Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

I got impregnated 💦 by a 21-year-old Moroccan stud packing an impressive 26cm/10inches🥵🍆. That’s my absolute record🥇 – what a ride!🔥 His stamina and that massive tool left me speechless, craving more of that wild, unforgettable dick!💦😈 You will find the entire porn on my BestFans: 📼: . .... show more

CrossDresserGERMANY 🇩🇪

15,409 subscribers

189,126 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

I wanted to explain to the broader transgender community what happened that ultimately made me leave the "true trans" HBS social circle. Some people have expressed interest in hearing this story, and I do think it's worth discussing because of the social and group psychology dynamics that were at play. That said, this will be as far as I go in publicly discussing the situation. Where to start? The reality is that this eventually became a situation where it was Brianna Wu, Marzi, Allysa, and Willow versus myself. The events leading up to the actual breaking point are important. After Willow broke up with me, she told me that I was not the ideal version of a transsexual. In particular, she told me that, using the antiquated HBS scale, I wasn't a Transsexual VI, but more like a IV or V. The reasoning largely came down to the fact that I had different opinions from the rest of the group on issues such as stealth. The rest of the group found my views offensive. This opened the door to what I came to understand as legitimacy testing. This isn't unique to trans spaces either. It involved the systematic questioning of virtually every aspect of my life: my transition, my dysphoria, how I grew up, my experiences, and what I value today. To give you an idea of how extreme it became, Marzi seriously asked me whether I had only pursued SRS to satisfy a sexual fetish. This was after learning that I had been capable of having sex prior to transition. Apparently, that fact alone was enough to cast suspicion on my entire transition history. This legitimacy testing continued for roughly two and a half weeks. Every day. For most of the day. It became increasingly distressing and isolating. And remember, at this point, I was emotionally dependent on these people. The day everything finally came to a head started with a discussion about transgender women in sports. Brianna entered the group chat and asked if any of us would be willing to debate Blaire White on the issue. People immediately began sharing their positions. As the only former NCAA athlete in the group, I chimed in and stated that I supported transgender women participating in women's sports and that it was not an issue I was willing to move on. That triggered a cascade of responses. I was repeatedly told that the issue was insignificant, that it only affected a tiny number of people, and that sports were ultimately just a hobby. I pushed back. I tried explaining that NCAA athletes are not hobbyists. Their sport is often their entire life. They spend years training, watching film, practicing, traveling, competing, and structuring their entire identity around performance. I also tried explaining that sports had been the medium through which I survived to adulthood. School was not safe for me. Home was not safe for me. The track was. Track and field was the one place in my life where I felt safe, valued, and understood. My relationship with sports was deeply personal. Yet every time I tried explaining this, I was met with the same response: "It's just a hobby." They genuinely did not seem to understand. Eventually, I decided to show them a video of Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaking the women's high jump world record. I wanted them to see what elite competition actually looks like. I wanted them to understand the pressure, the emotion, the adrenaline, and what it means to dedicate your life to something. High jump was my best event. I explained how, at the end of a meet, all eyes are on you. Entire stadiums can clap rhythmically to help carry you over the bar. The pressure is immense. And honestly? I lived for that feeling. So I showed them the video. They dismissed it entirely. Then Brianna commented that when she was in high school, she was simply focused on fitting in and being one of the girls. Immediately afterward, Marzi told me that being a competitive athlete was "male-coded." That was my wake-up call. In that moment, I suddenly snapped out of everything. I realized what had been happening to me psychologically. I realized this was no longer a discussion. This was an attempt to socially discipline me into conformity. It was another attempt to reshape my views and my identity to fit within the group's expectations. For the first time, they had collided with something I was unwilling to surrender. An immovable force had met an immovable object. Sports were not just a hobby to me. Track and field helped me survive. It shaped my values. It shaped my sense of pride in myself. It shaped who I became as a person. Those experiences and values were not something I was willing to compromise on. The "male-coded" comment affected me more deeply than I can adequately explain. By that point, I had become so emotionally dependent on these people that comments like that carried the implicit message that I did not belong. That I was an outsider. That I was somehow less of a woman. The experience left me feeling suicidal. I drove to my local riverfront park to ground myself and reflect on how I had ended up in that position. The following day, I removed myself from the group entirely and publicly called out what had happened. Willow attempted to reframe my lived experiences in private messages. Brianna attempted to downplay the situation and position herself as a motherly or managerial figure trying to bring everyone back together. I wanted no part of it. The weeks of legitimacy testing, the constant questioning of my transition, the attacks on a core part of my identity, and the repeated implication that I was somehow a man ultimately took a tremendous toll on me. Unfortunately, my therapist and psychiatrist believe it contributed to what has become a trauma response. Today, I struggle at times with tunnel vision, sensory overload, shaking, racing thoughts, a racing heart, and panic attacks. I'm working closely with my care team to recover and return to equilibrium. I share this story because I think it highlights how powerful social and group dynamics can be. No one sat me down and brainwashed me. What happened was far more subtle. When your entire social world becomes concentrated in one place, the pressure to conform can become overwhelming. It can make you doubt your own judgment. It can make you question your own experiences. And if left unchecked, it can leave very real psychological scars. This will be the last time I discuss the inner workings of that group publicly. I will simply note that many neutral observers witnessed these events unfold in real time and have since independently acknowledged that they occurred. Also, please, for the sake of my health, please don't try to liken my experiences to leopards. I'm aware of what it looks like, but that's not helpful to me at this moment. So, I beg you, please reserve that kind of talk. Bonus: The video that I attempted to show them. Please watch it. It gives me tears of joy for the athlete in question. It's something we all live for to experience. And she did it at the highest level.

I wanted to explain to the broader transgender community what happened that ultimately made me leave the "true trans" HBS social circle. Some people have expressed interest in hearing this story, and I do think it's worth discussing because of the social and group psychology dynamics that were at play. That said, this will be as far as I go in publicly discussing the situation. Where to start? The reality is that this eventually became a situation where it was Brianna Wu, Marzi, Allysa, and Willow versus myself. The events leading up to the actual breaking point are important. After Willow broke up with me, she told me that I was not the ideal version of a transsexual. In particular, she told me that, using the antiquated HBS scale, I wasn't a Transsexual VI, but more like a IV or V. The reasoning largely came down to the fact that I had different opinions from the rest of the group on issues such as stealth. The rest of the group found my views offensive. This opened the door to what I came to understand as legitimacy testing. This isn't unique to trans spaces either. It involved the systematic questioning of virtually every aspect of my life: my transition, my dysphoria, how I grew up, my experiences, and what I value today. To give you an idea of how extreme it became, Marzi seriously asked me whether I had only pursued SRS to satisfy a sexual fetish. This was after learning that I had been capable of having sex prior to transition. Apparently, that fact alone was enough to cast suspicion on my entire transition history. This legitimacy testing continued for roughly two and a half weeks. Every day. For most of the day. It became increasingly distressing and isolating. And remember, at this point, I was emotionally dependent on these people. The day everything finally came to a head started with a discussion about transgender women in sports. Brianna entered the group chat and asked if any of us would be willing to debate Blaire White on the issue. People immediately began sharing their positions. As the only former NCAA athlete in the group, I chimed in and stated that I supported transgender women participating in women's sports and that it was not an issue I was willing to move on. That triggered a cascade of responses. I was repeatedly told that the issue was insignificant, that it only affected a tiny number of people, and that sports were ultimately just a hobby. I pushed back. I tried explaining that NCAA athletes are not hobbyists. Their sport is often their entire life. They spend years training, watching film, practicing, traveling, competing, and structuring their entire identity around performance. I also tried explaining that sports had been the medium through which I survived to adulthood. School was not safe for me. Home was not safe for me. The track was. Track and field was the one place in my life where I felt safe, valued, and understood. My relationship with sports was deeply personal. Yet every time I tried explaining this, I was met with the same response: "It's just a hobby." They genuinely did not seem to understand. Eventually, I decided to show them a video of Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaking the women's high jump world record. I wanted them to see what elite competition actually looks like. I wanted them to understand the pressure, the emotion, the adrenaline, and what it means to dedicate your life to something. High jump was my best event. I explained how, at the end of a meet, all eyes are on you. Entire stadiums can clap rhythmically to help carry you over the bar. The pressure is immense. And honestly? I lived for that feeling. So I showed them the video. They dismissed it entirely. Then Brianna commented that when she was in high school, she was simply focused on fitting in and being one of the girls. Immediately afterward, Marzi told me that being a competitive athlete was "male-coded." That was my wake-up call. In that moment, I suddenly snapped out of everything. I realized what had been happening to me psychologically. I realized this was no longer a discussion. This was an attempt to socially discipline me into conformity. It was another attempt to reshape my views and my identity to fit within the group's expectations. For the first time, they had collided with something I was unwilling to surrender. An immovable force had met an immovable object. Sports were not just a hobby to me. Track and field helped me survive. It shaped my values. It shaped my sense of pride in myself. It shaped who I became as a person. Those experiences and values were not something I was willing to compromise on. The "male-coded" comment affected me more deeply than I can adequately explain. By that point, I had become so emotionally dependent on these people that comments like that carried the implicit message that I did not belong. That I was an outsider. That I was somehow less of a woman. The experience left me feeling suicidal. I drove to my local riverfront park to ground myself and reflect on how I had ended up in that position. The following day, I removed myself from the group entirely and publicly called out what had happened. Willow attempted to reframe my lived experiences in private messages. Brianna attempted to downplay the situation and position herself as a motherly or managerial figure trying to bring everyone back together. I wanted no part of it. The weeks of legitimacy testing, the constant questioning of my transition, the attacks on a core part of my identity, and the repeated implication that I was somehow a man ultimately took a tremendous toll on me. Unfortunately, my therapist and psychiatrist believe it contributed to what has become a trauma response. Today, I struggle at times with tunnel vision, sensory overload, shaking, racing thoughts, a racing heart, and panic attacks. I'm working closely with my care team to recover and return to equilibrium. I share this story because I think it highlights how powerful social and group dynamics can be. No one sat me down and brainwashed me. What happened was far more subtle. When your entire social world becomes concentrated in one place, the pressure to conform can become overwhelming. It can make you doubt your own judgment. It can make you question your own experiences. And if left unchecked, it can leave very real psychological scars. This will be the last time I discuss the inner workings of that group publicly. I will simply note that many neutral observers witnessed these events unfold in real time and have since independently acknowledged that they occurred. Also, please, for the sake of my health, please don't try to liken my experiences to leopards. I'm aware of what it looks like, but that's not helpful to me at this moment. So, I beg you, please reserve that kind of talk. Bonus: The video that I attempted to show them. Please watch it. It gives me tears of joy for the athlete in question. It's something we all live for to experience. And she did it at the highest level.

Jenna Taylor ♀️

30,472 views • 2 months ago

Why the Gender Critical movement as it presently stands will never receive broad support: Gender criticality is about centering biological sex over the concept of gender being detached from sex, right? It's about not wanting men in women's spaces... right? And it's also about preventing childhood transition out of an abundance of caution of risks and regret. ... and there won't be broad public support for that blend of policy cocktail because the majority of people have at least a shred of compassion for the gender dysphoric ... -- --- -- At Genspect, I met a women (who I will call Megan) who I later learned was transgender. I had no idea. She passed perfectly convincingly as though she were female, and only those whom she wished to disclose her sex to had any idea that she was biologically male at all. Megan and I left the conference Sunday evening and spent the night (and the early morning) chatting while driving aimlessly around downtown Denver. I realized in that chat just how different hers and my Genspect experiences were. Everything negative encounter I experienced, Megan did not. While many were very uncomfortable with my presence, they were quick to welcome Megan. While some were expressive in their fear I was using the women's washroom (which I did not, for those who care), Megan was present in those spaces with no concern expressed by anyone. ... and in the aftermath of the conference, one of our photos insulted and demeaned, while the other's disappeared as the unremarkable conference attendee she was.... This is a problem that should concern us all, because the embodiment of someone like Megan at Genspect is the strongest argument for why gender dysphoric individuals desperately wish to transition young. We need to face the reality that, I didn’t receive my Genspect experience because I am trans, I got it because I am non-passing trans. I got it because I was not a child when I transitioned, I was 28 years old. That’s a chilling reality to face for those who wish to argue to abolish childhood medical transition. I want to be able to say stopping childhood medical transition is a good thing. Really, I do. I want to tell the 10 year old dysphoric boy and his mother who are navigating this complex domain that waiting is better. That undergoing an unobstructed male puberty, a process through which many boys will find their childhood feelings of dysphoria subsist entirely, is the prudent thing to do. That mother and son need to know that biology is real and that you can’t change your sex. They need to hear that comorbidities exist, as does social contagion, and that it’s in their best interest to take every possible precaution to rule out these possibilities at the hazard of lifelong regret from irreversible damage. Those conversations are not happening and they should be. There’s no excuse not to be having it. I want to say that there’s little downside to waiting until adulthood to transition… But I need to tell them the entire truth: that the bestowal of dignity and kindness will be much sparser when left to transition as an adult. We need to make clear that while the risk of transition as a kid is infertility and regret, the risk of transition as an adult is also regret, along with many more surgeries undertaken in a desperation to try fruitlessly to reverse the masculinization of the jawbone and the forehead, the nose and the voice. For large hands and a long face, there’s no solution to those at the present. To be completely transparent, I would need to tell that mother and her 10 year old son that, should it come to it, he probably won’t pass as an adult transitioner, and that when he fails to convincingly present to the world as adequately feminine—as a woman if you will—he will be labeled a clown, an appropriator of womanhood, a pedophilic threat to our children, and a human unworthy of love. -- --- -- You want to ban childhood transition — create space for gender non-conforming males. You want to hold rigidly to our gendered society—you are pushing gender dysphoric individuals who seek childhood transition even more desperately.

Why the Gender Critical movement as it presently stands will never receive broad support: Gender criticality is about centering biological sex over the concept of gender being detached from sex, right? It's about not wanting men in women's spaces... right? And it's also about preventing childhood transition out of an abundance of caution of risks and regret. ... and there won't be broad public support for that blend of policy cocktail because the majority of people have at least a shred of compassion for the gender dysphoric ... -- --- -- At Genspect, I met a women (who I will call Megan) who I later learned was transgender. I had no idea. She passed perfectly convincingly as though she were female, and only those whom she wished to disclose her sex to had any idea that she was biologically male at all. Megan and I left the conference Sunday evening and spent the night (and the early morning) chatting while driving aimlessly around downtown Denver. I realized in that chat just how different hers and my Genspect experiences were. Everything negative encounter I experienced, Megan did not. While many were very uncomfortable with my presence, they were quick to welcome Megan. While some were expressive in their fear I was using the women's washroom (which I did not, for those who care), Megan was present in those spaces with no concern expressed by anyone. ... and in the aftermath of the conference, one of our photos insulted and demeaned, while the other's disappeared as the unremarkable conference attendee she was.... This is a problem that should concern us all, because the embodiment of someone like Megan at Genspect is the strongest argument for why gender dysphoric individuals desperately wish to transition young. We need to face the reality that, I didn’t receive my Genspect experience because I am trans, I got it because I am non-passing trans. I got it because I was not a child when I transitioned, I was 28 years old. That’s a chilling reality to face for those who wish to argue to abolish childhood medical transition. I want to be able to say stopping childhood medical transition is a good thing. Really, I do. I want to tell the 10 year old dysphoric boy and his mother who are navigating this complex domain that waiting is better. That undergoing an unobstructed male puberty, a process through which many boys will find their childhood feelings of dysphoria subsist entirely, is the prudent thing to do. That mother and son need to know that biology is real and that you can’t change your sex. They need to hear that comorbidities exist, as does social contagion, and that it’s in their best interest to take every possible precaution to rule out these possibilities at the hazard of lifelong regret from irreversible damage. Those conversations are not happening and they should be. There’s no excuse not to be having it. I want to say that there’s little downside to waiting until adulthood to transition… But I need to tell them the entire truth: that the bestowal of dignity and kindness will be much sparser when left to transition as an adult. We need to make clear that while the risk of transition as a kid is infertility and regret, the risk of transition as an adult is also regret, along with many more surgeries undertaken in a desperation to try fruitlessly to reverse the masculinization of the jawbone and the forehead, the nose and the voice. For large hands and a long face, there’s no solution to those at the present. To be completely transparent, I would need to tell that mother and her 10 year old son that, should it come to it, he probably won’t pass as an adult transitioner, and that when he fails to convincingly present to the world as adequately feminine—as a woman if you will—he will be labeled a clown, an appropriator of womanhood, a pedophilic threat to our children, and a human unworthy of love. -- --- -- You want to ban childhood transition — create space for gender non-conforming males. You want to hold rigidly to our gendered society—you are pushing gender dysphoric individuals who seek childhood transition even more desperately.

Julia Malott

402,650 views • 2 years ago

Bitch, I do not play about eighth grade star aka opinions based girl….. yeah everybody’s laughing now, but it literally does not take away the fact that you are so fucking ugly like I had his ass blocked on my old account before I even saw this because every time he pops up on my for you page I just have to scroll because he’s so fucking ugly that it pisses me off he looks like he could be casted on Netflix and not in a good way. He seriously needs to find a new haircut because what the fuck is that middle part? and of course he’s a Nepo baby, and the best part is I just found out that he used to be fat, I bet he’s an anorexic asf lowkey all shade and that’s the only way his pathetic ass could lose weight and I know he didn’t use laxatives cause he’s definitely a bottom, the type that one bitch from White Lotus would say as a fem and NOT a butch. You can tell he wants to be Matthew from big mouth but he’s more of a Charlie from heartstopper, you can also tell that he’s never got his ass beat, well maybe once in middle school and then his white ass republican parents freaked the fuck out and got the kid suspended or some shit. Of course he’s obsessed with Diet Coke, he’s so obviously wants to be a white woman that it is embarrassing. Middle schoolers definitely go up to him and be like “oh my God you’re famous on TikTok” and he thinks he’s the shit but the rest of the population don’t give a fuck and the way his mom is a teacher…… I know that she probably yells at the fucking class for everything but really she’s just taking it out on these kids because she knows deep down that she wishes her son was like them instead of a fucking loser who makes strawberry bagels on TikTok not to mention everybody praised him for doing angel tree, bitch that’s nothing he probably just used some of his allowance money to look like a good person so y’all bitches would suck his dick. Omg in all of his fucking videos he tries to sound cute with that feminine ass voice and it gives me a secondhand embarrassment down. he thinks he’s Troye Sivan, but he will never admit that he probably listens to fucking country music and Taylor Swift so he can fit in with all of his Christian girl friends and that’s it. You can tell he peaked in high school. He was definitely the “token gay” and the homophobic straight boys loved him because he was “funny“ but it was all surface level, TikTok humor that seems funny to them. of course he reposted something about drinking on antidepressants. Just because you had a white claw and some lexapro(which explains why he used to be fat as fuck) doesn’t make you whatever a fucking vibe you’re trying to go for. He looks like he jerks off to the Lululemon maternity catalog while pretending he’s Harry Styles. I saw on TikTok that he has a girlfriend and I can’t tell if it’s just for attention or if he’s actually still dl so that his parents don’t freak the fuck out on him and he has to get a real job. This one girl posted him on TikTok, shaking his hips and drinking wine…… like who do you think you fucking are bro? like genuinely who the fuck do you think you are?🔑 he also reposted a TikTok about Lorde “looking a mess” I really don’t give a fuck if it was a joke. You have no place to be talking about somebody’s looks when he looks like that……. and y’all know what I mean, the type of guy who fucks all the dl in the room because he has zero confidence. The type of guy who has all the latest Apple products for no reason. I mean seriously he looks like he eats fucking rocks. Apparently he caused a lot of drama on TikTok (of course) and blamed his OCD like what kind of dumb ass excuse is that but then again he probably asked his mom what to say and then she sent him a script and he went with it. Somebody keeps on copying his videos and it’s pissing him off. I think it’s so hilarious…… you realize you’re just another copy and paste of every other wanna be “ influencer”. Don’t ever try coming for eighth grade start again.🔑🔑

Sensitive content

Bitch, I do not play about eighth grade star aka opinions based girl….. yeah everybody’s laughing now, but it literally does not take away the fact that you are so fucking ugly like I had his ass blocked on my old account before I even saw this because every time he pops up on my for you page I just have to scroll because he’s so fucking ugly that it pisses me off he looks like he could be casted on Netflix and not in a good way. He seriously needs to find a new haircut because what the fuck is that middle part? and of course he’s a Nepo baby, and the best part is I just found out that he used to be fat, I bet he’s an anorexic asf lowkey all shade and that’s the only way his pathetic ass could lose weight and I know he didn’t use laxatives cause he’s definitely a bottom, the type that one bitch from White Lotus would say as a fem and NOT a butch. You can tell he wants to be Matthew from big mouth but he’s more of a Charlie from heartstopper, you can also tell that he’s never got his ass beat, well maybe once in middle school and then his white ass republican parents freaked the fuck out and got the kid suspended or some shit. Of course he’s obsessed with Diet Coke, he’s so obviously wants to be a white woman that it is embarrassing. Middle schoolers definitely go up to him and be like “oh my God you’re famous on TikTok” and he thinks he’s the shit but the rest of the population don’t give a fuck and the way his mom is a teacher…… I know that she probably yells at the fucking class for everything but really she’s just taking it out on these kids because she knows deep down that she wishes her son was like them instead of a fucking loser who makes strawberry bagels on TikTok not to mention everybody praised him for doing angel tree, bitch that’s nothing he probably just used some of his allowance money to look like a good person so y’all bitches would suck his dick. Omg in all of his fucking videos he tries to sound cute with that feminine ass voice and it gives me a secondhand embarrassment down. he thinks he’s Troye Sivan, but he will never admit that he probably listens to fucking country music and Taylor Swift so he can fit in with all of his Christian girl friends and that’s it. You can tell he peaked in high school. He was definitely the “token gay” and the homophobic straight boys loved him because he was “funny“ but it was all surface level, TikTok humor that seems funny to them. of course he reposted something about drinking on antidepressants. Just because you had a white claw and some lexapro(which explains why he used to be fat as fuck) doesn’t make you whatever a fucking vibe you’re trying to go for. He looks like he jerks off to the Lululemon maternity catalog while pretending he’s Harry Styles. I saw on TikTok that he has a girlfriend and I can’t tell if it’s just for attention or if he’s actually still dl so that his parents don’t freak the fuck out on him and he has to get a real job. This one girl posted him on TikTok, shaking his hips and drinking wine…… like who do you think you fucking are bro? like genuinely who the fuck do you think you are?🔑 he also reposted a TikTok about Lorde “looking a mess” I really don’t give a fuck if it was a joke. You have no place to be talking about somebody’s looks when he looks like that……. and y’all know what I mean, the type of guy who fucks all the dl in the room because he has zero confidence. The type of guy who has all the latest Apple products for no reason. I mean seriously he looks like he eats fucking rocks. Apparently he caused a lot of drama on TikTok (of course) and blamed his OCD like what kind of dumb ass excuse is that but then again he probably asked his mom what to say and then she sent him a script and he went with it. Somebody keeps on copying his videos and it’s pissing him off. I think it’s so hilarious…… you realize you’re just another copy and paste of every other wanna be “ influencer”. Don’t ever try coming for eighth grade start again.🔑🔑

Travis🦋

93,592 views • 4 months ago

Cheney Should Have Died Alone In A Cage Dick Cheney, arguably the single government official most responsible for the expansion of US warmongering and militarism in the 21st century, has died. The worst worst war sluts of the US empire have issued statements expressing their condolences, including Democrats like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Bill Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi. Because if there’s one thing that can bring Democrats and Republicans together, it’s war crimes and the slaughter millions of middle easterners. Dick Cheney died far too old and far too free. The fact that such monsters get to pass away in their eighties surrounded by loved ones instead of alone in a cage is an indictment of our entire civilization. In a truly sane society, Richard Bruce Cheney would have lived out his life in relative obscurity, working as a gardener or something. In a fairly sane society, people would have realized what a monster Cheney was before he could do any major harm in Washington, and he would have been driven out of any town he tried to enter. In a slightly sane society, he would have been punished for the rape of Iraq and lived out the rest of his life in a cell in The Hague. But we do not live in a truly sane society, or in a fairly sane society, or even in a slightly sane society. We live in the sort of society that lets a man unleash a chain of events which kills millions and displaces tens of millions causing more human suffering than the mind can possibly comprehend, and then live out the rest of his life in comfort and privilege, with zero consequences of any kind. Dick Cheney is dead now, but his legacy lives on. The damage he did is still unfolding. The hegemonic, hypermilitaristic ideology he promoted has become the baseline norm. New swamp monsters have stepped in to fill his shoes and advance the same murderous and tyrannical agendas he advanced, confident that they too will suffer no consequences and live long and comfortable lives in reward for their loyal service to the US empire. Dick Cheney left a stain upon our species that we will spend the rest of our lives trying to scrub out. All decent people want our world to move in the exact opposite direction he spent his entire blood-spattered career working to steer us toward. All decent people want to undo everything that Dick Cheney was. That said, the world actually does feel better without Dick Cheney in it. Feels a bit brighter. A bit lighter. Kinder. Gentler. I don’t find comfort in the idea that Cheney is burning in hell now, because I do not believe in hell. I don’t find comfort in the idea that the empire will become less murderous and abusive in Cheney’s absence, because it won’t. I find comfort in the fact that, after all these years, I am finally walking around on a planet that I do not have to share with Dick Cheney. It’s a nice experience. Give it a try. Take a few steps and notice how you are at long last walking around on an earth that doesn’t have Dick Cheney on it. Look up at the sky and reflect on the fact that you and Dick Cheney are not living underneath that sky together anymore. Breathe deeply and think, “Today is the first day of life without Dick Cheney.” It’s pretty sweet. I find that something in me relaxes a bit. Something subtle in my animal body is very relieved that he is gone now. That’s good enough for me. I’ll take it. Reading by Tim Foley:

Cheney Should Have Died Alone In A Cage Dick Cheney, arguably the single government official most responsible for the expansion of US warmongering and militarism in the 21st century, has died. The worst worst war sluts of the US empire have issued statements expressing their condolences, including Democrats like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Bill Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi. Because if there’s one thing that can bring Democrats and Republicans together, it’s war crimes and the slaughter millions of middle easterners. Dick Cheney died far too old and far too free. The fact that such monsters get to pass away in their eighties surrounded by loved ones instead of alone in a cage is an indictment of our entire civilization. In a truly sane society, Richard Bruce Cheney would have lived out his life in relative obscurity, working as a gardener or something. In a fairly sane society, people would have realized what a monster Cheney was before he could do any major harm in Washington, and he would have been driven out of any town he tried to enter. In a slightly sane society, he would have been punished for the rape of Iraq and lived out the rest of his life in a cell in The Hague. But we do not live in a truly sane society, or in a fairly sane society, or even in a slightly sane society. We live in the sort of society that lets a man unleash a chain of events which kills millions and displaces tens of millions causing more human suffering than the mind can possibly comprehend, and then live out the rest of his life in comfort and privilege, with zero consequences of any kind. Dick Cheney is dead now, but his legacy lives on. The damage he did is still unfolding. The hegemonic, hypermilitaristic ideology he promoted has become the baseline norm. New swamp monsters have stepped in to fill his shoes and advance the same murderous and tyrannical agendas he advanced, confident that they too will suffer no consequences and live long and comfortable lives in reward for their loyal service to the US empire. Dick Cheney left a stain upon our species that we will spend the rest of our lives trying to scrub out. All decent people want our world to move in the exact opposite direction he spent his entire blood-spattered career working to steer us toward. All decent people want to undo everything that Dick Cheney was. That said, the world actually does feel better without Dick Cheney in it. Feels a bit brighter. A bit lighter. Kinder. Gentler. I don’t find comfort in the idea that Cheney is burning in hell now, because I do not believe in hell. I don’t find comfort in the idea that the empire will become less murderous and abusive in Cheney’s absence, because it won’t. I find comfort in the fact that, after all these years, I am finally walking around on a planet that I do not have to share with Dick Cheney. It’s a nice experience. Give it a try. Take a few steps and notice how you are at long last walking around on an earth that doesn’t have Dick Cheney on it. Look up at the sky and reflect on the fact that you and Dick Cheney are not living underneath that sky together anymore. Breathe deeply and think, “Today is the first day of life without Dick Cheney.” It’s pretty sweet. I find that something in me relaxes a bit. Something subtle in my animal body is very relieved that he is gone now. That’s good enough for me. I’ll take it. Reading by Tim Foley:

Caitlin Johnstone

56,962 views • 9 months ago

We officially got the green light for an entire Road To Western States video series, all presented by The Feed ❤️ Thank you to everyone for watching the pilot. Our goal is to show everything. No secrets. The best story coming from the series won’t have anything to do with me. It’s about the director and videographer, Cody Bare🙏 In 2023, Cody moved to Colorado and spent his life savings on photo equipment to pursue his dream. He went to races without any payment, shooting his shots over and over. He burned the boats. At Leadville in August 2024, he was there shooting his shots when I came into the mile 22 Outward Bound aid station. He snapped a few of those shots right then (see my profile photo). And maybe he saw something in my eyes, or overheard me telling Megan that I was going to demolish the record, but he dropped all of his plans and followed me around the course. I distinctly remember a blond-haired guy I didn’t know crouched in a bush at mile 94 in the middle of freaking nowhere, camera clicks blazing alongside some joyous hoots and hollers of encouragement. Cody took photos that day that were seen by millions of people and that I will cherish until the day I die. He shared all of them with me (plus video) for free. I don’t know much about art, but I immediately saw that this 24-year old was already one of the best photographers on the planet. Other people who know a lot more than me saw it too. Cody shot Javelina, this time paid. And after that race, he emailed me with a business plan of his new vision: “I believe there’s a huge audience interested in your journey and I would love to help document it!” He had never done videography like this. He had to buy the equipment. No contracts or certainty. Burn the boats. Cody is a storyteller. But whatever stories he tells in this series will only exist because he left certainty behind in Georgia. His story is what I will be thinking about when things are hard and I want to go back to the comfort of low-key races. If Cody can burn the boats, I can too. History, here we come. GOATs don’t need boats 😂🐐❤️

David Roche

22,425 views • 1 year ago

Fans tracked down a hotpot restaurant from the drama set and chatted with the owner. He shared a stream of unfiltered stories that are pure gold ✨ 💦 The Water Fight. “I was watching their water fight and blurted out: “Hey, your water stinks!” It was pitch black, I’m telling you! 😂 The pool was old and hadn’t been cleaned. Leizi was right there and saw they hadn’t even started yet, but the water truck driver was already yelling: “Hold on! Let me finish with this water first - I’ve got other places to be!” I rode over on my scooter from that bridge and just sat there watching 🛴👀. The second I lifted my phone to record, they shooed me away 🙈. Someone from the crew shouted: “You’re such a pest!” And I shot back: “Takes one to know one!” They all knew me by then 😅.” 🍭 Yueyue and the sugar figures. “That day, Yueyue was standing there filming how they make those blown-sugar figures. I was behind the container chatting with him (the owner). They had this huge lighting panel and I accidentally kicked the plug out with my foot 😳! The cameraman goes: “What happened?” And Yueyue immediately points at me: “He messed up! He pulled it out! Punish him!”😂 I’m like: “It wasn’t me!” And he says: “I’m calling the director right now to scold you.” So I just turned and left 😅. That’s just his personality - what you see is what you get, and it’s honestly kind of endearing 💖.” 🚬 Cigarettes: “Those two were always together at the convenience store - one drinking his water, the other smoking his cigarettes. The store owner even knew they smoked “Kuanzhai” (28 yuan a pack). Later, he said they were out. And one of them (probably Leizi) goes: “I’ll give you 50 for it.” Can you imagine? Fifty for a pack - talk about premium cigarettes🔥. So funny.” 💬 The Conversations. “I asked him (Yueyue): “How old are you?” He just said: “How old do I look?” - never gave me a straight answer 🙃. I said: “Why are you wearing a hat in this heat?” He took it off and went: “Look - bald. Not a single hair.” 😆 Later, he hits me with: “Why do you think your restaurant isn’t taking off?” I said: “Dunno.” And he goes: “I think you’re even more annoying than I am.” Hahaha! The director who was resting nearby told me: “You’ve got a really outgoing personality. If you were ten years younger, you could’ve been in movies .” I joked back: “Ah, come on, I’m just an old piece of overcured bacon now 🥓😂.” “When they were packing up to leave, I said to them: “You guys aren’t really acting, are you? (You seem for real.)” They didn’t say anything - just stayed silent. But Yueyue over there talked a mile a minute 🗣️💨. Then he asks me: “Can you get rich running a hotpot place?” I said: “Nope.” So I asked him: “Can you get rich acting?” And he fires back: “Look at me - I’m so poor I don’t even have eyebrows left.” Hahaha 😂😂!”

Fans tracked down a hotpot restaurant from the drama set and chatted with the owner. He shared a stream of unfiltered stories that are pure gold ✨ 💦 The Water Fight. “I was watching their water fight and blurted out: “Hey, your water stinks!” It was pitch black, I’m telling you! 😂 The pool was old and hadn’t been cleaned. Leizi was right there and saw they hadn’t even started yet, but the water truck driver was already yelling: “Hold on! Let me finish with this water first - I’ve got other places to be!” I rode over on my scooter from that bridge and just sat there watching 🛴👀. The second I lifted my phone to record, they shooed me away 🙈. Someone from the crew shouted: “You’re such a pest!” And I shot back: “Takes one to know one!” They all knew me by then 😅.” 🍭 Yueyue and the sugar figures. “That day, Yueyue was standing there filming how they make those blown-sugar figures. I was behind the container chatting with him (the owner). They had this huge lighting panel and I accidentally kicked the plug out with my foot 😳! The cameraman goes: “What happened?” And Yueyue immediately points at me: “He messed up! He pulled it out! Punish him!”😂 I’m like: “It wasn’t me!” And he says: “I’m calling the director right now to scold you.” So I just turned and left 😅. That’s just his personality - what you see is what you get, and it’s honestly kind of endearing 💖.” 🚬 Cigarettes: “Those two were always together at the convenience store - one drinking his water, the other smoking his cigarettes. The store owner even knew they smoked “Kuanzhai” (28 yuan a pack). Later, he said they were out. And one of them (probably Leizi) goes: “I’ll give you 50 for it.” Can you imagine? Fifty for a pack - talk about premium cigarettes🔥. So funny.” 💬 The Conversations. “I asked him (Yueyue): “How old are you?” He just said: “How old do I look?” - never gave me a straight answer 🙃. I said: “Why are you wearing a hat in this heat?” He took it off and went: “Look - bald. Not a single hair.” 😆 Later, he hits me with: “Why do you think your restaurant isn’t taking off?” I said: “Dunno.” And he goes: “I think you’re even more annoying than I am.” Hahaha! The director who was resting nearby told me: “You’ve got a really outgoing personality. If you were ten years younger, you could’ve been in movies .” I joked back: “Ah, come on, I’m just an old piece of overcured bacon now 🥓😂.” “When they were packing up to leave, I said to them: “You guys aren’t really acting, are you? (You seem for real.)” They didn’t say anything - just stayed silent. But Yueyue over there talked a mile a minute 🗣️💨. Then he asks me: “Can you get rich running a hotpot place?” I said: “Nope.” So I asked him: “Can you get rich acting?” And he fires back: “Look at me - I’m so poor I don’t even have eyebrows left.” Hahaha 😂😂!”

Littlecorn🌽

19,274 views • 7 months ago

I received this email from a Canadian father trying to save his 8-year-old boy from medical transition. I’ve removed all identifying info, and I’m working on finding him pro-bono lawyers. The school has already started socially transitioning his son with a girl’s name and pronouns, in SECRET! The father was not informed, despite having 50% custody, and the school did so without any psychological oversight. And a psychologist is already discussing puberty blockers, having never even met the child! This father needs help. Here’s the email: Hi Chris, My name is _______. I’m a father in _______, currently representing myself in the Supreme Court. I wanted to reach out because my case is unfolding right here in our backyard, and it shows how deep the ideological capture has gone. On July 16th, an arbitrator issued an award directing that my 8-year-old son be assessed for gender dysphoria by the head of ______ Gender Clinic. The arbitrator treated WPATH guidelines as if they were law, referred to my son by a different name, and ignored the evidence I filed — including an affidavit where my son said: “Mommy said I am trans.” For the past two years, my ex has been feeding him trans information without my knowledge. The school also began socially transitioning him in secret, effectively becoming the emotional and psychological caretakers of this identity. The arbitrator swept all of this aside, ruling as if affirmation was the only path. I had one call with the chosen psychologist. I didn’t even get to ask all my questions, but what shocked me is that puberty blockers were already discussed and tabled — despite this clinician never having met my son. This shows the conveyor belt in action: assessment, affirmation, and medicalization are treated as foregone conclusions. I’m now applying to have the award set aside. My only aim is to protect my son from being railroaded down this path. The arbitrator did find there was no “family violence” in my not affirming him, but everything else points toward ideological capture. It’s a lonely road. Most people seem to be walking around with moral blinders on. But I’ve followed your work, and I wanted to let you know about this case because it’s happening right here in ______. I look up to your courage and consistency — you’ve been one of the few willing to speak the truth. If you’d like to connect, I’d welcome it. *** I’ve now spoken at length with him and he’s extremely sharp, professional, etc. His son says he wants to have a big family one day. He wants to have 10 kids of his own, and of course doesn’t understand what ‘trans’ even means. The way things currently stand, with the entire system stacked up against the father, his boy will end up sterilized from puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

I received this email from a Canadian father trying to save his 8-year-old boy from medical transition. I’ve removed all identifying info, and I’m working on finding him pro-bono lawyers. The school has already started socially transitioning his son with a girl’s name and pronouns, in SECRET! The father was not informed, despite having 50% custody, and the school did so without any psychological oversight. And a psychologist is already discussing puberty blockers, having never even met the child! This father needs help. Here’s the email: Hi Chris, My name is ___. I’m a father in _, currently representing myself in the Supreme Court. I wanted to reach out because my case is unfolding right here in our backyard, and it shows how deep the ideological capture has gone. On July 16th, an arbitrator issued an award directing that my 8-year-old son be assessed for gender dysphoria by the head of Gender Clinic. The arbitrator treated WPATH guidelines as if they were law, referred to my son by a different name, and ignored the evidence I filed — including an affidavit where my son said: “Mommy said I am trans.” For the past two years, my ex has been feeding him trans information without my knowledge. The school also began socially transitioning him in secret, effectively becoming the emotional and psychological caretakers of this identity. The arbitrator swept all of this aside, ruling as if affirmation was the only path. I had one call with the chosen psychologist. I didn’t even get to ask all my questions, but what shocked me is that puberty blockers were already discussed and tabled — despite this clinician never having met my son. This shows the conveyor belt in action: assessment, affirmation, and medicalization are treated as foregone conclusions. I’m now applying to have the award set aside. My only aim is to protect my son from being railroaded down this path. The arbitrator did find there was no “family violence” in my not affirming him, but everything else points toward ideological capture. It’s a lonely road. Most people seem to be walking around with moral blinders on. But I’ve followed your work, and I wanted to let you know about this case because it’s happening right here in __. I look up to your courage and consistency — you’ve been one of the few willing to speak the truth. If you’d like to connect, I’d welcome it. *** I’ve now spoken at length with him and he’s extremely sharp, professional, etc. His son says he wants to have a big family one day. He wants to have 10 kids of his own, and of course doesn’t understand what ‘trans’ even means. The way things currently stand, with the entire system stacked up against the father, his boy will end up sterilized from puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

Billboard Chris 🌎

123,509 views • 11 months ago

The “Hacking Myth” Continued, Crazy Chelsea & The Breakup. Killing 3 birds with one stone… Let's think this through once again. If I supposedly had access to all his devices, why didn’t I find out about his mistress ‘ThirstyDM Chelsea’ until June 18? I must be the worst hacker on the planet. Since Aidan is still out here claiming I “hacked his devices” and had access to “all of his accounts,” let’s start with one simple, undeniable fact: I didn’t even know about this trash bag until June 18. If I supposedly had access to his phone, his texts, his iCloud, his entire digital life, don’t you think I would’ve found out a lot sooner? Not just about her, but about the 10ish other women I’ve since discovered he cheated on me with after the breakup? And just to be clear- I’m not here to shame the women he cheated on me with (except Clearance Aisle Chels). They’re not the main ones to blame. But let’s be real. We had a very public relationship. Anyone pursuing him knew exactly what they were doing, and that alone tells you something about the kind of women he gravitates toward. And look at where he’s landed now, right back with the same type, including someone who spent the last year crying grape, sent him to jail, and filed BBO complaints against his attorney. That’s not on me. That’s who he is, and that’s who he chooses. But no, I didn’t know about all of them until much later on. Some, who have come forward in the last week. This alone kills two birds with one stone: It proves Aidan’s “she hacked me!!” fantasy is a lie. It exposes how ridiculous the manic tweets from ghetto Chelsea have been the last 72 hours, the same girl I’ve mostly ignored because she’s so far down the totem pole it’s basically subterranean. Here’s Aidan himself admitting I didn’t know about her until June 18. Right there, her entire “Meredith knew about our texts back in the spring!! She was harassing me!! She copied me!!” storyline collapses into dust. You can’t harass someone you didn’t know existed. I’m mortified that I ever lowered myself for a man who was cheating with women who look like they were assembled out of spare parts at a bus stop. Yes, as I said in the voice recording, I found out about Chelsea on June 18th, and I stayed with him for a little less than a month after that. I’ve never hidden that as embarrassing as it is. Like every other time he got caught, he convinced me it was “just sexting,” that nothing physical happened, and that it only happened during one of our short breaks that usually lasted a day or two. Deep down, I knew it wasn’t right, and I knew I needed to leave, and if you look at the pattern, you’ll see many days where I tried to get out and he blew up my phone, called nonstop, or physically showed up at my apartment after I begged him not to. His narrative is that he ended things in July. Sure, technically he said the words. But let’s be real. Does anyone genuinely think a man who calls 200+ times a day, spirals when he feels abandoned, and refuses to be ignored was ever going to let me walk away cleanly? I let him believe it was his decision because that was the only way I was ever going to get out safely and peacefully. I knew deep down for a long time, this was the only way. I didn’t even talk to him for a month after our break-up. The majority of contact after July was initiated by him, not me. And yes, I’m including a few more screenshots of those call logs, since whatever one-sided fairytale he’s telling on his nightly diary shows is fooling some. These weren’t isolated incidents. This was the pattern throughout our entire relationship. Even in June 2024 and earlier, during the very messages he’s now cherry-picking for his narrative, he was calling me relentlessly, sometimes hundreds of times a day. I didn’t screenshot them back then because I didn’t fully realize how unhinged it was yet. And honestly? I hope every one of his little “side quests” and mistresses takes a long, hard look at these timestamps and compares them to when he was messaging them, telling them we were broken up or “basically done.” Compare notes, ladies. The timeline speaks louder than the lies he fed each of you. Maybe that’s part of why he’s melting down now. Because after Wilbur, we weren’t speaking, and then the recording fallout pulled us back into old patterns of daily conversations about his legal issues, his documentary, and everything else he needed from me. The clip here is just days after I finally blocked him on everything, and he immediately started tweeting at Joe Flipperhead trying to bait me into responding. Same cycle. Same manipulation. I just stepped out of it. Now, back to the device-access lie: The truth hasn’t changed. I saw ONE week of texts on the Apple Watch in January, because a boob pic flashed across the screen. That’s it. If I had actually been in his phone? I would’ve seen the messages from all the women he cheated with, and I would’ve walked. Aidan knows this. He knows the exact day I found out. Yet he’s still lying his ass off about it three nights in a row now. Meanwhile, Chelsea has made her entire Twitter personality about me, tagging me, subtweeting me, creating fan fiction about “harassment,” showing zero proof of anything. In contrast, I posted our full message threads showing she was the one reaching out to me nonstop over the serious crime of a friend request. Honestly, the saddest part is watching an almost 44-year-old man keep repeating these disproven stories while trusting someone this sloppy, contradictory, and wildly unhinged to be his mouthpiece. He must be exhausted. Apparently he’s sunk to talking about my daughter on his show, a 15-year-old child. The irony is almost funny if it weren’t so disgusting. He’s so desperate and so pathetic that he’s now swinging at a teenage girl because he can’t handle a grown woman calling out his lies. And the funniest part? She saw through him from day one. She told me I could do so much better and that there was something “off” about him. Turns out the 15-year-old had more insight, judgment, and emotional intelligence than the almost 44-year-old man melting down on livestream. I could say so much about his own family situation, but I will never go there because I am better than him in every way. Honestly, I feel like I lost myself being with him. I was constantly made smaller, undoubtedly on purpose. so he could stay the center of attention at all times and keep me in the shadows. He constantly reminded me that people only liked me because I was his girlfriend. As I said last night, it’s comical and almost adorable he thinks I’m broken by not being Mrs. Turtleboy. There’s a huge world out there, who doesn’t even know who he is. Looking back now, it’s painfully clear- I made him better, and he made me worse. And for everyone who has criticized me for letting others speak for me, I was just scared. I needed time to find my voice again after being minimized for so long. But lately? Now that I’ve finally come out from under my (turtle) shell? Turns out I wasn’t quiet… I was just buried. PS- Here are my earlier posts debunking the Apple Watch “hack” and the Facebook “hack”. At this point it’s actually wild that we’re on night 3 of this circus and Aidan still hasn’t produced a single shred of proof that I hacked anything. Not one screenshot, not one log, not one receipt. Nothing. He’s just blaming a woman for his bad decisions, his lies, and his poor life choices, because deflecting is easier than taking responsibility.

Sensitive content

The “Hacking Myth” Continued, Crazy Chelsea & The Breakup. Killing 3 birds with one stone… Let's think this through once again. If I supposedly had access to all his devices, why didn’t I find out about his mistress ‘ThirstyDM Chelsea’ until June 18? I must be the worst hacker on the planet. Since Aidan is still out here claiming I “hacked his devices” and had access to “all of his accounts,” let’s start with one simple, undeniable fact: I didn’t even know about this trash bag until June 18. If I supposedly had access to his phone, his texts, his iCloud, his entire digital life, don’t you think I would’ve found out a lot sooner? Not just about her, but about the 10ish other women I’ve since discovered he cheated on me with after the breakup? And just to be clear- I’m not here to shame the women he cheated on me with (except Clearance Aisle Chels). They’re not the main ones to blame. But let’s be real. We had a very public relationship. Anyone pursuing him knew exactly what they were doing, and that alone tells you something about the kind of women he gravitates toward. And look at where he’s landed now, right back with the same type, including someone who spent the last year crying grape, sent him to jail, and filed BBO complaints against his attorney. That’s not on me. That’s who he is, and that’s who he chooses. But no, I didn’t know about all of them until much later on. Some, who have come forward in the last week. This alone kills two birds with one stone: It proves Aidan’s “she hacked me!!” fantasy is a lie. It exposes how ridiculous the manic tweets from ghetto Chelsea have been the last 72 hours, the same girl I’ve mostly ignored because she’s so far down the totem pole it’s basically subterranean. Here’s Aidan himself admitting I didn’t know about her until June 18. Right there, her entire “Meredith knew about our texts back in the spring!! She was harassing me!! She copied me!!” storyline collapses into dust. You can’t harass someone you didn’t know existed. I’m mortified that I ever lowered myself for a man who was cheating with women who look like they were assembled out of spare parts at a bus stop. Yes, as I said in the voice recording, I found out about Chelsea on June 18th, and I stayed with him for a little less than a month after that. I’ve never hidden that as embarrassing as it is. Like every other time he got caught, he convinced me it was “just sexting,” that nothing physical happened, and that it only happened during one of our short breaks that usually lasted a day or two. Deep down, I knew it wasn’t right, and I knew I needed to leave, and if you look at the pattern, you’ll see many days where I tried to get out and he blew up my phone, called nonstop, or physically showed up at my apartment after I begged him not to. His narrative is that he ended things in July. Sure, technically he said the words. But let’s be real. Does anyone genuinely think a man who calls 200+ times a day, spirals when he feels abandoned, and refuses to be ignored was ever going to let me walk away cleanly? I let him believe it was his decision because that was the only way I was ever going to get out safely and peacefully. I knew deep down for a long time, this was the only way. I didn’t even talk to him for a month after our break-up. The majority of contact after July was initiated by him, not me. And yes, I’m including a few more screenshots of those call logs, since whatever one-sided fairytale he’s telling on his nightly diary shows is fooling some. These weren’t isolated incidents. This was the pattern throughout our entire relationship. Even in June 2024 and earlier, during the very messages he’s now cherry-picking for his narrative, he was calling me relentlessly, sometimes hundreds of times a day. I didn’t screenshot them back then because I didn’t fully realize how unhinged it was yet. And honestly? I hope every one of his little “side quests” and mistresses takes a long, hard look at these timestamps and compares them to when he was messaging them, telling them we were broken up or “basically done.” Compare notes, ladies. The timeline speaks louder than the lies he fed each of you. Maybe that’s part of why he’s melting down now. Because after Wilbur, we weren’t speaking, and then the recording fallout pulled us back into old patterns of daily conversations about his legal issues, his documentary, and everything else he needed from me. The clip here is just days after I finally blocked him on everything, and he immediately started tweeting at Joe Flipperhead trying to bait me into responding. Same cycle. Same manipulation. I just stepped out of it. Now, back to the device-access lie: The truth hasn’t changed. I saw ONE week of texts on the Apple Watch in January, because a boob pic flashed across the screen. That’s it. If I had actually been in his phone? I would’ve seen the messages from all the women he cheated with, and I would’ve walked. Aidan knows this. He knows the exact day I found out. Yet he’s still lying his ass off about it three nights in a row now. Meanwhile, Chelsea has made her entire Twitter personality about me, tagging me, subtweeting me, creating fan fiction about “harassment,” showing zero proof of anything. In contrast, I posted our full message threads showing she was the one reaching out to me nonstop over the serious crime of a friend request. Honestly, the saddest part is watching an almost 44-year-old man keep repeating these disproven stories while trusting someone this sloppy, contradictory, and wildly unhinged to be his mouthpiece. He must be exhausted. Apparently he’s sunk to talking about my daughter on his show, a 15-year-old child. The irony is almost funny if it weren’t so disgusting. He’s so desperate and so pathetic that he’s now swinging at a teenage girl because he can’t handle a grown woman calling out his lies. And the funniest part? She saw through him from day one. She told me I could do so much better and that there was something “off” about him. Turns out the 15-year-old had more insight, judgment, and emotional intelligence than the almost 44-year-old man melting down on livestream. I could say so much about his own family situation, but I will never go there because I am better than him in every way. Honestly, I feel like I lost myself being with him. I was constantly made smaller, undoubtedly on purpose. so he could stay the center of attention at all times and keep me in the shadows. He constantly reminded me that people only liked me because I was his girlfriend. As I said last night, it’s comical and almost adorable he thinks I’m broken by not being Mrs. Turtleboy. There’s a huge world out there, who doesn’t even know who he is. Looking back now, it’s painfully clear- I made him better, and he made me worse. And for everyone who has criticized me for letting others speak for me, I was just scared. I needed time to find my voice again after being minimized for so long. But lately? Now that I’ve finally come out from under my (turtle) shell? Turns out I wasn’t quiet… I was just buried. PS- Here are my earlier posts debunking the Apple Watch “hack” and the Facebook “hack”. At this point it’s actually wild that we’re on night 3 of this circus and Aidan still hasn’t produced a single shred of proof that I hacked anything. Not one screenshot, not one log, not one receipt. Nothing. He’s just blaming a woman for his bad decisions, his lies, and his poor life choices, because deflecting is easier than taking responsibility.

The old M can’t come to the phone right now

38,412 views • 8 months ago

When I was reading Brian Tully, Ken Mello and Robert Cosgrove's affidavits yesterday in the Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney case, I was challenged by an account that was intent on defending Leigha Bathtub Genduso and Kate Peter. Best quotes from my retort; "Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Thirdly: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. Why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record, as well? Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. Reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kit and caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done." PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: If you’re just tuning in, my name is Grant Smith Ellis, and we are reading through Brian Tully, Robert Cosgrove, and Ken Mello’s affidavit. It’s tough to call it an affidavit from Ken Mello, because quite frankly, he didn’t write an affidavit. Robert Cosgrove adapted hearsay statements in Ken Mello’s voice in his own affidavit. That might tell you something. I don’t know. What the fuck do I know? I’m just a towel. Thank you very much for tuning in. I have noticed that there is a very specific group of people in Kate Peter’s orbit trying to target Towel right now. People do not want Towel to be heard. That means I’m going to speak more. I am going to just keep talking and keep saying things, because now I have put it all together. Oh, that’s right. I have one more thing to type. Furthermore, as soon as, within weeks of Kate’s emails to Tully and Mello being turned over in, what was it? August of 2025, the TurtleBoy charges involving Lindsey Gaetani were dropped. And what do you know? Kate was involved in handling evidence submitted by Tully and Mello to the grand jury for Lindsey’s charges, for the charges involving Lindsey Gaetani, for Aiden’s charges involving Lindsey Gaetani. Furthermore, the new email from Kate to Mello indicates Kate was indeed also involved in the 2023 indictments against Kearney that the Norfolk DA seems intent on trying to wall off from Kate Peter’s involvement. Oh, little towels, I'm just a little towel. Steph, Grant says, “Why are you making fun of her by calling her bathtub.” Wait, what? No, no, no, Steph, let’s be very clear. When Leigha Genduso engaged in—and I think it was Kate actually who did it—but when Leigha Genduso or Kate responded to revenge porn with revenge porn, nothing about that was okay, okay? Whether it was legal or not at the time, nobody sharing revenge porn of anybody else was okay, all right? I just want to be very clear. So when Kate did it, it was not okay. When Aiden did it, if that’s what happened with Leigha—I don’t know, I wasn’t around—not okay. If Leigha did it to Aiden, not okay, okay? Everybody on the same page? Like, it’s not okay to do that to people. I just want everyone on the same page. No one would—it’s just like, treat people how you want to be treated, bro. So I just don’t do it. Now, I get some people would say, fight fire with fire, okay, still, don’t fucking do it. Please don’t do it. I don’t understand why people do it. It blows my mind. I don’t understand why people justify it. Oh, it’s okay that Kate or Leigha did it, cause Aiden did it too. It’s like, no, though. I get it's a shitty thing to happen. Don’t do it back. Just stop. It’s ridiculous. Steph's like—"I keep seeing you call her bathtub." Yea, bro she took a video in a bathtub once and posted it on social media. Okay, you want to livestream yourself from a fucking bathtub then I'm going to call you Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I don’t know what to tell you. You don’t have to call her that, but I’m going to do that, right? And I’m not going to stop. But yeah, Three-Clerk-Monte bang bang. Sometimes you just got to tell them how it is, Three-Clerk Monte, you know what I’m saying? Even while you’re on your break. By the way, Steph, I’m just going to break here just posting things, right? And I’m saying I’m not even supposed to be riled up right now. We’re going to go back to reading the indictment in a little bit. I’m just a little towel. I’m on one, you know what I’m saying? Absolutely not. I don’t know which Steph you are. I don’t know if you’re that Steph or whatever, the fake Canadian. You’re not going to come on here and tell me I cannot call her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I’m going to triple down. I’m going to call Leigha Bathtub Genduso more now. Thank you for all the comments, by the way. It helps the stream get attention in the Kate Peter sucks. Remember that? Yes, that I want you to get this tattooed on your arm: Kate Peter sucks. I’ll help you spell it: K-A-T-E P-E-T-E-R, no S at the end, just Kate Peter, now a new word, sucks, S-U-C-K-S. Everybody on the same page? All right, it’s artistic expression, bro. What do you want to say? Oh no, she’s gone. Steph, I was enjoying all your comments. Yes, Steph, that’s exactly what I want. I want you to keep interacting in the comments because it gets the stream more attention in the feed. I want that. I want you to continue to engage, and I’m going to keep calling her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. It’s not an obsession. It is the product of multiple years of work on the story to uncover something hidden that you don’t want to be talked about in public. That’s the reality. Is that not right Steph, you’re concerned that Kate Peter compromised the cases against Aiden Kearney because she worked as a PI for Marty Craft, who’s now lost his license because of what she was up to according to people’s reports in this chat, and you feel that it’s uncomfortable to have to hold her to the same moral standard that you do Aiden because you’re biased, right? Fine, I don’t care. I’ll tell it to your face yes. No, Steph, you have something to say? You say it right here, one-on-one. Let’s debate. We can do it. I have all the evidence now. We can talk about it all. That’s correct. I don’t create realities, Steph. I bring them to light. Your normative moral framework and what you want to happen is just that. The descriptive reality is independent of what any of us want. It is simply a factual record. In the context of our asymptotic relationship with that factual record, notwithstanding, I was interested in the truth, and you are who is afraid of it, let’s be clear. I wouldn’t say you’re debating me, Steph. You can’t debate on the merit of the facts. You want to know why? Because, for example, it would be very hard for you to counter something like this paragraph right here, right? Where Robert Cosgrove says that any data missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s phone was not on the phone at the time Brian Tully did the extraction. And you might be saying to yourself, Grant, how can you know? How can you know that Brian Tully intentionally released the phone unredacted after only removing messages from Kate to Lindsey and from Tully to Lindsey and after removing things like audio messages from Leigha Genduso? How do I know? Well, because how else would Lindsey have posted it on social media? My word, Steph. It’s almost like there’s proof that Robert Cosgrove was withholding material information related to the sum and substance of Kate Peter’s communications with various members of the prosecution team and/or witnesses and/or the handling of evidence in order to insulate certain charges from Kate Peter touching that evidence so that they could continue to trial, notwithstanding the discovery obligations of the state under the new updated Rule 14 as implemented on March 1, 2025. And towel is in a snarky mood indeed. And you’re not going to be able to do anything about it—oh, please, you're not saying to yourself, "what’s wrong with towel, Steph?" You’re basically saying, "why are you crossing the thin blue line?" And I would like to respond to you by saying, in the least unloving way, but the fact that you would ask me, “What is Grant doing?” because I won’t adhere to your thin blue line? Get the fuck out of here. Go climb up somebody else’s tree. Go find your own treehouse. Not happening. Absolutely not happening. You will look this factual record in the eye. You will confront your moral problems with the various actions of different people involved on your own time. And Leigha Bathtub Genduso will be central to this moral reckoning. And there’s not a damn thing you or your fake Canadian ass can do about it. I’m on one. I told you. Listen, you want it? You want it to be on record? We’ll do it. No, no, I’m just not loyal to your interests, Steph. I’m loyal to truth. I’m loyal to the people who are actually harmed. I’m not loyal to you or any of your friends or Kate Peter or the thin blue line or the thin green line or the thin pink line for that matter. All of you can take your lines and go fuck yourselves. Fake Canadian. Yeah, right, Steph. Yeah, let’s go with that. Yep, let’s go with fake Canadian, because why would you want me looking more in to you? A reporter? You want me to look more into you? No. God, take the L, man, just move on. That’s correct. No, listen, Steph, you want to talk about Michael Proctor’s family’s relationship to my mother? You want to be the person who draws that line? I’ll tell you about it. You sure you want to talk about it? You damn fake Canadian. We may have to get this fake Canadian out of here. She’s riling me up. You’re riling me up by trying to defend Kate Peter. I knew you were a rat the whole time. Goddamn Kate Peter mole. I knew it. I saw through that shit. "I just heard you acknowledge me about the AI. No hate. I appreciate you reading this. Good content." Thank you, sir. Thank you, to the person who said that! You see what I’m saying, Steph? You know what? I think we should just let Steph talk to herself, all right? She can just keep promoting the stream and the algorithm. Let her talk to herself. But Steph, even if you’re talking to yourself, I still have to write the post, okay? Damn fake Canadians. Steph is a fake Canadian and she may or may not be a communist. What you gonna' do about it? You damn fake Canadian. All right, no, I actually have to write this follow-up post. Stop it, Steph. Stop trying to gaslight to protect Kate Peter. You’ll be thrown out of here faster than someone with a cannabis conviction trying to enter Canada who doesn’t actually live there. Damn fake Canadians. Thank you, Kristina. I appreciate it. Yes, and Kristina, you ever wonder if maybe people come in here specifically to derail the conversation because we’re talking about very damning things as to Kate Peter? Well then, let me write my other post, by the way. I’ll help. I will put it up on the screen for you in one second. I just got to get the video loading before I start typing. Oh, Steph, you were on assignment. Stop bitching. I hope they paid you well for it. Don’t bark up my towel tree about you had to spend time with me so you could run intel to all the Kate Peter people. I don’t care. I knew what you were doing. Do you think I was born yesterday? Come on. You all insult my intelligence routinely—not you in the chat. Some of you moles are just like, “He won’t know.” What, are you just going to tell me I’m the greatest thing ever and then it’s going to go along? I’m just saying, I’ve been posting on social media being like, “Aidan, if people tell you that you’re the greatest thing ever, that might be true, but some of them are going to tell you that because they’re moles.” Come on. This is very basic-level intel stuff here. Steph, that was very nice of you. I am never going to degrade you for supporting people in need. What I’m concerned about, okay—I’m not concerned about who you are as a person. I’m concerned about what you didn’t tell us. All right? Yeah? And that's my right. No, absolutely not, Steph. You know exactly what happened. You flipped on a dime as soon as I started asking questions about Kate Peter because she has a lot of moles in her orbit. And then as soon as we started talking about her today, coincidentally enough, you popped right back up. Oh, what’s this? Robert Cosgrove represented in a sworn affidavit that any material missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s—see what I’m doing, Steph? This is, uh, this is for you—Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was not on the phone when MSP did that extraction. And then Brian Tully leaked that extraction unredacted. That’s a message from Leigha Bathtub Genduso proves Tully failed to include material that was indeed on Lindsey's phone. That was for you too, Steph. It’s weird that you know Bathtub, by the way. That’s just odd. Like she’s known Kate Peter for years too. If this Steph, who I watched Sandlot with, is the same Steph as the one who’s a second cousin of John O’Keefe, then she lied to me. She lied to me. If we can prove that this is the same, same Steph, then she lied to me. She told me she was from Canada, Saskatchewan, whatever the fuck. That’s what I’m saying. So Steph, if you are that Steph from wherever the fuck you live, bro—if you are that Steph—you lied to us all. You told us you were fucking Canadian. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute—are you actually that Steph? No fucking way. You lied to all of us this whole time and pretended to be Canadian? No, that was not—I didn’t ask if you were from Canada. I said, are you the same Steph who was second cousins with John O’Keefe and did you come on this channel and go on a Zoom call with me representing yourself to be Canadian from Saskatchewan? I don’t even have—no, that is not the question I’m asking you. Are you the same Steph that is second cousins with John O’Keefe? Thanks for letting us know. See what I mean? Kristina, it’s not the same Steph. It’s just some random person who really likes Leigha Genduso, Leigha Bathtub Genduso, and Kate Peter. Random coincidence! Just totally random. Come on. I’m rolling my eyes so hard I’m laughing. This has been really interesting though. I know you said no. That makes it even weirder. If you’re not that Steph, your fervent defense of Kate Peter and Leigha Bathtub Genduso is even more weird. Go back to Discord. Come on now, shoo. You’re bothering me. If you bother me too much, I’m just going to go on a 45-minute rant eviscerating Kate Peter with facts, all right? So it’s better to just go. Like I told Benny Sweatpants the other day. Send him my regards, all right? No, I like calling out your hypocrisy. You wouldn’t say a negative word about Kate Peter if I demonstrated the factual record for you in real time. Live! Which I’m doing. You haven’t addressed one element of it on substance. All you’ve done is gaslight, and frankly you’re going to find yourself removed if you continue to fail to adhere to the rules of Towel Channel. As you know, the rules of Towel Channel are pretty simple, which is: one, don’t be discriminatory; two, don’t be derogatory; three, don’t sealion; four, don’t gaslight; and five, no Kate Peters. All right? Jay’s like, “I’m aboard the Grant train.” Thanks, Jay. It wasn’t one question, Steph. It was three questions. Let me reiterate them to you very quickly. Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Second question: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. And furthermore, why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record. Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. The reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kitten caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done. Oh, it’s such a shame. All right, I gotta move her on. All right, Steph, it was great. We’ll put you in a little timeout. You can come back tomorrow, okay? I’m glad you spent some time with us, but the reality is I just don’t—I don’t wanna play that type of Kate Peter game, all right? Yep, now, Christina, you, as you know, this channel in Br… every possible perspective. I don’t care what you want to come in here and believe, you know you and I align on a lot of the factual record about a lot of these different cases. It’s not that. I’ll never ever have a problem with that. It’s the bad faith—and it’s not you, Christina. You are wonderful. You’ve never done it—but it’s the people who get too close to Kate Peter and then as embodied in that colloquy with Steph right there, whoever the fuck she is, we still don’t know. As embodied in that colloquy, you have a situation where when confronted with the facts instead of responding or even giving the time of day to what Kate Peter or Tully or Cosgrove might have done wrong, immediately it starts with the emotional manipulation, the attacks, the distraction. So I hope that—I hope that tells us all something. But yes, let’s keep reading because before I got in that fun colloquy, we were—I bet Steph was sent here to try to derail me. Nice try, Steph, take it elsewhere. All right, so we got those two posts up, by the way. All right, following service. Do you remember where we were in all this? The very last—so we just read about the Kate emails. By the way, now we know the whole Kate and Kaboodle is the Kate emails. We just read about the Kate emails and take a look where it goes next. All right, it just keeps going and going. Oh, do you think I should add Kate, Steph to the chart, by the way? Where should she go on the chart? Should she go under the Trollhollmio section? I feel like that’s appropriate. You know, this is just my opinion of how all these people tie together. Say you got Kate Peter, the Lord of Darkness in the middle—that’s my opinion. Then you got Jamz up there, Llama over there, Jason Broyles down here, Gaffney over here, Trollhollomio here. Then you got people like Critical Mass, Virgil, that—I don’t know who that is. And then you got Tully, Michael Morrissey, and Michael Proctor. Then you got Jake Sun, Twisted Tragedies tied to Gaffney. Then you got that guy, Jason Broyles, who thinks—who pretends to be a woman online. You got him, I think he’s tied to Barry Lewis and this weird woman from Connecticut that Kate keeps working with. She used to pretend to be like an advocate for medical patients, but now apparently she’s a big advocate of prednisone. I don’t really understand. She’s been going online telling people that people with colitis have to use prednisone apparently and they can’t use cannabis. I’m baffled by it. I didn’t know she was a doctor. Listen, if I knew that this woman was a doctor, I would start looking to whether she’s received payments from the pharmaceutical industry because I’ve never met a cannabis advocate who tells people they have to use prednisone for colitis. So that woman baffles me. Also, she’s the reason consumption event in Massachusetts are now regulated by the CCC. So listen, you all think that Kate Peter’s just some kind of like moron. She just plays that role, okay? Like she plays like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and she doesn’t mostly with these court developments. But look at her network. Like people fawn over her like TurtleBoy. She is the female TurtleBoy in so many ways. And what makes her scary is she doesn’t own it.

When I was reading Brian Tully, Ken Mello and Robert Cosgrove's affidavits yesterday in the Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney case, I was challenged by an account that was intent on defending Leigha Bathtub Genduso and Kate Peter. Best quotes from my retort; "Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Thirdly: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. Why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record, as well? Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. Reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kit and caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done." PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: If you’re just tuning in, my name is Grant Smith Ellis, and we are reading through Brian Tully, Robert Cosgrove, and Ken Mello’s affidavit. It’s tough to call it an affidavit from Ken Mello, because quite frankly, he didn’t write an affidavit. Robert Cosgrove adapted hearsay statements in Ken Mello’s voice in his own affidavit. That might tell you something. I don’t know. What the fuck do I know? I’m just a towel. Thank you very much for tuning in. I have noticed that there is a very specific group of people in Kate Peter’s orbit trying to target Towel right now. People do not want Towel to be heard. That means I’m going to speak more. I am going to just keep talking and keep saying things, because now I have put it all together. Oh, that’s right. I have one more thing to type. Furthermore, as soon as, within weeks of Kate’s emails to Tully and Mello being turned over in, what was it? August of 2025, the TurtleBoy charges involving Lindsey Gaetani were dropped. And what do you know? Kate was involved in handling evidence submitted by Tully and Mello to the grand jury for Lindsey’s charges, for the charges involving Lindsey Gaetani, for Aiden’s charges involving Lindsey Gaetani. Furthermore, the new email from Kate to Mello indicates Kate was indeed also involved in the 2023 indictments against Kearney that the Norfolk DA seems intent on trying to wall off from Kate Peter’s involvement. Oh, little towels, I'm just a little towel. Steph, Grant says, “Why are you making fun of her by calling her bathtub.” Wait, what? No, no, no, Steph, let’s be very clear. When Leigha Genduso engaged in—and I think it was Kate actually who did it—but when Leigha Genduso or Kate responded to revenge porn with revenge porn, nothing about that was okay, okay? Whether it was legal or not at the time, nobody sharing revenge porn of anybody else was okay, all right? I just want to be very clear. So when Kate did it, it was not okay. When Aiden did it, if that’s what happened with Leigha—I don’t know, I wasn’t around—not okay. If Leigha did it to Aiden, not okay, okay? Everybody on the same page? Like, it’s not okay to do that to people. I just want everyone on the same page. No one would—it’s just like, treat people how you want to be treated, bro. So I just don’t do it. Now, I get some people would say, fight fire with fire, okay, still, don’t fucking do it. Please don’t do it. I don’t understand why people do it. It blows my mind. I don’t understand why people justify it. Oh, it’s okay that Kate or Leigha did it, cause Aiden did it too. It’s like, no, though. I get it's a shitty thing to happen. Don’t do it back. Just stop. It’s ridiculous. Steph's like—"I keep seeing you call her bathtub." Yea, bro she took a video in a bathtub once and posted it on social media. Okay, you want to livestream yourself from a fucking bathtub then I'm going to call you Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I don’t know what to tell you. You don’t have to call her that, but I’m going to do that, right? And I’m not going to stop. But yeah, Three-Clerk-Monte bang bang. Sometimes you just got to tell them how it is, Three-Clerk Monte, you know what I’m saying? Even while you’re on your break. By the way, Steph, I’m just going to break here just posting things, right? And I’m saying I’m not even supposed to be riled up right now. We’re going to go back to reading the indictment in a little bit. I’m just a little towel. I’m on one, you know what I’m saying? Absolutely not. I don’t know which Steph you are. I don’t know if you’re that Steph or whatever, the fake Canadian. You’re not going to come on here and tell me I cannot call her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I’m going to triple down. I’m going to call Leigha Bathtub Genduso more now. Thank you for all the comments, by the way. It helps the stream get attention in the Kate Peter sucks. Remember that? Yes, that I want you to get this tattooed on your arm: Kate Peter sucks. I’ll help you spell it: K-A-T-E P-E-T-E-R, no S at the end, just Kate Peter, now a new word, sucks, S-U-C-K-S. Everybody on the same page? All right, it’s artistic expression, bro. What do you want to say? Oh no, she’s gone. Steph, I was enjoying all your comments. Yes, Steph, that’s exactly what I want. I want you to keep interacting in the comments because it gets the stream more attention in the feed. I want that. I want you to continue to engage, and I’m going to keep calling her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. It’s not an obsession. It is the product of multiple years of work on the story to uncover something hidden that you don’t want to be talked about in public. That’s the reality. Is that not right Steph, you’re concerned that Kate Peter compromised the cases against Aiden Kearney because she worked as a PI for Marty Craft, who’s now lost his license because of what she was up to according to people’s reports in this chat, and you feel that it’s uncomfortable to have to hold her to the same moral standard that you do Aiden because you’re biased, right? Fine, I don’t care. I’ll tell it to your face yes. No, Steph, you have something to say? You say it right here, one-on-one. Let’s debate. We can do it. I have all the evidence now. We can talk about it all. That’s correct. I don’t create realities, Steph. I bring them to light. Your normative moral framework and what you want to happen is just that. The descriptive reality is independent of what any of us want. It is simply a factual record. In the context of our asymptotic relationship with that factual record, notwithstanding, I was interested in the truth, and you are who is afraid of it, let’s be clear. I wouldn’t say you’re debating me, Steph. You can’t debate on the merit of the facts. You want to know why? Because, for example, it would be very hard for you to counter something like this paragraph right here, right? Where Robert Cosgrove says that any data missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s phone was not on the phone at the time Brian Tully did the extraction. And you might be saying to yourself, Grant, how can you know? How can you know that Brian Tully intentionally released the phone unredacted after only removing messages from Kate to Lindsey and from Tully to Lindsey and after removing things like audio messages from Leigha Genduso? How do I know? Well, because how else would Lindsey have posted it on social media? My word, Steph. It’s almost like there’s proof that Robert Cosgrove was withholding material information related to the sum and substance of Kate Peter’s communications with various members of the prosecution team and/or witnesses and/or the handling of evidence in order to insulate certain charges from Kate Peter touching that evidence so that they could continue to trial, notwithstanding the discovery obligations of the state under the new updated Rule 14 as implemented on March 1, 2025. And towel is in a snarky mood indeed. And you’re not going to be able to do anything about it—oh, please, you're not saying to yourself, "what’s wrong with towel, Steph?" You’re basically saying, "why are you crossing the thin blue line?" And I would like to respond to you by saying, in the least unloving way, but the fact that you would ask me, “What is Grant doing?” because I won’t adhere to your thin blue line? Get the fuck out of here. Go climb up somebody else’s tree. Go find your own treehouse. Not happening. Absolutely not happening. You will look this factual record in the eye. You will confront your moral problems with the various actions of different people involved on your own time. And Leigha Bathtub Genduso will be central to this moral reckoning. And there’s not a damn thing you or your fake Canadian ass can do about it. I’m on one. I told you. Listen, you want it? You want it to be on record? We’ll do it. No, no, I’m just not loyal to your interests, Steph. I’m loyal to truth. I’m loyal to the people who are actually harmed. I’m not loyal to you or any of your friends or Kate Peter or the thin blue line or the thin green line or the thin pink line for that matter. All of you can take your lines and go fuck yourselves. Fake Canadian. Yeah, right, Steph. Yeah, let’s go with that. Yep, let’s go with fake Canadian, because why would you want me looking more in to you? A reporter? You want me to look more into you? No. God, take the L, man, just move on. That’s correct. No, listen, Steph, you want to talk about Michael Proctor’s family’s relationship to my mother? You want to be the person who draws that line? I’ll tell you about it. You sure you want to talk about it? You damn fake Canadian. We may have to get this fake Canadian out of here. She’s riling me up. You’re riling me up by trying to defend Kate Peter. I knew you were a rat the whole time. Goddamn Kate Peter mole. I knew it. I saw through that shit. "I just heard you acknowledge me about the AI. No hate. I appreciate you reading this. Good content." Thank you, sir. Thank you, to the person who said that! You see what I’m saying, Steph? You know what? I think we should just let Steph talk to herself, all right? She can just keep promoting the stream and the algorithm. Let her talk to herself. But Steph, even if you’re talking to yourself, I still have to write the post, okay? Damn fake Canadians. Steph is a fake Canadian and she may or may not be a communist. What you gonna' do about it? You damn fake Canadian. All right, no, I actually have to write this follow-up post. Stop it, Steph. Stop trying to gaslight to protect Kate Peter. You’ll be thrown out of here faster than someone with a cannabis conviction trying to enter Canada who doesn’t actually live there. Damn fake Canadians. Thank you, Kristina. I appreciate it. Yes, and Kristina, you ever wonder if maybe people come in here specifically to derail the conversation because we’re talking about very damning things as to Kate Peter? Well then, let me write my other post, by the way. I’ll help. I will put it up on the screen for you in one second. I just got to get the video loading before I start typing. Oh, Steph, you were on assignment. Stop bitching. I hope they paid you well for it. Don’t bark up my towel tree about you had to spend time with me so you could run intel to all the Kate Peter people. I don’t care. I knew what you were doing. Do you think I was born yesterday? Come on. You all insult my intelligence routinely—not you in the chat. Some of you moles are just like, “He won’t know.” What, are you just going to tell me I’m the greatest thing ever and then it’s going to go along? I’m just saying, I’ve been posting on social media being like, “Aidan, if people tell you that you’re the greatest thing ever, that might be true, but some of them are going to tell you that because they’re moles.” Come on. This is very basic-level intel stuff here. Steph, that was very nice of you. I am never going to degrade you for supporting people in need. What I’m concerned about, okay—I’m not concerned about who you are as a person. I’m concerned about what you didn’t tell us. All right? Yeah? And that's my right. No, absolutely not, Steph. You know exactly what happened. You flipped on a dime as soon as I started asking questions about Kate Peter because she has a lot of moles in her orbit. And then as soon as we started talking about her today, coincidentally enough, you popped right back up. Oh, what’s this? Robert Cosgrove represented in a sworn affidavit that any material missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s—see what I’m doing, Steph? This is, uh, this is for you—Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was not on the phone when MSP did that extraction. And then Brian Tully leaked that extraction unredacted. That’s a message from Leigha Bathtub Genduso proves Tully failed to include material that was indeed on Lindsey's phone. That was for you too, Steph. It’s weird that you know Bathtub, by the way. That’s just odd. Like she’s known Kate Peter for years too. If this Steph, who I watched Sandlot with, is the same Steph as the one who’s a second cousin of John O’Keefe, then she lied to me. She lied to me. If we can prove that this is the same, same Steph, then she lied to me. She told me she was from Canada, Saskatchewan, whatever the fuck. That’s what I’m saying. So Steph, if you are that Steph from wherever the fuck you live, bro—if you are that Steph—you lied to us all. You told us you were fucking Canadian. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute—are you actually that Steph? No fucking way. You lied to all of us this whole time and pretended to be Canadian? No, that was not—I didn’t ask if you were from Canada. I said, are you the same Steph who was second cousins with John O’Keefe and did you come on this channel and go on a Zoom call with me representing yourself to be Canadian from Saskatchewan? I don’t even have—no, that is not the question I’m asking you. Are you the same Steph that is second cousins with John O’Keefe? Thanks for letting us know. See what I mean? Kristina, it’s not the same Steph. It’s just some random person who really likes Leigha Genduso, Leigha Bathtub Genduso, and Kate Peter. Random coincidence! Just totally random. Come on. I’m rolling my eyes so hard I’m laughing. This has been really interesting though. I know you said no. That makes it even weirder. If you’re not that Steph, your fervent defense of Kate Peter and Leigha Bathtub Genduso is even more weird. Go back to Discord. Come on now, shoo. You’re bothering me. If you bother me too much, I’m just going to go on a 45-minute rant eviscerating Kate Peter with facts, all right? So it’s better to just go. Like I told Benny Sweatpants the other day. Send him my regards, all right? No, I like calling out your hypocrisy. You wouldn’t say a negative word about Kate Peter if I demonstrated the factual record for you in real time. Live! Which I’m doing. You haven’t addressed one element of it on substance. All you’ve done is gaslight, and frankly you’re going to find yourself removed if you continue to fail to adhere to the rules of Towel Channel. As you know, the rules of Towel Channel are pretty simple, which is: one, don’t be discriminatory; two, don’t be derogatory; three, don’t sealion; four, don’t gaslight; and five, no Kate Peters. All right? Jay’s like, “I’m aboard the Grant train.” Thanks, Jay. It wasn’t one question, Steph. It was three questions. Let me reiterate them to you very quickly. Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Second question: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. And furthermore, why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record. Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. The reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kitten caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done. Oh, it’s such a shame. All right, I gotta move her on. All right, Steph, it was great. We’ll put you in a little timeout. You can come back tomorrow, okay? I’m glad you spent some time with us, but the reality is I just don’t—I don’t wanna play that type of Kate Peter game, all right? Yep, now, Christina, you, as you know, this channel in Br… every possible perspective. I don’t care what you want to come in here and believe, you know you and I align on a lot of the factual record about a lot of these different cases. It’s not that. I’ll never ever have a problem with that. It’s the bad faith—and it’s not you, Christina. You are wonderful. You’ve never done it—but it’s the people who get too close to Kate Peter and then as embodied in that colloquy with Steph right there, whoever the fuck she is, we still don’t know. As embodied in that colloquy, you have a situation where when confronted with the facts instead of responding or even giving the time of day to what Kate Peter or Tully or Cosgrove might have done wrong, immediately it starts with the emotional manipulation, the attacks, the distraction. So I hope that—I hope that tells us all something. But yes, let’s keep reading because before I got in that fun colloquy, we were—I bet Steph was sent here to try to derail me. Nice try, Steph, take it elsewhere. All right, so we got those two posts up, by the way. All right, following service. Do you remember where we were in all this? The very last—so we just read about the Kate emails. By the way, now we know the whole Kate and Kaboodle is the Kate emails. We just read about the Kate emails and take a look where it goes next. All right, it just keeps going and going. Oh, do you think I should add Kate, Steph to the chart, by the way? Where should she go on the chart? Should she go under the Trollhollmio section? I feel like that’s appropriate. You know, this is just my opinion of how all these people tie together. Say you got Kate Peter, the Lord of Darkness in the middle—that’s my opinion. Then you got Jamz up there, Llama over there, Jason Broyles down here, Gaffney over here, Trollhollomio here. Then you got people like Critical Mass, Virgil, that—I don’t know who that is. And then you got Tully, Michael Morrissey, and Michael Proctor. Then you got Jake Sun, Twisted Tragedies tied to Gaffney. Then you got that guy, Jason Broyles, who thinks—who pretends to be a woman online. You got him, I think he’s tied to Barry Lewis and this weird woman from Connecticut that Kate keeps working with. She used to pretend to be like an advocate for medical patients, but now apparently she’s a big advocate of prednisone. I don’t really understand. She’s been going online telling people that people with colitis have to use prednisone apparently and they can’t use cannabis. I’m baffled by it. I didn’t know she was a doctor. Listen, if I knew that this woman was a doctor, I would start looking to whether she’s received payments from the pharmaceutical industry because I’ve never met a cannabis advocate who tells people they have to use prednisone for colitis. So that woman baffles me. Also, she’s the reason consumption event in Massachusetts are now regulated by the CCC. So listen, you all think that Kate Peter’s just some kind of like moron. She just plays that role, okay? Like she plays like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and she doesn’t mostly with these court developments. But look at her network. Like people fawn over her like TurtleBoy. She is the female TurtleBoy in so many ways. And what makes her scary is she doesn’t own it.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,617 views • 8 months ago

Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.

Grant Smith Ellis

27,665 views • 1 year ago

"Imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer." ~AA Suffering Makes God's Existence Unlikely "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" "We're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." (If you know about Loosh and "Far Journeys" by Robert Monroe, these points should all ring a bell. But this discussion was NOT about Loosh. Fascinating debate.) 1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded Christian Tim: "Okay, so my first question to start out with is: What exactly about suffering makes this unlikely, on the condition that God exists?" Atheist Alex (AA): "I think that if God is all-loving, then he probably wouldn't want his creatures to suffer. And so, I think that the fact that they do suffer makes his existence less likely." Tim: "Okay, perfect. And is there some specific aspect of suffering that you're particularly honing in on, horrendous or whatever that is?" Alex: "In particular, non-human animal suffering. Because I think that Christianity has a celebrated tradition of theodicies, trying to explain why suffering exists: human free will, the development of the soul, higher-order goods. All of this kind of stuff. None of which apply to the suffering of non-human animals." Tim: "Have you heard of the Axiological Expectation Mismatch Problem?" Alex: "I have not." Tim: "Okay, so, philosophers of religion have started to understand that the thing that actually generates a problem between God and suffering is actually the value system you attach to the very attribute of perfect lovingness. Because the problem of evil is an internal critique, you have to look at a very specific version of theism and how it defines perfect lovingness. I want to present to you a version where my version of perfect lovingness does not actually constitute a problem and a misalignment, that mismatch between the suffering of animals - let's just say, the profusion of suffering of animals - and existence of God." Alex: "So let's hear it. What kind of God are we imagining that would allow and oversee and do nothing to prevent billions of years of untold animal suffering?" (There's no justification for all of the suffering that animals go through and it's borderline comical (if it wasn't so sad) to see Christians trying to come up with reasons to justify it.) Tim: "Right. So you're talking about non-prevention." Alex: "Or setting up the system that is natural selection, such that it relies upon things like predation and disease." (This is straight out of the Loosh chapter.) Tim: "Well, the first part is, I don't agree with the whole setting up the system part. So I'm not one of those theists that believes that God does this select and pick idea of creating worlds. I don't think that God actually creates worlds. I think that God lets worlds develop, according in a certain way. But because God can oversee an overarching narrative, he knows exactly how he can redeem anything." Alex: "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" Tim: "Yes, he could totally do that." Alex: "So had he done that, here's an instant way to reduce, by orders of magnitude, the amount of suffering that exists." (But then there would be no Loosh! I don't know if Loosh is a real thing, but if it IS, it would explain lot of things on this planet.) Tim: "Right, but hold on. That's, particularly, assuming a value theory, already, that I haven't told you I'm adopting, that has a problem with evil. So I have to give you my value theory first, for you to show that misalignment." Alex: "Okay, let's hear it." Tim: "Perfect, okay. So my value theory says that the most important thing about a sentient creature is not what merely happens to them, it's about the total timeline of their life and how and where their life permanently ends. Meaning, if you were to judge an author of a narrative, and the first few chapters, let's say, there's a lot of bad things happening, but the end ends with this crescendo where there's victoriousness, there's redemption, there's beauty. And everyone in the story actually endorses their entire existence that they live. They can look at the total timeline, and they actually each subjectively come to the conclusion, 'I'm glad I was made and I totally see what my suffering was for.' That's the particular I'm using with. Like John Hicks says, we have to judge the very nature of God's lovingness by what he does in the end, not these few time slices that we observe right now. For you to show that there's a problem, you have to show, to me, that the suffering of animals cannot be transformed, are intrinsically cut off from being transformed into a life that they will endorse. There's a couple of theses on the table." Alex: "So are you talking about the end of their life, as in their end of life on Earth, or are you talking about the afterlife?" Tim: "Antemortem, postmortem (before and after death)." (So once that animal, that suffered needlessly for most of their life, gets to the afterlife, they'll understand there was a reason for it. Really?) Alex: "Okay. Because if you're just talking about life on Earth, then I would say that if you had an author writing a book and a character. If we were trying to figure out the relationship between that author and the person in the book, and that person in the book shows up for five seconds in the first chapter, and is a child who almost immediately dies of cancer in an incredibly painful way. And there's no development, there's no sort of bring back to life, and suddenly everyone's grateful for it. It is just this miserable, tragic experience. "And I ask, well, what did the author, not want to do for the story of the book, but want to do for that character? I think it would be pretty damning. And also, when it comes to animals, we're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." Tim: "Absolutely." Alex: "They sort of have disease. Zebras, when they're killed by lions, are often too big to be killed instantly, so they die over minutes with their windpipes caught in the jaws of a lion. How can this be developing, a zebra, which, by the way, probably doesn't even have the same kind of first-person conscious experience that humans do in order to sort of rationalize an abstract and learn from their sort of past and morally develop in that way? They just suffer. And what kind of God could oversee this?" Tim:"Okay, so there's a lot of assumptions on the table. Again, you're assuming a particular value system that I'm not laying out." Alex: "I'll tell you what I'm assuming here. What I'm assuming here is that a good God would not allow unnecessary suffering to obtain. Would you agree with that?" Tim: "We can talk about unnecessary suffering. We're talking about the justifying norms for suffering. You're saying it has to be in terms of necessity. Which is, an evil is only authorizable, by God, if it's in connection to a greater good or prevention of a greater evil, correct?" Alex: "If there's some kind of justification for allowing that sort of thing." Tim: "Yeah, but you're saying it's a necessary connection. Why...what's the term necessity...?" Alex: "Perhaps I should say unjustified instead of unnecessary." Tim: "Okay, so we both agree. I do not believe that God can authorize or justify unjustified suffering." Alex: "Okay, so tell me how that example that I gave you, the deer with its leg, starving, is justified?" Tim: "Because it's intrinsically redeemable. And the norms I'm working with is not this necessity condition that you're working with. Mine is about redeemable suffering, redeemability, or what we call, feasibility." Alex: "For the deer?" Tim: "If that suffering can be defeated within the creature's life. And I'll define what I mean by defeat, which is that they can, retroactively, look back at what they went through and integrate it into their life history, where they look at their life..." Alex: "I have to interrupt, because the example I gave you is one where the deer dies." Tim: "Yes, the deer dies. But here's the thing. You're probably talking about, this post-mortem example, I'm gonna put one thesis on the table: There's two philosophers that defend exactly what this goes through. One defends that animals will be given a martyrdom status. Well, God will be able to present himself in a way to animals in the afterlife, such that, in the same way you could give praise to a dog and a dog emotionally recognizes that he's loved, and that his life is worth living, right? To these animals that suffered like that, there's one view on the table, which is that God will give them a praiseworthy status where they will be able to actually..." (Bending over backwards to justify the suffering of animals. The deer will learn why he/she had to go through all of that when they die and God explains it and praises the animal for what they went though. Ridiculous, IMO.) Alex: "So can we talk about that claim? Because these animals are suffering for what? I mean, God might cause them to suffer..." Tim: "It's not means to ends." Alex: "God might cause them to suffer a bunch, and then essentially redeem them in the afterlife. But what for? Like, why do this? If I were to punch you in the face and then give you $20,000 afterwards, you might be grateful for the $20,000, but why couldn't I just give you the $20,000?" Tim: "We'll see. So that's assuming. So I saw your debate with Trent..." Alex: "Good stuff." ~ Christian Hayden (Not Hayden Christiansen) : "Would you say that theism or atheism better account for the idea that suffering exists and a purpose for it?" Alex: "It depends exactly what you mean. Because, of course, you might say that the world itself is more expected on theism, and since suffering needs the existence of the world, that it's theism. But granted the existence of a material world, let's say, I think atheism." Hayden: "Okay. Why does suffering exist at all? In an atheistic worldview, what is the cause of suffering?" Alex: "Oh, well, because, however life began, it developed through a series of natural selection, which requires animals to develop senses that they wish to avoid in order to be more likely to survive. And that's why pain receptors evolve in a world where not all of these pains are actually going to kill us, we're left with situations left with situations in which we're in a lot of pain but don't end up dying for it." Hayden: "Would you agree that consciousness is necessary for suffering?" Alex: "I would say probably, yeah." Hayden: "Does atheism account for consciousness?" Alex: "Yes, that's what I was talking about a moment ago. Perhaps not, maybe theism accounts better for consciousness than atheism does." Hayden: "Okay. So if there is no consciousness, there is no suffering? Is that right?" Alex: "That's probably true, yeah." Hayden: "So, if atheism cannot account for consciousness, then it cannot account for suffering. Would you agree with that?" Alex: "So I think what we're doing here is we're sort of slightly shifting the goal posts. If you don't want to grant the existence of the material world before we start talking about this, we can do an argument from consciousness. But then we need to debate whether consciousness is more...it is explicable on atheism. "What I'm going to say is this: Consciousness may seem to imply the existence of a conscious creator of the Universe. We're here talking about, I suppose we're talking about Christianity. The claim was about God. But the God that you believe in, let's say, if we grant that there is a creator deity who sort of brings about the universe of conscious creatures... Have you ever heard of the evil-god hypothesis that Stephen Law popularized?" Hayden: No, tell me it." Alex: "So the idea is that like, imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer. He brings about a world in order so that human beings will suffer, right? That seems like a plausible hypothesis. And even if you think that consciousness points towards God, the kind of God that a lot of Christians think is a sort of necessary quality of God, which is to be all-loving, might not have to apply here." (I know he wasn't talking soul-trap theory and Loosh, but it sounds just like it.) Hayden: "If Christianity were true, is it plausible that suffering is necessary for God's purpose, for his creation?" Alex: "If Christianity is true, then I think it must be necessary, because there'd be no other explanation for it." Hayden: "So we're not talking about whether or not Christianity is true..." Alex: "But if you're asking me if it's plausible that Christianity is true and therefore suffering is necessary, I would say probably not. Because I don't think suffering should be necessary or could be necessary." Hayden: "In an atheistic worldview, I would agree with you. It makes no sense at all." Alex: "So can I ask you why then, if God exists and wants to come to know everybody, and wants to love everybody and does so for the sake of human beings, why he chose to imbue the world with so much suffering that is at least, seemingly, completely inexplicable?" Hayden: "Are you a father?" Alec: "No." Hayden: "I'm a father. I want my son to become just like I am, better than I am, I should say. I want him to become the best that he can be. Is it possible for him to become, to reach his potential, without suffering in his life?" Alex: "Perhaps not, but there's two..." Hayden: "So suffering is necessary." Alex: "There are a few things I want to say. Firstly, that kind of moral development doesn't apply to non-human animals, as I've already said, right?" Hayden: "Why not?" Alex: "That does not account for the brutal death of animals in the wild. Also if - I don't want to talk about your son, because it's tragic to think about, but - somebody else's son has suffered and died immediately as a result of that suffering, they don't get to develop in the same way." Hayden: "I would agree that on a micro level, it's very hard to justify. And we can ask the question, 'Why doesn't God intervene on all of these sufferings?" (Exactly. And that's the Christian making the point.) Alex: "You might be able to justify an amount of suffering, right? But the fact that there's so much gratuitous suffering in the world is what I think makes God's existence unlikely. There are some instances where maybe a certain amount of suffering brings about a certain amount of good in a situation. That, by the way, would count as a justification. But when a child dies of leukemia... And they'e dead." Hayden: "Could there be a purpose to it? What if the death of the child brings their parents to God?" Alex: "Then perhaps...then the parents should be grateful that their child got leukemia because it's doing the will of the Lord." Hayden: "Not necessarily." Alex: "That seems obscene to me." (Yep. What if the death of their child caused the grandmother to have a nervous breakdown, the mom to be riddled with guilt her entire life, and the father to go off the rails? That's my family, by the way. Before I was born, my 8-year-old sister was killed when my mom's car was stuck on the railroad tracks and the train hit the car. Seeing people trying to justify that as God's will or offering up reasons to justify it (as several people have done on here) is really sad. Sorry if that offends you.)

"Imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer." ~AA Suffering Makes God's Existence Unlikely "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" "We're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." (If you know about Loosh and "Far Journeys" by Robert Monroe, these points should all ring a bell. But this discussion was NOT about Loosh. Fascinating debate.) 1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded Christian Tim: "Okay, so my first question to start out with is: What exactly about suffering makes this unlikely, on the condition that God exists?" Atheist Alex (AA): "I think that if God is all-loving, then he probably wouldn't want his creatures to suffer. And so, I think that the fact that they do suffer makes his existence less likely." Tim: "Okay, perfect. And is there some specific aspect of suffering that you're particularly honing in on, horrendous or whatever that is?" Alex: "In particular, non-human animal suffering. Because I think that Christianity has a celebrated tradition of theodicies, trying to explain why suffering exists: human free will, the development of the soul, higher-order goods. All of this kind of stuff. None of which apply to the suffering of non-human animals." Tim: "Have you heard of the Axiological Expectation Mismatch Problem?" Alex: "I have not." Tim: "Okay, so, philosophers of religion have started to understand that the thing that actually generates a problem between God and suffering is actually the value system you attach to the very attribute of perfect lovingness. Because the problem of evil is an internal critique, you have to look at a very specific version of theism and how it defines perfect lovingness. I want to present to you a version where my version of perfect lovingness does not actually constitute a problem and a misalignment, that mismatch between the suffering of animals - let's just say, the profusion of suffering of animals - and existence of God." Alex: "So let's hear it. What kind of God are we imagining that would allow and oversee and do nothing to prevent billions of years of untold animal suffering?" (There's no justification for all of the suffering that animals go through and it's borderline comical (if it wasn't so sad) to see Christians trying to come up with reasons to justify it.) Tim: "Right. So you're talking about non-prevention." Alex: "Or setting up the system that is natural selection, such that it relies upon things like predation and disease." (This is straight out of the Loosh chapter.) Tim: "Well, the first part is, I don't agree with the whole setting up the system part. So I'm not one of those theists that believes that God does this select and pick idea of creating worlds. I don't think that God actually creates worlds. I think that God lets worlds develop, according in a certain way. But because God can oversee an overarching narrative, he knows exactly how he can redeem anything." Alex: "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" Tim: "Yes, he could totally do that." Alex: "So had he done that, here's an instant way to reduce, by orders of magnitude, the amount of suffering that exists." (But then there would be no Loosh! I don't know if Loosh is a real thing, but if it IS, it would explain lot of things on this planet.) Tim: "Right, but hold on. That's, particularly, assuming a value theory, already, that I haven't told you I'm adopting, that has a problem with evil. So I have to give you my value theory first, for you to show that misalignment." Alex: "Okay, let's hear it." Tim: "Perfect, okay. So my value theory says that the most important thing about a sentient creature is not what merely happens to them, it's about the total timeline of their life and how and where their life permanently ends. Meaning, if you were to judge an author of a narrative, and the first few chapters, let's say, there's a lot of bad things happening, but the end ends with this crescendo where there's victoriousness, there's redemption, there's beauty. And everyone in the story actually endorses their entire existence that they live. They can look at the total timeline, and they actually each subjectively come to the conclusion, 'I'm glad I was made and I totally see what my suffering was for.' That's the particular I'm using with. Like John Hicks says, we have to judge the very nature of God's lovingness by what he does in the end, not these few time slices that we observe right now. For you to show that there's a problem, you have to show, to me, that the suffering of animals cannot be transformed, are intrinsically cut off from being transformed into a life that they will endorse. There's a couple of theses on the table." Alex: "So are you talking about the end of their life, as in their end of life on Earth, or are you talking about the afterlife?" Tim: "Antemortem, postmortem (before and after death)." (So once that animal, that suffered needlessly for most of their life, gets to the afterlife, they'll understand there was a reason for it. Really?) Alex: "Okay. Because if you're just talking about life on Earth, then I would say that if you had an author writing a book and a character. If we were trying to figure out the relationship between that author and the person in the book, and that person in the book shows up for five seconds in the first chapter, and is a child who almost immediately dies of cancer in an incredibly painful way. And there's no development, there's no sort of bring back to life, and suddenly everyone's grateful for it. It is just this miserable, tragic experience. "And I ask, well, what did the author, not want to do for the story of the book, but want to do for that character? I think it would be pretty damning. And also, when it comes to animals, we're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." Tim: "Absolutely." Alex: "They sort of have disease. Zebras, when they're killed by lions, are often too big to be killed instantly, so they die over minutes with their windpipes caught in the jaws of a lion. How can this be developing, a zebra, which, by the way, probably doesn't even have the same kind of first-person conscious experience that humans do in order to sort of rationalize an abstract and learn from their sort of past and morally develop in that way? They just suffer. And what kind of God could oversee this?" Tim:"Okay, so there's a lot of assumptions on the table. Again, you're assuming a particular value system that I'm not laying out." Alex: "I'll tell you what I'm assuming here. What I'm assuming here is that a good God would not allow unnecessary suffering to obtain. Would you agree with that?" Tim: "We can talk about unnecessary suffering. We're talking about the justifying norms for suffering. You're saying it has to be in terms of necessity. Which is, an evil is only authorizable, by God, if it's in connection to a greater good or prevention of a greater evil, correct?" Alex: "If there's some kind of justification for allowing that sort of thing." Tim: "Yeah, but you're saying it's a necessary connection. Why...what's the term necessity...?" Alex: "Perhaps I should say unjustified instead of unnecessary." Tim: "Okay, so we both agree. I do not believe that God can authorize or justify unjustified suffering." Alex: "Okay, so tell me how that example that I gave you, the deer with its leg, starving, is justified?" Tim: "Because it's intrinsically redeemable. And the norms I'm working with is not this necessity condition that you're working with. Mine is about redeemable suffering, redeemability, or what we call, feasibility." Alex: "For the deer?" Tim: "If that suffering can be defeated within the creature's life. And I'll define what I mean by defeat, which is that they can, retroactively, look back at what they went through and integrate it into their life history, where they look at their life..." Alex: "I have to interrupt, because the example I gave you is one where the deer dies." Tim: "Yes, the deer dies. But here's the thing. You're probably talking about, this post-mortem example, I'm gonna put one thesis on the table: There's two philosophers that defend exactly what this goes through. One defends that animals will be given a martyrdom status. Well, God will be able to present himself in a way to animals in the afterlife, such that, in the same way you could give praise to a dog and a dog emotionally recognizes that he's loved, and that his life is worth living, right? To these animals that suffered like that, there's one view on the table, which is that God will give them a praiseworthy status where they will be able to actually..." (Bending over backwards to justify the suffering of animals. The deer will learn why he/she had to go through all of that when they die and God explains it and praises the animal for what they went though. Ridiculous, IMO.) Alex: "So can we talk about that claim? Because these animals are suffering for what? I mean, God might cause them to suffer..." Tim: "It's not means to ends." Alex: "God might cause them to suffer a bunch, and then essentially redeem them in the afterlife. But what for? Like, why do this? If I were to punch you in the face and then give you $20,000 afterwards, you might be grateful for the $20,000, but why couldn't I just give you the $20,000?" Tim: "We'll see. So that's assuming. So I saw your debate with Trent..." Alex: "Good stuff." ~ Christian Hayden (Not Hayden Christiansen) : "Would you say that theism or atheism better account for the idea that suffering exists and a purpose for it?" Alex: "It depends exactly what you mean. Because, of course, you might say that the world itself is more expected on theism, and since suffering needs the existence of the world, that it's theism. But granted the existence of a material world, let's say, I think atheism." Hayden: "Okay. Why does suffering exist at all? In an atheistic worldview, what is the cause of suffering?" Alex: "Oh, well, because, however life began, it developed through a series of natural selection, which requires animals to develop senses that they wish to avoid in order to be more likely to survive. And that's why pain receptors evolve in a world where not all of these pains are actually going to kill us, we're left with situations left with situations in which we're in a lot of pain but don't end up dying for it." Hayden: "Would you agree that consciousness is necessary for suffering?" Alex: "I would say probably, yeah." Hayden: "Does atheism account for consciousness?" Alex: "Yes, that's what I was talking about a moment ago. Perhaps not, maybe theism accounts better for consciousness than atheism does." Hayden: "Okay. So if there is no consciousness, there is no suffering? Is that right?" Alex: "That's probably true, yeah." Hayden: "So, if atheism cannot account for consciousness, then it cannot account for suffering. Would you agree with that?" Alex: "So I think what we're doing here is we're sort of slightly shifting the goal posts. If you don't want to grant the existence of the material world before we start talking about this, we can do an argument from consciousness. But then we need to debate whether consciousness is more...it is explicable on atheism. "What I'm going to say is this: Consciousness may seem to imply the existence of a conscious creator of the Universe. We're here talking about, I suppose we're talking about Christianity. The claim was about God. But the God that you believe in, let's say, if we grant that there is a creator deity who sort of brings about the universe of conscious creatures... Have you ever heard of the evil-god hypothesis that Stephen Law popularized?" Hayden: No, tell me it." Alex: "So the idea is that like, imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer. He brings about a world in order so that human beings will suffer, right? That seems like a plausible hypothesis. And even if you think that consciousness points towards God, the kind of God that a lot of Christians think is a sort of necessary quality of God, which is to be all-loving, might not have to apply here." (I know he wasn't talking soul-trap theory and Loosh, but it sounds just like it.) Hayden: "If Christianity were true, is it plausible that suffering is necessary for God's purpose, for his creation?" Alex: "If Christianity is true, then I think it must be necessary, because there'd be no other explanation for it." Hayden: "So we're not talking about whether or not Christianity is true..." Alex: "But if you're asking me if it's plausible that Christianity is true and therefore suffering is necessary, I would say probably not. Because I don't think suffering should be necessary or could be necessary." Hayden: "In an atheistic worldview, I would agree with you. It makes no sense at all." Alex: "So can I ask you why then, if God exists and wants to come to know everybody, and wants to love everybody and does so for the sake of human beings, why he chose to imbue the world with so much suffering that is at least, seemingly, completely inexplicable?" Hayden: "Are you a father?" Alec: "No." Hayden: "I'm a father. I want my son to become just like I am, better than I am, I should say. I want him to become the best that he can be. Is it possible for him to become, to reach his potential, without suffering in his life?" Alex: "Perhaps not, but there's two..." Hayden: "So suffering is necessary." Alex: "There are a few things I want to say. Firstly, that kind of moral development doesn't apply to non-human animals, as I've already said, right?" Hayden: "Why not?" Alex: "That does not account for the brutal death of animals in the wild. Also if - I don't want to talk about your son, because it's tragic to think about, but - somebody else's son has suffered and died immediately as a result of that suffering, they don't get to develop in the same way." Hayden: "I would agree that on a micro level, it's very hard to justify. And we can ask the question, 'Why doesn't God intervene on all of these sufferings?" (Exactly. And that's the Christian making the point.) Alex: "You might be able to justify an amount of suffering, right? But the fact that there's so much gratuitous suffering in the world is what I think makes God's existence unlikely. There are some instances where maybe a certain amount of suffering brings about a certain amount of good in a situation. That, by the way, would count as a justification. But when a child dies of leukemia... And they'e dead." Hayden: "Could there be a purpose to it? What if the death of the child brings their parents to God?" Alex: "Then perhaps...then the parents should be grateful that their child got leukemia because it's doing the will of the Lord." Hayden: "Not necessarily." Alex: "That seems obscene to me." (Yep. What if the death of their child caused the grandmother to have a nervous breakdown, the mom to be riddled with guilt her entire life, and the father to go off the rails? That's my family, by the way. Before I was born, my 8-year-old sister was killed when my mom's car was stuck on the railroad tracks and the train hit the car. Seeing people trying to justify that as God's will or offering up reasons to justify it (as several people have done on here) is really sad. Sorry if that offends you.)

Joe Murgia

12,708 views • 1 year ago

Ahead of tonight's Al Smith Dinner, watch President Trump's amazing and hysterical 2016 speech roasting Hillary Clinton. Kamala was terrified of being mocked like this and exposed for her anti-Catholic bigotry, which is why she's refusing to appear in person at tonight's Catholic charity dinner: "This is a helluva dinner. Well I want to thank Your Eminence. This is really great to be with you again. Beloved Governor Cuomo, our great senators. Hi Chuck. He used to love me when I was a Democrat you know. (LAUGHTER) Mayor de Blasio. Wherever you are. Where’s Mayor de Blasio? (inaudible) See in the old days I would have know him very well but I haven’t doing so much of the real estate any (ph). And I want to thank Al and Ann (ph) Smith, just a fantastic job you do with the dinner. Congratulations on a record – over $6 million, right? He’s got a record. (APPLAUSE) And a special hello to all of you in this room who have known and loved me for many, many years. It’s true. The politicians. They’ve had me to their homes, they’ve introduced me to their children, I’ve become their best friends in many instances. They’ve asked for my endorsement and they always wanted my money. And even called me really a dear, dear friend. But then suddenly, decided when I ran for president as a Republican, that I’ve always been a no-good, rotten, disgusting scoundrel. And they totally forgot about me. But that’s OK. You know, they say when you do this kind of an event you always start out with a self-deprecating joke. Some people think this would be tough for me, but the truth is … (LAUGHTER) It’s true — the truth is I’m actually a modest person. Very modest. It’s true. In fact many people tell me that modesty is perhaps my best quality. (LAUGHTER) Even better than my temperament. (LAUGHTER) You know Cardinal Dolan and I have some things in common. For instance, we both run impressive properties on Fifth Avenue. Of course his is much more impressive than mine. That’s because I built mine with my own beautifully formed hands. (LAUGHTER) While his was built with the hands of God, and nobody can compete with God. Is that correct? Nobody. Right? (APPLAUSE) That’s right. No contest. It’s great to be here with a thousand wonderful people, or, as I call it, a small intimate dinner with some friends. Or as Hillary calls it, her largest crowd of the season. (LAUGHTER) Ahh, this stuff. This is corny stuff. I do recognize that I come into this event with a little bit of an advantage. I know that so many of you in the archdiocese already have a place in your heart for a guy who started out as a carpenter working for his father. I was a carpenter working for mine. (LAUGHTER) True. Not for a long period of time but I was. For about three weeks. What’s great about the Al Smith Dinner is that even in the rough and tumble world of a really, really hard-fought campaign – in fact I don’t know if you know Hillary but last night they said, “That was the most vicious debate in the history of politics, presidential debate. The most vicious.” And I don’t know – are we supposed to be proud of that or where are we supposed to be on that one. But they did say that and I’m trying to think back to Lincoln. I don’t think we can compete with that. But the candidates have some light-hearted moments together, which is true. I have no doubt that Hillary is going to laugh quite a bit tonight, sometimes even at appropriate moments. (LAUGHTER) And even tonight, with all of the heated back and forth, between my opponent and me at the debate last night, we have proven that we can actually be civil to each other. In fact, just before taking the dais, Hillary accidentally bumped into me and she very civilly said, “Pardon me.” (LAUGHTER) And I very politely replied, “Let me talk to you about that after I get into office.” (LAUGHTER) Just kidding, just kidding. And Hillary was very gracious. She said if somehow she gets elected she wants me to be, without question, either her ambassador to Iraq or to Afghanistan. It’s my choice. (LAUGHTER) But one of the things I noticed tonight – and I’ve known Hillary for a long time – this is the first time ever, ever, that Hillary is sitting down and speaking to major corporate leaders and not getting paid for it. (LAUGHTER) It’s true. It’s true. You know, last night, I called Hillary a “nasty woman,” but this stuff is all relative. After listening to Hillary rattle on and on and on, I don’t think so badly of Rosie O’Donnell anymore. (LAUGHTER) In fact, I’m actually starting to like Rosie a lot. (LAUGHTER) These events give not only the candidates a chance to be with each other in a very social setting; it also allows the candidates the opportunity to meet the other candidate’s team — good team. I know Hillary met my campaign manager, and I got the chance to meet the people who are working so hard to get her elected. There they are — the heads of NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC — there’s the New York Times, right over there, and the Washington Post. (LAUGHTER) They’re working overtime. True. True. (APPLAUSE) Oh, this one’s going to get me in trouble. (LAUGHTER) Not with Hillary. You know, the president told me to stop whining, but I really have to say, the media is even more biased this year than ever before — ever. You want the proof? Michelle Obama gives a speech and everyone loves it — it’s fantastic. They think she’s absolutely great. My wife, Melania, gives the exact same speech — (LAUGHTER) — and people get on her case. (APPLAUSE) And I don’t get it. I don’t know why. (APPLAUSE) And it wasn’t her fault. Stand up, Melania. Come on. She took a lot of abuse. (APPLAUSE) Oh, I’m in trouble when I go home tonight. I’m — she didn’t know about that one. Am I okay? Is it okay? Cardinal, please speak to her. (LAUGHTER) I’d like to address an important religious matter: the issue of going to confession. Or, as Hillary calls it, the Fourth of July weekend with FBI Director Comey. (LAUGHTER) Now, I’m told Hillary went to confession before tonight’s event, but the priest was having a hard time, when he asked about her sins, and she said she couldn’t remember 39 times. (LAUGHTER) Hillary is so corrupt, she got kicked off the Watergate Commission. How corrupt do you have to be to get kicked off the Watergate Commission? Pretty corrupt. Hillary is, and has been, in politics since the 70s. What’s her pitch? The economy is busted? The government’s corrupt? Washington is failing? “Vote for me. I’ve been working on these problems for 30 years. I can fix it”, she says. I wasn’t really sure if Hillary was going to be here tonight, because I guess you didn’t send her invitation by email. Or, maybe, you did and she just found out about it through the wonder of WikiLeaks. (LAUGHTER) We’ve learned so much from WikiLeaks. For example, Hillary believes that it’s vital to deceive the people by having one public policy — — and a totally different policy in private. That’s okay. I don’t know who they’re angry at Hillary, you or I. For example, here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics. Now some of you haven’t noticed, Hillary isn’t laughing as much as the rest of us. That’s because she knows the jokes. And all of the jokes were given to her in advance of the dinner by Donna Brazile. Which is – everyone knows, of course, Hillary’s belief that it takes a village, which only makes sense after all in places like Haiti, where she’s taken a number of them. Thank you. I don’t know – and I don’t want this evening without saying something nice about my opponent. Hillary has been in Washington a long time. She knows a lot about how government works. And according to her sworn testimony Hillary has forgotten more things than most of us will ever, ever, ever know. That I can tell you. We’re having some fun here tonight and that’s good. On a personal note, what an amazing honor it is to be with all of you. And I want to congratulate Hillary on getting the nomination and we’re in there fighting and over the next 19 days somebody’s going to be chosen. We’ll see what happens. But I have great memories of coming to this dinner with my father over the years when I was a young man. Great experience for me. This was always a special experience for him and me to be together. One thing we can all agree on is the need to support the great work that comes out of the dinner. Millions of dollars have been raised to support disadvantaged children, and I applaud the many people who have worked to make this wonderful event a critical lifeline for children in need. (APPLAUSE) And that we together broke the all-time record tonight is really something special. More than $6 million net, net, net, net. The cardinal told me that’s net net, Donald, remember. We can also agree on the need to stand up to anti-Catholic bias, to defend religious liberty and to create a culture that celebrates life. America is in many ways divided … (APPLAUSE) Thank you. America is in many ways divided like it’s never been before. And the great religious leaders here tonight give us all an example that we can follow. We’re living in a time, an age that we never thought possible before. The vicious barbarism we read about in history books, but never thought we’d see it in our so-called modern- day world. Who would have thought we would be witnessing what we’re witnessing today. We’ve got to be very strong, very, very smart, and we’ve got to come together not only as a nation, but as a world community. Thank you very much, God bless you and God bless America. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. Thank you very much."

Ahead of tonight's Al Smith Dinner, watch President Trump's amazing and hysterical 2016 speech roasting Hillary Clinton. Kamala was terrified of being mocked like this and exposed for her anti-Catholic bigotry, which is why she's refusing to appear in person at tonight's Catholic charity dinner: "This is a helluva dinner. Well I want to thank Your Eminence. This is really great to be with you again. Beloved Governor Cuomo, our great senators. Hi Chuck. He used to love me when I was a Democrat you know. (LAUGHTER) Mayor de Blasio. Wherever you are. Where’s Mayor de Blasio? (inaudible) See in the old days I would have know him very well but I haven’t doing so much of the real estate any (ph). And I want to thank Al and Ann (ph) Smith, just a fantastic job you do with the dinner. Congratulations on a record – over $6 million, right? He’s got a record. (APPLAUSE) And a special hello to all of you in this room who have known and loved me for many, many years. It’s true. The politicians. They’ve had me to their homes, they’ve introduced me to their children, I’ve become their best friends in many instances. They’ve asked for my endorsement and they always wanted my money. And even called me really a dear, dear friend. But then suddenly, decided when I ran for president as a Republican, that I’ve always been a no-good, rotten, disgusting scoundrel. And they totally forgot about me. But that’s OK. You know, they say when you do this kind of an event you always start out with a self-deprecating joke. Some people think this would be tough for me, but the truth is … (LAUGHTER) It’s true — the truth is I’m actually a modest person. Very modest. It’s true. In fact many people tell me that modesty is perhaps my best quality. (LAUGHTER) Even better than my temperament. (LAUGHTER) You know Cardinal Dolan and I have some things in common. For instance, we both run impressive properties on Fifth Avenue. Of course his is much more impressive than mine. That’s because I built mine with my own beautifully formed hands. (LAUGHTER) While his was built with the hands of God, and nobody can compete with God. Is that correct? Nobody. Right? (APPLAUSE) That’s right. No contest. It’s great to be here with a thousand wonderful people, or, as I call it, a small intimate dinner with some friends. Or as Hillary calls it, her largest crowd of the season. (LAUGHTER) Ahh, this stuff. This is corny stuff. I do recognize that I come into this event with a little bit of an advantage. I know that so many of you in the archdiocese already have a place in your heart for a guy who started out as a carpenter working for his father. I was a carpenter working for mine. (LAUGHTER) True. Not for a long period of time but I was. For about three weeks. What’s great about the Al Smith Dinner is that even in the rough and tumble world of a really, really hard-fought campaign – in fact I don’t know if you know Hillary but last night they said, “That was the most vicious debate in the history of politics, presidential debate. The most vicious.” And I don’t know – are we supposed to be proud of that or where are we supposed to be on that one. But they did say that and I’m trying to think back to Lincoln. I don’t think we can compete with that. But the candidates have some light-hearted moments together, which is true. I have no doubt that Hillary is going to laugh quite a bit tonight, sometimes even at appropriate moments. (LAUGHTER) And even tonight, with all of the heated back and forth, between my opponent and me at the debate last night, we have proven that we can actually be civil to each other. In fact, just before taking the dais, Hillary accidentally bumped into me and she very civilly said, “Pardon me.” (LAUGHTER) And I very politely replied, “Let me talk to you about that after I get into office.” (LAUGHTER) Just kidding, just kidding. And Hillary was very gracious. She said if somehow she gets elected she wants me to be, without question, either her ambassador to Iraq or to Afghanistan. It’s my choice. (LAUGHTER) But one of the things I noticed tonight – and I’ve known Hillary for a long time – this is the first time ever, ever, that Hillary is sitting down and speaking to major corporate leaders and not getting paid for it. (LAUGHTER) It’s true. It’s true. You know, last night, I called Hillary a “nasty woman,” but this stuff is all relative. After listening to Hillary rattle on and on and on, I don’t think so badly of Rosie O’Donnell anymore. (LAUGHTER) In fact, I’m actually starting to like Rosie a lot. (LAUGHTER) These events give not only the candidates a chance to be with each other in a very social setting; it also allows the candidates the opportunity to meet the other candidate’s team — good team. I know Hillary met my campaign manager, and I got the chance to meet the people who are working so hard to get her elected. There they are — the heads of NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC — there’s the New York Times, right over there, and the Washington Post. (LAUGHTER) They’re working overtime. True. True. (APPLAUSE) Oh, this one’s going to get me in trouble. (LAUGHTER) Not with Hillary. You know, the president told me to stop whining, but I really have to say, the media is even more biased this year than ever before — ever. You want the proof? Michelle Obama gives a speech and everyone loves it — it’s fantastic. They think she’s absolutely great. My wife, Melania, gives the exact same speech — (LAUGHTER) — and people get on her case. (APPLAUSE) And I don’t get it. I don’t know why. (APPLAUSE) And it wasn’t her fault. Stand up, Melania. Come on. She took a lot of abuse. (APPLAUSE) Oh, I’m in trouble when I go home tonight. I’m — she didn’t know about that one. Am I okay? Is it okay? Cardinal, please speak to her. (LAUGHTER) I’d like to address an important religious matter: the issue of going to confession. Or, as Hillary calls it, the Fourth of July weekend with FBI Director Comey. (LAUGHTER) Now, I’m told Hillary went to confession before tonight’s event, but the priest was having a hard time, when he asked about her sins, and she said she couldn’t remember 39 times. (LAUGHTER) Hillary is so corrupt, she got kicked off the Watergate Commission. How corrupt do you have to be to get kicked off the Watergate Commission? Pretty corrupt. Hillary is, and has been, in politics since the 70s. What’s her pitch? The economy is busted? The government’s corrupt? Washington is failing? “Vote for me. I’ve been working on these problems for 30 years. I can fix it”, she says. I wasn’t really sure if Hillary was going to be here tonight, because I guess you didn’t send her invitation by email. Or, maybe, you did and she just found out about it through the wonder of WikiLeaks. (LAUGHTER) We’ve learned so much from WikiLeaks. For example, Hillary believes that it’s vital to deceive the people by having one public policy — — and a totally different policy in private. That’s okay. I don’t know who they’re angry at Hillary, you or I. For example, here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics. Now some of you haven’t noticed, Hillary isn’t laughing as much as the rest of us. That’s because she knows the jokes. And all of the jokes were given to her in advance of the dinner by Donna Brazile. Which is – everyone knows, of course, Hillary’s belief that it takes a village, which only makes sense after all in places like Haiti, where she’s taken a number of them. Thank you. I don’t know – and I don’t want this evening without saying something nice about my opponent. Hillary has been in Washington a long time. She knows a lot about how government works. And according to her sworn testimony Hillary has forgotten more things than most of us will ever, ever, ever know. That I can tell you. We’re having some fun here tonight and that’s good. On a personal note, what an amazing honor it is to be with all of you. And I want to congratulate Hillary on getting the nomination and we’re in there fighting and over the next 19 days somebody’s going to be chosen. We’ll see what happens. But I have great memories of coming to this dinner with my father over the years when I was a young man. Great experience for me. This was always a special experience for him and me to be together. One thing we can all agree on is the need to support the great work that comes out of the dinner. Millions of dollars have been raised to support disadvantaged children, and I applaud the many people who have worked to make this wonderful event a critical lifeline for children in need. (APPLAUSE) And that we together broke the all-time record tonight is really something special. More than $6 million net, net, net, net. The cardinal told me that’s net net, Donald, remember. We can also agree on the need to stand up to anti-Catholic bias, to defend religious liberty and to create a culture that celebrates life. America is in many ways divided … (APPLAUSE) Thank you. America is in many ways divided like it’s never been before. And the great religious leaders here tonight give us all an example that we can follow. We’re living in a time, an age that we never thought possible before. The vicious barbarism we read about in history books, but never thought we’d see it in our so-called modern- day world. Who would have thought we would be witnessing what we’re witnessing today. We’ve got to be very strong, very, very smart, and we’ve got to come together not only as a nation, but as a world community. Thank you very much, God bless you and God bless America. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. Thank you very much."

Steve Cortes

100,654 views • 1 year ago

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.

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.

James Lindsay, anti-Communist

53,212 views • 1 year ago

I played 4 hours of The Blood of Dawnwalker - and it's damn good. My full thoughts below 👇 The version we played was in beta and running on some powerful PCs. It was from the beginning of the game so I wasn't able to explore the entire map. It felt pretty polished overall and I didn't experience any bugs or performance issues during my time. The game takes place in Vale Sangora - it's a beautiful valley near the Carpathian Mountains full of lush trees, bogs, mines, and all kinds of wildlife and villages and communities roughly comparable in size to The Witcher 3's Blood and Wine but packed with detail. There's a lot of neat history everywhere you look and explore, with references to Genghis Khan's hordes, the Tatars, and more. There are also little details that help make the setting a bit more real. Because Vale Sangora is run by the vampire leaders, silver is forbidden to have in your possession, and not every merchant will buy or sell them. It looks great visually, but I wouldn't say in a way that blew my socks off. Environments look good, trees, bushes etc all swaying in the wind, good lighting, character models are nicely detailed. It's not pushing things on a technical level but I found that perfectly ok. From the beginning of the game, a series of events introduces you to Coen's family - his parents and siblings. His father Pieter is a strong and stern caretaker who knows his way around a sword but deeply cares for his family. Coen's mother Esme is stricken by an illness that the whole family is trying to wrangle with, and his siblings are playful and endearing. As the vampires don't tolerate 'weakness', you start the feel the weight of the family's plight that gives off an aura of despair. At least in these initial hours, I found myself surprisingly growing attached pretty quickly. While there's an ominous metaphorical 'cloud' that hangs over the valley, there are bits of lightheartedness thrown in too. One charming quest saw me play tag with my siblings and go fishing in the old family hangout spot. Character performances and voice acting are excellent. There weren't really any characters that felt out place or miscast. I especially enjoyed the gravelly voices of Pieter and Brencis - the leader of the vampires. Brencis comes off formidable, and events in the game gave me a motivational drive for revenge, which I always like in games. The story is set up in a way that each of the vampire leaders needs to be taken down, with Brencis as the head honcho. You can attack them in any order, even going directly to Brencis from the outset, but you'll probably find you'll have a bit of trouble with that approach. While I've always been a little hesitant about plots that have open-ended structures, the team at Rebel Wolves told me that each vampire 'captain' is unique with many quests tailored to their specific stories, and there was a lot of effort and care put into each. They urge players to play through each storyline to get the most out of the game. There were lots of endearing characters in just the first few hours. Anca - a local herbalist and a witch, reminded me a lot of The Witcher 3's Keira. And she's a romance option. There are other sentient races as well, like the Uriash which I would say resemble something like the Qunari from Dragon Age. They're big, tough and brooding and are seen as monsters and somewhat shunned. There's a nice variety of monsters too, like kobolds who are basically ghouls that talk smack, and I came across the "Great Bog Wurm" in a swampy area which was it's own mini-boss fight. When I compare to something like The Witcher 3 (because many people understandably do with Dawnwalker given how the game looks and the makeup of the Rebel Wolves team), movement and navigation in the game felt fairly fluid overall. Walking, sprinting, vaulting ledges, etc were smooth. There's a bit of clunkiness when it comes to jumping, where I'd sometimes starting sliding jumping down a hill or onto rocks. There's also an ability that Coen automatically gets after he becomes a half-vampire called "Planeshift". It lets him teleport dash around the world so he can reach higher areas or across gaps. It felt a little clunky and imprecise when scaling things like towers and trying to land back on solid ground. There's a glossary/beastiary that's structured just like The Witcher 3, and the soundtrack is basically, you guessed it, The Witcher 3 in all the best ways. And like one of my favorite parts of The Witcher 3, there are plenty of points of interest that lead to unique little narrative beats or quests. One saw me come across a villager searching for his brother. Following that little quest line led me to a buried tomb which led to a boss fight with an ancient warrior and cool loot at the end. One abrupt encounter in the world saw me chase the village asshole talking shit about my family. When his drunkard father catches us arguing, he scolds him more and tells me I should teach him a lesson myself and beat him with a stick. I can choose to partake in it, stand by and watch, or stop the father in a physical altercation. There's been a lot of questions about combat and from what I played, I liked it, moreso than The Witcher 3's. There are two ways to play: directional and traditional. With directional combat, you hold down a shoulder button to block while aiming in whatever direction you see an enemy attacking from. That's either up, down, left or right. It's simpler than something like Kingdom Come and I got used to it real quick. It sometimes got a liiiittle overwhelming when multiple enemies are attacking at the same time - and they do that a lot. Enemies don't wait around for their turn, instead opting to gang up on you to take you down. There's also the traditional or 'standard' combat, which is basically pressing a button that blocks enemies no matter what direction (your standard action game). You can also expectedly parry enemies that open them up for more damage. There is a stamina meter that depletes with blocks, and it depletes faster if you're playing standard, though you can upgrade your stamina as you play too. There are active abilities you can put into quick slots for faster use during combat. As there's a day/night cycle and Coen is a 'dawnwalker' - meaning he's human during the day and a vampire at night, you can switch between your swords in daytime and bring out your claws at night, which are more powerful. There are many abilities, though because I was playing the first hours of the game, I didn't get to see them all. One that I got to use was a powerful charge attack, and another was a flurry of deadly slashes with my claws. You can drain enemies to regain health with 'voracious bite', though enemies won't wait around while you're doing it so you have to be mindful. There are shrines dotted around the map that you can use to fast travel and upgrade your skills. There are tons of resources and items in the world just like The Witcher that you can use to craft potions and the like. Some can only be done during the day or at night. In terms of time progression, there are 8 time 'segments' per day and certain quests and activities can push the time forward a set amount of segments. I thought I would hate it at first, but it actually makes for some compelling choices in how you choose to progress the game. You're always shown when an action will progress time by the way, so nothing will take you by surprise. Running around and exploring the world doesn't push time forward. When your vampiric health drops really low, you become hungry and start to really crave blood. You can even lose control during dialogue and drain the person you're talking to - including friends. I didn't encounter that myself but the devs said those can have lasting effects throughout the game. This has definitely jumped up my most anticipated list for the rest of the year. It's practically The Witcher 3: Medieval Vampire Edition with its own flavor and unique mechanics and honestly...that is something I'm quite happy about. #BloodofDawnwalker

I played 4 hours of The Blood of Dawnwalker - and it's damn good. My full thoughts below 👇 The version we played was in beta and running on some powerful PCs. It was from the beginning of the game so I wasn't able to explore the entire map. It felt pretty polished overall and I didn't experience any bugs or performance issues during my time. The game takes place in Vale Sangora - it's a beautiful valley near the Carpathian Mountains full of lush trees, bogs, mines, and all kinds of wildlife and villages and communities roughly comparable in size to The Witcher 3's Blood and Wine but packed with detail. There's a lot of neat history everywhere you look and explore, with references to Genghis Khan's hordes, the Tatars, and more. There are also little details that help make the setting a bit more real. Because Vale Sangora is run by the vampire leaders, silver is forbidden to have in your possession, and not every merchant will buy or sell them. It looks great visually, but I wouldn't say in a way that blew my socks off. Environments look good, trees, bushes etc all swaying in the wind, good lighting, character models are nicely detailed. It's not pushing things on a technical level but I found that perfectly ok. From the beginning of the game, a series of events introduces you to Coen's family - his parents and siblings. His father Pieter is a strong and stern caretaker who knows his way around a sword but deeply cares for his family. Coen's mother Esme is stricken by an illness that the whole family is trying to wrangle with, and his siblings are playful and endearing. As the vampires don't tolerate 'weakness', you start the feel the weight of the family's plight that gives off an aura of despair. At least in these initial hours, I found myself surprisingly growing attached pretty quickly. While there's an ominous metaphorical 'cloud' that hangs over the valley, there are bits of lightheartedness thrown in too. One charming quest saw me play tag with my siblings and go fishing in the old family hangout spot. Character performances and voice acting are excellent. There weren't really any characters that felt out place or miscast. I especially enjoyed the gravelly voices of Pieter and Brencis - the leader of the vampires. Brencis comes off formidable, and events in the game gave me a motivational drive for revenge, which I always like in games. The story is set up in a way that each of the vampire leaders needs to be taken down, with Brencis as the head honcho. You can attack them in any order, even going directly to Brencis from the outset, but you'll probably find you'll have a bit of trouble with that approach. While I've always been a little hesitant about plots that have open-ended structures, the team at Rebel Wolves told me that each vampire 'captain' is unique with many quests tailored to their specific stories, and there was a lot of effort and care put into each. They urge players to play through each storyline to get the most out of the game. There were lots of endearing characters in just the first few hours. Anca - a local herbalist and a witch, reminded me a lot of The Witcher 3's Keira. And she's a romance option. There are other sentient races as well, like the Uriash which I would say resemble something like the Qunari from Dragon Age. They're big, tough and brooding and are seen as monsters and somewhat shunned. There's a nice variety of monsters too, like kobolds who are basically ghouls that talk smack, and I came across the "Great Bog Wurm" in a swampy area which was it's own mini-boss fight. When I compare to something like The Witcher 3 (because many people understandably do with Dawnwalker given how the game looks and the makeup of the Rebel Wolves team), movement and navigation in the game felt fairly fluid overall. Walking, sprinting, vaulting ledges, etc were smooth. There's a bit of clunkiness when it comes to jumping, where I'd sometimes starting sliding jumping down a hill or onto rocks. There's also an ability that Coen automatically gets after he becomes a half-vampire called "Planeshift". It lets him teleport dash around the world so he can reach higher areas or across gaps. It felt a little clunky and imprecise when scaling things like towers and trying to land back on solid ground. There's a glossary/beastiary that's structured just like The Witcher 3, and the soundtrack is basically, you guessed it, The Witcher 3 in all the best ways. And like one of my favorite parts of The Witcher 3, there are plenty of points of interest that lead to unique little narrative beats or quests. One saw me come across a villager searching for his brother. Following that little quest line led me to a buried tomb which led to a boss fight with an ancient warrior and cool loot at the end. One abrupt encounter in the world saw me chase the village asshole talking shit about my family. When his drunkard father catches us arguing, he scolds him more and tells me I should teach him a lesson myself and beat him with a stick. I can choose to partake in it, stand by and watch, or stop the father in a physical altercation. There's been a lot of questions about combat and from what I played, I liked it, moreso than The Witcher 3's. There are two ways to play: directional and traditional. With directional combat, you hold down a shoulder button to block while aiming in whatever direction you see an enemy attacking from. That's either up, down, left or right. It's simpler than something like Kingdom Come and I got used to it real quick. It sometimes got a liiiittle overwhelming when multiple enemies are attacking at the same time - and they do that a lot. Enemies don't wait around for their turn, instead opting to gang up on you to take you down. There's also the traditional or 'standard' combat, which is basically pressing a button that blocks enemies no matter what direction (your standard action game). You can also expectedly parry enemies that open them up for more damage. There is a stamina meter that depletes with blocks, and it depletes faster if you're playing standard, though you can upgrade your stamina as you play too. There are active abilities you can put into quick slots for faster use during combat. As there's a day/night cycle and Coen is a 'dawnwalker' - meaning he's human during the day and a vampire at night, you can switch between your swords in daytime and bring out your claws at night, which are more powerful. There are many abilities, though because I was playing the first hours of the game, I didn't get to see them all. One that I got to use was a powerful charge attack, and another was a flurry of deadly slashes with my claws. You can drain enemies to regain health with 'voracious bite', though enemies won't wait around while you're doing it so you have to be mindful. There are shrines dotted around the map that you can use to fast travel and upgrade your skills. There are tons of resources and items in the world just like The Witcher that you can use to craft potions and the like. Some can only be done during the day or at night. In terms of time progression, there are 8 time 'segments' per day and certain quests and activities can push the time forward a set amount of segments. I thought I would hate it at first, but it actually makes for some compelling choices in how you choose to progress the game. You're always shown when an action will progress time by the way, so nothing will take you by surprise. Running around and exploring the world doesn't push time forward. When your vampiric health drops really low, you become hungry and start to really crave blood. You can even lose control during dialogue and drain the person you're talking to - including friends. I didn't encounter that myself but the devs said those can have lasting effects throughout the game. This has definitely jumped up my most anticipated list for the rest of the year. It's practically The Witcher 3: Medieval Vampire Edition with its own flavor and unique mechanics and honestly...that is something I'm quite happy about. #BloodofDawnwalker

Shinobi602

341,674 views • 29 days ago

The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”

DR REHIANA ALI BA MB BCHIR (Cantab) MA MRCP PhD

18,659 views • 6 months ago

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

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

Grant Smith Ellis

85,913 views • 10 months ago

$It’s outrageous that President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), say many in the media. “You have to admire the chutzpah,” wrote one columnist. “Donald Trump describing the BBC as ‘corrupt’ while threatening to take legal action….The man has never been known for his self-awareness, so it’s safe to say the irony has almost certainly passed him by.” But there is no question that BBC employees deliberately manipulated Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021, to make it sound like he had encouraged violence. An independent outside auditor, Michael Prescott, wrote a major report on the BBC’s bias, which concluded that the BBC had “spliced together two clips” to create “the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.” Americans might think this story doesn’t concern them because it’s about a British media company. Few Americans listen to the BBC. But the story is highly relevant to Americans because US news media companies are guilty of manipulating their coverage of Trump, transgenderism, and race in nearly identical ways as the BBC. And given the BBC’s longstanding reputation as one of the most credible news organizations in the world, Prescott’s independent report has rightly sparked a major international media discussion. Over the weekend, the BBC’s CEO and its Director-General both stepped down. “The Future of the BBC is Now in Doubt,” writes Tim Stanley, an influential columnist, in the Daily Telegraph. Prescott’s report should inspire reform-minded owners of US news media companies to clean up their act. For example, CNN falsely claimed that January 6 was an “insurrection” that resulted in the deaths of five people and did a similarly manipulative edit of Trump’s speech, noted an investigator on X, MAZE. “It may not be technically as bad as what the BBC did,” he noted, “because there was a quick flash transition, but the goal was the same. Make the speech sound worse than it was. Take everything out of context and put it together in an order that makes it sound as bad as possible.” Last year, we criticized CNN and other news media for deliberately twisting the meaning of Trump’s remarks about Liz Cheney for being a war hawk, and Prescott makes the same observation. “Mr. Trump was clearly criticising politicians who readily send US troops to war without thinking about the human cost,” he notes. And yet “the BBC repeatedly pushed this inaccurate version of what Trump said.” Readers of Public are aware that we have been critical of the BBC’s fact-checking program, “BBC Verify.” One purpose of BBC Verify appears to be to label stories with which the BBC disagrees as “misinformation” and thus as something that social media platforms should censor. Last year, the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, said, “Disinformation, propaganda, and partial news is [sic] weakening our shared understanding of the world, undermining trust in our institutions and our democratic process,” shortly after the BBC had buried a large package of investigative stories on the problems with giving children and adolescents puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. BBC’s first “disinformation” reporter, Mariana Spring, apologized in 2023 after she was caught lying on her resume. Spring remains employed at BBC as its “Social Media Investigations Senior Correspondent.” Prescott described how BBC Verify spread misinformation. “BBC audiences were being encouraged to believe Britain’s major insurers were, intentionally or unintentionally, racist and charging high prices to customers based on their ethnicity,” notes Prescott. “The central claim implied causation, (that being an ethnic minority resulted in you being charged more), but the reporting and commentary did not consider other issues that can affect insurance charges.” Adds Prescott, “the entire report was taken down, which I understand is very rare. It had taken six months for the BBC to take decisive action about a story that was not fit for purpose and spread damaging misinformation. As far as I know, no one has ever been disciplined for this hugely embarrassing episode and worrying questions remain.” Another example of the BBC’s bias concerned a major story about doctors causing serious harm to children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. Readers of Public will recall that in the Spring of last year, we released documents, The WPATH Files, which a whistleblower had given to us. “In March 2024,” writes Prescott, “there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health [WPATH] which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times, and others, but not the BBC.” Prescott points out other examples of the BBC's censorship and bias on transgenderism. It refused to cover detransitioners, people who regretted taking hormones or receiving surgeries in an attempt to change their sex or gender. It didn’t cover a major lawsuit by a group of nurses after their hospital allowed a man to use their changing room. And, beyond WPATH, the BBC gave little to no coverage of the trans medical scandal, even though the UK government has banned puberty blockers. By contrast, the BBC produced “a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens,” celebrated a male wrestler who competed in the women’s category, and published an article last year headlined, “Transgender woman guilty of rape after night out.” Wrote the reporter, “Lexi Secker, 35, of Lowbourne, near Melksham, was living as a man when she attacked a woman in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, on 23 April 2023.” More information about the scandal may come out. Just today, Cath Leng, BBC’s former chief writer, says she was “forced out” in 2023 after 25 years because she was critical of transgender ideology. Prescott identified other areas of bias, including on race and the war in Gaza, all of which pointed to a single significant underlying problem. “My view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all,” he writes. “Indeed, I would argue that the Executive’s attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself - meaning the last recourse for action is the Board.” All of this is deeply damaging to the BBC, regardless of whether Trump decides to sue it. “BBC staff have destroyed their own trump card in future negotiations over the licence fee,” writes Stanley at the Daily Telegraph. “The problem is this: in the modern, post-TV world, the licence fee is entirely unjustifiable. The BBC has to explain why, when there’s so much else available, it should be allowed to compel us to pay for it – just when tastes are diverging, national identity is fractured and the quality of the BBC’s output is in doubt…” What, then, explains the BBC’s fall from grace? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!$

It’s outrageous that President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), say many in the media. “You have to admire the chutzpah,” wrote one columnist. “Donald Trump describing the BBC as ‘corrupt’ while threatening to take legal action….The man has never been known for his self-awareness, so it’s safe to say the irony has almost certainly passed him by.” But there is no question that BBC employees deliberately manipulated Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021, to make it sound like he had encouraged violence. An independent outside auditor, Michael Prescott, wrote a major report on the BBC’s bias, which concluded that the BBC had “spliced together two clips” to create “the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.” Americans might think this story doesn’t concern them because it’s about a British media company. Few Americans listen to the BBC. But the story is highly relevant to Americans because US news media companies are guilty of manipulating their coverage of Trump, transgenderism, and race in nearly identical ways as the BBC. And given the BBC’s longstanding reputation as one of the most credible news organizations in the world, Prescott’s independent report has rightly sparked a major international media discussion. Over the weekend, the BBC’s CEO and its Director-General both stepped down. “The Future of the BBC is Now in Doubt,” writes Tim Stanley, an influential columnist, in the Daily Telegraph. Prescott’s report should inspire reform-minded owners of US news media companies to clean up their act. For example, CNN falsely claimed that January 6 was an “insurrection” that resulted in the deaths of five people and did a similarly manipulative edit of Trump’s speech, noted an investigator on X, MAZE. “It may not be technically as bad as what the BBC did,” he noted, “because there was a quick flash transition, but the goal was the same. Make the speech sound worse than it was. Take everything out of context and put it together in an order that makes it sound as bad as possible.” Last year, we criticized CNN and other news media for deliberately twisting the meaning of Trump’s remarks about Liz Cheney for being a war hawk, and Prescott makes the same observation. “Mr. Trump was clearly criticising politicians who readily send US troops to war without thinking about the human cost,” he notes. And yet “the BBC repeatedly pushed this inaccurate version of what Trump said.” Readers of Public are aware that we have been critical of the BBC’s fact-checking program, “BBC Verify.” One purpose of BBC Verify appears to be to label stories with which the BBC disagrees as “misinformation” and thus as something that social media platforms should censor. Last year, the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, said, “Disinformation, propaganda, and partial news is [sic] weakening our shared understanding of the world, undermining trust in our institutions and our democratic process,” shortly after the BBC had buried a large package of investigative stories on the problems with giving children and adolescents puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. BBC’s first “disinformation” reporter, Mariana Spring, apologized in 2023 after she was caught lying on her resume. Spring remains employed at BBC as its “Social Media Investigations Senior Correspondent.” Prescott described how BBC Verify spread misinformation. “BBC audiences were being encouraged to believe Britain’s major insurers were, intentionally or unintentionally, racist and charging high prices to customers based on their ethnicity,” notes Prescott. “The central claim implied causation, (that being an ethnic minority resulted in you being charged more), but the reporting and commentary did not consider other issues that can affect insurance charges.” Adds Prescott, “the entire report was taken down, which I understand is very rare. It had taken six months for the BBC to take decisive action about a story that was not fit for purpose and spread damaging misinformation. As far as I know, no one has ever been disciplined for this hugely embarrassing episode and worrying questions remain.” Another example of the BBC’s bias concerned a major story about doctors causing serious harm to children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. Readers of Public will recall that in the Spring of last year, we released documents, The WPATH Files, which a whistleblower had given to us. “In March 2024,” writes Prescott, “there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health [WPATH] which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times, and others, but not the BBC.” Prescott points out other examples of the BBC's censorship and bias on transgenderism. It refused to cover detransitioners, people who regretted taking hormones or receiving surgeries in an attempt to change their sex or gender. It didn’t cover a major lawsuit by a group of nurses after their hospital allowed a man to use their changing room. And, beyond WPATH, the BBC gave little to no coverage of the trans medical scandal, even though the UK government has banned puberty blockers. By contrast, the BBC produced “a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens,” celebrated a male wrestler who competed in the women’s category, and published an article last year headlined, “Transgender woman guilty of rape after night out.” Wrote the reporter, “Lexi Secker, 35, of Lowbourne, near Melksham, was living as a man when she attacked a woman in Blunsdon, Wiltshire, on 23 April 2023.” More information about the scandal may come out. Just today, Cath Leng, BBC’s former chief writer, says she was “forced out” in 2023 after 25 years because she was critical of transgender ideology. Prescott identified other areas of bias, including on race and the war in Gaza, all of which pointed to a single significant underlying problem. “My view is that the Executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all,” he writes. “Indeed, I would argue that the Executive’s attitude when confronted with evidence of serious and systemic problems is now a systemic problem in itself - meaning the last recourse for action is the Board.” All of this is deeply damaging to the BBC, regardless of whether Trump decides to sue it. “BBC staff have destroyed their own trump card in future negotiations over the licence fee,” writes Stanley at the Daily Telegraph. “The problem is this: in the modern, post-TV world, the licence fee is entirely unjustifiable. The BBC has to explain why, when there’s so much else available, it should be allowed to compel us to pay for it – just when tastes are diverging, national identity is fractured and the quality of the BBC’s output is in doubt…” What, then, explains the BBC’s fall from grace? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

43,703 views • 8 months ago

What I saw at the Tommy Robinson hearing today Today Tommy Robinson (Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧) had a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice. The judge was Martin Chamberlain. The question at hand was this: are Tommy’s prison conditions dire enough that he needs an expedited hearing to review how the prison is treating him? As in: are things so bad that the courts need to move very quickly to review things — as opposed to their normal, slow pace? On Tommy’s team was prison lawyer Sara Watson and a barrister named Alisdair Williamson, KC. (Williamson was Tommy’s successful lawyer last year, when the Metropolitan Police tried to ban Tommy from going into the city of London. He’s really good.) On the other side was a battery of government lawyers — I counted four, led by Tom Cross, KC. Just stop for a moment to think about that: the UK government hired FOUR lawyers, at taxpayers expense, to fight against Tommy Robinson’s request to have an expediting hearing to review his atrocious treatment in prison. They probably spent more than £150,000 of tax dollars just on today’s battle. (Imagine if Keir Starmer put that much energy and effort into fighting real crime in the UK.) It’s not justice. It’s a vendetta. I’ve attended a lot of trials for Tommy over the years; he’s won some and he’s lost some. But this one felt good. Tommy’s team had a report from an expert psychologist who went to prison to examine Tommy. She found that, being kept in a small cell 21 hours a day, for more than 140 days, has induced a kind of PTSD in Tommy. The government didn’t even try to contradict those findings. They did, however, try to say that Tommy had all the privileges he could ask for, including visits, phone calls, a computer, TV and the like. But as the government lawyer was saying that, Tommy — who was on a video link from prison — started waving his hands, signalling to the judge that he had something to say. The judge stopped the proceedings and invited Williamson to phone Tommy to see what the fuss was about. The court took a half hour break. And then something incredible happened. The government lawyer had just been bragging about how luxurious Tommy’s treatment was — including how many phone calls he could make. But when the court resumed, Tommy held up a sign to the video camera in his prison video room. And on it, he wrote that the prison had cut off the phone call in the middle of his conversation with Williamson! The judge saw that note and asked what happened. And indeed it was true: literally in the middle of Tommy’s conversation with Williamson, the bullies at the prison cut off the phone call, as they have done to him so many times before. As Williamson said to the judge, the one act of misconduct that the entire court witnessed proved that when it came to Tommy, there’s a big difference between what the prison says and what the prison does. The judge was angry — remember, it was he who had asked Williamson to consult with Tommy; it was an important part of the hearing, to make sure the judge had all the facts. The bullies at the prison weren’t just messing around with Tommy this time; they were messing around with a judge. The judge tore a strip off the government lawyer, and had a one-hour break for Tommy to talk to his lawyers properly. When we all resumed, the judge said the prison’s shenanigans had delayed things so much, the judge wasn’t ready to release his ruling today — he’ll do that tomorrow. What a note to end on. I’m not saying it’s a sure thing that Tommy is going to win. But it couldn’t have been a clearer illustration of how the prison casually abuses Tommy, and gaslights him about it. Except this time, they didn’t seem to realize they were fighting with the judge, too. It was quite a dramatic moment. I spoke to Williamson after the hearing, and he says he’ll share the ruling with me tomorrow when the judge releases it — I’ll make sure to send you an email with the results as soon as I can. What a day. I’m on my way back to Canada now, but I’m very glad I came. My live-tweeting had millions of views today from around the world — a lot of people are interested in Tommy’s case. There were a few journalists there from the mainstream media, including a few real Tommy-haters. I recognized one of them from the BBC. So it feels great knowing that my tweets and videos will have far more viewers than their anti-Tommy propaganda. I’m so glad I came! My flight from Canada was seven hours each way, plus the taxi ride in from Heathrow was another hour each way. That’s a sixteen-hour round-trip journey, for just a few hours in court. But I’m really glad I made the trip. REPORT by Ezra Levant 🍁🚛:

What I saw at the Tommy Robinson hearing today Today Tommy Robinson (Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧) had a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice. The judge was Martin Chamberlain. The question at hand was this: are Tommy’s prison conditions dire enough that he needs an expedited hearing to review how the prison is treating him? As in: are things so bad that the courts need to move very quickly to review things — as opposed to their normal, slow pace? On Tommy’s team was prison lawyer Sara Watson and a barrister named Alisdair Williamson, KC. (Williamson was Tommy’s successful lawyer last year, when the Metropolitan Police tried to ban Tommy from going into the city of London. He’s really good.) On the other side was a battery of government lawyers — I counted four, led by Tom Cross, KC. Just stop for a moment to think about that: the UK government hired FOUR lawyers, at taxpayers expense, to fight against Tommy Robinson’s request to have an expediting hearing to review his atrocious treatment in prison. They probably spent more than £150,000 of tax dollars just on today’s battle. (Imagine if Keir Starmer put that much energy and effort into fighting real crime in the UK.) It’s not justice. It’s a vendetta. I’ve attended a lot of trials for Tommy over the years; he’s won some and he’s lost some. But this one felt good. Tommy’s team had a report from an expert psychologist who went to prison to examine Tommy. She found that, being kept in a small cell 21 hours a day, for more than 140 days, has induced a kind of PTSD in Tommy. The government didn’t even try to contradict those findings. They did, however, try to say that Tommy had all the privileges he could ask for, including visits, phone calls, a computer, TV and the like. But as the government lawyer was saying that, Tommy — who was on a video link from prison — started waving his hands, signalling to the judge that he had something to say. The judge stopped the proceedings and invited Williamson to phone Tommy to see what the fuss was about. The court took a half hour break. And then something incredible happened. The government lawyer had just been bragging about how luxurious Tommy’s treatment was — including how many phone calls he could make. But when the court resumed, Tommy held up a sign to the video camera in his prison video room. And on it, he wrote that the prison had cut off the phone call in the middle of his conversation with Williamson! The judge saw that note and asked what happened. And indeed it was true: literally in the middle of Tommy’s conversation with Williamson, the bullies at the prison cut off the phone call, as they have done to him so many times before. As Williamson said to the judge, the one act of misconduct that the entire court witnessed proved that when it came to Tommy, there’s a big difference between what the prison says and what the prison does. The judge was angry — remember, it was he who had asked Williamson to consult with Tommy; it was an important part of the hearing, to make sure the judge had all the facts. The bullies at the prison weren’t just messing around with Tommy this time; they were messing around with a judge. The judge tore a strip off the government lawyer, and had a one-hour break for Tommy to talk to his lawyers properly. When we all resumed, the judge said the prison’s shenanigans had delayed things so much, the judge wasn’t ready to release his ruling today — he’ll do that tomorrow. What a note to end on. I’m not saying it’s a sure thing that Tommy is going to win. But it couldn’t have been a clearer illustration of how the prison casually abuses Tommy, and gaslights him about it. Except this time, they didn’t seem to realize they were fighting with the judge, too. It was quite a dramatic moment. I spoke to Williamson after the hearing, and he says he’ll share the ruling with me tomorrow when the judge releases it — I’ll make sure to send you an email with the results as soon as I can. What a day. I’m on my way back to Canada now, but I’m very glad I came. My live-tweeting had millions of views today from around the world — a lot of people are interested in Tommy’s case. There were a few journalists there from the mainstream media, including a few real Tommy-haters. I recognized one of them from the BBC. So it feels great knowing that my tweets and videos will have far more viewers than their anti-Tommy propaganda. I’m so glad I came! My flight from Canada was seven hours each way, plus the taxi ride in from Heathrow was another hour each way. That’s a sixteen-hour round-trip journey, for just a few hours in court. But I’m really glad I made the trip. REPORT by Ezra Levant 🍁🚛:

Rebel News

91,502 views • 1 year ago

My first two words on this particular Sunday morning were "Hallelujah!” followed by, “Amen!” I was not in church when I uttered them. I was at my kitchen table, watching the CEO of the most valuable company in the world say precisely what mikeroweWORKS has been espousing for the last sixteen years. In other words, this is what I look like before coffee, when I find myself in violent agreement with a multi-billionaire. If you haven’t already heard, a massive challenge is upon us. With regard to artificial intelligence and the energy we need to feed it, America will either change its current direction, or get left far, far behind. I know this because I run a modest foundation that has been arguing for decades that the portion of our workforce most often described as “the skilled trades,” will become the most essential component of our economy, our independence, and our collective future. Well, the future is here. Obviously, I didn’t know that the race to dominate artificial intelligence would be the thing that finally galvanized the folks at the grown-up table. When I founded mikeroweWORKS in 2008, I figured it would be a new commitment to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure that would necessitate a collective push to reinvigorate the trades. That need is still pressing, but I never imagined the most urgent cry for more welders and electricians would be ushered in by the need for more data centers. Back then, I didn’t even know what a data center was. But today, here we are. Data centers are headline news, because they are – as Jensen Huang says - AI factories. And if we want to remain competitive with China, we need to build thousands of them. Now. And presently, we simply don’t have the workforce to do it. I’ll be discussing all of this next Tuesday in Pittsburgh, at the Energy and Innovation Summit, which is turning out to be a pretty high-profile event. looks like I’ll be joining a panel of elected officials, including the President, and dozens of well-known CEO’s to discuss Pennsylvania’s role in the energy renascence. A lot of money is being invested in Pennsylvania, (a LOT), and my message to those writing the checks will be no different than it’s been since we launched mikeroweWORKS: "Set some of that money aside to make a more persuasive case for the work itself. The skilled trades need better PR, and they need it on a national level. The country needs to see thousands of examples - real world examples - of men and women who have prospered as a result of learning a skill that's in demand." I first made this point to President Obama in an open letter to The White House in 2009, shortly after he promised 3 million “shovel-ready” jobs in his Highway Infrastructure Act. I was rooting for the President back then, and offered to use Dirty Jobs and mikeroweWORKS as vehicles to help promote his initiative. I did so because I was skeptical that people would line up to take those jobs simply because they were "created." “Filling three million shovel-ready jobs,” I wrote, “will be a lot easier if people feel enthused about the prospect of picking up a shovel. Investment alone, won’t create that kind of enthusiasm.” The White House did not respond to my offer. Understandably, most presidents do not seek the advice of marginally famous cable television hosts best known for crawling through sewers. But it’s worth remembering that the unemployment rate back then was over 10%. Millions of people were newly unemployed, and I think the former President assumed that creating three million shovel-ready jobs would translate to three million people going back to work. But that’s not what happened. Because back then, even with record high unemployment, there were 2.3 million open jobs, most of which did not require a four-year degree. Nobody wanted to talk about that. Today, that number is more like 7.6 million. Nobody wants to talk about it now, either. This is why I'm going to Pittsburgh. Just as I was rooting for President Obama in 2009, I’m rooting for President Trump today. I hope he succeeds in reinvigorating our industrial base and reshoring our manufacturing capabilities, and I want to offer my support. But if he does succeed, we’re talking about millions new jobs in manufacturing alone. And currently, there are over 400,000 jobs in that sector that are currently open, begging the obvious question... If we can’t fill the openings we have, how will we fill the one’s we’re about to create? That’s the question I’ll pose in Pittsburgh. I’ll let you know if anyone has an answer. Mike PS. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this change is truly upon us, and I've had a front row seat. Over the last six months, mikeroweWORKS been flooded with inquiries to collaborate on various recruitment initiatives and multiple industries. I mean, flooded. Not a week goes by that I don't hear from an industry leader who has come to the realization that they’ve gone as far as they can go without more skilled labor. Panic, is not too strong a word. The Maritime Industrial Base for instance, is currently tasked with delivering three nuclear powered submarines to the Navy every year for the next decade, and looking to hire 140,000 tradespeople. 140,000!!! “Do you know where they are?” they asked me. “We’ve looked everywhere.” “Yes,” I said. “I know where they are. They’re in the 8th grade.” I’ve had similar calls with the automotive industry, who needs 80,000 technicians and collision repair workers. Every single home service company is hiring – from foundation repair to roofing. The energy industry is looking for hundreds of thousands of skilled workers, and so too is the construction industry. A few weeks ago, at something called The Aspen Ideas Festival, I heard Larry Fink, the CEO of Blackrock, say we’re short 500,000 electricians. A few months before that, at an Energy Conference in Newport, I heard Governor Rick Perry describe the race to build data centers and catch up to China with all things AI as nothing short of a “modern-day Manhattan Project.” I think he's right. Part of the problem is an aging demographic. For every five skilled workers who retire, two replace them. That’s why we need to engage with eighth graders today. Maybe even before that. We have to make a persuasive case for these jobs to the next generation, and just as importantly, to their parents. That won’t solve the immediate problem, but this is marathon, not a sprint, and these jobs need to be magnified and amplified at an early age. The more immediate problem is the labor force participation rate. As we speak, millions of able-bodied Americans - for all sorts of reasons - are not working and not looking for work. According to economist Nick Eberstadt, that number is close to 7 million able-bodied men. I’m not sure what to do about that, but it’s a colossal problem that needs to be addressed. On the positive side, our last round of work ethic scholarships generated unparalleled interest. This year, mikeroweWORKSwill award $5 million to help train the next generation of skilled workers. That's ten times the number of qualified applicants we got this time a year ago. The needle is moving, and I believe we can move it a lot further, with a little help from the companies most incentivized to see the trades reinvigorated. Should be a lively conversation in The Keystone State…

The Real Mike Rowe

987,543 views • 1 year ago