goddess loves forcing you to bust nuts for her, keep stroking...we both know what you're here for #nsfwtwt #nsfw #loser #findom #findomme #domme #finsub #cei #joi #cbt #torture #egirl #esex #goddess #subby #sub #fetish #cbtjoi #femdomballbusting #mistress #ceijoi #humanATM #senstivecontent #walletdrain #lowlvl
14,166 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
相关视频
1:12
Sensitive content
be a good boy and cum for goddess, I like it when they're obedient :3 #nsfwtwt #nsfw #mommydom #joi #femdom #finsub #findom #humanATM #loser #esex #egirl #mistress #handjob #horny #squirting #teenager #cum #countdown
femcel cg
16,362 次观看 • 4 个月前
1:12
Sensitive content
listen carefully to my instructions u perv, i want you to stroke that cock till you can't cum for me anymore #nsfwtwt #nsfw #mommydom #joi #femdom #finsub #findom #humanATM #loser #esex #egirl #mistress #handjob #horny #squirting #teenager #cum #countdown
femcel cg
14,089 次观看 • 4 个月前
0:22
Sensitive content
🇺🇸 BELOW No proszę, klęczysz jak grzeczny piesek - z daniną gotową, jakbyś całe życie na ten moment czekał. Wąchaj sobie moje spocone stópki, popatrz na tyłeczek i pomarz… bo tyle właśnie ci wolno - patrzeć i dziękować losowi, że w ogóle możesz. *** Well, well… there you are on your knees like a good little puppy - tribute ready, like you've been waiting your whole life for this. Go ahead, sniff my sweaty feet, admire the view of my ass, and keep dreaming… because that’s all you get – to watch and be grateful you even can. findom femdom paypig whalesub walletdrain humanatm finsub footfetish footworship feetfetish humiliation betaloser goddess domination domme FEET PROMO Account 💯K (ROAD TO 200K!) @FootParadiseRT Slave Dominic 🇨🇦 dommesRt RT_Feet_slave RT FINDOM PROMO RT Promo Ebony Supremacy Owned Sub by Goddess @stepsxo BRUNO THE RT SUB LiveLifeFeet RT Page NUDE & FINDOM & FETISH 3.7K RT Findom 9.4K Empregadinho da Boss FemDom Promo Puppy Alex 🐶 findom RT 🔄 Howard Embleton Biznesmenel Findom PROMO FinDomme curious TPE RT slave and exposing timewasters Polski Findom 👑 king of toes Ugur Can FINDOM/FEET RT Footsie Retweet Feet 14K Thetoesfinder Foot Fetish Only Solesshoutouts007 15k 🦶
GoddessOrtera
25,394 次观看 • 1 年前
0:58
Sensitive content
New World Order , Forget Your Language #macrophilia Full Vid ➡️ More macrophilia videos here Macrophilia Jerry There is a new Chinese law, that says I have to shrink white people, I decide to shrink you, and once you are shrunk you forget, how do you speak English so I decide to teach you different languages such as Chinese Spanish French. Then I tell you in different languages that you have to lick my feet. Now that you are a tiny little human, I have to teach you how to behave because the faith of your life from now on, you will have to be my slave. well, then I have to teach you and train you how to be my slave. You don't know how to speak English you for God because you're dumb, all the white people are dumb. So I will teach you different languages, how to lick my feet. Very clear in the video, that white people are betas , losers and weak people. Finally i decide to stomp on you and crush you findom finsub rich paypig humanatm footfetish feet soles toes Asian Alpha god master nsfw beta simp gay straight bi walletdrain realman cashslave moneyslave findomdom domination maledomination spoiled shoes socks #Macrophilia, #Microphilia , #Giant #Feet , Tiny boy slave, ant, bug , insect , special effects shrinking fetish #stomping on you #crushing you with my feet
Jerry Findom
76,213 次观看 • 1 年前
![The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036795243681423518/amplify_video_thumb/2036794127560613888/img/52_cdbzzL6_foTSI.jpg)
![[🥀🪷] Wrote this as an archive because I finally had free time to put my thoughts about them into words, even if it’s a little late. You don’t have to agree with what I wrote here, just as I don’t expect everyone to read them the way I do. This is simply how Murong Qingyi and Ren Susu have always been to me. I’ve always loved stories where two people understand each other better than anyone else in the world, because they’re also the only two people capable of hurting each other that deeply. We all know that Qingyi and Susu do not love in the same direction. We also know that, despite how similar they are, they learned completely different ways to survive. They’re mirrors of each other. Both carry wounds that began long before they met. Both learned sacrifice. Both spent years believing their own happiness mattered less than everyone else’s. And yet, somewhere along the way, their hearts arrived at opposite conclusions about what love is supposed to look like. This is where they begin hurting each other without ever intending to. When Qingyi senses distance between them, his instinct is always to move closer. Not because he wants to control her, but because closeness has always been his way of loving. If someone he loves is suffering, he wants to stand beside them. If they’re carrying something heavy, he wants to carry it with them. If they’re walking into danger, his first instinct is to follow. Susu is the exact opposite. The moment she realizes the person she loves might get hurt because of her, her instinct is to step away. Not because she loves them less, but because distance has become her way of protecting the people she loves. She would rather carry everything alone than watch someone else bleed in her place. And so, without either of them intending to, they begin moving in opposite directions while chasing the very same thing, a love that feels safe enough to stay. What makes this so sad is that neither of them is choosing fear over love. It is that both of them loved with everything they had, but each had learned a different way of protecting that love. Qingyi isn’t trying to pressure her. Susu isn’t trying to reject him. Both are speaking the language of love. They simply aren’t speaking the same dialect. To Qingyi, love means staying. To Susu, love means leaving before staying becomes another tragedy. To Qingyi, sharing someone’s burden is the purest form of devotion. To Susu, becoming someone’s burden is the greatest fear she can imagine. So every time Qingyi helps her, Susu mistakes it for yet another sacrifice she is asking him to make. And every time Susu disappears, Qingyi experiences another loss he cannot understand. Yet the comfort one seeks becomes the discomfort the other experiences, leaving them to mistake protection for pain. Qingyi finds safety in knowing that someone chooses to stay, even when life becomes difficult. Having grown up questioning whether he would ever be chosen, he comes to equate permanence with love itself. To stay, despite everything, is not merely what he longs for. It is how he loves. Susu finds safety in making sure the people she loves have the chance to survive, even if that survival no longer includes her. After carrying guilt for so many losses, love becomes inseparable from sacrifice. In her heart, devotion is measured by what she is willing to give up, until leaving becomes the greatest kindness she believes she can offer. So love becomes something they keep missing, not because it isn’t there, but because they keep meeting it from opposite directions. Qingyi sees distance and feels another unanswered question. Susu sees closeness and feels another life she might destroy. Neither of them is responding to the present. They’re responding to the stories trauma has been whispering to them since they were children Qingyi asks, “Will you choose me this time?” Susu asks, “Will you still alive if I do?” Those two questions are sad because neither of them is wrong. Both fears are profoundly human. Both were born long before they ever found each other. Yet to call it incompatibility would be too simple. What stood between them was not the absence of love, but the presence of fears neither of them knew how to name. It’s sad because their deepest fears are perfectly designed to trigger each other’s. His greatest fear has always been losing the person he loves without understanding why. Her greatest fear has always been becoming the reason the person she loves loses everything. So, he moves closer. She moves away. This is the point where they begin to wound one another. Both believe they’re loving correctly. The same moment calls for closeness in one heart and distance in the other, leaving them to mistake each other’s protection for rejection. But love was never about asking him to stop staying or asking her to stop protecting. It was about helping them understand the fear hidden beneath each other’s choices. They have to see each other not as the enemy of their needs. They were simply same person, but both are shaped by different wounds and protecting themselves in the only language they have ever known. Because in the end, it was never that Qingyi and Susu didn’t love each other enough. It was that they were both trying to protect the person they loved and simply searching for safety in love, each in the only way their heart had ever learned. One stayed. One left. Neither choice came from the absence of love. Both came from quiet hope. They were never standing on opposite sides of love. They were simply standing on opposite sides of fear. They are not simply one person who chases and another who runs. They are two damaged people whose deepest fears are perfectly designed to trigger each other’s. Perhaps it was never about changing the way they love. It was about trusting the very thing they had feared their entire lives, that someone could stay without abandoning them, and someone could stay without being destroyed by loving them. Qingyi believes that if he can endure enough, love will survive. If he can bear enough pain, make enough sacrifices, stay through every storm, then perhaps no one will leave him again. But love was never asking him to prove how much he could survive. It was asking him to trust that he did not have to carry everything alone. Susu has mistaken fear for love for so long that it has become the language through which she loves. She calls it cowardice, because leaving feels easier than watching the people she loves suffer because of her. If she had loved Qingyi a little less, perhaps she could have spoken the words she kept swallowing. She might have trusted him with the truth instead of trying to protect him from it. But she loved him so completely that silence felt kinder than asking him to bear the unbearable weight of loving her. In Jane Austen words, “If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more.” Susu believes love means protecting Qingyi from herself. Qingyi believes love means protecting Susu from everything else. Neither realizes that love cannot thrive when one person is always the protector and the other is always the one being protected. At some point, they must trust each other enough to become partners instead of martyrs. Because the truth is, there was never a version of their story where no one paid a price. Love had already asked something of them both. The only question was whether they would face those consequences separately, each trying to protect the other in silence, or together, with open hearts, clear eyes, and the quiet peace that comes from choosing one another even when the future cannot be promised. Also, I don’t agree with everything Qingyi and Susu did. Sometimes I wanted to scream at both of them, moments I wished they had chosen differently. But perhaps that’s what makes them feel human. They aren’t defined by perfect decisions, but by deeply human ones, choices made in fear, in love, and in the desperate hope of protecting each other. Once you understand the fear beneath their choices, it’s much harder to reduce either of them to hero or villain. So, please… go easy on them. They’ve gone through so much. ❤️🩹 “Who loves who more?” At this point, I think it’s safe to say the person suffering the most in this relationship is me.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2083704976082395195/amplify_video_thumb/2083699973393350656/img/Am4ah0QCAz2NORaU.jpg)
!["It's been here for a very long time, it goes by many names, it's many different things. And it has an influence on all of us. These things...are probably what are referred to as gods or demons or angels or jinn." ~Dylan Borland (I think Dylan pretty much nailed it in this "Weaponized" interview.) Dylan Borland: "These things, whatever they are, are probably what are referred to as gods or demons or angels or jinn or insert whatever cultural or religious perspective you have. There are probably also extraterrestrials. It's not a one-size-fits-all. "And considering, you know, humanity has the same stories across many cultures: a flood, a craft that are in the sky, things that are coming and helping humans. And I'm at an advantage and a disadvantage knowing certain information that relates very clearly to things that are around the world that are related to what I know. I don't think that's by pure coincidence or luck. "I think that the people that are in these programs know the truth to this stuff, and they are looking at it through a lens of...this is true, this is true, this is true. This has been here for 8000 years. This has been here for 4000 years. Oh, we dug up this at an archeological dig in, hypothetically, Egypt. "You know, I mentioned it to you guys last night, Lacatski in his statement about his faith and what it means to be human and the impact and nothing to fear." ~ "If full human capabilities were known to us right now, [the phenomenon] is not something that we need to fear. Our capabilities...have never been fully revealed and we're still learning. We've got a long way to evolve still." ~Dr. James Lacatski ~ Borland: "You know, Lacatski and I are both Catholics, but I want to be clear in that, it's the idea of something greater than us that is here with us and can influence us. And Pasalka talks about this, and you get into consciousness. And all of these things are so correlated, and that's a problem with this subject. "And that's why one of the things that I'm a huge proponent of, going back to having our government be a part of this, is you have to set a foundation. Because, if you come out and you throw it all out there, people are gonna laugh at you, they're gonna call you crazy, they're gonna do X, Y, and Z. And you have to set a foundation. "And I understand the UFO fanatics are not gonna like this opinion, but this isn't for you, this is for the public. If you want disclosure, the public has to be a part of it. Hence, why I'm here. Is to hopefully get enough people outside of this subject, agitated, upset, and come and say, 'No, we're done with this.' "My big-picture idea is, it's been here for a very long time, it goes by many names, it's many different things. And it has an influence on all of us." George Knapp: "You know, we don't really know what they look like. You know, they're so advanced to us. Gods? Sure, could be at that level. They might as well be gods, they're so far advanced. I don't think they need craft to get here. That's some kind of a bauble, that's a something to get us interested. Hey, look at this. "That's why we maybe have so many of them. The don't necessarily crash. That appears to be a crash. Something that's always been here. I'm not entirely positive they have our best interests at heart. Feels like an experiment. They mess with us on a mass scale, an individual scale, and I'm not sure we're ever gonna understand it." Borland: "I tend to agree with you. I have many thoughts on this, and this is one of the other things I came into knowledge of while at my work at DTRA before I lost my job. When Congress passed the archives legislation where all the agencies were supposed to round up all their documents, I had a wonderful conversation on my last day, and I'm sure it was just coincidental. "The person in charge of collecting all of the information from DTRA, dealing with extraterrestrials, and, as he put it, quote unquote, 'little green men,' happened to sit next to me at my computer terminal and began pulling all of the documents on my system and the systems in our SCIF. "Interesting fact for you was that he came into the old atomic-energy documents from way back when, and there was intelligence and information in those that discuss what you said. Which is, this has been around with them, and that even back then they had a similar outlook that this isn't exactly for our benefit." "You know, you get into...and again, I don't want to go too woo. I want to really avoid the woo, but we're going into hypotheticals, and I try to keep all options open. You're right; they don't...theoretically, they don't have to come here. I mean, we're working with Neuralink, we're projecting thoughts, we're doing all of this...dreams, you have MK Ultra, you have all of this stuff throughout the history, and all of our intelligence agencies never get rid of that capability. They only get better at it. They only get better at hiding it. "But, if somebody's able to put a thought in your head, George, and tell you build this craft, yeah, you're the one who built it, but the thought came from somebody else. And now you start to get into places that are purely hypothetical, and I'm not even saying I believe them. But it's clear there's something to this." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Like, thoughts as intruders from a non-human intelligence, having humanity do the bidding that they want, without direct knowledge that it's being asked by someone else? And we're talking about that, right?" Borland: "Theoretically, that's a possibility, 100%." ~ Speaking of putting thoughts in our heads... This is from John Keel's "Operation Trojan Horse." I have pulled a TON of excerpts from that book and it's a Top 5 read for me. ~Begin OTH Excerpt~ "In his book Passport to Magonia, Dr. Jacques Vallee, a NASA astronomer and computer expert, touches on all this. 'In the Soviet Union, not so long ago, a leading plasma physicist died in strange circumstances,' Dr. Vallee states. 'He was thrown under a Moscow subway train by a mentally deranged woman. It is noteworthy that she claimed a ‘voice from space’ had given her orders to kill that particular man - orders she could not resist. "Soviet criminologists, I have been reliably informed, are worried by the increase of such cases in recent years. Madmen rushing through the streets because they think the Martians are after them have always been commonplace. But the current wave of mental imbalance that can be specifically tied to the rise and development of the contactee myth is an aspect of the UFO problem that must be considered with special care.” "So there seem to be both good and evil forces at work in this type of phenomenon. The good guys latch onto people with particularly receptive minds and turn them into trance mediums. The bad guys use the same methods to tamper with the minds of contactees and even to commit murders indirectly. Because incidents of these types can be traced throughout history, it seems probable that these forces have always been extant on this planet. ~End OTH Excerpt~ ~ Borland: "I think on Joe Rogan, he mentions like, artificial intelligence influencing humans, who continue to create artificial intelligence, and just round and round." Corbell: "Yeah, the metamorphosis philosophy that Rogan talks about. It's really beautiful." Borland: "I mean, I keep all options on the table. What I know is these things are real; they exist, we've had them, other nations have them. I know that in some way, shape, or form, they appear in a physical sense. I know that they have an interest in people, and I have a strong belief that they have an interest in certain families, if you want to call them that. "What does it all mean? I don't know, but what I do know is that, as a democratic republic and a nation that votes for our elected leaders and leaders that are supposed to provide us information, we're not fulfilling our obligation in our constitution because we're not voting with information. We are lying to ourselves."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2096304163772932534/amplify_video_thumb/2096287422581739520/img/Hv1KrEK9W-7bY7Te.jpg)
