Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Fred gets dominated by the Karelia. hope u like😁 Model: 🔞Cryptia🔞 Zanic 💚Making Vrchat avatars 💚 og Eye texture from: ~Ash the Bunny~ #Fazclaires #nsfw #blender #cryptiacurves #backroom #backrooms
28,150 просмотров • 2 лет назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
Похожие видео
2:16
Sensitive content
It's a late night and the party is over. But you run into a beauty from the stars and mama only plays all the great classics~. She's looking forward to fun with you. <3 model by: 🔞Cryptia🔞 #fnaf #fnia #fnafsbnsfw #FiveNightsatFreddys #fnafnsfw #nsfw
ゼノン
32,504 просмотров • 2 лет назад
0:29
Sensitive content
ASMR Storytime | Fall Asleep Listening to the Squid Sisters | Splatoween Date with Marie 🎃 “Marie totally sounds like that, doesn’t she?”One of my favorite scenes from my latest audio! I love these two so much!! Artwork by LazGM (Closed commissions) NSFW 🔞 💚
yumeparadox 🌌
26,048 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад
![Hey True Earthers... If you get tired of globers bitching about a model, or sunrise angles, or star trails, or sunlight, or eclipses, anyone can ALWAYS reference THIS MODEL The reason it is called "Shane's Mode;" is strictly so YOU can use it, and I can take all the criticism, insults, ridicule, jokes, attacks, etc. The general idea is that the community gets the considerable benefit of presenting an accurate model and using it to explain several normal phenomena at once. Then, only I get the drawbacks of all that will surely come from it, and everyone else will benefit. I planned it this way, because I largely don't care about what any of the globers piling the hate over here so we can press forward. Or.. you know, f*ck me for saying the word model, and for bendy light or for whatever. If that's the case, no hard feelings. One last thing, the smaller dome in the model simply represents the limit of an observers view, a spherical limit with a radius of 3959. The math that supports that is here... and here. The descriptions are entirely reworked, mostly spelling error free, and entirely plausible. So feel free to bring it up in debates, forums, streams, podcasts, or whatever you like. The model adequately emulates and explains all of these observations: Sunrise, Sunset, Moonrise, Moonset, Moon Phases, Moon's apparent rotation, Sun's position on Equinox, Seasons, some aspects of Solar and Lunar Eclipses, Star trails, 24 hours Day/Night at the North-pole and Antarctica, Celestial Poles, Why people south of the equator can see the same Stars rotate clockwise around a singe celestial pole at the same time at different continents [Southern Cross Observations] Cheers everyone! The FULL Description is below, and it is LONG. Sorry. The Model This model does not assume a physical Sun nor Moon which will show a collective convergence for every observer on Earth. It only matches their apparent positions as observed across the plane. The Bislin model acknowledges this and moves all celestial bodies to a nearly infinite distance away. This does nothing more than create a triangle large enough that you can mathematically abstract your way into the inverse of everything you experience. The truth is there is a limit to one's visual space. And this limit is necessarily geometrically spherical. Because one never observes objects in anything but their 'apparent location' within one's personal celestial sphere, there is no need to explain a tiny ball of heat mysteriously powering itself along at 3100 miles above the plane. This is not reality. We feel we only have to model the exact apparent position for each observer. We do not have to provide an explanation for what you think should be required. This model relays the apparent size and positions of Sun, Moon and star constellations. It depicts their paths as well as the day-night terminator. Simply by observing reality and plotting that data on a planar map we demonstrate that the Sun, Moon and stars can move beyond the limit of one's vision and become unresolvable by the naked eye. We show how this can be conflated with the assertion that objects ACTUALLY drop down below the horizon when, in reality, they are only apparently dipping below the horizon when exceed limit of your vision. It is elegantly simple and easy to understand without the bullshit. Sun/Moon tracks: In 24 hours, the fixed stars rotate about 1 degree more than 360 degrees so that, in 365.25 days, the star constellations return to the same place in the sky. This is seen by incrementally advancing DayOfYear (click the field and use Arrow Up or Down). The Dome grid will advance each day by about 1 degree. Advance the time in 24 hours steps and the Sun noticeably moves between the Solstice lines. The Sun will also trace a figure 8. This is caused by the Sun's Ecliptic plane at 23.44 degrees to the orbital plane. The paths of the Sun and Moon are visible against the fixed star background (Dome Grid) by checking the options Sun track and Moon track. For a description of the tracks, click the Eclipses button. They correspond to observable reality. The tracks are derived from the solar and lunar cycles and are absolutely not exclusive to either model. It would be extremely dishonest to claim anything else. Sorry, Walter. Retrograde Motion of the Moon's track: The Sun's path stays fixed on the Dome Grid. But, the Moon's path slowly rotates retrograde against the Dome Grid and rotates one full rotation in 6,798 days. This is due to the oscillation and intersection of the Moon's orbit caused by the distant Sun. Currently, the Moon Ecliptic is such that the path of the Moon extends the path of the Sun, North/South, by about five degrees. Approximately 3,400 days later, the path of the Moon moves inside the path of the Sun by about 5 degrees. This observation is simply translated to the planar model. Eclipses: The intersection points of the Sun and Moon's paths are called Knots. Two Knots are marked by a green dot. If the Sun and Moon are on two opposing Knots, a Lunar Eclipse occurs. The Sun and Moon on the same Knot will result in a Solar Eclipse (play Demo Eclipses from Step 6 on). This Flat Earth model can predict Solar and Lunar Eclipses. It can also absolutely predict the optical effect conflated with the Moon's alleged shadow on Earth during a Solar Eclipses or vice versa. It uses a ratio of the cycle that is based on the radius of a shadow, as postulated by Phillippe de La Hire, in the 1700s. It was first calculated for a Lunar Eclipse. But, the ratio applies to all future eclipses which belong to an appropriate series. This ratio is then applied to the predicted path to dynamically widen or shorten the path in order to accommodate the penumbral and umbral radial intersection as a visible sphere on the plane. We then apply this integer as a scalar to correctly approximate the size of the optical effects conflated with shadows. All of the maps onto which the eclipse can be projected use the same globular coordinate system, unfortunately. Now, it can be shown that heliocentrism cannot predict eclipses at all. They can only interpret the cycle data in the same way the ancients did and apply more refined mathematics. Moon Phases and Orientation: The model shows the Moon phases and the orientation of the Moon with respect to the Observer's horizon. The apparent rotation of the Moon during the day is due to the fact that the camera's up vector remains perpendicular to the surface of Earth while following the path of the Moon. This perfectly matches reality. Equinox: This model produces the correct apparent Sun positions during an Equinox. The Sun rises due East at 6:00 AM and sets due West at 6:00 PM. Poles: This model produces a 24 hour day and night on the North Pole and in Antarctica. Heliocentric Model: Simple observations mathematically translated to this planar projection perfectly map the paths of the Sun, Moon and stars (star trails) as they appear to the Observer inside their personal celestial sphere. As with all other celestial observations, the Equinox, the Solstice Knots and the Day-Night terminator can be derived from basic observation and data applied to the planar projection. No need for baseless assumption. The Heliocentric model utterly fails here. Newton's laws can be reduced to exclude mass and still manage to describe the same periodicity and, thusly, the same relationship. No need for an exclusivity claim here at all, is there, Walter? Shapes on the Dome: The shape of Sun, Moon and star constellations appear on the personal celestial sphere exactly as they do in reality, and when projected onto the globe. Again, because we invoke the same radius to describe the spherical limit of our celestial view, the very same observations become easily explainable when using all of the normal conventions, with no need to invent branches of physics and invert reality. All features of this model are derived only from observations of the sky. Observations of the sky have always been kinematically equivalent - equally applicable to geocentric and heliocentric model. This was rather the point of the invention of Special and General Relativity (nonsense). Problems with the Shane's Flat Earth Model Distances: Many people misunderstand distances on map projections. On the AE map, distances measured in an exactly North-South direction are correct. Other measurements are also proportionately correct. Data translation between projections is tied to the coordinates we use. The longitude and latitude we use in any of the appropriate 200 map projections will ensure the distances between those points remain accounted for, at scale. Please learn how map scaling works if this seems inadequate to you. Only an absolute moron would expect visual distance to be equal in an equal area, or equal distance, cartographic transformation. Right, Walter? Personal Celestial Sphere: The Sun and Moon trace specific paths across the celestial sphere. The paths of the celestial bodies are directly mapped from observation to the planar projection. They also follow the cycle of the Heavens, with no need for gravity, Newton, nor the very lackluster performance of gravity based predictions of systems with 2 or more bodies. It was jaw dropping to see that poor Walter actually wrote that gravity caused this. I assume it was because he knew he would never have to answer any challenges. Show me the math which uses the gravitation from all of the forces Walter listed and I will immediately remove this section. Moon Phases and Field Rotation: Moon phase and apparent orientation, as shown, perfectly represent what every observer on Earth sees, correct to their location. The 15 year solar cycle and the 18 (10/11) month lunar cycle have been understood for so long that people eventually forgot and are now incorrectly perceive their paths. Only in modernity do the vast majority of people wander about under their own personal clock without the ability to read it. How sad. The Day/Night Terminator: The shape that matches reality is a bit peculiar and it changes over the course of a year. The shape not only depends on the location of the Sun but its height and speed as well. Again, we know the Sun circles the plane at a 23.4 degree tilt. And this perfectly defines the terminator line. There is absolutely no reason to invoke bendy light in order to explain any of these observations. The model simply matches what we see. It represents reality. Missing The Third Dimension: We need to correct the inherent misunderstanding in the assumption of the physicality of any 'dome'. Modeled here is a personal celestial sphere. It uses a radius. It just so happens that Shane has been arguing this concept and this radius since the day he showed Walter Bislan's model as evidence, amid the jeers of the uneducated masses. As it turns out, the personal celestial sphere is a visual limit imposed on one's spherical view of the heavens. It most simply describes the particular visible slice of the heavens. And it moves that amount with you where ever you go. This is such an elegant, beautiful explanation to what had been perplexing the flat Earth community for years: how the stars work. The personal celestial sphere, once properly understood, is a perfect explanation for everything we see in the sky. It explains the curved nature of the arcs of summer and winter, the behaviors of the Sun and Moon, as well as the apparent non movement of the static stars in relation to each other. Every single stellar observation is explained as well as, if not better than, any Heliocentric explanation. Any person who incorrectly assumes a visual distance scale also assumes things to be visually identical in size and demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of proper distance scaling inherent in all map projections - particularly in the AE map. It's as if everyone has forgotten that the AE map is equal to the Globe map, which is also equal to 199 other map projections. The choice of projection does not matter. They are all the same. They all represent the same distances. We can make predictions based on cycles as well as the next guy. So, we wont need help there. As we keep saying, every observation in the sky is equal between geocentric and heliocentric perspectives. People seem to be INTENTIONALLY misunderstanding that, at this point. Light-Bending: absolutely not required in any way shape nor form. Observable reality matches the model in every way; I cannot imagine a better fit. To now try to invent a need for bendy light would only publicly highlight the ineptitude of a lower tier glober - and their inability to learn and adapt, a vital skill in these times. Our model perfectly represents azimuth and elevation of every celestial object in its apparent position. This is all that we ever see. There is no need to explain what has never been observed. The visualization of the South Pole in action is actually what brought Shane to the ultimate understanding of the celestial wheels. So, thank you again, Walter! Light Bending Over Night-Shadow: to match the 24 hour Daylight in Antarctica data from the light forms a shape congruent to a coffee cup caustic effect. Shadows Of Eclipses: although this model can predict the date of Eclipses, it was argued that it can be used for nothing else. Please check the provided links to review the absurdity of those claims. Conclusion Some observations, like the positions of the Sun, Moon and Star Constellations as well as Sun/Moon-rise/set can be explained by a Flat Earth Model - if we allow ourselves to adhere to the mathematical principle of equivalence. What a concession. Some final thoughts: 1) Distances on the AE Map are 100% 1:1 equivalent when you comprehend how to accordingly use the scale provided with the ruler which represents longitude. 2) LEARN ABOUT MAPS. Hopefully, the covariant scaling and lossless unlimited translations between the projections will teach you this valuable lesson. Equinox, Solstice, Azimuth, Elevation This model draws a perfectly circular orbit of the Earth around the Sun and a perfectly circular orbit of the Moon around the globe Earth. This is because the planar Earth has no moronic need for elipicity because they didn't back themselves into a logical corner by making shit up. This model chooses to match: Spring Equinox at 12:00 UT, March 20, 2017 Solar Eclipse at 18:00 UTC, August 21, 2017 Azimuth and Elevation of the Sun and Moon are also slightly inaccurate (according to the assumed Heliocentric requirement) due to the use of circular instead of elliptical orbits. This affects also Moon phase. Computing Day-Night Terminator The Day-Night terminator is derived from to match reality as follows: 1. A circle perpendicular to the Earth-Sun axis in the Sun coordinate system is computed depending on the Sun's position at a point in time relative to the intersection knot of the Equatorial plane of the Earth and the ecliptic plane of the Sun. This is entirely possible in both models. 2. This circle is then transformed to the globe Earth coordinate system. There is no way around using this coordinate system. If Walter Bislan comes asking for his source code, tell him thank again, from shane. Any questions can be sent to Shane_St_Pierre@protonmail.com](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1773050461966201188/amplify_video_thumb/1773050092846452736/img/I07741xqzv7Uerc5.jpg)
![Great to hear such kind words from Saagar Enjeti (who pronounced my name right!). I appreciate the coverage both he and Emily Jashinsky did on the hearing. Thank you! I really hope this was video of an anomalous craft but, at this point in time, I'm still skeptical. The full clip (link in replies) is 8:29) H/T: Heather | Nice People Saagar: "I do want to give some credit to some of the people who are saying that this video is not actually showing a UFO. Now again, I will let you make up your mind for yourself. But this actually comes from a guy who I very much respect, Joe Murgia, UfoJoe. Let's put it up here on the screen. Basically, he looked into it. They talk about the Hellfire missile. What he says (I was quoting one of That UFO Podcast's listeners/viewers), specifically, is that, quote, 'Contact occurred, with the missile passing through. The apparent "deflection" was a guidance system searching for a laser spot again, causing control surfaces to thrash. The three "trailing" objects align better with debris or internal components ignited by electrical damage rather than missile fragments. [IR] artifacts are possible but unlikely.' "Let's go to the next part here. And they say, the overall conclusion is that, 'The evidence is most consistent with a slow-moving or stationary balloon carrying an electrical payload, struck by a Hellfire that failed to detonate. Anomalies arise from fuse mechanics,' etc. "I will let others determine the facts, but that was some of the original, kind of, quote 'debunking' that I saw on it. You can make up your minds for yourself, in terms of what it comes from. It was Rep. Eric Burlison, by the way, who is the person who revealed it. And it's one of those where it was presented as received from an independent...from a whistleblower, according to him. But the circumstances are a bit weird. He said he received it without any metadata or any of that. He says independent review is ongoing. "So I do think it's important to at least present the fact that some analysts and others are saying that it could have been a balloon, which they say about all of them. And so, you know, I want to be totally fair about...that's part of the reason independent review is very important. Part of the reason, throwing it to the experts, et cetera, and actually taking this stuff seriously." (I hope we get more people chiming in and sharing their analysis and opinions. I'm not a video analyst so I rely on people who know more than me. Which is mostly everyone.) Saagar: "But nonetheless, it was great to see George Knapp and some of the others there recounting some of their experiences. I do think some of us are still getting very fed up with the fact that it's still so slow moving. I attended the first UFO hearing, what, two years ago, at this point...with Dave Grusch, right? I was there, I was in the room. I thought it was a big moment. I thought something was coming. And then, you know..." (We all thought we were reaching a breaking point, No pun intended. But that hasn't happened.) Saagar: "The NDAA continues to not have some of the UFO disclosure pieces, even though it's been pushed by members of the overall U.S. Senate. So we rely on Rep. Anna Paulina Luna or other people who are making extraordinary accusations. I'm very willing to believe, but we gotta see more evidence, we got to see more stuff come from the government." Emily: "Interesting disagreement playing out on X right now between UfoJoe and Lue Elizondo who, on NewsNation last night, made a very interesting argument. Which is, that the Hellfire missile UFO is evidence of, quote, 'technology that is making our premier missile system completely useless.' And if you're wondering why, in relation to what Saagar just described about the NDAA, why are members of Congress - and even, remember Secretary Marco Rubio as a senator?" Saagar: "Yeah, he was an OG. That's right." Emily: "Why are, quote, 'mainstream' members of Congress interested in getting answers to questions like these? Well, it's because they're seeing videos and hearing analysis from people like Lue, who worked at the Pentagon. You can debate Elizondo, whatever. But saying this is evidence of technology that's making our premier missile system completely useless. Now, UfoJoe disagrees." (I disagree because, to me, it appears that the missile disabled this object. So it accomplished its mission. Others, vehemently disagree. Here's one: ProPixel Video Analysis and Research. And this guy... Then you have MarikvR (anomalous) and Mick West (not anomalous), with opposing views. ~ Emily: "[UfoJoe] says, 'Early on, I agreed. Right now, I do not. I retain the right to change from my mind. Did Lue present any analysis or mention anybody who has done analysis besides the stuff shared on here by us?' But that gets to what Saagar was just saying, which is that, years into this third task force meeting, the bombshells are highly disputed. You know, it's not like this bombshell dropped yesterday, and everybody was like when that New York Times story originally dropped back in, what, 2017?" Saagar: "Oh, yeah, 2017. That's why I'm here, literally. That's the only reason, that's what got me in." Emily: "But we haven't had another moment like that, really." Saagar: "It's been a while. Dave Grusch was very important, I think, as well." Emily: "That's true, that's true." Saagar: "I just gotta see more. And, you know, credit to Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp, and all these guys. They're the ones who are at the vanguard. They're pushing the conversation. They're singularly..." Emily: "Responsibly." Saagar: "They're getting it, responsibly vetted. And that's why I include all of the information. You can make up your mind for yourself. I think more scrutiny, pressure on these, you know, the Democratic, Republican establishment to get the stuff out there is just so vitally important, if you want to get to the truth. "Because at this point, you know, you have Congresswomen and others, people making major accusations. Or allegations. Which I'm totally willing to believe, but we have to see more evidence in the future. That's the number one important thing. So, yeah, call your congressman or senator. Get them to the make sure the NDAA is gonna have that. What's it to them, right? It's like, so low on their priority list that if even twenty people call about it, maybe they'll do something? You never know. You truly never know you."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1965854925956723187/amplify_video_thumb/1965841671599566853/img/j0dMAaZVCExiKxwN.jpg)
![Continuing in my series of showing you the Woke Right's meltdown about talking with Jordan Peterson about Woke, thus them, I bring you some clips from Blaze Media propagandist "Auron MacIntyre." These require more analysis because unlike Carl Benjamin, Auron MacIntyre is a relatively skilled propagandist. So in this clip Auron begins by mocking Peterson and me for allegedly not understanding the slang term "based" (which is demonstrably false, btw -- I've detailed its history and uses elsewhere -- a typical sort of lie a propagandist tells). He mocks us as being out-of-touch old people ("old man shakes fist at sky") for believing "based" should refer to being "based in reality," which it should, so a digression to reveal the malicious technique. The origin of the term "based" used by the Woke Right was from a rap song about freebasing cocaine, and it became slang for being bold and edgy and saying socially taboo things. In 2021, the conservative movement at large started picking it up, understanding it to mean "based in reality and principle and willing to say uncomfortable truths as such." The "willing to say uncomfortable [things]" in both cases is where the confusion lies because it can be done two ways: responsibly (truths) or irresponsibly (edgy transgression). This is basically my point with bringing it up with Peterson. Setting aside the digression of whether we want a term associated with being the opposite of Woke to mean "based in reality and principle" or "high on ideological cocaine," Auron is particularly keen within the first few moments of speaking (~1 min) to drive the old versus young wedge that the Woke Right is so keen on pushing. Just like the Bernie Bros of 10 years ago, they want to invest their movement with "Ok Boomer" energy and cause a generational split. Historically, this is Red Guard behavior, which is cultural Maoism, which is... where Woke comes from in the specific sense we're familiar with and hate. So, he's being Woke in a particularly damaging and dangerous way. So using the classic Jon Stewart (Woke) trick of opening with mockery to create an atmosphere of humor that discredits his targets (Peterson and me) particularly with a target audience (young radicalizing right-wing) that he signals alignment of, he steps into his "analysis" by accusing me of a "pivot." Spoiler: I have not and never pivoted, and that's why they're pissed off at me. I didn't go along with THEIR pivot, which has been unfolding for a couple of years (particularly at the Blaze, since Glenn Beck retired and they hired a bunch of "Schmittians," including Auron) and went on steroids last fall in the lead-up to the election. His specific accusation that he's accusing me of is claiming that I said "the Left wanted to get rid of all racism, so these guys [Woke Right] want to bring back all the racism." This isn't my claim, but it will happen to some degree and is happening. Auron is creating plausible deniability around that here, but what was my actual claim? My claim was that Woke on both sides is characterized by the transgression of mainstream norms using the opposite side's radicals as the justification. The Woke Left transgressed against the term "racism" and successful and majority races with CRT by expanding the definition and reversing the classic racism "directions" under roughly Ibram Kendi's "antiracist" program of ending discrimination by discriminating. They did this in the name of "stopping racism," which they associated with the "far right" and claimed was endemic through all of society. It was society's norm of identifying actual racism correctly and not being racist in any direction they were actually targeting. The Woke Right transgresses against this same norm the other direction ("same energy, opposite direction") by leaning into racism in "based" defiance of the Left and CRT norms. They're violating a lot of taboos the mainstream depends on in the process, like not being racist, on justifications like "if every other group gets to be racist/tribal, we have to too for self-defense," which they're actually arguing pretty widely. The point is that both Woke groups are transgressing against norms against racism in different ways. Same energy, opposite direction. Auron directs his audience away from this point and builds a strawman that he can press into the train of mockery he already started. But what he actually does is shifts to make out that my real point is that "the most important issue we have to care about in society is racism," trying to place me in the CRT/Leftist camp, which I'm literally actually opposing in the clip he's commenting on (and that I've done more to oppose than anyone in the world, without any doubt to anyone familiar with my work for the last seven or eight years). He uses this straw man to lump together "center left, classical liberals, IDW" and to say we're "revealing ourselves" effectively as crypto-Leftists, which the portion of the clip of me that he played (aside from all my previous work) directly refutes. "Their religion," Auron opines, "is still antiracism." [So does he mean like being not-racist, like we actually are (not religiously), or like Kendi means it? Has he accepted Kendi's framing that there's only "racist" and "antiracist" and then tried to project that onto people who want to be not racist? Sure looks like it.] "James Lindsay, as much as he's against it, as much as he's written against it, as much as he's claimed to want to expose it, ultimately, he doesn't disagree with 'antiracism' as the core religion of the United States." That's a pretty astonishing sentence in its calculated falseness, and we have every reason to believe it was made deliberately and maliciously (Auron has a very long track record of precisely this behavior). The effect is to flatten all "center left" and "classical liberals," along with me and my work specifically, into a kind of crypto-CRT "religious" belief in an effort to discredit us and name us part of the problem (the "dialectical flattening"/psychopathic splitting I also discussed with Peterson comes to mind here, for those who saw the whole show). He aims to treat different things as though they're the same thing (Woke context and language blurring) in order to cast us as secretly in alignment with Kendi and the rest of CRT. "He, he, he thinks that that ['antiracism'] should be the 'civic religion' of the United States." No, I don't. This is called lying. It's also mind reading through secret (Gnostic) interpretation of hidden clues in my language and work that reveal that I mean the exact opposite of what I'm consistently saying. "He just doesn't like the extreme version of it." Still lying, but trying to make it sound more plausible. "He's like a moderate jihadist. Ok, he wants moderate jihad. M-m-moderate Sharia. That's what James Lindsay demands." So beyond being ridiculous and defamatory that's a really weird association to make, but it should be obvious why he's making it. The game is to discredit me through mockery and association with things his audience already doesn't like. Also, the Iron Law of Woke Projection never misses.... The Woke Right holds to a "No Enemies to the Right" policy of extremism, and I do not. Mockingly pretending his speaking my voice: "Ok, I still want Sharia Law. I still want a woman beaten if she's walking outside alone. I- You, you know, u-use a small rod instead of, like, you know, a large stick. That's kinda James Lindsay's stance on this, right?" No, "Auron," not right. "So, so he still wants racism to be, like, the central concern of the United States; it just needs to have a more reasonable definition. Stop looking at the [Woke examples] of racism; just go back to the good old 'antiracism' that we used to have." It's called being not racist, which reveals what "Auron" is really arguing for, as with his take on "based" at the start of the clip (he wants transgressive ideological high on cocaine, not based in reality and principle and courageous enough to stand for them). He has completed his straw man, erected him, and is showing the audience Straw James for mockery and rejection. "The problem for James is that the entire reason you [sic] got there is that there's a gradient to the logic [so it's all 'antiracism' on a slippery slope -- dialectical splitting again]." "Auron" is explaining here yet again that "liberalism," which he is deliberately unclear about, is just another manifestation of Communism, a quieter, more moderate crypto-Communism (or, specifically Race Marxism, here). This bit of propagandizing depends on the fact that his audience uses the word "liberal" inaccurately and blends together many things including classical liberalism, traditional liberalism, European social and economic liberalism, neoliberalism, progressivism, socialism, Marxism, and Communism for a lot of bad reasons that are too much to cover here. The point is that as a propagandist, he's not just relying upon this lack of clarity and exploiting it, he's also deliberately sowing more confusion in the name of clarity (...disguised as an angel of light, since his stream is all about Lucifer anyway), deliberately and maliciously. "Again, you'll notice that he wants those 'liberal' norms [not being racist] back, but what James never admits, what James never makes clear, is that the 'liberal' norms got him Wokeness." If I thought this was true, I would have said it. I'm not hiding anything. I just think it's completely false and have dedicated an insane amount of effort into making it clear for people around the world. Maybe "Auron" should listen to any of the hundreds of talks, lectures, or podcasts in which I quoted directly from the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction where the authors (Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic) explicitly state that one of the reasons Critical Race Theory exists is to attack "Enlightenment liberalism" (just like the Woke Right does!). Much of the writing in Critical Race Theory is explicitly, and at length, a criticism and rejection of liberalism and liberal norms in favor of completely different radical ones. If "Auron" did that, though, he'd risk exposing that Woke Right shares this in common with CRT while liberals do not. "The liberal obsession with equality, the liberal obsession with racism, is what brought you to Wokeness." This is a few misarticuated truths married to a lot of lies (that is, propaganda). It's a lot to unpack. Liberalism means equality before the law, not everyone is literally equal. CRT attacks liberalism exactly the same way, consider Robin DiAngelo's book titled Is Everyone Really Equal? As documented, say by Shelby Steele in White Guilt, it is true that the values of American equality and the circumstances of the Civil Rights Movement were hijacked by Race Marxists to open the door to the CRT racial dialectic, but that's not liberalism being obsessed with race or bringing us Woke. That's Communists exploiting people with certain sensibilities. That is, this is propaganda. This is already extremely long, and the rest devolves into him talking about ethnic hatred instead of "racism." I guess he needs more politically correct terms for it, "as a Christian," he says. The only reason to mention it is how he ends it. "However, James wants a much, much broader definition of 'racism.' He wants a political definition of racism. He doesn't care about how you treat people one-to-one [remember, I'm the individualist here...], he cares about using that definition to cancel you, right? And that's the plan. That's the plan." It's really more of the same thing, but it bears mentioning because it's the completion of his malicious straw man. It's not only completely false but obviously false except outside of the Woke Right narrative that he also pushes that I only created the term "Woke Right" (again, I didn't create it at all) to cancel people, which is the narrative he needs to get people to believe. That's underscored by his repetition of "that's the plan." My objectives with naming the Woke Right were abundantly simple: name a dangerous phenomenon in the hopes that it can be identified and stopped. I would not like to see people cancelled, but I won't tolerate this bad behavior either, not for any rewards they might dangle or withdraw. I hope every one of them realizes they are acting "Woke" and backs off from it. We need all the help we can get in stopping the huge global effort to subvert us and steal our liberty. My verdict here? This is among the rankest of rank propaganda. The Blaze, if (and only if) it wants to be considered a serious outlet in any regard, should be ashamed to be associated with this guy and what he's doing. I can't really even say this, though, because in light of the straw man built about me throughout, they'll say this is a Woke accusation on my part too, and an attempt to cancel him, but it's just a simple, plain fact. Rank propaganda isn't reporting or even really commentary, and there's nothing respectable about it. For years I've made the point that there's a key difference between "cancellation" and "taking responsibility." Anyone can find ample evidence of this. Why did I do that? Because the Woke Left claimed that anything that identified their bad behavior in our institutions was an attempt to "cancel" them too. It's a Woke (and psychopathic) technique called DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Deny that you're doing anything wrong, attack the person who called you out, and make yourself out to be the victim of their "cancellation" attempt. Of course, adding this here will guarantee they'll howl with laughter as they yet again insist that's what I'm doing to them with this.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1920582873217917439/amplify_video_thumb/1920567452460605440/img/bLWdKp3e0nnm0vIl.jpg)
![HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] 증시각도기TV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. We’re joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, it’s no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. I’ve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry don’t know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, I’m well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, it’s unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesn’t make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You can’t discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isn’t about a single member leaving; it’s more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesn’t mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if there’s a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. It’s become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There aren’t many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instance—they’ve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, it’s rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if they’re to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didn’t feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they weren’t from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTS’s fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who don’t feel they belong to the mainstream—whether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though there’s talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. It’s unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bang’s various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someone’s feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoon’s global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manage—they're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesn’t just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when they’re dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. It’s about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple houses—they might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The manager’s job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way that’s meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, it’s challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. It’s hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Korea’s entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of today’s youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, there’s not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what they’ve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, it’s clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that “everyone is crazy about money,” and I think that’s why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. That’s why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasn’t for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. That’s the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. That’s what talent is—turning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean culture—it’s not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industry’s core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it won’t just be about losing one person—it could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyone’s individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, we’re just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, let’s pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1842046662933610609/amplify_video_thumb/1842042079117246465/img/At1wmSEbkseQtgQZ.jpg)
