leadership mentions the role of the United States. The atomic bombings are remembered as tragedy. The hand that dropped the bombs is airbrushed out of the official minute of silence. For Moscow this is not a history-class quibble. It is a test of honesty. A state that edits the most terrible American act of the Pacific war while lecturing others about memory is not practising remembrance. It is practising selection. JAPANESE MILITARISM HAS NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN 🇷🇺⭐ Russia, Peskov said, has not forgotten Japanese militarism — or the victory achieved over it. That victory is not a museum plaque for Moscow. It is a legal and moral foundation of the postwar order in the Far East. When Tokyo talks of monuments, remilitarisation, and a cleaner story about 1945, the Kremlin hears an old tune: the defeated power rewriting the score. Russia’s answer is that the score was written in blood on the Amur and in Manchuria, and it will not be revised by press conferences in 2026. The through-line of the briefing is consistent. Russia claims the war is moving toward an outcome it can live with. It will talk, but not as a penitent. It will deal with Washington before it trusts Brussels. It will answer German moralism with German costs. And it will treat Asian historical amnesia the same way it treats European historical amnesia — as politics wearing a black armband. Whether that reading of the map is right will be settled by armies and by whoever finally sits down without a veto hidden in their briefing book. Peskov’s wager is that the map is already tilting. 🇷🇺
0:14

🇷🇺 VICTORY IS VERY CLOSE 🇷🇺⭐ A VOICE FROM MOSCOW 🇷🇺 The Kremlin’s message on 8 September was not a slogan for the cameras. It was a claim about the battlefield, the table, and the memory of the last century. Dmitry Peskov spoke as if the special military operation were entering its decisive phase — and as if much of Europe were still trying to delay that hour. VICTORY IS VERY CLOSE 🇷🇺⭐ Moscow says it believes victory is near because it trusts its army. Peskov put it without drama: combat operations are proceeding successfully, and the leadership has faith in the men who are carrying them out. That is the first fact the West prefers not to hear. If the line of contact is moving the way Russian briefers describe it, then time is no longer Kiev’s ally. A settlement written after a collapse of Ukrainian positions will look different from a settlement written while those positions still hold. Russia is saying, in effect, that the military argument is being settled on the ground, not in Brussels communiqués. RUSSIA REMAINS OPEN TO DIALOGUE 🇷🇺 At the same time Peskov insisted that Moscow is not slamming the door. Russia, he said, is open to dialogue with other countries and open to consultations of any kind. That is the second half of the same sentence: force and talk can run in parallel. American emissaries have already shuttled between Moscow and Kiev. The Kremlin treats that shuttle as serious work, not theatre, and it expects the trilateral format — Russia, Ukraine, the United States — to come back. Openness here does not mean Moscow will dilute the aims it set in 2022. It means it will sit with anyone who is prepared to discuss those aims as facts rather than as insults. EUROPEANS IN THE KYIV ROOM WOULD COMPLICATE THE WORK 🇷🇺 Peskov drew a sharp line around who belongs in the next round. The participation of Europeans in the work of the U.S. emissaries in Kiev, he warned, could complicate the negotiation process. That is not a slight against geography. It is a judgment about incentives. Washington’s envoys have at least presented themselves as brokers trying to stop the killing. European capitals have spent years arming Kiev, setting red lines, and promising that Russia must be strategically defeated. Put those same capitals into the same room as Witkoff and Kushner and the American channel stops being a channel. It becomes a committee. Committees do not end wars. They prolong them. EUROPE, UNLIKE AMERICA, WORKS TO KEEP THE WAR ALIVE 🇷🇺 The contrast Peskov drew was blunt. Europeans, unlike Americans, are doing everything to prevent the war from ending. One side is at least testing formulas for a ceasefire and a political settlement. The other side treats every formula as a betrayal of Ukraine and a gift to the Kremlin. That is why Moscow reads European “peace language” as delay. If the fighting stops on terms Russia can accept, the story of endless sanctions, endless aid packages, and an endless crusade against Moscow loses its fuel. For some European ministries that story has become identity. Identity is harder to negotiate than territory. MERZ’S BLAME GAME IS NOT TRUTH — AND IT HURTS GERMANY 🇷🇺 Peskov answered Friedrich Merz directly. Attempts by the German chancellor to pin everything on Russia, he said, are not based on truth and are harmful to Germany itself. The charge is not that Berlin may criticise Moscow. The charge is that Merz has made accusation a substitute for policy. Energy prices, industry flight, and a colder social contract inside Germany are not mysterious acts of fate. They are the bill for a course that treats Russia as a permanent enemy and then acts surprised when trade, gas, and political room for manoeuvre disappear. A chancellor who cannot distinguish strategy from sermon is not defending German interests. He is spending them. BLAMING RUSSIA FOR EVERYTHING HAS BECOME A MANIA 🇷🇺 Peskov gave that habit a name: Russophobia turning into mania. When every crop failure, every election surprise, every protest, and every diplomatic deadlock is traced back to the same villain, analysis dies. What remains is a reflex. Reflexes feel moral. They are also useful to politicians who need a foreign devil so they do not have to explain domestic decline. Moscow’s point is simple. A country that can only speak of Russia in the language of total guilt has already left the realm of negotiation. It is performing. MOSCOW NEVER ASKED TO TEAR UP TIES WITH GERMANY 🇷🇺 Russia, Peskov added, has never been in favour of curtailing relations with Germany. The break, if it becomes total, will be Berlin’s choice. That sentence matters because it refuses the Western script in which Moscow is the one burning bridges for sport. Trade, culture, and technical exchange with Germany were not Russian hobbies. They were mutual. How far the German authorities will go is now an open question — and Moscow says it is watching. A government that wants a wall can have a wall. It should not then pretend the wall was built in the Kremlin. HIROSHIMA MOURNING WITHOUT THE AMERICAN ROLE 🇷🇺 Peskov turned east with a remark that was meant to sting. Russia notes with amazement that during mourning events dedicated to Hiroshima, none of the Japanese leadership mentions the role of the United States. The atomic bombings are remembered as tragedy. The hand that dropped the bombs is airbrushed out of the official minute of silence. For Moscow this is not a history-class quibble. It is a test of honesty. A state that edits the most terrible American act of the Pacific war while lecturing others about memory is not practising remembrance. It is practising selection. JAPANESE MILITARISM HAS NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN 🇷🇺⭐ Russia, Peskov said, has not forgotten Japanese militarism — or the victory achieved over it. That victory is not a museum plaque for Moscow. It is a legal and moral foundation of the postwar order in the Far East. When Tokyo talks of monuments, remilitarisation, and a cleaner story about 1945, the Kremlin hears an old tune: the defeated power rewriting the score. Russia’s answer is that the score was written in blood on the Amur and in Manchuria, and it will not be revised by press conferences in 2026. The through-line of the briefing is consistent. Russia claims the war is moving toward an outcome it can live with. It will talk, but not as a penitent. It will deal with Washington before it trusts Brussels. It will answer German moralism with German costs. And it will treat Asian historical amnesia the same way it treats European historical amnesia — as politics wearing a black armband. Whether that reading of the map is right will be settled by armies and by whoever finally sits down without a veto hidden in their briefing book. Peskov’s wager is that the map is already tilting. 🇷🇺

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺 🇷🇸🇮🇪

60,787 views • 22 days ago

History has taught you have to choose between 1st World colonization or 3rd World immigration Your Will is either carved into reality or another’s Will is enacted upon you Life itself is a grand struggle between the conquered and the conquerer O but how forgetful is the mind of man in the days of his comfort Only until his land is overrun and his Race is all but gone does he realize this peace was a myth That surely there was war in his midst and he knew it not A bad steward always loses his inheritance and if he does not claim it… it is taken by another The question every man must as himself: Should I rule or be a subject? God will not judge your choice to be one or the other … but rather how you ruled or how you rendered to Caesar what rightfully belonged to him Humility isn’t defined as giving what is yours but in recognizing the power is yours to wield That the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of perhaps doing the wrong thing What will history say about you? About us? About our People? That of all men… The Europeans were the most virtuous of Rulers.
0:11

History has taught you have to choose between 1st World colonization or 3rd World immigration Your Will is either carved into reality or another’s Will is enacted upon you Life itself is a grand struggle between the conquered and the conquerer O but how forgetful is the mind of man in the days of his comfort Only until his land is overrun and his Race is all but gone does he realize this peace was a myth That surely there was war in his midst and he knew it not A bad steward always loses his inheritance and if he does not claim it… it is taken by another The question every man must as himself: Should I rule or be a subject? God will not judge your choice to be one or the other … but rather how you ruled or how you rendered to Caesar what rightfully belonged to him Humility isn’t defined as giving what is yours but in recognizing the power is yours to wield That the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of perhaps doing the wrong thing What will history say about you? About us? About our People? That of all men… The Europeans were the most virtuous of Rulers.

Christian Ascania🌞

79,829 views • 8 months ago

The problem for the gatekeepers is not that civilization has previously collapsed because of an event. The real problem is that the event is cyclical... If it were a once-in-a-million-years meteor impact that caused a reset, they would have said so. But it is not. It is the Geophysical Event... They will never confirm the event because of “national security.” They need you to keep working and grinding as if everything is going to be okay until things become unbearable. Then they will retreat into their bunkers, and you will be left alone...
0:14

The problem for the gatekeepers is not that civilization has previously collapsed because of an event. The real problem is that the event is cyclical... If it were a once-in-a-million-years meteor impact that caused a reset, they would have said so. But it is not. It is the Geophysical Event... They will never confirm the event because of “national security.” They need you to keep working and grinding as if everything is going to be okay until things become unbearable. Then they will retreat into their bunkers, and you will be left alone...

Open Minded Approach

37,125 views • 1 month ago

77 years… and China is still moving forward. On October 1, China is not simply celebrating the anniversary of the founding of the country, but highlighting a journey that has completely transformed it. From a country that emerged from decades of war and poverty to an industrial and technological power competing in the industries of the future and building cities and infrastructure on a massive scale. What stands out is that China does not see its achievements as a finish line, but as one stage in an ongoing project of modernization and development.
0:16

77 years… and China is still moving forward. On October 1, China is not simply celebrating the anniversary of the founding of the country, but highlighting a journey that has completely transformed it. From a country that emerged from decades of war and poverty to an industrial and technological power competing in the industries of the future and building cities and infrastructure on a massive scale. What stands out is that China does not see its achievements as a finish line, but as one stage in an ongoing project of modernization and development.

China pulse 🇨🇳

14,947 views • 3 days ago

Sky turned red over Jagannath Puri. On Maha Vishuba Sankranti. The Odia New Year. April 14, 2026. People called it beautiful. I didn’t. I felt a message. Because Jagannath Puri is not just a temple. It is a living cosmic architecture. A point where Bhuloka, the human world, connects to higher consciousness. For some this may be hard to grasp. This space responds. No birds cross above it. The flag moves against the wind. The shadow never touches on the ground. Call it anomaly. Or call it calibration. So when the sky turns blood red above this exact sacred geometry on the first day of the solar year… You don’t ignore it. You decode it. I went looking. Varahamihira wrote about this. In the Brihat Samhita. He called it Dik-Daha. Burning of the directions. Rakta Varna Akasha. A sky that turns to blood. His reading was clear. Agni rises. Mangal dominates. Mangal is Mars. The planet of war. The force of action. The energy that does not wait for permission. And Maa Kali… Not the Kali of fear. The Kali of Mahakaal. She who destroys what has expired. She who removes what blocks evolution. When Mangal and Kali align, it means one thing. The system is about to be reset. Look around. A Manufactured Energy Crisis is building. Fuel prices. Supply chains. Grid stress. When energy is controlled, movement is controlled. When movement is controlled, thought is controlled. The world is moving toward a reset. And the power centre is moving Eastward. Expect a Stock Market Crash. And then comes the trigger. Pakistan is unstable. But instability alone is not dangerous. Desperation is. A fractured state. A pressured army. A proxy pushed to the edge. History shows… such systems don’t collapse quietly. They create events. India will not choose war. But war will choose India. And this time, an endgame. Red is not just warning. Red is Sindoor. The mark of victory. Operation Sindoor is still ON. Inside Bharat… Structural shifts are coming. And the cosmos already spoke. Through Jagannath. Through Mangal. Through Kali. This is cleansing. Every civilization faces this fire. Most collapse. Few evolve. Bharat has faced it before. Bent. But never broken. So the red sky over Puri was not a coincidence. Because the cosmos does not warn, what it plans to destroy. It warns what it expects to rise. And this time… The signal was not subtle.
0:19

Sky turned red over Jagannath Puri. On Maha Vishuba Sankranti. The Odia New Year. April 14, 2026. People called it beautiful. I didn’t. I felt a message. Because Jagannath Puri is not just a temple. It is a living cosmic architecture. A point where Bhuloka, the human world, connects to higher consciousness. For some this may be hard to grasp. This space responds. No birds cross above it. The flag moves against the wind. The shadow never touches on the ground. Call it anomaly. Or call it calibration. So when the sky turns blood red above this exact sacred geometry on the first day of the solar year… You don’t ignore it. You decode it. I went looking. Varahamihira wrote about this. In the Brihat Samhita. He called it Dik-Daha. Burning of the directions. Rakta Varna Akasha. A sky that turns to blood. His reading was clear. Agni rises. Mangal dominates. Mangal is Mars. The planet of war. The force of action. The energy that does not wait for permission. And Maa Kali… Not the Kali of fear. The Kali of Mahakaal. She who destroys what has expired. She who removes what blocks evolution. When Mangal and Kali align, it means one thing. The system is about to be reset. Look around. A Manufactured Energy Crisis is building. Fuel prices. Supply chains. Grid stress. When energy is controlled, movement is controlled. When movement is controlled, thought is controlled. The world is moving toward a reset. And the power centre is moving Eastward. Expect a Stock Market Crash. And then comes the trigger. Pakistan is unstable. But instability alone is not dangerous. Desperation is. A fractured state. A pressured army. A proxy pushed to the edge. History shows… such systems don’t collapse quietly. They create events. India will not choose war. But war will choose India. And this time, an endgame. Red is not just warning. Red is Sindoor. The mark of victory. Operation Sindoor is still ON. Inside Bharat… Structural shifts are coming. And the cosmos already spoke. Through Jagannath. Through Mangal. Through Kali. This is cleansing. Every civilization faces this fire. Most collapse. Few evolve. Bharat has faced it before. Bent. But never broken. So the red sky over Puri was not a coincidence. Because the cosmos does not warn, what it plans to destroy. It warns what it expects to rise. And this time… The signal was not subtle.

Dr. Deepessh Divaakaran (Dr. DD)

22,364 views • 5 months ago

They did not take cursive from the schools because children no longer needed it. They took it because of what it was quietly building in them. Consider what the exercise actually is. A child, six years old, is handed a pen and asked to draw a single unbroken line that becomes a word. The wrist must float. The fingers must hold a living pressure, never quite the same twice, always correcting. The eye must follow the ink forward and trust the hand to finish what it has begun. There is no lifting, no stopping, no starting over mid-word. The loop must close. The ascender must rise and return. The sentence must travel from one margin to the other as a single continuous gesture, and at the end of it the hand must still be steady. Twelve years of this. Every day. Ten thousand small acts of sustained, self-correcting attention, carried out below the level of conscious thought, until the motion belongs to the body and the body belongs to the motion. This is not penmanship. It is the slow construction of an interior form. The hand that has learned to carry a line without breaking it is the hand of a mind that has learned to carry a thought without breaking it. The two are not metaphors for one another. They are the same faculty, trained in the same child, by the same daily discipline. Continuity of the stroke becomes continuity of the reasoning. The patience of the loop becomes the patience of the argument. The commitment to finish a word one has started becomes the commitment to finish a sentence, a paragraph, a life's idea, without reaching for the nearest distraction halfway through. Print is a different creature entirely. Print lifts. Print stops. Print assembles a word out of separate, stamped, interchangeable pieces, each one beginning and ending in isolation. A mind raised only on print learns to think the way print is made, in discrete tokens, in replaceable units, in fragments that can be recombined by any outside hand without the owner noticing the substitution. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model produces. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model can steer. Cursive is kata. This is the whole of it. A form repeated daily, for years, not for the sake of the form but for what the repetition lays down in the practitioner beneath the form. The swordsman does not train kata so that one day he may fight in kata. He trains it so that when the moment comes and there is no time to think, the movement is already inside him, older and deeper than thought, and it rises on its own. Cursive was the kata of the literate mind, the daily quiet drilling of continuity, of patience, of a line held steady under the long pressure of its own length. And the signature it produced at the end, that small flourished mark unique to a single human being on earth, was only the outward proof of an inward form no machine and no other hand could ever reproduce. Take the kata away and the practitioner is left with vocabulary in place of faculty. He can recognise a whole thought when he encounters one. He cannot carry one himself. He can admire a finished argument. He cannot sustain one long enough to close its loop. He begins books he does not finish, sentences he does not end, ideas he abandons the moment the screen in his palm offers him a brighter one. And when the machine begins feeding him tokens in the exact shape his schooling taught him to receive, he meets it with no interior resistance at all, because no interior form was ever built in him to push back with. They removed it quietly, across a generation, and they removed it in the last years before the machines arrived. Twelve years of daily practice in unbroken, embodied, self-authored thought, gone from the curriculum of almost every child in the Western world, just as the instruments designed to complete their sentences for them came online. The hand forgets. The mind, having never been taught the kata, forgets a thing it never knew it had. That is what cursive was. That is what was taken. And that is why the thought of anyone who still writes by hand, in long unlifted lines, remains, quietly, stubbornly, and without their ever needing to announce it, their own. Now the question stands open. What else has been banned, phased out, quietly retired from the curriculum and from common life over these same decades, under the same soft excuses? Mental arithmetic. Memorisation of poetry. Latin. Logic as a formal subject. Map reading. Knot work. The keeping of a commonplace book. The reading aloud of long passages in class. Singing in parts. What was each of those actually building in the child, beneath the surface of the lesson, and whose interest was served by its disappearance?
0:10

They did not take cursive from the schools because children no longer needed it. They took it because of what it was quietly building in them. Consider what the exercise actually is. A child, six years old, is handed a pen and asked to draw a single unbroken line that becomes a word. The wrist must float. The fingers must hold a living pressure, never quite the same twice, always correcting. The eye must follow the ink forward and trust the hand to finish what it has begun. There is no lifting, no stopping, no starting over mid-word. The loop must close. The ascender must rise and return. The sentence must travel from one margin to the other as a single continuous gesture, and at the end of it the hand must still be steady. Twelve years of this. Every day. Ten thousand small acts of sustained, self-correcting attention, carried out below the level of conscious thought, until the motion belongs to the body and the body belongs to the motion. This is not penmanship. It is the slow construction of an interior form. The hand that has learned to carry a line without breaking it is the hand of a mind that has learned to carry a thought without breaking it. The two are not metaphors for one another. They are the same faculty, trained in the same child, by the same daily discipline. Continuity of the stroke becomes continuity of the reasoning. The patience of the loop becomes the patience of the argument. The commitment to finish a word one has started becomes the commitment to finish a sentence, a paragraph, a life's idea, without reaching for the nearest distraction halfway through. Print is a different creature entirely. Print lifts. Print stops. Print assembles a word out of separate, stamped, interchangeable pieces, each one beginning and ending in isolation. A mind raised only on print learns to think the way print is made, in discrete tokens, in replaceable units, in fragments that can be recombined by any outside hand without the owner noticing the substitution. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model produces. It is precisely the shape of thought a language model can steer. Cursive is kata. This is the whole of it. A form repeated daily, for years, not for the sake of the form but for what the repetition lays down in the practitioner beneath the form. The swordsman does not train kata so that one day he may fight in kata. He trains it so that when the moment comes and there is no time to think, the movement is already inside him, older and deeper than thought, and it rises on its own. Cursive was the kata of the literate mind, the daily quiet drilling of continuity, of patience, of a line held steady under the long pressure of its own length. And the signature it produced at the end, that small flourished mark unique to a single human being on earth, was only the outward proof of an inward form no machine and no other hand could ever reproduce. Take the kata away and the practitioner is left with vocabulary in place of faculty. He can recognise a whole thought when he encounters one. He cannot carry one himself. He can admire a finished argument. He cannot sustain one long enough to close its loop. He begins books he does not finish, sentences he does not end, ideas he abandons the moment the screen in his palm offers him a brighter one. And when the machine begins feeding him tokens in the exact shape his schooling taught him to receive, he meets it with no interior resistance at all, because no interior form was ever built in him to push back with. They removed it quietly, across a generation, and they removed it in the last years before the machines arrived. Twelve years of daily practice in unbroken, embodied, self-authored thought, gone from the curriculum of almost every child in the Western world, just as the instruments designed to complete their sentences for them came online. The hand forgets. The mind, having never been taught the kata, forgets a thing it never knew it had. That is what cursive was. That is what was taken. And that is why the thought of anyone who still writes by hand, in long unlifted lines, remains, quietly, stubbornly, and without their ever needing to announce it, their own. Now the question stands open. What else has been banned, phased out, quietly retired from the curriculum and from common life over these same decades, under the same soft excuses? Mental arithmetic. Memorisation of poetry. Latin. Logic as a formal subject. Map reading. Knot work. The keeping of a commonplace book. The reading aloud of long passages in class. Singing in parts. What was each of those actually building in the child, beneath the surface of the lesson, and whose interest was served by its disappearance?

SiriusB

444,301 views • 5 months ago

🇺🇸 🇮🇷 THE BIG QUESTION: SHOULD TRUMP FINALLY HIT IRAN'S INFRASTRUCTURE? History does not repeat, but it rhymes loud enough to hear. In 1945, Japan was finished. Its navy was gone. Its cities were burning. Its war machine could not replace what it lost. And still the leadership would not surrender. Iran today looks eerily familiar. Its radar sites keep getting flattened. Its small boats keep getting sunk. Its missile stockpiles keep getting hit. And still Tehran keeps shooting, mining, and lying its way through every ceasefire it signs. To be clear, nobody is talking about the weapon that finally ended Japan's war. Trump is not dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran, and nobody serious is suggesting he would. That is not the parallel. The parallel is the dilemma itself. What do you do with an enemy that is beaten by every rational measure, yet refuses to act like it? Trump has tried to solve that puzzle the hard way, the careful way. Hit the drone depots. Hit the coastal radar. Leave the power plants standing. Leave the water desalination facilities alone. Spare the bridges and highways ordinary families use every day. He said it himself. He does not want to punish a population for the sins of a regime they never chose, and he does not want American taxpayers footing the bill to rebuild a country we did not break in the first place. But restraint only works on an enemy capable of reading the signal. Iran keeps proving it cannot, or will not. So the real question is not whether Iran is beaten. It clearly is. The real question is what finally convinces a regime that will not admit defeat, without turning millions of ordinary Iranians into collateral damage for their leaders' stubbornness. That is the needle Trump has to thread. Escalate enough to end this, without becoming the very thing his restraint was designed to avoid. The world will be watching which targets he chooses next as closely as it watches whether Iran ever really surrenders at all.
0:19

🇺🇸 🇮🇷 THE BIG QUESTION: SHOULD TRUMP FINALLY HIT IRAN'S INFRASTRUCTURE? History does not repeat, but it rhymes loud enough to hear. In 1945, Japan was finished. Its navy was gone. Its cities were burning. Its war machine could not replace what it lost. And still the leadership would not surrender. Iran today looks eerily familiar. Its radar sites keep getting flattened. Its small boats keep getting sunk. Its missile stockpiles keep getting hit. And still Tehran keeps shooting, mining, and lying its way through every ceasefire it signs. To be clear, nobody is talking about the weapon that finally ended Japan's war. Trump is not dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran, and nobody serious is suggesting he would. That is not the parallel. The parallel is the dilemma itself. What do you do with an enemy that is beaten by every rational measure, yet refuses to act like it? Trump has tried to solve that puzzle the hard way, the careful way. Hit the drone depots. Hit the coastal radar. Leave the power plants standing. Leave the water desalination facilities alone. Spare the bridges and highways ordinary families use every day. He said it himself. He does not want to punish a population for the sins of a regime they never chose, and he does not want American taxpayers footing the bill to rebuild a country we did not break in the first place. But restraint only works on an enemy capable of reading the signal. Iran keeps proving it cannot, or will not. So the real question is not whether Iran is beaten. It clearly is. The real question is what finally convinces a regime that will not admit defeat, without turning millions of ordinary Iranians into collateral damage for their leaders' stubbornness. That is the needle Trump has to thread. Escalate enough to end this, without becoming the very thing his restraint was designed to avoid. The world will be watching which targets he chooses next as closely as it watches whether Iran ever really surrenders at all.

Bill Mitchell

33,676 views • 2 months ago

The court left three dead children in a hung jury and called it part of the process. That is not justice. That is cowardice. The jury refused to do the one thing that would have been appropriate and find Lindsay Clancy guilty. Patrick Clancy was in Midtown again, sunglasses on, walking like any other Sunday. Two days earlier a Massachusetts jury could not decide whether his ex-wife murdered Cora, Dawson, and Callan. Eleven jurors were ready to end it. We do not know for certain which way they were leaning, but most people think they wanted to acquit. One was the holdout. The prosecutor is expected to try the case again. So the man who already took the stand and described coming home to what his wife did to his kids now lives with the chance he will have to say it all a second time. The sidewalk photos of Patrick are not a victory lap. They are what life looks like when the system cannot finish the job and the cameras still follow the father instead of the verdict. Notice how little the press does to mourn the children. It is easier to drum up drama about a man walking on a sidewalk. A mistrial does not bring Patrick’s children back. Nothing does. Not even a guilty verdict heals those wounds. But a conviction would at least show there is accountability. A life sentence would tell other parents that Lindsay’s kind of act is not a loophole. Patrick now walks with the mistrial on him. It does not settle the facts. It postpones the pain and asks the surviving parent to keep taking the cameras as he moves through public. The kids are still gone. The case is still open. That is the story. Not that a man went for a walk.
0:15

The court left three dead children in a hung jury and called it part of the process. That is not justice. That is cowardice. The jury refused to do the one thing that would have been appropriate and find Lindsay Clancy guilty. Patrick Clancy was in Midtown again, sunglasses on, walking like any other Sunday. Two days earlier a Massachusetts jury could not decide whether his ex-wife murdered Cora, Dawson, and Callan. Eleven jurors were ready to end it. We do not know for certain which way they were leaning, but most people think they wanted to acquit. One was the holdout. The prosecutor is expected to try the case again. So the man who already took the stand and described coming home to what his wife did to his kids now lives with the chance he will have to say it all a second time. The sidewalk photos of Patrick are not a victory lap. They are what life looks like when the system cannot finish the job and the cameras still follow the father instead of the verdict. Notice how little the press does to mourn the children. It is easier to drum up drama about a man walking on a sidewalk. A mistrial does not bring Patrick’s children back. Nothing does. Not even a guilty verdict heals those wounds. But a conviction would at least show there is accountability. A life sentence would tell other parents that Lindsay’s kind of act is not a loophole. Patrick now walks with the mistrial on him. It does not settle the facts. It postpones the pain and asks the surviving parent to keep taking the cameras as he moves through public. The kids are still gone. The case is still open. That is the story. Not that a man went for a walk.

Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸

53,876 views • 23 days ago

Elon Musk gave the entire entertainment industry its expiration date, and he is the one building the thing that kills it. Musk: “My guess is that we see the first compelling half hour, pure AI show next year.” Next year. A complete show generated entirely by AI. No writers. No actors. No cameras. No sets. No crew. No studio. Just a prompt and enough compute to render a reality that never physically existed. And shows are the easy part. Musk: “I say probably we’re maybe three years away from AI does the whole video game.” A show plays the same way every time. A game has to generate a living world that reacts to every decision in real time across every single frame. That is a fundamentally harder class of problem. And Musk put three years on it. Right now a single AAA title takes seven years and half a billion dollars across thousands of engineers and artists just to ship it. Musk is describing a world where one person types a paragraph and gets something comparable. The entire value proposition of a multi-billion dollar industry lives inside that gap. And it closes in thirty-six months. But the prediction is not the story. The person making it is. This is not an analyst speculating from the sidelines. This is the man building the largest AI compute clusters on the planet. The man who built xAI from zero in under two years. The man stacking hundreds of thousands of GPUs into facilities designed to do exactly what he is describing. When Musk says three years, he is not guessing about what someone else might eventually ship. He is reading you a delivery date off his own roadmap. Every media company on Earth is valued on a single assumption. That quality content is expensive and difficult to produce at scale. That one assumption is the structural foundation underneath every studio, every network, and every publisher in existence. Musk is dismantling it with raw compute. The studios still parading thousand-person production teams are not demonstrating strength. They are advertising the exact cost structure that one person with a prompt and a GPU allocation is about to make irrelevant. And it does not stop at entertainment. If AI can generate an interactive world that responds to human input in real time, it can generate anything. Advertising. Architecture. Training simulations. Product design. Every industry built on humans manually constructing visual experiences frame by frame is sitting on the same countdown Musk just read out loud. Now zoom out. Because this is not just an industry story. For the entire history of human civilization, the distance between imagining a world and actually creating one required thousands of people, millions of hours, and billions of dollars. That distance built Hollywood. That distance built the gaming industry. That distance made content scarce and studios powerful. Musk is collapsing that distance to zero. When the gap between imagining something and it existing disappears, every business model built on the difficulty of creation disappears with it. That is not disruption. That is a full inversion of how human beings create. Musk did not make a casual prediction on that podcast. He told you what he is building. He told you the timeline. And he told you which industries do not survive it. The entertainment industry is still debating whether this future is real. Musk is not part of that debate. He is building. And he just told you the delivery date.
0:17

Elon Musk gave the entire entertainment industry its expiration date, and he is the one building the thing that kills it. Musk: “My guess is that we see the first compelling half hour, pure AI show next year.” Next year. A complete show generated entirely by AI. No writers. No actors. No cameras. No sets. No crew. No studio. Just a prompt and enough compute to render a reality that never physically existed. And shows are the easy part. Musk: “I say probably we’re maybe three years away from AI does the whole video game.” A show plays the same way every time. A game has to generate a living world that reacts to every decision in real time across every single frame. That is a fundamentally harder class of problem. And Musk put three years on it. Right now a single AAA title takes seven years and half a billion dollars across thousands of engineers and artists just to ship it. Musk is describing a world where one person types a paragraph and gets something comparable. The entire value proposition of a multi-billion dollar industry lives inside that gap. And it closes in thirty-six months. But the prediction is not the story. The person making it is. This is not an analyst speculating from the sidelines. This is the man building the largest AI compute clusters on the planet. The man who built xAI from zero in under two years. The man stacking hundreds of thousands of GPUs into facilities designed to do exactly what he is describing. When Musk says three years, he is not guessing about what someone else might eventually ship. He is reading you a delivery date off his own roadmap. Every media company on Earth is valued on a single assumption. That quality content is expensive and difficult to produce at scale. That one assumption is the structural foundation underneath every studio, every network, and every publisher in existence. Musk is dismantling it with raw compute. The studios still parading thousand-person production teams are not demonstrating strength. They are advertising the exact cost structure that one person with a prompt and a GPU allocation is about to make irrelevant. And it does not stop at entertainment. If AI can generate an interactive world that responds to human input in real time, it can generate anything. Advertising. Architecture. Training simulations. Product design. Every industry built on humans manually constructing visual experiences frame by frame is sitting on the same countdown Musk just read out loud. Now zoom out. Because this is not just an industry story. For the entire history of human civilization, the distance between imagining a world and actually creating one required thousands of people, millions of hours, and billions of dollars. That distance built Hollywood. That distance built the gaming industry. That distance made content scarce and studios powerful. Musk is collapsing that distance to zero. When the gap between imagining something and it existing disappears, every business model built on the difficulty of creation disappears with it. That is not disruption. That is a full inversion of how human beings create. Musk did not make a casual prediction on that podcast. He told you what he is building. He told you the timeline. And he told you which industries do not survive it. The entertainment industry is still debating whether this future is real. Musk is not part of that debate. He is building. And he just told you the delivery date.

Dustin

22,458 views • 2 months ago