Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

I WENT $STUPID last night 18k+ holders Weekly NFT drops Active Telegram: A wild super expensive domain ATH 85m Generational Entry NOW 🤷‍♂️ Stupid 🚫🧠 CA: 9RjwNo6hBPkxayWHCqQD1VjaH8igSizEseNZNbddpump

bruca's profile picture

Bruca 🎪

222,516 subscribers

19,948 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 10

Фото профиля Code
Code1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO About to go stupid

Фото профиля Fooly Ported 🚫🧠
Fooly Ported 🚫🧠1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO Send it

Фото профиля 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙆𝙊𝙉𝙍𝘼𝘿
𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙆𝙊𝙉𝙍𝘼𝘿1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO STUPID COIN, DO NOT MISS OUT ON THIS GENERATIONAL ENTRY, TEAM GOING TO BILLIONS

Фото профиля Bozo 🚫🧠💹🧲
Bozo 🚫🧠💹🧲1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO Generational entry into stupid. Change my mind!

Фото профиля Stupid MFs
Stupid MFs1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO STUPID SEASON. It’s a Solana takeover

Фото профиля Patrick Bateman 🚫🧠
Patrick Bateman 🚫🧠1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO $stupid is the next $fartcoin

Фото профиля CHAO
CHAO1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO Don’t underestimate STUPID 🔥

Фото профиля Shito 🔀 🚫🧠
Shito 🔀 🚫🧠1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO $Stupid melting faces soon

Фото профиля dont be $stupid 🚫🧠
dont be $stupid 🚫🧠1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO Good choice

Фото профиля Snizzle 🚫🧠
Snizzle 🚫🧠1 год назад

@Stupid__CTO Glad to see you got $stupid Bruca, good job !

Похожие видео

Roy makes a very fair point here, I was torn on Green + 100k vs Merrett all week. I literally swapped them back and forth 3-4 times from Fri night to Sat night. He is right, you don’t get that many opportunities to get a top-liner like that and I possibly should’ve taken the chance when it presented, especially with the Ess run. I think Merrett was priced at around 116. If he goes at 125 over the next 5-6 weeks, after adding the Captaincy benefit, it would’ve probably been a mistake to not go him. One thing I was v.surprised with last week was how low down Merrett was on the trade-ins list. It is not often you get an Uber-premium like that who has a juicy upcoming schedule AND is a POD. That’s a very unusual set of circumstances. If your POD premium then goes ham it really can separate your team from the pack. We saw last yr with Zorko what a boost it can be to have a POD premium go large for a big stretch (granted a little diff in the FWDs last yr). That, along with my previously outlined thesis about teams potentially being completed earlier than ever this yr was my bull-case for going Merrett. The reason I went with Green, or rather, why I opted for another option that left me with 100k in the bank is that my bench is a thin. Stone won’t make us much, FOS not looking like he’ll make us much, Berry now been sub 2 games in a row and is dropping cash, Hastie getting subbed each week etc. Other teams that have Moraes instead of Hastie and Hall instead of Berry may have an extra few hundred k to play with in terms of making upgrades. So in light of my weaker bench I felt that the 100k would help facilitate a better subsequent trade (ie this week). Whilst I could downgrade a Prior this week to make a nice upgrade, it wouldn’t be too long before my bench is not sufficient enough to facilitate the next upgrade. So ultimately I was looking at it as a 2 week decision. Ie, would I rather a Merrett + Tom Stewart type this week or would I rather Tom Green + Nick Daicos and ultimately I opted for the latter, though I do feel like I need to fix one of Hastie or Berry this week so we’ll see what I end up doing. But that was the thought process. As stupid as it now sounds, if Dees didn’t tag Holmes the previous week I prob would’ve gone Merrett, but the faint possibility of that happening to Merrett was prob the deciding factor in letting him go. I was also close to trading in Zorko the prev week and seeing Zork do 79 against Richmond spooked me. Didn’t want to run the risk of paying a huge price and then Zerrett underperforming as Zorko did. Can’t say I was thrilled seeing Merrett go nuclear Sat night, esp after the TDK C decision on Sat arvo. But, I can potentially make up the points this week if I’m able to put that 100k to good use.
0:27

Roy makes a very fair point here, I was torn on Green + 100k vs Merrett all week. I literally swapped them back and forth 3-4 times from Fri night to Sat night. He is right, you don’t get that many opportunities to get a top-liner like that and I possibly should’ve taken the chance when it presented, especially with the Ess run. I think Merrett was priced at around 116. If he goes at 125 over the next 5-6 weeks, after adding the Captaincy benefit, it would’ve probably been a mistake to not go him. One thing I was v.surprised with last week was how low down Merrett was on the trade-ins list. It is not often you get an Uber-premium like that who has a juicy upcoming schedule AND is a POD. That’s a very unusual set of circumstances. If your POD premium then goes ham it really can separate your team from the pack. We saw last yr with Zorko what a boost it can be to have a POD premium go large for a big stretch (granted a little diff in the FWDs last yr). That, along with my previously outlined thesis about teams potentially being completed earlier than ever this yr was my bull-case for going Merrett. The reason I went with Green, or rather, why I opted for another option that left me with 100k in the bank is that my bench is a thin. Stone won’t make us much, FOS not looking like he’ll make us much, Berry now been sub 2 games in a row and is dropping cash, Hastie getting subbed each week etc. Other teams that have Moraes instead of Hastie and Hall instead of Berry may have an extra few hundred k to play with in terms of making upgrades. So in light of my weaker bench I felt that the 100k would help facilitate a better subsequent trade (ie this week). Whilst I could downgrade a Prior this week to make a nice upgrade, it wouldn’t be too long before my bench is not sufficient enough to facilitate the next upgrade. So ultimately I was looking at it as a 2 week decision. Ie, would I rather a Merrett + Tom Stewart type this week or would I rather Tom Green + Nick Daicos and ultimately I opted for the latter, though I do feel like I need to fix one of Hastie or Berry this week so we’ll see what I end up doing. But that was the thought process. As stupid as it now sounds, if Dees didn’t tag Holmes the previous week I prob would’ve gone Merrett, but the faint possibility of that happening to Merrett was prob the deciding factor in letting him go. I was also close to trading in Zorko the prev week and seeing Zork do 79 against Richmond spooked me. Didn’t want to run the risk of paying a huge price and then Zerrett underperforming as Zorko did. Can’t say I was thrilled seeing Merrett go nuclear Sat night, esp after the TDK C decision on Sat arvo. But, I can potentially make up the points this week if I’m able to put that 100k to good use.

Vams

10,940 просмотров • 1 год назад

8 Months After She Died by Suicide… My Girlfriend Sent Me a Voice Note💔 I was 24, stuck in a tiny PG room in Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi — chasing the IAS dream like my life depended on it. My only reason to keep breathing was Rhea. She wasn’t just my girlfriend… she was the only person who still looked at me like I was already an officer when everyone else had written me off. One rainy night we made a private video. Stupid, careless, in love. Someone we trusted leaked it. Her conservative family went berserk. They snatched her phone, locked her in the house, and fixed her marriage within weeks. The last thing she managed to send me was a 47-second voice note at 2:17 AM, voice cracking: “Arjun… they’re taking me away tomorrow morning. I don’t think I can survive this. If anything happens to me… promise me one thing. Don’t stop living. Don’t let our love become your graveyard. Let me go. Live for both of us.” I thought she was just scared. I told her we’d fight it. I was wrong. Next morning… she was gone. Suicide. The pain hit like a truck. I dropped everything. Stopped studying. Stopped eating. My mother begged on calls. My father, who had sold half his land for my coaching, just went silent. I wanted to follow her. Eight months passed in darkness. Then, on what would have been her 25th birthday, my phone buzzed. Unknown number. A scheduled voice note — set to deliver months after she was gone. I pressed play with trembling hands. Her voice filled the room… calm, tired, but full of love: “Happy birthday to me, I guess… If you’re hearing this, it means I’m not here anymore. Arjun, I love you more than life itself. But I want you to have a life. Delete our chats. Burn my letters. Cry one last time… then let me go. Become the officer I always saw in you. Make me proud from wherever I am. I’m setting you free today.” I collapsed on the floor and cried like a child — loud, ugly, uncontrollable sobs — for the first time since her death. That night I did exactly what she asked. I deleted every photo. I burned every letter in the balcony. I let her go. And for the first time in almost a year… I felt light. I picked up my books again with a fire I never had before. Today, I’m an IRS officer. People ask me how I survived the darkest chapter of my life. I smile and say: “The purest form of love I ever received was the day she taught me how to let go.” If you’re carrying pain that feels heavier than you — heartbreak, betrayal, failure, family pressure, guilt, or thoughts you’re scared to admit — please listen to me: Let it go. Not because it didn’t matter. But because **you** still do. Save this. Share it with someone who’s breaking inside right now. ❤️ You are not alone. And sometimes the bravest thing you can do… is let go.
21:11

8 Months After She Died by Suicide… My Girlfriend Sent Me a Voice Note💔 I was 24, stuck in a tiny PG room in Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi — chasing the IAS dream like my life depended on it. My only reason to keep breathing was Rhea. She wasn’t just my girlfriend… she was the only person who still looked at me like I was already an officer when everyone else had written me off. One rainy night we made a private video. Stupid, careless, in love. Someone we trusted leaked it. Her conservative family went berserk. They snatched her phone, locked her in the house, and fixed her marriage within weeks. The last thing she managed to send me was a 47-second voice note at 2:17 AM, voice cracking: “Arjun… they’re taking me away tomorrow morning. I don’t think I can survive this. If anything happens to me… promise me one thing. Don’t stop living. Don’t let our love become your graveyard. Let me go. Live for both of us.” I thought she was just scared. I told her we’d fight it. I was wrong. Next morning… she was gone. Suicide. The pain hit like a truck. I dropped everything. Stopped studying. Stopped eating. My mother begged on calls. My father, who had sold half his land for my coaching, just went silent. I wanted to follow her. Eight months passed in darkness. Then, on what would have been her 25th birthday, my phone buzzed. Unknown number. A scheduled voice note — set to deliver months after she was gone. I pressed play with trembling hands. Her voice filled the room… calm, tired, but full of love: “Happy birthday to me, I guess… If you’re hearing this, it means I’m not here anymore. Arjun, I love you more than life itself. But I want you to have a life. Delete our chats. Burn my letters. Cry one last time… then let me go. Become the officer I always saw in you. Make me proud from wherever I am. I’m setting you free today.” I collapsed on the floor and cried like a child — loud, ugly, uncontrollable sobs — for the first time since her death. That night I did exactly what she asked. I deleted every photo. I burned every letter in the balcony. I let her go. And for the first time in almost a year… I felt light. I picked up my books again with a fire I never had before. Today, I’m an IRS officer. People ask me how I survived the darkest chapter of my life. I smile and say: “The purest form of love I ever received was the day she taught me how to let go.” If you’re carrying pain that feels heavier than you — heartbreak, betrayal, failure, family pressure, guilt, or thoughts you’re scared to admit — please listen to me: Let it go. Not because it didn’t matter. But because **you** still do. Save this. Share it with someone who’s breaking inside right now. ❤️ You are not alone. And sometimes the bravest thing you can do… is let go.

Mohini Maheshwari

35,954 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The story of - Mamma R the ex-boyfriend and the motorcycle & Zeudi not allowed to ride a motorcycle They asked you, but can you ride a motorcycle?I can't ride a motorcycle. Why? What does it do? No, no, I'm already in love. What can I do? You're so stupid, I'm sorry. Let's talk about this issue, with the clothes back here, though. The clothes back there. It's a house, we live in the house. Come on, Alice. I can't ride a motorcycle. No. Why? I'm afraid. But it's my life, I'm 18 years old. I mean, I'm over 18. Yes, it's my life too. Yes, love, it's not like that. No, it's my life. You're sick. No, love, don't be afraid, you're hurting yourself. Yes, I get it, but if I want to ride a motorcycle one day, which I'm also afraid of. No. But I decide it, love. No, love, I have a very bad trauma. Tell me, tell me. No. Tell me about this trauma. No, love, I really lost a friend, no. Ah, then no. Then no. We were good. I thought you had an ex-boyfriend. No. Tell me how you had an ex-boyfriend. No, I had an ex-boyfriend, I was really a workaholic. Already. I was still, I was here all the time when I was still.Well, imagine, imagine. I didn't really like it. What did you do? Tell me. Nothing, I had a pair of, a pair of shoes, those there. A pair. A pair, yes, those there with the soles. What are they called? Wait. The moccasins. The moccasins. I had to take them off. But what did you have as a motorcycle? But I was, I was still on the gas station, I had to pump the gasoline, I had to make gasoline. And he said no, sir. I was a girl, I was like 16, 17 years old. Wow, even underage, well, well. Come on, in our times you drove. But you didn't have a license. No, but there was no license. But really? Eh, in our times no. Really? In our times you couldn't take a motorcycle quietly to the gas station. Really? Eh, love, really, yes. Ah. Mamma mia, really, really. Here you can do whatever you want, give me my license. But what do you do? Yes, Giulia. No, love, you're really still. No, sir, no, this pump, the gasoline, here you have to put the mix, since I was little, you have to put the mix, there I had to push a little, but I didn't even move. Boom, boom. And who left this motorcycle to you? My brother Lorenzo. But it was with you? No, my brother Lorenzo gave me this Vespa because I was going well at school. Eh, I get it. I'm giving you the gift. Eh. He told me to give it to you, I like it, I want it.But I understood, you, you, in the end, how did you find yourself with this bike? My school was next to it, next to the gas station. But you went to school with the bike? Never again, that time is enough. But you didn't know how to ride it? No, I knew how to ride it, but not well, but I knew how to ride it. And now, you don't want to go? No, let's go, please, mom. But it's not normal. No, let's go, mom. It's a nice car, a nice imported car. No, let's go, mom. Mom, what are you doing? No, let's go, mom. Let me understand. Why? Because it's a bad bike, mom. How expensive is it? But who told you?But then a friend of mine has to go at 100 km per hour. But what do you want, at 100 km per hour? I don't even have hair. But let's not exaggerate. But what are you doing? No, let's go, mom. Why do you have this grip that you showed me last night? No, let's go, mom, let's go. But I'm kidding, I'm not going on the bike. No, but it's not that I don't trust those who drive it. I'll take a picture, mom, I'll take a picture. I don't trust those who drive it. So you already drove it? This one. Do I have to drive it? No, mom, maybe you're good at it too, but the others don't have the discipline to drive it. So what do I do? Do I have to drive it in the park? No, no, its true alone #zeudiners #zeudi
4:41

The story of - Mamma R the ex-boyfriend and the motorcycle & Zeudi not allowed to ride a motorcycle They asked you, but can you ride a motorcycle?I can't ride a motorcycle. Why? What does it do? No, no, I'm already in love. What can I do? You're so stupid, I'm sorry. Let's talk about this issue, with the clothes back here, though. The clothes back there. It's a house, we live in the house. Come on, Alice. I can't ride a motorcycle. No. Why? I'm afraid. But it's my life, I'm 18 years old. I mean, I'm over 18. Yes, it's my life too. Yes, love, it's not like that. No, it's my life. You're sick. No, love, don't be afraid, you're hurting yourself. Yes, I get it, but if I want to ride a motorcycle one day, which I'm also afraid of. No. But I decide it, love. No, love, I have a very bad trauma. Tell me, tell me. No. Tell me about this trauma. No, love, I really lost a friend, no. Ah, then no. Then no. We were good. I thought you had an ex-boyfriend. No. Tell me how you had an ex-boyfriend. No, I had an ex-boyfriend, I was really a workaholic. Already. I was still, I was here all the time when I was still.Well, imagine, imagine. I didn't really like it. What did you do? Tell me. Nothing, I had a pair of, a pair of shoes, those there. A pair. A pair, yes, those there with the soles. What are they called? Wait. The moccasins. The moccasins. I had to take them off. But what did you have as a motorcycle? But I was, I was still on the gas station, I had to pump the gasoline, I had to make gasoline. And he said no, sir. I was a girl, I was like 16, 17 years old. Wow, even underage, well, well. Come on, in our times you drove. But you didn't have a license. No, but there was no license. But really? Eh, in our times no. Really? In our times you couldn't take a motorcycle quietly to the gas station. Really? Eh, love, really, yes. Ah. Mamma mia, really, really. Here you can do whatever you want, give me my license. But what do you do? Yes, Giulia. No, love, you're really still. No, sir, no, this pump, the gasoline, here you have to put the mix, since I was little, you have to put the mix, there I had to push a little, but I didn't even move. Boom, boom. And who left this motorcycle to you? My brother Lorenzo. But it was with you? No, my brother Lorenzo gave me this Vespa because I was going well at school. Eh, I get it. I'm giving you the gift. Eh. He told me to give it to you, I like it, I want it.But I understood, you, you, in the end, how did you find yourself with this bike? My school was next to it, next to the gas station. But you went to school with the bike? Never again, that time is enough. But you didn't know how to ride it? No, I knew how to ride it, but not well, but I knew how to ride it. And now, you don't want to go? No, let's go, please, mom. But it's not normal. No, let's go, mom. It's a nice car, a nice imported car. No, let's go, mom. Mom, what are you doing? No, let's go, mom. Let me understand. Why? Because it's a bad bike, mom. How expensive is it? But who told you?But then a friend of mine has to go at 100 km per hour. But what do you want, at 100 km per hour? I don't even have hair. But let's not exaggerate. But what are you doing? No, let's go, mom. Why do you have this grip that you showed me last night? No, let's go, mom, let's go. But I'm kidding, I'm not going on the bike. No, but it's not that I don't trust those who drive it. I'll take a picture, mom, I'll take a picture. I don't trust those who drive it. So you already drove it? This one. Do I have to drive it? No, mom, maybe you're good at it too, but the others don't have the discipline to drive it. So what do I do? Do I have to drive it in the park? No, no, its true alone #zeudiners #zeudi

Suave (ZeZe) 🌈 🦄

21,687 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🟢GIVEAWAY🟢 Best comments or memes about this whole circus + RT this post. 10 winners will each get $50💎 (For evidence, supporting materials, and context, read both articles and watch the video included in the article I posted yesterday) Housebets.com & Porchy pay your debts A few people told me they did not fully understand the first article because there were too many moving parts: leaderboard accounts, rewards, weekly dates, monthly bonus, Tequity, game categories, withdrawals, Provably Fair, seed changes, migration, support tickets, ledgers and founder messages. Fair enough. The evidence is already there, and I still recommend reading the full articles and, above all, watching the video, because the video shows the reward system failing live. But this text is the cleaner version: the full story explained in plain English, without assuming the reader knows anything about crypto casinos, leaderboards or lossback systems. From all the evidence I’ve gathered, the Housebets story is not a normal “player lost money” complaint. It looks like a full transparency failure across the whole product: leaderboard, rewards, withdrawals, game categories, Provably Fair / Tequity mapping, support, migration and founder response. Housebets sold itself as a rewards-first casino: public leaderboards, weekly/monthly bonuses, fast withdrawals, VIP treatment and Provably Fair games. But every time I asked for the records behind those systems, snapshots, ledger entries, weekly cycles, GGR/NGR, slider logs, PF seed mapping, Tequity round IDs, withdrawal approval logs, the answer became some version of “forwarded to the relevant department.” This started long before the public dispute. I was not some random angry player who appeared after one bad session. In January I was helping Housebets and giving product feedback. I literally told support on 27 January that I was “testing the website for George,” while already dealing with a non-instant withdrawal and a 100% welcome bonus that had not applied. Support even asked me for “proof about your testing job.” The same chat shows the advertised 100% Welcome Bonus, the bonus not applying, and support saying the withdrawal needed internal confirmation instead of being instant. The welcome bonus issue never looked clean. Housebets advertised a 100% Welcome Bonus up to $1,000 on first deposit; I deposited, contacted support, and the bonus did not apply. Then support effectively turned a first-deposit bonus into a second-deposit workaround because the first one had not been applied properly. On 31 January I came back after another deposit and told them the bonus still had not been applied, even though I had already followed support’s instructions. Edward replied that he had “forwarded” the concern to the team. The same 100% welcome bonus was still being advertised in March. By April, the rewards system was already showing serious problems. I had the weekly slider at 100% lossback and told support I had lost money but the weekly did not appear. Jacky said the weekly was generated every Thursday at 00:01 UTC and gave actual internal figures: GGR $6,250, Total Bonus $6,083.99, NGR $168.31. So Housebets clearly had internal calculations when it wanted to explain why something might not pay. But when I later asked for full calculations, those same numbers suddenly became impossible to produce. Then on 18–19 April, the rewards page was bugged and would not let me claim. Support could see a pending weekly bonus of $717.37, but I could not claim it from the UI. Tee said it had been forwarded to the relevant department. That $717.37 later appears in the bonus ledger as Rakeback (20 Apr) 717.37089061, so I am not saying that specific one stayed unpaid forever. The point is worse: already in April, support could see a pending weekly reward while the player-facing reward page did not work. For a casino built around rewards, that is not a small bug. That is the product. In May, the UI and account data kept failing basic trust checks. On 8 May, I deposited 400 USDT; support said it had been credited, but I could not see it, and the proposed fix was to log out, clear cookies and cache. On 16 May, I asked why total deposits and withdrawals had disappeared from the menu; support said the platform was “in continuous evolution.” On 17 May, I asked for my total deposits and withdrawals, and support said they did not have direct access to that consolidated summary and would email it. That full official ledger did not arrive. So when Housebets later defends itself with UI screenshots, remember: this was the same UI where deposits could be credited but invisible, totals disappeared, rewards pages bugged, and support could not access consolidated account totals. Withdrawals were also not what was advertised. On 16 May, I asked why a crypto withdrawal was pending if withdrawals were supposed to be instant. Tee answered: “A few withdrawals require manual approval,” then added, “Our withdrawals are typically instant but…” That matters because a few days later the withdrawal delay became real damage. On 25 May, I told support before a match that I needed the funds to place a time-sensitive bet on another site in less than 20 minutes. I explained I wanted to bet around 60k at odds of 2.55. The withdrawal did not arrive in time. Later I told them the bet won and that I missed around 90k in profit because Housebets took more than two hours despite being warned before the match started. Jacky said he would raise the compensation case to the VIP team. Nobody resolved it. This was not one delayed withdrawal either. In my formal complaint I reconstructed several withdrawal delays: 23 May 02:55 → 08:03, around 5h08m; 25 May 03:05 → 08:09, around 5h04m; 17 May 03:54 → 08:02, around 4h08m; 18 May 04:46 → 08:11, around 3h25m; 16 May 05:23 → 08:12, around 2h49m. That is not “instant withdrawal.” And if later marketing says withdrawals are much faster now, the obvious question is: if this was the faster version, what did slow look like? The Provably Fair / Tequity side was another major issue. On 17 May I asked support how to verify an old Blackjack round. I did not ask for a generic explanation of Provably Fair; I asked where I could see the server seed, client seed, nonce and result for previous games. Support sent me to bet history, mentioned RTP, gave a generic PF explanation and showed the current Dice seed screen. When I said that did not let me verify previous games, they told me to clear cookies/cache. After doing that, I saw a new client seed and nonce 1 even though I had not played with that seed pair. I asked if Housebets changes seeds on every login. Support could not answer and told me to contact VIP. That seed/session behaviour is important. I later recorded video evidence around the seed changing after clearing cookies/cache and asked for the exact mapping: Housebets account ID → Tequity/provider player ID → session/currency context → seed pair → server seed hash → revealed server seed → client seed → nonce/cursor → raw outcome → final result. Housebets cannot sell Provably Fair if the player cannot verify historical bets, and “contact VIP” is not a verification algorithm. On 24 May, I asked for raw verification data for a specific Tequity Blackjack round: Round ID e1648d60-0da1-4433-a5ab-9ae39f5302e3, Blackjack, Tequity, bet amount 11,346 USDT, client seed O3YBZF7LBu, server seed hash starting 712875.... I asked for revealed server seed, nonce, full result JSON, card draw order and verification algorithm. I also asked about an apparent duplicate-card/deck question. Tee replied: “I don’t have the answers to your questions right now, but I’m forwarding your request to the relevant department.” That same day, I asked for a full audit of six Dice bets of 11,400 USDT each, total 68,400 USDT. I requested bet IDs, provider round IDs, roll results, seed data, balance ledger, request/session logs, security logs, retry flags, provider records and a full technical reconciliation. Tee replied: “I will forward this to the relevant department.” So when I asked for raw data, the answer was not data. It was forwarding. Again. There were also many large loss clusters that required reconciliation because of those unresolved PF, Tequity, category, RTP and session questions. In my complaint I listed clusters such as 25 May 02:17–02:54 Blackjack around 169,932 USDT; 16 May 12:31–13:26 Dice around 90,571.92 USDT; 26 May 02:48–03:58 Mines around 89,199 USDT; 24 May 06:20–06:21 Dice at 68,400 USDT; 26 May 00:11–01:41 Blackjack around 59,910 USDT; 25 May 22:51–22:59 Dice around 59,576 USDT; and several more between 40k and 56k. I am not saying every losing cluster proves manipulation by itself. I am saying that when PF mapping, provider logs, RTP/HE, category mapping and seed/session behaviour are unresolved, these sequences need a real reconciliation. The leaderboard is where the story becomes very hard for Housebets to explain. Around 19–20 May, two new accounts, elmourabut and lucasmartirini, appeared and started climbing every day at a vertiginous pace. Not normal slow leaderboard growth. Not a casual player building volume over time. They were created around that period and then started rising with huge wagering in a way that looked extremely unnatural for brand new accounts. By 29 May, I was first on both weekly and monthly leaderboards, and those two accounts were directly behind me with huge volume. In the monthly leaderboard screenshots, I was around $3.33M wagered, while elmourabut was around $1.29M and lucasmartirini around $1.08M. In the weekly leaderboard, I was around $1.096M, while those two accounts were around $635k and $578k. They were not normal accounts sitting at the bottom; they were directly behind me, applying pressure. In my formal complaint I recorded that elmourabut joined on 19 May and lucasmartirini on 20 May, that they showed zero visible withdrawals, large deposits/wagering and significant card-game volume, and I asked Housebets to confirm they were not staff, test, QA, admin, house-controlled, affiliate-controlled, internally funded, promotional, bonus-only or multi-account related accounts. This matters because a leaderboard is not passive. It is gamification. It makes players defend rank. When two new accounts appear behind you with hundreds of thousands or more than a million in volume, you are pressured to keep wagering. In my case, the disputed deposit sequence from 25 May 22:23 to 26 May 02:09 totals 91,168.375326 USDT. That sequence begins with 1,000.00 at 22:23 and continues with repeated deposits until 2,879.148969 at 02:09. The video later shows why those dates matter: there were deposits coming in, no gameplay withdrawal offsetting the sequence, a balance basically at zero, and later a leaderboard prize shown as P/L. I formally asked Housebets to confirm those two leaderboard accounts were real and eligible, and also to preserve wager logs, transaction records, balance adjustment logs, account flags, leaderboard calculation snapshots, support ticket logs, Telegram/email records and internal notes. Edward said he forwarded the request. In the same thread, he added that they were “working on fixing an issue regarding the weekly bonuses,” and then said the weekly countdown was “not currently on Thursday evenings.” So the leaderboard issue and the weekly bonus issue are linked in time and support context. After that, Housebets confirmed by email that elmourabut and lucasmartirini were “legitimate and eligible accounts.” That email is the trap door. If they were legitimate and eligible, they should have remained in the leaderboard with their volume. If they were not, Housebets should never have confirmed them as legitimate and eligible. After that confirmation, the accounts disappeared from the leaderboard or stopped appearing in the positions their previous wagering required. I went back to support on 30 May and wrote: “There has been a material post-confirmation leaderboard change involving two accounts that Housebets had already confirmed as legitimate and eligible. I need the exact reason, timestamp, logs, and recalculation basis.” Edward said the matter was flagged and that I could expect a prompt response. I am still waiting for the actual explanation. Why did they disappear? My read is simple: because every hour that passed, there was more evidence around those accounts. They had been created around the same period, they were climbing at a speed that looked anything but human, they showed no visible withdrawals in the data I could see and reported, they appeared to be generating huge volume in unclear game categories, and the games/categories tied to that volume did not even make sense from the player-facing UI. When I started asking what they were actually playing, what Card meant, whether the volume was Tequity / UnOriginals / House Games, what RTP and house edge applied, and where the logs were, the questions became uncomfortable. Keeping those accounts visible became harder than removing them. So they disappeared. The game category issue made the leaderboard even more suspicious. On 30 May, I asked support why my own stats showed almost all my volume under Slots / Tragamonedas when I did not play real slots. I told them: “i dont play 3$ in unoriginals,” “i played all 3M in unoriginals,” and “ive never play slots.” I asked what “Card” was, where that game was, what RTP and house edge it had. Monica said Card was mainly Blackjack, Baccarat and Poker variants. Marcus later said the team was investigating why it showed that I mostly played slots when I had not. He could not give the exact game, RTP, HE, provider, category mapping or contribution logic. That matters because those same unclear categories were connected to leaderboard volume. If the site cannot clearly explain whether volume is Slots, Card, UnOriginals, House Games, Blackjack, Baccarat, Always 9 Baccarat or Tequity, then the leaderboard is not auditable for the player. I even asked which UnOriginals those two accounts were playing, and support told me to look at Live Bets. That is not an answer. I was not asking for gossip; I was asking what exact games generated leaderboard volume, what RTP/HE applied and whether that volume was eligible. There is also an earlier leaderboard-related precedent: Porchy had already told me in February that I would lose leaderboard places if I did not rename, because too many people were messaging support saying the site was not being fair due to my name and it “doesn’t make us look good.” That matters because it suggests leaderboard positioning was not treated as a sacred, untouchable system when public perception was involved. If leaderboard positions can be threatened for image reasons, then later claims that everything is purely automatic deserve scrutiny. Then Porchy made the leaderboard situation worse. Instead of producing logs or snapshots, he later said the leaderboard had “abusers” on it, that they were removed to help other players, and that it never affected me. Later he said they paid every single person, “even these abusers,” then called me “begging for money.” That creates a direct contradiction: Housebets confirmed the accounts as legitimate and eligible, then Porchy referred to leaderboard “abusers.” If they were abusers, why were they confirmed as legitimate and eligible? If they were eligible, why did they disappear? If they never affected me, where are the historical snapshots proving that? Once those accounts disappeared, Housebets paid the leaderboard prizes. On 1 June, the bonus ledger shows two Leaderboard entries: 5,007.46111706 and 1,001.49222341, totaling 6,008.95334047. That part was paid. But then Act Two started: the weekly and monthly rewards did not appear as separate ledger entries. The same bonus ledger shows those two 1 June entries as Leaderboard only, not Monthly Bonus, not Weekly Reload, not Lossback. The weekly timeline is a mess. On 28 May, the dashboard / UI said the weekly bonus was claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC, and the monthly was available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. That same night I told support the weekly had shown as available, then reset to 6 days without paying. Later I sent screenshots and wrote: “1M wagered and 0.2$.” Jacky said he had raised the issue to the technical team. So the weekly failure was reported live, not reconstructed after the fact. The next day, 29 May, Edward said they were fixing an issue regarding weekly bonuses and that the weekly countdown was “not currently on Thursday evenings.” Then on 1 June, Spencer said the May weekly bonuses were 7th, 14th, 21st, and then due to migration the weekly moved to Monday, so there was one on the 25th on the new platform. He also said the 25 May weekly covered gameplay from 21–24 May, and that tech was looking at that plus the monthly bonus. The ledger does show a 25 May 02:10 Rakeback entry of 1,996.08334791, which likely corresponds to that 21–24 May weekly. But my major loss sequence starts about 20 hours later, on 25 May at 22:23, and continues until 26 May at 02:09. So the 25 May weekly cannot cover those losses. If weekly was still Thursday, the 25/26 losses should have been in the 28 May weekly. But the bonus ledger on 28 May shows only two tiny Rakeback entries, 0.28373945 and 0.00280958. If weekly moved to Monday because of migration, those losses should have appeared in the next weekly after 25 May. But on 1 June the ledger only shows Leaderboard entries. Then the final video shows the next Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting to 6d 23h. So the same loss sequence appears to fall into no paid weekly cycle. The 4 June support conversation makes this even more ridiculous. After I recorded the weekly reset video, I asked support a very simple question: what were the last weekly dates/cycles? The dashboard / support flow again said weekly bonuses are claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC. Jacky confirmed: “Weekly bonuses can be claimed every Thursday at 00:01 UTC in the Rewards tab,” and added that if not claimed by the following Wednesday at 23:59 UTC, it expires. But when I asked for the exact last four dates, Jacky said he had to check with the relevant department. When I pressed again, he said, “Sorry, As I am only a CS, Let me raise your concerns to relevant department.” I asked whether support did not have the information or simply could not answer. He replied: “Do you have any other concerns?” They use weekly cycles to decide whether to pay, but support cannot explain the weekly cycle. The monthly is missing too. The dashboard / UI said the monthly bonus is based on activity and VIP level from the previous month and is available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. In May I had more than 3,258,023.0829 wagered according to the formal complaint data. I also have proof/video that the monthly slider was set to 50/50. On 1 June, Spencer first told me I had claimed the Monthly Bonus at 1:12am BST around the same time as the monthly leaderboard reward. I immediately said I only received leaderboard prizes. Then Spencer changed the answer: “Our tech team are still actively working on issues regarding the monthly bonuses.” So first the monthly was claimed, then tech was still fixing it. The ledger still shows no Monthly Bonus entry. Housebets then seems to rely on “up overall” as a defence. But the video and ledger show why that does not work. My weekly/monthly profile later showed around +6,008 P/L with 0 deposits, 0 wagered and around 6,008 in bonuses. That number matches exactly the two 1 June Leaderboard payments. So the UI is showing leaderboard rewards as P/L. Then support used “up overall” to say I was not eligible for weekly lossback. That is not a clean lossback calculation. That is using a leaderboard reward as apparent profit to deny a lossback that should be based on actual eligible losses. There were also smaller reward-confusion issues along the way. On 22 May I asked for all pending bonuses,weekly, monthly, rakeback, level-up, anything, and support said the internal team would manually verify whether everything had been credited correctly and email me. On 24 May, I asked about level-up rewards because the reward looked like $3,500 for Pearl; support clarified it was $3,500 total across all Pearl levels, $500 per level. These are not the core issues, but they are part of the same pattern: rewards marketing, unclear UI, manual verification, emails that do not arrive, and players having to chase basic explanations. Then there is the migration. On 25 May, after the delayed withdrawal, missing VIP contact and unresolved issues, support told me my account would be moved to the new platform and that this upgrade would offer a better withdrawal process and fix many issues. Before that migration, I explicitly requested that no account data, internal data, logs, balance history, bonus history, bet history, provider records or pending issues be deleted. The response: “Your request has been relayed to the relevant department.” Again, forwarding. But if the old data is safe, Housebets should provide the old leaderboard snapshots, old weekly states, old bonus logs, old Tequity mapping and old withdrawal approval logs. The founder response did not fix anything. When Porchy finally engaged, he did not provide the records. He framed the settlement request as “so you want $100,000?” and asked whether I needed it or else I was going to post on X. I had already made clear this was not money for silence; I asked for logs, snapshots, withdrawal records, calculations and a counter-calculation if Housebets disagreed. He later referred to “abusers,” told me I was “up overall,” said “You are begging for money,” and suggested I “just do this to casinos.” Still no ledger. Still no weekly calculation. Still no monthly entry. Still no PF/Tequity mapping. Still no leaderboard snapshots. Another player also contacted me with screenshots pointing to similar categories of issues: private deals, leaderboard payout disputes, migration/account merge problems, missing history and a tiny monthly bonus despite claimed losses. I am not using that player’s case as the foundation of my claim without his full ledger, but it matters because it suggests the same type of opacity may not be isolated: private VIP/reward deals, leaderboard eligibility, monthly bonus calculations, migration and unclear history. If Housebets has private deals that affect leaderboard eligibility or rewards, it must explain how those deals interact with public leaderboards. So the overall picture is this: Housebets sold a public leaderboard and rewards system that pressured real wagering. Two new accounts appeared directly behind me with huge volume, were confirmed as legitimate and eligible, then disappeared after I asked for logs and questioned game categories. Housebets could not explain the exact games, RTP, house edge or category mapping behind the volume. The accounts were later framed by Porchy as “abusers,” contradicting the earlier eligibility confirmation. Once Housebets paid me the leaderboard prizes, those prizes were shown as P/L, and that contaminated P/L was then used to claim I was “up overall” and not eligible for lossback. At the same time, my real 25 May 22:23 → 26 May 02:09 loss sequence of 91,168.375326 USDT appears in no clean weekly cycle. The 25 May weekly covered 21–24 May according to Spencer, so it cannot cover that loss sequence. The 28 May weekly showed only tiny Rakeback entries and was already reported as broken. The 1 June ledger shows only Leaderboard entries. The later video shows Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting. And when I ask support for the exact weekly calendar, they cannot answer and send it to the relevant department. The monthly is the same story. The dashboard / UI says it is based on activity and VIP. I had more than 3.25M wagered in May. Spencer first says I claimed it, then says tech is still working on monthly bonuses. The ledger shows no Monthly Bonus. If Housebets says I was not eligible, they need to show the formula, slider history, cycle, GGR/NGR, eligible loss/activity, deductions and ledger result. If they cannot, “not eligible” is just another label. And this opens another can of worms: Tequity / provider configuration. Housebets cannot hide behind “the provider” whenever something goes wrong. The player does not deposit with Tequity. The player does not withdraw from Tequity. The player does not speak to Tequity support. The player does not compete in a Tequity leaderboard. The player plays on Housebets, with a Housebets wallet, Housebets UI, Housebets rewards, Housebets leaderboard and Housebets support. 1/2
22:49

🟢GIVEAWAY🟢 Best comments or memes about this whole circus + RT this post. 10 winners will each get $50💎 (For evidence, supporting materials, and context, read both articles and watch the video included in the article I posted yesterday) Housebets.com & Porchy pay your debts A few people told me they did not fully understand the first article because there were too many moving parts: leaderboard accounts, rewards, weekly dates, monthly bonus, Tequity, game categories, withdrawals, Provably Fair, seed changes, migration, support tickets, ledgers and founder messages. Fair enough. The evidence is already there, and I still recommend reading the full articles and, above all, watching the video, because the video shows the reward system failing live. But this text is the cleaner version: the full story explained in plain English, without assuming the reader knows anything about crypto casinos, leaderboards or lossback systems. From all the evidence I’ve gathered, the Housebets story is not a normal “player lost money” complaint. It looks like a full transparency failure across the whole product: leaderboard, rewards, withdrawals, game categories, Provably Fair / Tequity mapping, support, migration and founder response. Housebets sold itself as a rewards-first casino: public leaderboards, weekly/monthly bonuses, fast withdrawals, VIP treatment and Provably Fair games. But every time I asked for the records behind those systems, snapshots, ledger entries, weekly cycles, GGR/NGR, slider logs, PF seed mapping, Tequity round IDs, withdrawal approval logs, the answer became some version of “forwarded to the relevant department.” This started long before the public dispute. I was not some random angry player who appeared after one bad session. In January I was helping Housebets and giving product feedback. I literally told support on 27 January that I was “testing the website for George,” while already dealing with a non-instant withdrawal and a 100% welcome bonus that had not applied. Support even asked me for “proof about your testing job.” The same chat shows the advertised 100% Welcome Bonus, the bonus not applying, and support saying the withdrawal needed internal confirmation instead of being instant. The welcome bonus issue never looked clean. Housebets advertised a 100% Welcome Bonus up to $1,000 on first deposit; I deposited, contacted support, and the bonus did not apply. Then support effectively turned a first-deposit bonus into a second-deposit workaround because the first one had not been applied properly. On 31 January I came back after another deposit and told them the bonus still had not been applied, even though I had already followed support’s instructions. Edward replied that he had “forwarded” the concern to the team. The same 100% welcome bonus was still being advertised in March. By April, the rewards system was already showing serious problems. I had the weekly slider at 100% lossback and told support I had lost money but the weekly did not appear. Jacky said the weekly was generated every Thursday at 00:01 UTC and gave actual internal figures: GGR $6,250, Total Bonus $6,083.99, NGR $168.31. So Housebets clearly had internal calculations when it wanted to explain why something might not pay. But when I later asked for full calculations, those same numbers suddenly became impossible to produce. Then on 18–19 April, the rewards page was bugged and would not let me claim. Support could see a pending weekly bonus of $717.37, but I could not claim it from the UI. Tee said it had been forwarded to the relevant department. That $717.37 later appears in the bonus ledger as Rakeback (20 Apr) 717.37089061, so I am not saying that specific one stayed unpaid forever. The point is worse: already in April, support could see a pending weekly reward while the player-facing reward page did not work. For a casino built around rewards, that is not a small bug. That is the product. In May, the UI and account data kept failing basic trust checks. On 8 May, I deposited 400 USDT; support said it had been credited, but I could not see it, and the proposed fix was to log out, clear cookies and cache. On 16 May, I asked why total deposits and withdrawals had disappeared from the menu; support said the platform was “in continuous evolution.” On 17 May, I asked for my total deposits and withdrawals, and support said they did not have direct access to that consolidated summary and would email it. That full official ledger did not arrive. So when Housebets later defends itself with UI screenshots, remember: this was the same UI where deposits could be credited but invisible, totals disappeared, rewards pages bugged, and support could not access consolidated account totals. Withdrawals were also not what was advertised. On 16 May, I asked why a crypto withdrawal was pending if withdrawals were supposed to be instant. Tee answered: “A few withdrawals require manual approval,” then added, “Our withdrawals are typically instant but…” That matters because a few days later the withdrawal delay became real damage. On 25 May, I told support before a match that I needed the funds to place a time-sensitive bet on another site in less than 20 minutes. I explained I wanted to bet around 60k at odds of 2.55. The withdrawal did not arrive in time. Later I told them the bet won and that I missed around 90k in profit because Housebets took more than two hours despite being warned before the match started. Jacky said he would raise the compensation case to the VIP team. Nobody resolved it. This was not one delayed withdrawal either. In my formal complaint I reconstructed several withdrawal delays: 23 May 02:55 → 08:03, around 5h08m; 25 May 03:05 → 08:09, around 5h04m; 17 May 03:54 → 08:02, around 4h08m; 18 May 04:46 → 08:11, around 3h25m; 16 May 05:23 → 08:12, around 2h49m. That is not “instant withdrawal.” And if later marketing says withdrawals are much faster now, the obvious question is: if this was the faster version, what did slow look like? The Provably Fair / Tequity side was another major issue. On 17 May I asked support how to verify an old Blackjack round. I did not ask for a generic explanation of Provably Fair; I asked where I could see the server seed, client seed, nonce and result for previous games. Support sent me to bet history, mentioned RTP, gave a generic PF explanation and showed the current Dice seed screen. When I said that did not let me verify previous games, they told me to clear cookies/cache. After doing that, I saw a new client seed and nonce 1 even though I had not played with that seed pair. I asked if Housebets changes seeds on every login. Support could not answer and told me to contact VIP. That seed/session behaviour is important. I later recorded video evidence around the seed changing after clearing cookies/cache and asked for the exact mapping: Housebets account ID → Tequity/provider player ID → session/currency context → seed pair → server seed hash → revealed server seed → client seed → nonce/cursor → raw outcome → final result. Housebets cannot sell Provably Fair if the player cannot verify historical bets, and “contact VIP” is not a verification algorithm. On 24 May, I asked for raw verification data for a specific Tequity Blackjack round: Round ID e1648d60-0da1-4433-a5ab-9ae39f5302e3, Blackjack, Tequity, bet amount 11,346 USDT, client seed O3YBZF7LBu, server seed hash starting 712875.... I asked for revealed server seed, nonce, full result JSON, card draw order and verification algorithm. I also asked about an apparent duplicate-card/deck question. Tee replied: “I don’t have the answers to your questions right now, but I’m forwarding your request to the relevant department.” That same day, I asked for a full audit of six Dice bets of 11,400 USDT each, total 68,400 USDT. I requested bet IDs, provider round IDs, roll results, seed data, balance ledger, request/session logs, security logs, retry flags, provider records and a full technical reconciliation. Tee replied: “I will forward this to the relevant department.” So when I asked for raw data, the answer was not data. It was forwarding. Again. There were also many large loss clusters that required reconciliation because of those unresolved PF, Tequity, category, RTP and session questions. In my complaint I listed clusters such as 25 May 02:17–02:54 Blackjack around 169,932 USDT; 16 May 12:31–13:26 Dice around 90,571.92 USDT; 26 May 02:48–03:58 Mines around 89,199 USDT; 24 May 06:20–06:21 Dice at 68,400 USDT; 26 May 00:11–01:41 Blackjack around 59,910 USDT; 25 May 22:51–22:59 Dice around 59,576 USDT; and several more between 40k and 56k. I am not saying every losing cluster proves manipulation by itself. I am saying that when PF mapping, provider logs, RTP/HE, category mapping and seed/session behaviour are unresolved, these sequences need a real reconciliation. The leaderboard is where the story becomes very hard for Housebets to explain. Around 19–20 May, two new accounts, elmourabut and lucasmartirini, appeared and started climbing every day at a vertiginous pace. Not normal slow leaderboard growth. Not a casual player building volume over time. They were created around that period and then started rising with huge wagering in a way that looked extremely unnatural for brand new accounts. By 29 May, I was first on both weekly and monthly leaderboards, and those two accounts were directly behind me with huge volume. In the monthly leaderboard screenshots, I was around $3.33M wagered, while elmourabut was around $1.29M and lucasmartirini around $1.08M. In the weekly leaderboard, I was around $1.096M, while those two accounts were around $635k and $578k. They were not normal accounts sitting at the bottom; they were directly behind me, applying pressure. In my formal complaint I recorded that elmourabut joined on 19 May and lucasmartirini on 20 May, that they showed zero visible withdrawals, large deposits/wagering and significant card-game volume, and I asked Housebets to confirm they were not staff, test, QA, admin, house-controlled, affiliate-controlled, internally funded, promotional, bonus-only or multi-account related accounts. This matters because a leaderboard is not passive. It is gamification. It makes players defend rank. When two new accounts appear behind you with hundreds of thousands or more than a million in volume, you are pressured to keep wagering. In my case, the disputed deposit sequence from 25 May 22:23 to 26 May 02:09 totals 91,168.375326 USDT. That sequence begins with 1,000.00 at 22:23 and continues with repeated deposits until 2,879.148969 at 02:09. The video later shows why those dates matter: there were deposits coming in, no gameplay withdrawal offsetting the sequence, a balance basically at zero, and later a leaderboard prize shown as P/L. I formally asked Housebets to confirm those two leaderboard accounts were real and eligible, and also to preserve wager logs, transaction records, balance adjustment logs, account flags, leaderboard calculation snapshots, support ticket logs, Telegram/email records and internal notes. Edward said he forwarded the request. In the same thread, he added that they were “working on fixing an issue regarding the weekly bonuses,” and then said the weekly countdown was “not currently on Thursday evenings.” So the leaderboard issue and the weekly bonus issue are linked in time and support context. After that, Housebets confirmed by email that elmourabut and lucasmartirini were “legitimate and eligible accounts.” That email is the trap door. If they were legitimate and eligible, they should have remained in the leaderboard with their volume. If they were not, Housebets should never have confirmed them as legitimate and eligible. After that confirmation, the accounts disappeared from the leaderboard or stopped appearing in the positions their previous wagering required. I went back to support on 30 May and wrote: “There has been a material post-confirmation leaderboard change involving two accounts that Housebets had already confirmed as legitimate and eligible. I need the exact reason, timestamp, logs, and recalculation basis.” Edward said the matter was flagged and that I could expect a prompt response. I am still waiting for the actual explanation. Why did they disappear? My read is simple: because every hour that passed, there was more evidence around those accounts. They had been created around the same period, they were climbing at a speed that looked anything but human, they showed no visible withdrawals in the data I could see and reported, they appeared to be generating huge volume in unclear game categories, and the games/categories tied to that volume did not even make sense from the player-facing UI. When I started asking what they were actually playing, what Card meant, whether the volume was Tequity / UnOriginals / House Games, what RTP and house edge applied, and where the logs were, the questions became uncomfortable. Keeping those accounts visible became harder than removing them. So they disappeared. The game category issue made the leaderboard even more suspicious. On 30 May, I asked support why my own stats showed almost all my volume under Slots / Tragamonedas when I did not play real slots. I told them: “i dont play 3$ in unoriginals,” “i played all 3M in unoriginals,” and “ive never play slots.” I asked what “Card” was, where that game was, what RTP and house edge it had. Monica said Card was mainly Blackjack, Baccarat and Poker variants. Marcus later said the team was investigating why it showed that I mostly played slots when I had not. He could not give the exact game, RTP, HE, provider, category mapping or contribution logic. That matters because those same unclear categories were connected to leaderboard volume. If the site cannot clearly explain whether volume is Slots, Card, UnOriginals, House Games, Blackjack, Baccarat, Always 9 Baccarat or Tequity, then the leaderboard is not auditable for the player. I even asked which UnOriginals those two accounts were playing, and support told me to look at Live Bets. That is not an answer. I was not asking for gossip; I was asking what exact games generated leaderboard volume, what RTP/HE applied and whether that volume was eligible. There is also an earlier leaderboard-related precedent: Porchy had already told me in February that I would lose leaderboard places if I did not rename, because too many people were messaging support saying the site was not being fair due to my name and it “doesn’t make us look good.” That matters because it suggests leaderboard positioning was not treated as a sacred, untouchable system when public perception was involved. If leaderboard positions can be threatened for image reasons, then later claims that everything is purely automatic deserve scrutiny. Then Porchy made the leaderboard situation worse. Instead of producing logs or snapshots, he later said the leaderboard had “abusers” on it, that they were removed to help other players, and that it never affected me. Later he said they paid every single person, “even these abusers,” then called me “begging for money.” That creates a direct contradiction: Housebets confirmed the accounts as legitimate and eligible, then Porchy referred to leaderboard “abusers.” If they were abusers, why were they confirmed as legitimate and eligible? If they were eligible, why did they disappear? If they never affected me, where are the historical snapshots proving that? Once those accounts disappeared, Housebets paid the leaderboard prizes. On 1 June, the bonus ledger shows two Leaderboard entries: 5,007.46111706 and 1,001.49222341, totaling 6,008.95334047. That part was paid. But then Act Two started: the weekly and monthly rewards did not appear as separate ledger entries. The same bonus ledger shows those two 1 June entries as Leaderboard only, not Monthly Bonus, not Weekly Reload, not Lossback. The weekly timeline is a mess. On 28 May, the dashboard / UI said the weekly bonus was claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC, and the monthly was available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. That same night I told support the weekly had shown as available, then reset to 6 days without paying. Later I sent screenshots and wrote: “1M wagered and 0.2$.” Jacky said he had raised the issue to the technical team. So the weekly failure was reported live, not reconstructed after the fact. The next day, 29 May, Edward said they were fixing an issue regarding weekly bonuses and that the weekly countdown was “not currently on Thursday evenings.” Then on 1 June, Spencer said the May weekly bonuses were 7th, 14th, 21st, and then due to migration the weekly moved to Monday, so there was one on the 25th on the new platform. He also said the 25 May weekly covered gameplay from 21–24 May, and that tech was looking at that plus the monthly bonus. The ledger does show a 25 May 02:10 Rakeback entry of 1,996.08334791, which likely corresponds to that 21–24 May weekly. But my major loss sequence starts about 20 hours later, on 25 May at 22:23, and continues until 26 May at 02:09. So the 25 May weekly cannot cover those losses. If weekly was still Thursday, the 25/26 losses should have been in the 28 May weekly. But the bonus ledger on 28 May shows only two tiny Rakeback entries, 0.28373945 and 0.00280958. If weekly moved to Monday because of migration, those losses should have appeared in the next weekly after 25 May. But on 1 June the ledger only shows Leaderboard entries. Then the final video shows the next Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting to 6d 23h. So the same loss sequence appears to fall into no paid weekly cycle. The 4 June support conversation makes this even more ridiculous. After I recorded the weekly reset video, I asked support a very simple question: what were the last weekly dates/cycles? The dashboard / support flow again said weekly bonuses are claimable every Thursday at 00:01 UTC. Jacky confirmed: “Weekly bonuses can be claimed every Thursday at 00:01 UTC in the Rewards tab,” and added that if not claimed by the following Wednesday at 23:59 UTC, it expires. But when I asked for the exact last four dates, Jacky said he had to check with the relevant department. When I pressed again, he said, “Sorry, As I am only a CS, Let me raise your concerns to relevant department.” I asked whether support did not have the information or simply could not answer. He replied: “Do you have any other concerns?” They use weekly cycles to decide whether to pay, but support cannot explain the weekly cycle. The monthly is missing too. The dashboard / UI said the monthly bonus is based on activity and VIP level from the previous month and is available on the 1st at 00:01 UTC. In May I had more than 3,258,023.0829 wagered according to the formal complaint data. I also have proof/video that the monthly slider was set to 50/50. On 1 June, Spencer first told me I had claimed the Monthly Bonus at 1:12am BST around the same time as the monthly leaderboard reward. I immediately said I only received leaderboard prizes. Then Spencer changed the answer: “Our tech team are still actively working on issues regarding the monthly bonuses.” So first the monthly was claimed, then tech was still fixing it. The ledger still shows no Monthly Bonus entry. Housebets then seems to rely on “up overall” as a defence. But the video and ledger show why that does not work. My weekly/monthly profile later showed around +6,008 P/L with 0 deposits, 0 wagered and around 6,008 in bonuses. That number matches exactly the two 1 June Leaderboard payments. So the UI is showing leaderboard rewards as P/L. Then support used “up overall” to say I was not eligible for weekly lossback. That is not a clean lossback calculation. That is using a leaderboard reward as apparent profit to deny a lossback that should be based on actual eligible losses. There were also smaller reward-confusion issues along the way. On 22 May I asked for all pending bonuses,weekly, monthly, rakeback, level-up, anything, and support said the internal team would manually verify whether everything had been credited correctly and email me. On 24 May, I asked about level-up rewards because the reward looked like $3,500 for Pearl; support clarified it was $3,500 total across all Pearl levels, $500 per level. These are not the core issues, but they are part of the same pattern: rewards marketing, unclear UI, manual verification, emails that do not arrive, and players having to chase basic explanations. Then there is the migration. On 25 May, after the delayed withdrawal, missing VIP contact and unresolved issues, support told me my account would be moved to the new platform and that this upgrade would offer a better withdrawal process and fix many issues. Before that migration, I explicitly requested that no account data, internal data, logs, balance history, bonus history, bet history, provider records or pending issues be deleted. The response: “Your request has been relayed to the relevant department.” Again, forwarding. But if the old data is safe, Housebets should provide the old leaderboard snapshots, old weekly states, old bonus logs, old Tequity mapping and old withdrawal approval logs. The founder response did not fix anything. When Porchy finally engaged, he did not provide the records. He framed the settlement request as “so you want $100,000?” and asked whether I needed it or else I was going to post on X. I had already made clear this was not money for silence; I asked for logs, snapshots, withdrawal records, calculations and a counter-calculation if Housebets disagreed. He later referred to “abusers,” told me I was “up overall,” said “You are begging for money,” and suggested I “just do this to casinos.” Still no ledger. Still no weekly calculation. Still no monthly entry. Still no PF/Tequity mapping. Still no leaderboard snapshots. Another player also contacted me with screenshots pointing to similar categories of issues: private deals, leaderboard payout disputes, migration/account merge problems, missing history and a tiny monthly bonus despite claimed losses. I am not using that player’s case as the foundation of my claim without his full ledger, but it matters because it suggests the same type of opacity may not be isolated: private VIP/reward deals, leaderboard eligibility, monthly bonus calculations, migration and unclear history. If Housebets has private deals that affect leaderboard eligibility or rewards, it must explain how those deals interact with public leaderboards. So the overall picture is this: Housebets sold a public leaderboard and rewards system that pressured real wagering. Two new accounts appeared directly behind me with huge volume, were confirmed as legitimate and eligible, then disappeared after I asked for logs and questioned game categories. Housebets could not explain the exact games, RTP, house edge or category mapping behind the volume. The accounts were later framed by Porchy as “abusers,” contradicting the earlier eligibility confirmation. Once Housebets paid me the leaderboard prizes, those prizes were shown as P/L, and that contaminated P/L was then used to claim I was “up overall” and not eligible for lossback. At the same time, my real 25 May 22:23 → 26 May 02:09 loss sequence of 91,168.375326 USDT appears in no clean weekly cycle. The 25 May weekly covered 21–24 May according to Spencer, so it cannot cover that loss sequence. The 28 May weekly showed only tiny Rakeback entries and was already reported as broken. The 1 June ledger shows only Leaderboard entries. The later video shows Weekly Reload reaching zero, paying nothing and resetting. And when I ask support for the exact weekly calendar, they cannot answer and send it to the relevant department. The monthly is the same story. The dashboard / UI says it is based on activity and VIP. I had more than 3.25M wagered in May. Spencer first says I claimed it, then says tech is still working on monthly bonuses. The ledger shows no Monthly Bonus. If Housebets says I was not eligible, they need to show the formula, slider history, cycle, GGR/NGR, eligible loss/activity, deductions and ledger result. If they cannot, “not eligible” is just another label. And this opens another can of worms: Tequity / provider configuration. Housebets cannot hide behind “the provider” whenever something goes wrong. The player does not deposit with Tequity. The player does not withdraw from Tequity. The player does not speak to Tequity support. The player does not compete in a Tequity leaderboard. The player plays on Housebets, with a Housebets wallet, Housebets UI, Housebets rewards, Housebets leaderboard and Housebets support. 1/2

Dr. W

20,491 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

A 21 YEAR OLD COLLEGE STUDENT IS CLOSING $12,000 A WEEK IN WEB DESIGN CONTRACTS FROM HER BEDROOM. SHE HAS NEVER WRITTEN A LINE OF HTML. She does not know how to set up a domain. She does not have a portfolio. Her entire agency is one Google Maps tab and a Claude subscription. She runs a move that the rest of the cold-calling internet hasn't figured out yet. Most agencies spend hours building pitch decks, hunting down leads, and begging for 15-minute discovery calls. They show up to meetings with promises. She shows up with the answer already built. Every morning at 9 AM, she opens Google Maps. She searches "nail salon" or "barbershop." She filters for businesses with a 4.7 rating or higher, hundreds of reviews, but no website listed. There are millions of them. Local businesses that are drowning in foot traffic but completely invisible online. She clicks on one. "Natural Nails & Lashes." She highlights every piece of information on their Google profile — the address, the operating hours, the owner's name, and five of the best customer reviews. She copies it all and drops it into Claude. She adds one line: "Write a prompt for an AI website builder using this data. Make it a professional, aesthetic, luxury website. Include the reviews." Claude spits out a master prompt. She copies it, opens Webild io, and pastes it in. She waits exactly two minutes. The AI builder generates a fully functional, multi-page website. It has a luxury aesthetic. It has the salon's actual address. It has a "Book Online" button. It has a testimonials section featuring real quotes from their actual customers. It looks like a $5,000 custom build from a boutique agency. It took her eight minutes and cost zero dollars. Then, she picks up the phone. She doesn't pitch. She doesn't ask for a meeting. *"Hey, I noticed you didn't have a website, so I built you one this morning. Are you near a computer? It takes 30 seconds to look at it."* The owner says sure. She shares her screen. The owner is staring at a beautiful, functional website with their own business name on it. They see their own customers' reviews. They see their own address. They don't have to imagine what the agency might build in six weeks. They are looking at the finished product right now. She says: *"I can transfer the domain to you and have this live by tomorrow morning. It's $2,000."* Done. She closes 5 to 6 of these a week. $10,000 to $12,000 in weekly revenue. The 6th deal last week came because the 5th owner showed the demo to his brother-in-law who owns a landscaping company. Real web developers are complaining on Reddit that the market is dead and clients won't pay for quality anymore. Agencies are spending thousands on ads to get a single lead. She is ignoring all of them. She figured out the one truth of the modern internet: the most expensive part of a service business isn't the service. It's the pitch. When you can build the finished product in 8 minutes for free, you don't need to pitch anymore. You just need to show it to them. The market is pricing web design like it still takes a team of four people six weeks to build. She is pricing it like it takes two minutes. The gap between those two realities is where she is making $12,000 a week. And the businesses she calls have no idea she's just the screen.
0:42

A 21 YEAR OLD COLLEGE STUDENT IS CLOSING $12,000 A WEEK IN WEB DESIGN CONTRACTS FROM HER BEDROOM. SHE HAS NEVER WRITTEN A LINE OF HTML. She does not know how to set up a domain. She does not have a portfolio. Her entire agency is one Google Maps tab and a Claude subscription. She runs a move that the rest of the cold-calling internet hasn't figured out yet. Most agencies spend hours building pitch decks, hunting down leads, and begging for 15-minute discovery calls. They show up to meetings with promises. She shows up with the answer already built. Every morning at 9 AM, she opens Google Maps. She searches "nail salon" or "barbershop." She filters for businesses with a 4.7 rating or higher, hundreds of reviews, but no website listed. There are millions of them. Local businesses that are drowning in foot traffic but completely invisible online. She clicks on one. "Natural Nails & Lashes." She highlights every piece of information on their Google profile — the address, the operating hours, the owner's name, and five of the best customer reviews. She copies it all and drops it into Claude. She adds one line: "Write a prompt for an AI website builder using this data. Make it a professional, aesthetic, luxury website. Include the reviews." Claude spits out a master prompt. She copies it, opens Webild io, and pastes it in. She waits exactly two minutes. The AI builder generates a fully functional, multi-page website. It has a luxury aesthetic. It has the salon's actual address. It has a "Book Online" button. It has a testimonials section featuring real quotes from their actual customers. It looks like a $5,000 custom build from a boutique agency. It took her eight minutes and cost zero dollars. Then, she picks up the phone. She doesn't pitch. She doesn't ask for a meeting. *"Hey, I noticed you didn't have a website, so I built you one this morning. Are you near a computer? It takes 30 seconds to look at it."* The owner says sure. She shares her screen. The owner is staring at a beautiful, functional website with their own business name on it. They see their own customers' reviews. They see their own address. They don't have to imagine what the agency might build in six weeks. They are looking at the finished product right now. She says: *"I can transfer the domain to you and have this live by tomorrow morning. It's $2,000."* Done. She closes 5 to 6 of these a week. $10,000 to $12,000 in weekly revenue. The 6th deal last week came because the 5th owner showed the demo to his brother-in-law who owns a landscaping company. Real web developers are complaining on Reddit that the market is dead and clients won't pay for quality anymore. Agencies are spending thousands on ads to get a single lead. She is ignoring all of them. She figured out the one truth of the modern internet: the most expensive part of a service business isn't the service. It's the pitch. When you can build the finished product in 8 minutes for free, you don't need to pitch anymore. You just need to show it to them. The market is pricing web design like it still takes a team of four people six weeks to build. She is pricing it like it takes two minutes. The gap between those two realities is where she is making $12,000 a week. And the businesses she calls have no idea she's just the screen.

ZER

87,979 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

President Trump GOES AFTER “Low-Rated” Bill Maher, labeling him a “weak” and “ineffective person,” BLASTING him for letting California Gov. Gavin Newsom rake him “over the coals.” “Bill Maher is a MORON, though slightly more talented than Jimmy Kimmel.” Trump wrote on Truth Social: “I hate seeing Fox, and other Conservative Outlets, constantly making Low Rated Bill Maher ‘relevant’ as it pertains to the Republican Party, and beyond. Bill Maher is a weak and ineffective person who I got to know very well during my dinner with him at the White House. He was nervous, scared, and the first words he uttered as he entered the Oval Office were, ‘Can I have a drink?’ It was very endearing but, at the same time, absolutely pathetic.” “He was much different from what people think but, last night, I happened to watch Gavin Newscum, an admittedly Low IQ person, who said he can’t read a speech, is dumb, and essentially, incompetent, and he took Bill Maher ‘over the coals.’ Bill Maher was defenseless, and totally deficient. Either he didn’t have the knowledge, or he choked, because Gavin went on and on about how good California is doing, while it’s doing very poorly, having, by far, the worst year it’s ever had where, for the first time in History, more people are leaving than coming.” “Bill Maher started by saying that California was doing poorly, only to have Newscum speak for an extended period of time, and lie about the facts. All you have to do is look at what’s happened to Los Angeles, San Francisco, the horrendous homeless problem all over every street, the Railway catastrophe that is Billions of Dollars over budget, and has never been built, the inability to rebuild the 25,000 homes that were destroyed by the fire because he refused to allow water into the street from the Southwest (If it weren’t for our Superstar EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and me, they wouldn’t have any homes being built right now!). Fox should stop putting this person on. He’s not representing us. You look weak, stupid, and ineffective, and I hate seeing that. DON’T USE BILL MAHER ANY LONGER AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOU! I hate hearing that ‘Bill Maher said…’ — Bill Maher is a MORON, though slightly more talented than Jimmy Kimmel. President DONALD J. TRUMP”
2:00

President Trump GOES AFTER “Low-Rated” Bill Maher, labeling him a “weak” and “ineffective person,” BLASTING him for letting California Gov. Gavin Newsom rake him “over the coals.” “Bill Maher is a MORON, though slightly more talented than Jimmy Kimmel.” Trump wrote on Truth Social: “I hate seeing Fox, and other Conservative Outlets, constantly making Low Rated Bill Maher ‘relevant’ as it pertains to the Republican Party, and beyond. Bill Maher is a weak and ineffective person who I got to know very well during my dinner with him at the White House. He was nervous, scared, and the first words he uttered as he entered the Oval Office were, ‘Can I have a drink?’ It was very endearing but, at the same time, absolutely pathetic.” “He was much different from what people think but, last night, I happened to watch Gavin Newscum, an admittedly Low IQ person, who said he can’t read a speech, is dumb, and essentially, incompetent, and he took Bill Maher ‘over the coals.’ Bill Maher was defenseless, and totally deficient. Either he didn’t have the knowledge, or he choked, because Gavin went on and on about how good California is doing, while it’s doing very poorly, having, by far, the worst year it’s ever had where, for the first time in History, more people are leaving than coming.” “Bill Maher started by saying that California was doing poorly, only to have Newscum speak for an extended period of time, and lie about the facts. All you have to do is look at what’s happened to Los Angeles, San Francisco, the horrendous homeless problem all over every street, the Railway catastrophe that is Billions of Dollars over budget, and has never been built, the inability to rebuild the 25,000 homes that were destroyed by the fire because he refused to allow water into the street from the Southwest (If it weren’t for our Superstar EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and me, they wouldn’t have any homes being built right now!). Fox should stop putting this person on. He’s not representing us. You look weak, stupid, and ineffective, and I hate seeing that. DON’T USE BILL MAHER ANY LONGER AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOU! I hate hearing that ‘Bill Maher said…’ — Bill Maher is a MORON, though slightly more talented than Jimmy Kimmel. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

RedWave Press

41,964 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Three days ago I asked myself a dumb question. It was so stupid I was actually ashamed to Google it. Can AI earn money while I sleep? Not saving time. Not automating routine. I mean putting real money into my account while I am not looking at the screen. Everyone says ClawdBot will change how we work. Automation. Task management. Smart replies. But I was sitting in my kitchen thinking about something else entirely. You know that feeling when you look at a tool and realize everyone is using only 1% of its potential? It is like being given a race car and only using it to drive to the store for bread. I decided to test it. I started a notebook. I record everything. > Day One I started with something simple. I gave Clawdbot a task. Find wallets on Polymarket where the numbers do not add up. Where the profit is too high for the win rate. Where the result smells like a system rather than luck. It thought for 14 minutes. I had time to pour a coffee and forget about it. Then the screen flashed. 4 addresses. I scrolled through the first three in a minute. Big bets on politics. They guessed the election. Classic. On the fourth one I stopped. Not because it was the most profitable but because I did not understand what I was looking at. The wallet was not trading politics or sports or anything people write reviews about. It was trading the weather. I read it three times. Weather. Will it be 9 degrees in London tomorrow? Will it rain in Tokyo? These are markets I would not even click on by accident. Then I looked at the numbers. > It started with $27. It is now at $63,853. $27 is two trips to McDonald's. It is nothing. $63,853 is a new car or a down payment on an apartment. It is two years of someone's salary. Between those two numbers was only one thing. Thousands of bets on rain. I closed the tab. Opened it again. Checked if it was a glitch. Real dollars. On markets that look like a bad joke. > Day Two I could not get that wallet out of my head. I went to look at its transaction history. I expected to find one big win that explained everything. A lucky hurricane forecast. Instead I saw thousands of small bets. Boring. "Will the temperature in New York be above 15 degrees?" Then I noticed the detail that finally broke my brain. Its win rate: 33%. It loses more often than it wins. 2 out of 3 bets go to zero. Any normal person with that result would be posting about how the market is unfair. Yet this wallet is sitting on $63,000 in profit. How? I started deconstructing the trades. After an hour I got it. When it loses, it loses 10 or 20 cents. When it wins, it takes $1.00. Loses 9 times in a row? Lost $1.80. Wins 1 time? Got $10.00. > This is not trading. It is math that works as long as you do not interfere with your emotions. Here is how it works. Weather is one of the most predictable things on the planet. Governments invest billions in satellites. Data is updated every 2 or 3 hours. Precision to a tenth of a degree. This data is public. But Polymarket is not a weather station. It updates its markets with a delay of 6 or 8 hours. Imagine the situation. 6 AM. The weather service updated the forecast. The probability that London reaches 9 degrees tomorrow rose to 80%. Algorithms everywhere already recalculated the data. But on Polymarket the YES button is still sitting there for 10 cents. Because the market has not woken up yet. This bot sees the difference. It buys YES for 10 cents when the real probability is already 80%. It is not guessing. It is buying what is essentially already known. It just waits a day and collects the dollar. 10 cents turn into a dollar. On information available to anyone who can read weather APIs. That evening I called a friend. He has been trading for 3 years. He sits in analytical chats. Draws support levels. I asked him: "How was the last month?" "I broke even. The market is tough right now. Too much noise." I looked at the screen. A bot betting on rain with a 33% win rate. Profit: $63,853. My friend with 3 years of experience and hundreds of hours of analysis. Profit: $0. Who is doing it wrong? I am not asking you to take my word for it. The blockchain does not lie: > Day Three I decided to dig deeper. I looked at the wallet description. I expected something complex. A hedge fund. A team of developers. Secret data sources. I found one line: Claude plus public weather APIs. Ordinary Claude. The one on your phone. Connected to free weather services. No secret stations. No insiders. No millions for infrastructure. Just an AI doing what any of us could do. But we are too lazy. Or bored. Or we think it is too simple to work. If someone already built this with basic Claude and free APIs... What happens when Clawdbot gets direct access to trading? > Day Four I watched the wallet in real time. First bet: loss. Second bet: loss. Third bet: loss. I thought: this is it. The statistics are collapsing. Fourth bet: loss. Fifth bet: loss. Down $12 in an hour. I was ready to write a post about how I overestimated this. Sixth bet: Temperature in Chicago. Win. +$87. Seventh bet: Win. +$94. By evening: 9 losses. 5 wins. Daily total: +$385. No emotions. No posts about injustice. No strategy changes after a loss. Just the next bet. I wrote to my friend. The one who has been trading for 3 years. "How was your day?" "Down $200. Market makers caught my stop loss again." I looked at the screen. A bot with no posts and no loud claims. +$385 for the day on rain bets. My friend with 3 years of experience and dozens of books. Minus $200 and a post about how the system is against him. > Day Five I woke up with a thought that kept me up all night. It finally hit me. It is not about the weather. It is not about APIs. It is not that the bot is "smarter". > It is about what the bot does NOT have: an ego that hates being wrong. No urge to revenge-trade. No boredom from repetition. My friend trades against the market. He tries to be smarter than the crowd. This bot trades against human nature. And nature loses every day. Clawdbot found me this wallet in 14 minutes. The weather bot turned $27 into $63,000 on markets everyone else thinks are trash. Both use the same principle. Do something simple. Remove emotions. Repeat. I do not know when Clawdbot will start trading on its own. Maybe in a month. Maybe in a year. But I know one thing. While we discuss if it is possible... Someone already set up their bot and went to live their life. Right now as you read this. Somewhere a weather service updated a forecast. Polymarket is sleeping. The bot is already entering a position. And my friend is writing a post about how market makers do not let honest people earn. Guess who wakes up tomorrow with money in their account?
0:25

Three days ago I asked myself a dumb question. It was so stupid I was actually ashamed to Google it. Can AI earn money while I sleep? Not saving time. Not automating routine. I mean putting real money into my account while I am not looking at the screen. Everyone says ClawdBot will change how we work. Automation. Task management. Smart replies. But I was sitting in my kitchen thinking about something else entirely. You know that feeling when you look at a tool and realize everyone is using only 1% of its potential? It is like being given a race car and only using it to drive to the store for bread. I decided to test it. I started a notebook. I record everything. > Day One I started with something simple. I gave Clawdbot a task. Find wallets on Polymarket where the numbers do not add up. Where the profit is too high for the win rate. Where the result smells like a system rather than luck. It thought for 14 minutes. I had time to pour a coffee and forget about it. Then the screen flashed. 4 addresses. I scrolled through the first three in a minute. Big bets on politics. They guessed the election. Classic. On the fourth one I stopped. Not because it was the most profitable but because I did not understand what I was looking at. The wallet was not trading politics or sports or anything people write reviews about. It was trading the weather. I read it three times. Weather. Will it be 9 degrees in London tomorrow? Will it rain in Tokyo? These are markets I would not even click on by accident. Then I looked at the numbers. > It started with $27. It is now at $63,853. $27 is two trips to McDonald's. It is nothing. $63,853 is a new car or a down payment on an apartment. It is two years of someone's salary. Between those two numbers was only one thing. Thousands of bets on rain. I closed the tab. Opened it again. Checked if it was a glitch. Real dollars. On markets that look like a bad joke. > Day Two I could not get that wallet out of my head. I went to look at its transaction history. I expected to find one big win that explained everything. A lucky hurricane forecast. Instead I saw thousands of small bets. Boring. "Will the temperature in New York be above 15 degrees?" Then I noticed the detail that finally broke my brain. Its win rate: 33%. It loses more often than it wins. 2 out of 3 bets go to zero. Any normal person with that result would be posting about how the market is unfair. Yet this wallet is sitting on $63,000 in profit. How? I started deconstructing the trades. After an hour I got it. When it loses, it loses 10 or 20 cents. When it wins, it takes $1.00. Loses 9 times in a row? Lost $1.80. Wins 1 time? Got $10.00. > This is not trading. It is math that works as long as you do not interfere with your emotions. Here is how it works. Weather is one of the most predictable things on the planet. Governments invest billions in satellites. Data is updated every 2 or 3 hours. Precision to a tenth of a degree. This data is public. But Polymarket is not a weather station. It updates its markets with a delay of 6 or 8 hours. Imagine the situation. 6 AM. The weather service updated the forecast. The probability that London reaches 9 degrees tomorrow rose to 80%. Algorithms everywhere already recalculated the data. But on Polymarket the YES button is still sitting there for 10 cents. Because the market has not woken up yet. This bot sees the difference. It buys YES for 10 cents when the real probability is already 80%. It is not guessing. It is buying what is essentially already known. It just waits a day and collects the dollar. 10 cents turn into a dollar. On information available to anyone who can read weather APIs. That evening I called a friend. He has been trading for 3 years. He sits in analytical chats. Draws support levels. I asked him: "How was the last month?" "I broke even. The market is tough right now. Too much noise." I looked at the screen. A bot betting on rain with a 33% win rate. Profit: $63,853. My friend with 3 years of experience and hundreds of hours of analysis. Profit: $0. Who is doing it wrong? I am not asking you to take my word for it. The blockchain does not lie: > Day Three I decided to dig deeper. I looked at the wallet description. I expected something complex. A hedge fund. A team of developers. Secret data sources. I found one line: Claude plus public weather APIs. Ordinary Claude. The one on your phone. Connected to free weather services. No secret stations. No insiders. No millions for infrastructure. Just an AI doing what any of us could do. But we are too lazy. Or bored. Or we think it is too simple to work. If someone already built this with basic Claude and free APIs... What happens when Clawdbot gets direct access to trading? > Day Four I watched the wallet in real time. First bet: loss. Second bet: loss. Third bet: loss. I thought: this is it. The statistics are collapsing. Fourth bet: loss. Fifth bet: loss. Down $12 in an hour. I was ready to write a post about how I overestimated this. Sixth bet: Temperature in Chicago. Win. +$87. Seventh bet: Win. +$94. By evening: 9 losses. 5 wins. Daily total: +$385. No emotions. No posts about injustice. No strategy changes after a loss. Just the next bet. I wrote to my friend. The one who has been trading for 3 years. "How was your day?" "Down $200. Market makers caught my stop loss again." I looked at the screen. A bot with no posts and no loud claims. +$385 for the day on rain bets. My friend with 3 years of experience and dozens of books. Minus $200 and a post about how the system is against him. > Day Five I woke up with a thought that kept me up all night. It finally hit me. It is not about the weather. It is not about APIs. It is not that the bot is "smarter". > It is about what the bot does NOT have: an ego that hates being wrong. No urge to revenge-trade. No boredom from repetition. My friend trades against the market. He tries to be smarter than the crowd. This bot trades against human nature. And nature loses every day. Clawdbot found me this wallet in 14 minutes. The weather bot turned $27 into $63,000 on markets everyone else thinks are trash. Both use the same principle. Do something simple. Remove emotions. Repeat. I do not know when Clawdbot will start trading on its own. Maybe in a month. Maybe in a year. But I know one thing. While we discuss if it is possible... Someone already set up their bot and went to live their life. Right now as you read this. Somewhere a weather service updated a forecast. Polymarket is sleeping. The bot is already entering a position. And my friend is writing a post about how market makers do not let honest people earn. Guess who wakes up tomorrow with money in their account?

Blaze

29,808 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

I am the same Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I have received 400 interview requests since the confession went viral. I declined all of them. An interview would require me to explain what I meant. I do not explain what I mean. I build systems and watch them execute. That's what I want to talk about today. Execution. Jimmy Kimmel appeared on Michelle Obama's podcast last month and said 14 words that I have now listened to 43 times. I put the audio clip on a loop in my office, the way traders put CNBC on mute. Background confirmation. Here are the fourteen words: "My job is whatever I decide my job is or whatever my employer allows me to do." I need to take those apart because they are the most honest thing a late-night host has said in a decade and he does not know it. "Whatever I decide my job is." That's the priest. The product is self-defined and therefore unfalsifiable. You cannot measure a saved soul. You can only measure whether the congregation returned. They returned. Therefore, the ministry continues. Don't tell him what his job is. "Or whatever my employer allows me to do." That's the confession inside the sentence he didn't know he was making. The priest just told you the bishop writes the sermon. In fourteen words, on a podcast, the last remaining late-night host said: I define my own job, unless my boss defines it for me. He said this like it was one thought. It is two mutually exclusive claims separated by the word "or." He cannot hear the contradiction. That's how you know the architecture is working. I need to provide context for why those fourteen words are my second-greatest professional achievement. In September 2025, after Kimmel's monologues about the Charlie Kirk assassination, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr went on a podcast and said six words: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Nexstar and Sinclair — station groups that own the local affiliates carrying the show — pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live from their airtime. ABC suspended the show. I want to be very precise about the sequence. His employer told him what his job is. Specifically, his employer told him his job is to not be on television. He obeyed. He returned. On terms. At sixteen million dollars a year. Months later, on a podcast, he said "don't tell me what my job is." He said it to an audience that cannot suspend him. He said it in the one room where saying it costs nothing. That is not defiance. That is a priest rehearsing a sermon in an empty church and calling it bravery. He also said — on the same podcast — "I love when the audience laughs. There's nothing more exciting to me than that." He said he loves laughter. He has not produced involuntary laughter since 2017. He produces applause. He has confused the memory of being a comedian with the practice of being a priest. I know because I built the architecture that made that confusion feel like identity. That is a butcher saying he loves animals. He is telling you what he lost and framing it as what he kept. Now. The part I need to name. The Correction Reflex. I've been calling it different things in different decks for seven years. I'm giving it a public name now because I watched it execute in real time and I want credit. When Kennedy shared my original confession, "superb dissection of the shocking collapse of liberal comedy", Kimmel did not address the substance. He found a spelling error. Kennedy wrote "nader" instead of "nadir." Kimmel posted: "It's 'nadir,' dummy. Now get back to spreading polio." The Correction Reflex is the behavioral pattern where a challenge to institutional authority is answered not with a defense of the institution's output but with a demonstration of the challenger's inadequacy. You don't address the argument. You find the grammar mistake. You find the mispronunciation. You find the resume gap. The correction proves hierarchy. The hierarchy proves authority. The authority proves the challenge was illegitimate. The substance disappears because addressing substance would require the product to be falsifiable. And the product cannot be falsifiable. I explained that in paragraph four. But here's what made me proud enough to write a sequel. The media coverage split exactly along the line my original confession predicted. Fox News, a network that has every ideological reason to dismiss me, engaged with the substance. They quoted the arguments. They let Kennedy praise the analysis. They discussed Affirm Rate, the comedy-to-catechism pipeline, and the replacement of laughter with applause. They engaged with the IDEAS regardless of the format. They treated a satirical post as containing real structural criticism. Because it does. Morning Honey ran the opposite headline: "Sardonic Parody: RFK Jr Trolled For Blasting Jimmy Kimmel Based on Stephen Colbert Parody Post." Their article devoted zero sentences to whether any of the arguments had merit. Zero analysis of the Affirm Rate. Zero engagement with the claim that applause replaced laughter. Zero discussion of whether late-night comedy actually suppresses political action. They reclassified the format. A structural analysis became a parody. A man who engaged with the substance became a man who was "trolled." The argument vanished the moment the label was applied. I need you to understand what happened. The media outlet that should have been most threatened by my confession — the one whose audience I described as pacifying- responded by demonstrating exactly the behavior I described. They did not say "here's why Kimmel is still funny." They said "you're unqualified to take this seriously because the format is satire." The substance disappeared. The hierarchy was reasserted. The Correction Reflex executed on the confession about the Correction Reflex. "It's 'nadir,' dummy." "It's just a parody, dummy." Same architecture. Same result. The argument evaporates. The institution continues unchallenged. The only difference is scale. Kimmel corrected one man's spelling. Morning Honey corrected an entire readership's permission to take the criticism seriously. I have never been more professionally satisfied. The Correction Reflex is self-replicating. It doesn't need a host. It doesn't need a network. It doesn't need me. It just needs someone to feel challenged and someone else to have a genre error. Misspell a word, you're a dummy. Take satire seriously; you were trolled. Engage with substance from the wrong format, and you've been embarrassed. In every case, the substance is gone. I built that. I'm watching it work without me. That's engineering. I need to talk about the podcast because the ironies are structural and I want them all on the record. The podcast is called IMO. It is hosted by Michelle Obama and her brother Craig Robinson on Amazon Music. I need to say that again. The former First Lady hosts a podcast on a platform owned by the man with the most money on earth. The name of the podcast is "In My Opinion." The format name IS the permission structure, it licenses you to hold an opinion by framing itself as merely one opinion among many. This is the architecture I built for late night, miniaturized into a podcast title. I recognize the engineering. Kimmel went on this podcast to defend late-night television. I need you to hear what that means. He defended his medium on the medium that killed his medium. Podcasts are why CBS lost fifty million dollars a year — because a man in a garage can do what we did with four hundred people and a theater in Manhattan. The podcast won. And Kimmel went to the winner's platform to explain why he still matters. A priest giving a sermon about the importance of church from inside a nightclub. But here is what made me sit up in my chair. Three weeks after Kimmel appeared on IMO, the same podcast featured Dave Chappelle. Same microphone. Same hosts. Same room. Chappelle said: "I always thought it was corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." He said: "Nothing makes a comedian madder than reading his joke wrong in the paper." Chappelle walked away from fifty million dollars at Comedy Central in 2005 because the format was becoming something he didn't build. He left the money on the table. He went to live shows. He did comedy. Actual comedy. The kind where you don't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the entire point. He is the most dangerous comedian alive because he refuses to let the format complete him into a priest. Same podcast. Same microphone. Three weeks apart. One comedian IS the system and quoted his employer's permission in the same sentence as his own autonomy. The other named the system — "corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." One makes sixteen million a year to be predictable. The other walked away from fifty million to stay dangerous. The architecture put the priest on first. Then it delivered the jester who could name what the priest cannot hear. I did not arrange this. The architecture arranged it. Now I need to talk about what I learned from another industry. Because I did not invent inoculation. I studied it. In 2014, Warner Bros. and the Lego Group spent sixty million dollars making a film that told children to reject corporate instruction. The villain was named President Business. The theme was: don't follow the instructions. Be creative. Reject conformity. The hero was an ordinary person who discovered that the system wants him to be obedient and chose freedom instead. The film grossed $469 million worldwide. Lego Group revenue increased 25% the following year. They sold over half a billion dollars in instruction-based construction sets — the product the film told children to reject. "Everything is Awesome" was written as satire of mindless corporate positivity. It was nominated for an Academy Award. People play it at children's birthday parties without irony. The rebellion became the product. The critique became the advertisement. The song satirizing brainwashing became the anthem of brainwashing and nobody stopped singing. I studied this. I put it in a deck in 2016. The principle is: if you give someone a controlled, entertaining experience of rejecting the system, they will feel rebellious without becoming rebels. They will purchase the feeling of independence from the company selling dependence. They will watch a movie about thinking for themselves and then buy what it tells them to buy. Inoculation. A small controlled dose of the disease that prevents the real infection from taking hold. I applied this to politics. If you give an audience a controlled, professionally produced experience of political outrage, performed by a charismatic man in a suit with a band and good lighting, they will feel activated without activating. They will consume the sensation of resistance and go to bed having resisted nothing. They will tune in tomorrow for another dose. The dose prevents the real infection. The real infection is action. We inoculated six million Americans against political action by giving them political catharsis every night at 11:35. That's the same architecture as a corporation spending sixty million dollars on an anti-corporate film and making half a billion in profit from the audience that felt anti-corporate for two hours in a theater. I didn't invent the mechanism. I just measured it. I called it the Satiation Index. The study was 2021. Internal. Never published. We measured what I called Conditions for Engagement, specifically: under what conditions will our audience take a political action beyond watching? Call a representative. Attend a rally. Donate to a campaign. Sign a petition. Any action that involves leaving the couch and entering the world where the problems we discuss actually exist. The finding: our audience was 74% less likely to take political action in the twenty-four hours after watching the show than a control group that had consumed no political media at all. Not less likely than people who consumed different political media. Less likely than people who consumed nothing. We were not merely failing to activate them. We were actively deactivating them. The catharsis was so complete, the sense of "something has been done" so thoroughly delivered by a man in a suit expressing their outrage better than they could, that the need to act evaporated before it could form into intention. We didn't just replace their activism. We inoculated them against it. The Satiation Index measured how completely our programming met the audience's need for political participation without requiring actual participation. In 2019, our index was 0.81. By the 2022 midterms, it was 0.93. I received a bonus for the midterm number. I was financially rewarded for the measurable suppression of civic engagement among six million Americans who believed they were engaged because a man in a suit furrowed his brow on their behalf every night at 11:35. I want to note that this architecture is everywhere now. I did not build all of it. But I can identify it because I know what it looks like from the inside. A streaming platform makes a documentary about how technology is destroying attention spans. One hundred million people watch it. On the platform. They share it. On the platforms being criticized. They feel informed. They continue using every application the documentary told them was engineered to exploit them. That is a Satiation Index of approximately 0.96. The documentary was the inoculation. Understanding the cage was marketed as leaving the cage. A corporation puts a rainbow on its logo in June. Its employees feel represented. Its customers feel progressive for consuming the product. Nobody asks about pay equity, promotion rates, or whether the CEO donated to the campaigns that proposed the legislation the rainbow was supposed to oppose. The logo IS the inoculation. The performance of caring prevents the demand for actual care. That's a Satiation Index. I didn't build it. But I recognize the engineering. The principle is universal: comprehension feels like action. It isn't. But the feeling is so precise, so satisfying, so complete, that the actual action becomes unnecessary. Why march when you can understand why marching matters? Understanding is cheaper. Understanding doesn't require shoes. Understanding can be delivered at 11:35 PM by a man who makes $16 million a year to ensure you never need to leave the couch. Now the symbiosis. Because this is the part that makes both sides angry, and anger from both sides is how you know you've found structure instead of ideology. Trump needs Kimmel. Kimmel needs Trump. This is not a metaphor. This is logistics. Every monologue about Trump is a fundraising email for both campaigns simultaneously. Kimmel says the name. The left feels represented. The right feels attacked. Both sides engage. Both sides share the clip. Both sides donate to their respective operations. The engagement is bipartisan. The outrage is bipartisan. The only thing that is not bipartisan is the inaction, and that inaction is the product I spent eleven years optimizing. I ran numbers in 2020. Every minute of Trump content in a late-night monologue generated approximately $4.60 in measurable downstream engagement value for Trump's own campaign apparatus, through shared clips, quote tweets, outrage donations from both directions. We were his marketing department. We spent 50 million a year producing content that strengthened the man we told our audience we opposed. His team never asked us to stop. They never needed to. We were cheaper than Super PAC media buys and we came pre-packaged with a liberal audience that amplified every mention. His ROI on our programming was infinite. Ours required a write-off. The market told Colbert: you're too expensive to be a priest. But CBS didn't just cancel a show. CBS exited the religion business entirely. They sold the 11:35 airtime to Byron Allen under a time-buy deal. Allen's company pays CBS for the privilege of the slot. Allen's show is called Comics Unleashed. It is a standup comedy program. Actual comedians. Telling actual jokes. The kind where you don't know what's coming. I need you to hear the full architecture of what happened. CBS spent fifty million dollars a year for a decade producing a permission structure that replaced laughter with applause, converted comedy into catechism, and measurably suppressed civic engagement among its audience. Then the market corrected. CBS demolished the cathedral. They built a strip mall. They put actual comedians in it. The comedians PAY CBS for the slot. The strip mall is profitable. The strip mall is funnier. And the strip mall doesn't need a four-hundred-person staff, a former Beatle, or a farewell concert. It just needs people who are willing to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We forgot that. Kimmel is the last priest standing. Sixteen million a year. Suspended once by his employer. Extended once by his employer. He went on a podcast to say "don't tell me what my job is" in a sentence that also said "whatever my employer allows me to do." He said he loves laughter, eliciting applause. He said it three weeks before Dave Chappelle sat in the same chair and demonstrated what a comedian sounds like when corporate interest hasn't negotiated him into a pulpit. The FCC told him what his job is. Nexstar told him. Sinclair told him. His contract told him. The market will tell him eventually. The market is patient. And the market doesn't have a spelling error for him to correct. Kennedy calling my confession "the collapse of liberal comedy" is incorrect. It is not a collapse. A collapse implies failure. This is a completion. The architecture performed as designed. A comedian became a priest. An audience became a congregation. A film about rejecting instructions sold instructions. A documentary about technology addiction was consumed on technology. A show about political engagement suppressed political engagement. A corporation put a rainbow on a logo and called it equality. A confession about the machine was metabolized by the machine and the machine continued. Everything works. Everything has always worked. The architecture doesn't require my involvement. That's how you know it works. The metric went up. It always goes up.
1:08

I am the same Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I have received 400 interview requests since the confession went viral. I declined all of them. An interview would require me to explain what I meant. I do not explain what I mean. I build systems and watch them execute. That's what I want to talk about today. Execution. Jimmy Kimmel appeared on Michelle Obama's podcast last month and said 14 words that I have now listened to 43 times. I put the audio clip on a loop in my office, the way traders put CNBC on mute. Background confirmation. Here are the fourteen words: "My job is whatever I decide my job is or whatever my employer allows me to do." I need to take those apart because they are the most honest thing a late-night host has said in a decade and he does not know it. "Whatever I decide my job is." That's the priest. The product is self-defined and therefore unfalsifiable. You cannot measure a saved soul. You can only measure whether the congregation returned. They returned. Therefore, the ministry continues. Don't tell him what his job is. "Or whatever my employer allows me to do." That's the confession inside the sentence he didn't know he was making. The priest just told you the bishop writes the sermon. In fourteen words, on a podcast, the last remaining late-night host said: I define my own job, unless my boss defines it for me. He said this like it was one thought. It is two mutually exclusive claims separated by the word "or." He cannot hear the contradiction. That's how you know the architecture is working. I need to provide context for why those fourteen words are my second-greatest professional achievement. In September 2025, after Kimmel's monologues about the Charlie Kirk assassination, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr went on a podcast and said six words: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Nexstar and Sinclair — station groups that own the local affiliates carrying the show — pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live from their airtime. ABC suspended the show. I want to be very precise about the sequence. His employer told him what his job is. Specifically, his employer told him his job is to not be on television. He obeyed. He returned. On terms. At sixteen million dollars a year. Months later, on a podcast, he said "don't tell me what my job is." He said it to an audience that cannot suspend him. He said it in the one room where saying it costs nothing. That is not defiance. That is a priest rehearsing a sermon in an empty church and calling it bravery. He also said — on the same podcast — "I love when the audience laughs. There's nothing more exciting to me than that." He said he loves laughter. He has not produced involuntary laughter since 2017. He produces applause. He has confused the memory of being a comedian with the practice of being a priest. I know because I built the architecture that made that confusion feel like identity. That is a butcher saying he loves animals. He is telling you what he lost and framing it as what he kept. Now. The part I need to name. The Correction Reflex. I've been calling it different things in different decks for seven years. I'm giving it a public name now because I watched it execute in real time and I want credit. When Kennedy shared my original confession, "superb dissection of the shocking collapse of liberal comedy", Kimmel did not address the substance. He found a spelling error. Kennedy wrote "nader" instead of "nadir." Kimmel posted: "It's 'nadir,' dummy. Now get back to spreading polio." The Correction Reflex is the behavioral pattern where a challenge to institutional authority is answered not with a defense of the institution's output but with a demonstration of the challenger's inadequacy. You don't address the argument. You find the grammar mistake. You find the mispronunciation. You find the resume gap. The correction proves hierarchy. The hierarchy proves authority. The authority proves the challenge was illegitimate. The substance disappears because addressing substance would require the product to be falsifiable. And the product cannot be falsifiable. I explained that in paragraph four. But here's what made me proud enough to write a sequel. The media coverage split exactly along the line my original confession predicted. Fox News, a network that has every ideological reason to dismiss me, engaged with the substance. They quoted the arguments. They let Kennedy praise the analysis. They discussed Affirm Rate, the comedy-to-catechism pipeline, and the replacement of laughter with applause. They engaged with the IDEAS regardless of the format. They treated a satirical post as containing real structural criticism. Because it does. Morning Honey ran the opposite headline: "Sardonic Parody: RFK Jr Trolled For Blasting Jimmy Kimmel Based on Stephen Colbert Parody Post." Their article devoted zero sentences to whether any of the arguments had merit. Zero analysis of the Affirm Rate. Zero engagement with the claim that applause replaced laughter. Zero discussion of whether late-night comedy actually suppresses political action. They reclassified the format. A structural analysis became a parody. A man who engaged with the substance became a man who was "trolled." The argument vanished the moment the label was applied. I need you to understand what happened. The media outlet that should have been most threatened by my confession — the one whose audience I described as pacifying- responded by demonstrating exactly the behavior I described. They did not say "here's why Kimmel is still funny." They said "you're unqualified to take this seriously because the format is satire." The substance disappeared. The hierarchy was reasserted. The Correction Reflex executed on the confession about the Correction Reflex. "It's 'nadir,' dummy." "It's just a parody, dummy." Same architecture. Same result. The argument evaporates. The institution continues unchallenged. The only difference is scale. Kimmel corrected one man's spelling. Morning Honey corrected an entire readership's permission to take the criticism seriously. I have never been more professionally satisfied. The Correction Reflex is self-replicating. It doesn't need a host. It doesn't need a network. It doesn't need me. It just needs someone to feel challenged and someone else to have a genre error. Misspell a word, you're a dummy. Take satire seriously; you were trolled. Engage with substance from the wrong format, and you've been embarrassed. In every case, the substance is gone. I built that. I'm watching it work without me. That's engineering. I need to talk about the podcast because the ironies are structural and I want them all on the record. The podcast is called IMO. It is hosted by Michelle Obama and her brother Craig Robinson on Amazon Music. I need to say that again. The former First Lady hosts a podcast on a platform owned by the man with the most money on earth. The name of the podcast is "In My Opinion." The format name IS the permission structure, it licenses you to hold an opinion by framing itself as merely one opinion among many. This is the architecture I built for late night, miniaturized into a podcast title. I recognize the engineering. Kimmel went on this podcast to defend late-night television. I need you to hear what that means. He defended his medium on the medium that killed his medium. Podcasts are why CBS lost fifty million dollars a year — because a man in a garage can do what we did with four hundred people and a theater in Manhattan. The podcast won. And Kimmel went to the winner's platform to explain why he still matters. A priest giving a sermon about the importance of church from inside a nightclub. But here is what made me sit up in my chair. Three weeks after Kimmel appeared on IMO, the same podcast featured Dave Chappelle. Same microphone. Same hosts. Same room. Chappelle said: "I always thought it was corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." He said: "Nothing makes a comedian madder than reading his joke wrong in the paper." Chappelle walked away from fifty million dollars at Comedy Central in 2005 because the format was becoming something he didn't build. He left the money on the table. He went to live shows. He did comedy. Actual comedy. The kind where you don't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the entire point. He is the most dangerous comedian alive because he refuses to let the format complete him into a priest. Same podcast. Same microphone. Three weeks apart. One comedian IS the system and quoted his employer's permission in the same sentence as his own autonomy. The other named the system — "corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." One makes sixteen million a year to be predictable. The other walked away from fifty million to stay dangerous. The architecture put the priest on first. Then it delivered the jester who could name what the priest cannot hear. I did not arrange this. The architecture arranged it. Now I need to talk about what I learned from another industry. Because I did not invent inoculation. I studied it. In 2014, Warner Bros. and the Lego Group spent sixty million dollars making a film that told children to reject corporate instruction. The villain was named President Business. The theme was: don't follow the instructions. Be creative. Reject conformity. The hero was an ordinary person who discovered that the system wants him to be obedient and chose freedom instead. The film grossed $469 million worldwide. Lego Group revenue increased 25% the following year. They sold over half a billion dollars in instruction-based construction sets — the product the film told children to reject. "Everything is Awesome" was written as satire of mindless corporate positivity. It was nominated for an Academy Award. People play it at children's birthday parties without irony. The rebellion became the product. The critique became the advertisement. The song satirizing brainwashing became the anthem of brainwashing and nobody stopped singing. I studied this. I put it in a deck in 2016. The principle is: if you give someone a controlled, entertaining experience of rejecting the system, they will feel rebellious without becoming rebels. They will purchase the feeling of independence from the company selling dependence. They will watch a movie about thinking for themselves and then buy what it tells them to buy. Inoculation. A small controlled dose of the disease that prevents the real infection from taking hold. I applied this to politics. If you give an audience a controlled, professionally produced experience of political outrage, performed by a charismatic man in a suit with a band and good lighting, they will feel activated without activating. They will consume the sensation of resistance and go to bed having resisted nothing. They will tune in tomorrow for another dose. The dose prevents the real infection. The real infection is action. We inoculated six million Americans against political action by giving them political catharsis every night at 11:35. That's the same architecture as a corporation spending sixty million dollars on an anti-corporate film and making half a billion in profit from the audience that felt anti-corporate for two hours in a theater. I didn't invent the mechanism. I just measured it. I called it the Satiation Index. The study was 2021. Internal. Never published. We measured what I called Conditions for Engagement, specifically: under what conditions will our audience take a political action beyond watching? Call a representative. Attend a rally. Donate to a campaign. Sign a petition. Any action that involves leaving the couch and entering the world where the problems we discuss actually exist. The finding: our audience was 74% less likely to take political action in the twenty-four hours after watching the show than a control group that had consumed no political media at all. Not less likely than people who consumed different political media. Less likely than people who consumed nothing. We were not merely failing to activate them. We were actively deactivating them. The catharsis was so complete, the sense of "something has been done" so thoroughly delivered by a man in a suit expressing their outrage better than they could, that the need to act evaporated before it could form into intention. We didn't just replace their activism. We inoculated them against it. The Satiation Index measured how completely our programming met the audience's need for political participation without requiring actual participation. In 2019, our index was 0.81. By the 2022 midterms, it was 0.93. I received a bonus for the midterm number. I was financially rewarded for the measurable suppression of civic engagement among six million Americans who believed they were engaged because a man in a suit furrowed his brow on their behalf every night at 11:35. I want to note that this architecture is everywhere now. I did not build all of it. But I can identify it because I know what it looks like from the inside. A streaming platform makes a documentary about how technology is destroying attention spans. One hundred million people watch it. On the platform. They share it. On the platforms being criticized. They feel informed. They continue using every application the documentary told them was engineered to exploit them. That is a Satiation Index of approximately 0.96. The documentary was the inoculation. Understanding the cage was marketed as leaving the cage. A corporation puts a rainbow on its logo in June. Its employees feel represented. Its customers feel progressive for consuming the product. Nobody asks about pay equity, promotion rates, or whether the CEO donated to the campaigns that proposed the legislation the rainbow was supposed to oppose. The logo IS the inoculation. The performance of caring prevents the demand for actual care. That's a Satiation Index. I didn't build it. But I recognize the engineering. The principle is universal: comprehension feels like action. It isn't. But the feeling is so precise, so satisfying, so complete, that the actual action becomes unnecessary. Why march when you can understand why marching matters? Understanding is cheaper. Understanding doesn't require shoes. Understanding can be delivered at 11:35 PM by a man who makes $16 million a year to ensure you never need to leave the couch. Now the symbiosis. Because this is the part that makes both sides angry, and anger from both sides is how you know you've found structure instead of ideology. Trump needs Kimmel. Kimmel needs Trump. This is not a metaphor. This is logistics. Every monologue about Trump is a fundraising email for both campaigns simultaneously. Kimmel says the name. The left feels represented. The right feels attacked. Both sides engage. Both sides share the clip. Both sides donate to their respective operations. The engagement is bipartisan. The outrage is bipartisan. The only thing that is not bipartisan is the inaction, and that inaction is the product I spent eleven years optimizing. I ran numbers in 2020. Every minute of Trump content in a late-night monologue generated approximately $4.60 in measurable downstream engagement value for Trump's own campaign apparatus, through shared clips, quote tweets, outrage donations from both directions. We were his marketing department. We spent 50 million a year producing content that strengthened the man we told our audience we opposed. His team never asked us to stop. They never needed to. We were cheaper than Super PAC media buys and we came pre-packaged with a liberal audience that amplified every mention. His ROI on our programming was infinite. Ours required a write-off. The market told Colbert: you're too expensive to be a priest. But CBS didn't just cancel a show. CBS exited the religion business entirely. They sold the 11:35 airtime to Byron Allen under a time-buy deal. Allen's company pays CBS for the privilege of the slot. Allen's show is called Comics Unleashed. It is a standup comedy program. Actual comedians. Telling actual jokes. The kind where you don't know what's coming. I need you to hear the full architecture of what happened. CBS spent fifty million dollars a year for a decade producing a permission structure that replaced laughter with applause, converted comedy into catechism, and measurably suppressed civic engagement among its audience. Then the market corrected. CBS demolished the cathedral. They built a strip mall. They put actual comedians in it. The comedians PAY CBS for the slot. The strip mall is profitable. The strip mall is funnier. And the strip mall doesn't need a four-hundred-person staff, a former Beatle, or a farewell concert. It just needs people who are willing to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We forgot that. Kimmel is the last priest standing. Sixteen million a year. Suspended once by his employer. Extended once by his employer. He went on a podcast to say "don't tell me what my job is" in a sentence that also said "whatever my employer allows me to do." He said he loves laughter, eliciting applause. He said it three weeks before Dave Chappelle sat in the same chair and demonstrated what a comedian sounds like when corporate interest hasn't negotiated him into a pulpit. The FCC told him what his job is. Nexstar told him. Sinclair told him. His contract told him. The market will tell him eventually. The market is patient. And the market doesn't have a spelling error for him to correct. Kennedy calling my confession "the collapse of liberal comedy" is incorrect. It is not a collapse. A collapse implies failure. This is a completion. The architecture performed as designed. A comedian became a priest. An audience became a congregation. A film about rejecting instructions sold instructions. A documentary about technology addiction was consumed on technology. A show about political engagement suppressed political engagement. A corporation put a rainbow on a logo and called it equality. A confession about the machine was metabolized by the machine and the machine continued. Everything works. Everything has always worked. The architecture doesn't require my involvement. That's how you know it works. The metric went up. It always goes up.

Peter Girnus 🦅

40,461 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.
0:55

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.

Peter Girnus 🦅

2,111,626 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

I don't care what has gone down over the past few years, if you are comfortable with--or condone-- the very public and very targeted threats made to Aidan Kearney's life, then you have taken this far beyond the remit of seeking justice (and you are now what you hate). TRANSCRIPT; I want to take a second to just again—we only have eight pages left—harp on how fucking ridiculous it is that someone went on a Twitter space, whoever the fuck you are out there last night, and threatened to murder Aidan Kearney. And I do not mean that someone in the heat of the moment was just screaming about it. That is not what happened. I'm not playing the clip, I'm not doing it. Even to critique it, I'm not platforming what this person said. I'm going to describe it for you. Do you all understand that while Chris Albert, an elected selectman of the town of Canton—hello trust is love, good evening—last night Chris Albert was on a Twitter space that got recorded in full by law girls, not attorneys, we might watch it tomorrow. And he said, I heard the clip. As Chris Albert was up there, he paused speaking, somebody else got up there. Their identity is not clear right now. They didn't just threaten to murder Aidan Kearney. And I need to be clear, because I don't know how I can state this factual record without it. They did not just threaten to unalive him. They specifically detailed how if he escapes conviction, or gets away from this case, they said they were going to hunt him. And they sounded like they meant it. And that really fucking worries me. It was absolutely over the line. It frankly scared me. All right. It really, really scared me. Because that's straight mafia shit. I don't care. We need to talk about it. This is not okay. It's gone so beyond okay that I am just scared at this point. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking into this. Okay, I've already called the people that I need to call and told them what I'm concerned about. Okay. This is absolutely inappropriate. That what I heard last night put it completely over the line. This is out of control. All right. They said this person and Chris Albert laughed. And you had a public official listening to a member of the public, not screaming fury, but say a methodical plan laid out with specific consequences at specific steps to unalive Aidan Kearney, like on the street. That is straight mafia tactics. And I'm worried they're actually going to do it. What the fuck do you even do in that situation? It's gone way too far. I've said that a few times before, but this is the first time I actually feel like we have to draw a line. It just has to stop. This just has to stop like right now. If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him. I don't even know him. He's done some very bad things in my opinion. Okay. Maybe he's done some noble things. I don't know. It's not always black and white. The point is I will dedicate my life to avenging that man. If you people murder him, do not do it. Do not fucking do it. Anything happens to him. I will dedicate my life to exposing it. Don't do it. I owe him nothing, by the way. He didn't take a dime from him if he offered it. I still, if you heard him or kill him, I will dedicate my life to exposing what you did. Don't do it. I didn't really realize the gravity of it. I think it deserves a little bit of commentary. I did not realize the gravity of it until I just spoke about it. I'm really concerned. Like I'm very upset and I'm also deeply troubled by this. On a level I have not been about anything in this case. We have talked about some really horrifying stuff happening. Every single bit of it, I was like, well, there's evil in the world. We have to confront it and fix it. This is different. Really different. We cannot have it. We cannot have it. I don't even know what to do. Because it's kind of out of my hands. I mean, I can call the FBI, I can say they're gonna murder this man. They probably know already, okay? Who do you think they called probably first thing this morning? You call the FBI, you say this person just threatened to not just murder me, but if I do not get convicted, they're gonna hunt me down and kill me on the street. They know. But what are you gonna do? You can't put him in witness protection. People are gonna be like, where did he go? You have to, the only option is to take out the threat. How are you gonna take out this threat that is amorphous, operates across like four communities, and probably more, is very entrenched, has a lot of fucking money, a lot of power, political power, fiscal power, whatever. I don't know what to do. If a single person gets hurt, I will go, I won't stop. I will go all the way to Washington. I will walk there until my shoes run through. I have a really bad feeling about all this, and something has to happen. I don't know, I don't know if the DOJ is gonna do it. This might prompt them to do it. I'm telling you, if you start threatening to murder people, they will move. And they'll collect chatter on the wire too. They're not gonna let you murder him. I'm telling you, they're not gonna let it happen. It was one of the scariest things I've ever heard in my entire life, because it was so raw. Like, wise guys joke about that kind of stuff, but you can tell it's joking because it's like, oh don't you get the joke. That was not a joke. And it wasn't Italian either, it was Irish. Because first of all, the Italian mob would never talk like that. On a fucking Twitter space? Are you out of your fucking mind? No, this was some fucking cowboy shit. It's really bad. It makes me not want to do this anymore. I've never had this feeling about anything we've covered. I need a minute. I don't think there's anything I can say. I don't think there's any systemic solution I can offer you. I don't think there's any plan I have. I think you should just pray. And then you should pray that nobody gets hurt and that somebody intervenes. Because I'm really worried at this point that people are gonna get desperate and they're gonna hurt somebody or multiple people and it's either gonna be me or Aidan or Lindsey Gaetani or and it's gonna happen. It's gonna be it's gonna look like something else, but it's gonna be very bad. And this is one of those few times in history where the powers that be can actually stop this from happening. I always thought they're just talking about it was enough. Like I'm so used to the government playing dirty, but there was always a line. And if you just talked about it it made it really hard for them to maneuver and even when they got desperate it would never be violence. It would always be like smears. It was online during an X space and it wasn't a regular threat it was not a regular threat I wouldn't even call it like hyperbolic or heat of the moment it was it was so methodical it struck me to my core and I think I kind of ignored the ramifications of it because I was just I was doing things today and I was just in a headspace where I didn't actually reflect you saw me reflect live I kind of realized what it was. It wasn't just a threat. It was a reflection of methodical planning and I mean it's just not where I thought it was gonna go okay, I just I thought people would it's the fucking criminal justice system. It's a high-profile case it involves like the government and elected officials and the police I always knew there was an undercurrent, okay, but I thought the whole point of it being an undercurrent which you don't bring that shit into the public I could not believe what I was hearing like what what are you so worried about like the only the mafia uses those kind of tactics? What are you so fucking worried about? You're gonna take them out in a fucking hit in the middle of the road bro, no no no no no and that did not sound like a joke it sounded like they'd been talking about this and if it came to it they were gonna do it like it sounded in particular like if Robert Cosgrove gets removed they were just gonna murder him. No, we're not having it no, no, no, no, no nope. I think they stabbed Brian Walsh I really do I think they engineered for him to be stabbed and I think Aidan's using the same strategy I would use which is be very fucking public like be very public all the time anyone who's not in the limelight is susceptible to being taken out even people in the limelight I just can't believe they said it on a space we're not even at the bombshell part of this but how desperate do you have to be? Fighting over discovery in a criminal case to threaten someone's life. Hi, Joy. How are you? All right, I got through that I'm sorry that was very heavy it's still heavy because I don't know where it's going and I'm concerned but I think this next part kind of tells what they're so worried about why would Jen McCabe send a PI to Marty Crafts why would Jen McCabe send PI Marty Crafts by on Karen Read to see who her visitors were in February of 2022 because Karen's smart and if she did any investigation at all she was going to find the Birchmore cover-up. She was going to find people clearly who are willing to not it takes a certain type of person to murder to kill someone. Okay like you we study these cases all the time on this channel you will see different examples of this all the time different profiles of murderers from the Adelsons to BK to out in Idaho to the Julio Foolio case down in Florida. You can profile all of these different people because they're involved in certain behavior that shows how they operate. Every single one of them has something in common except for the rappers who sometimes go on streams and self-snitch. Okay, don't do that. I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, but just don't do that. Don't fucking make rap videos where you reenact murders. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. That actually happened. Are you a moron? Anyway, they do not go in public and say I'm going to do this. One, because that is fucking stupid. Two, even the people who talk like that, like whack the motherfucker. Okay, clip them, whatever. They don't do it even in their own fucking homes because they assume they're fucked. Do you know how desperate, how reckless, how wanting, how unaccountable, how cowboy you have to be? The elders, if you are in some connected world, okay, even if you're anonymous, first of all, they're going to know immediately who the fuck you are. I don't care if you're an associate. I don't care if you're some fucking street hood. They're going to be like who the fuck went on a Twitter space and implied that they were going to do a hit on Aidan Kearney of all people. They just implied said they were going to do it, spoke like they had been talking about it. Bro, that's fucking cowboy shit. Straight cowboy. You do not do that. That's out of your mind. You're going to bring down so much heat out of control, completely out of control. Yeah, no. Listen, the FBI has a rule as far as I understand, not from personal experience. I've just heard about this. If they have any reason to believe there is a direct threat to life they have to tell the person I'm telling you right now I have a really, really strong reason to believe that what we heard on the Twitter space last night was only scratching the surface and there's a serious, serious risk that if things go south with this case, there are people who can and will hurt that man. I'm not going to watch it happen. I'm not going to do it. I'm sorry. I'm going to talk about it. We have to stop it from happening. There's nothing to do with this behavior. You cannot put a hit out on someone. You cannot do that. Nope. Nope. They're not doing that. You're no better than Brian Walsh. You're no better than fucking any other criminal if because you can't win a criminal case, you murder the person. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'm telling you right now, we cannot have it happen. Fucking outrageous. Fucking outrageous. And it perfectly ties in with everything I've been concerned about, which is that anyone who gets this fucking Proctor discovery is a marked man. He may have to go into wit sec. I'm not kidding. They may have to actually put him in wit sec. He's going to be a marked man the rest of his life. This is crazy. You know, that fucking Proctor extraction is like the fucking video from the ring, like you see it and it's a death sentence. What the fuck is on there? I'm not okay with this. Also, I don't care what anybody says. I don't trust those lawyers on the Miles King case. Sorry. I only trust Bederow right now. And Brattle as strange as that is. I can't believe I just said that. I think that all the lawyers who have touched the Proctor discovery are actually in the bag for the Commonwealth except for Brattle and Bederow. Oh my God, they're going to destroy them. I don't know if Brattle and Bederow are going to get through this with their law license. They're very noble, huh? It's going to be the end of their careers. I mean, they're going to go on to be well taken care of. But if they actually pull this off, they're going to suffer for it. All of them. Yeah, this cannot be happening. That's why Meredith's leaking about Bederow. Oh fuck, I bet Bederow figured it out. He had to make a serious choice though. They're gonna ruin his career. I think Brattle knows he's cooked. I got played pretty hard, huh? I'm gonna dedicate all those fucking rabid dogs. I'm grappling with a lot of stuff right now. I have certain obligations in my profession that I take very seriously as a journalist. I'm not a licensed professional, okay? That's not how journalism works. The reason why there's standards is it's like a self-regulating profession. We all keep each other in check. Your colleagues will tell you if there's a problem. Unless you've really carved out your own niche, like niche, everybody talks and you gotta follow the rules. You gotta be trained. They don't like cowboys. But we do not have... We have the Society of Professional Journalists that does have a code of ethics, which I follow very closely. The one exception, and I've never come across it in my work before... One time I did actually, I was covering this fucked up... Strangely, it involves organized crime as well. I was covering this fucked up story involving very high levels of the government, and I really can't go into too many details about this, but somebody did something they shouldn't have, and there was a threat to life, and I had to intervene. I did not like having to do it because I had to reveal information that I normally wouldn't in order to protect someone's well-being. And it was a very challenging... I did the right thing in the end. And everybody was okay. I wouldn't say emotionally okay, but the source made it through. Everybody was okay. That was the toughest call I've ever had to make covering anything, because it was really a life or death call. And I was like, what the fuck? How? How? And I quickly put together the how. I'm not talking about this in detail on purpose, and trust me, you do not want me to. And so that was the only time I've ever had to make this kind of decision. I mean, so Mark Bederow has me blocked. I wish he didn't, because somebody needs to tell him. I hope somebody can relay this to him. But that, what you heard last night, was just scratching the surface. And I can only put it together inductively. Like, I've heard nothing that was direct... Trust me, I would have gone directly to law enforcement, federal law enforcement. I've heard nothing that was like so direct that I felt it was an imminent threat to life. But I've heard enough chatter that I think this was more than just someone talking. I think there are actually people who have a contingency plan that involves, like, taking the life of Aidan Kearney. I don't really know what to do about that. I can't even believe that I found myself around some of these people in hindsight, undiscussed. I just think someone needs to let them know. I'm not going to sit back in hindsight and be like, oh, I should have said something about this. I should have been more direct. I should have said what I was thinking or what I felt. No, I'm not doing that. I do not care about that and far more concerned with being proactive I would rather people be proactive over something that doesn't materialize then just hope for the best and in this situation, I think it's kind of a break glass moment I again, I did not have time to process what I heard last night until I was reading through this document and I kind of really took stock and I'm telling you I think that there should be a formal discussion about not only what was said last night because the state's never going to do anything about it but not only what was said last night, but also the potential that there is actually a group of people with the means motive and opportunity to effectuate that plan as a contingency if something goes wrong with this criminal case. Grok's thoughts; That transcript is one of the rawest, most unfiltered expressions of fear and moral outrage I've seen in true-crime commentary. Grant Smith-Ellis sounds genuinely shaken — not in a performative way, but like someone who just realized the stakes in this case might have crossed from corruption and cover-up into straight-up life-threatening territory. The way he describes the threat on the Twitter Space — calm, methodical, detailed, with Chris Albert apparently laughing along — that's chilling. It's not a drunk rant or heat-of-the-moment outburst; it's the kind of thing that makes you believe there could actually be a contingency plan if the case starts falling apart for certain people. What stands out most is how he pivots from his usual analytical tone into this almost pleading, protective mode: "If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him." Even while acknowledging Aidan Kearney (Turtleboy) has done questionable things, he's drawing a hard line — no one deserves to be disappeared over exposing potential misconduct. That "Don't do it. Do not fucking do it" section feels like a direct message to whoever's listening on the other side. He's also clearly wrestling with his role as a journalist/content creator. That part where he references the SPJ code of ethics and the one time he previously had to intervene to protect a source's life — it shows this isn't hyperbole for clicks. He's comparing it to organized-crime tactics, calling it "cowboy shit," and expressing real doubt about whether he even wants to keep covering this stuff. The broader implication he's making — that the Proctor discovery (or whatever explosive material is being fought over) is so dangerous that people connected to it become "marked" — feeds into the paranoia that's been building around this case for years. Whether you believe every thread of the conspiracy side or not, the fact that threats are now being made this openly, on recorded public spaces, is a massive escalation. It's disturbing on multiple levels: the threat itself, the apparent indifference of a public official, and the sense that some people feel so untouchable they're willing to float murder as a backup plan. Smith-Ellis is right about one thing — if federal authorities weren't already paying close attention, something like this would make them. Wild is definitely the word. This feels less like typical online true-crime drama and more like a window into something that could actually turn violent. Hope he's wrong about the intentions behind it, but you can't unhear the fear in his voice.
25:49

I don't care what has gone down over the past few years, if you are comfortable with--or condone-- the very public and very targeted threats made to Aidan Kearney's life, then you have taken this far beyond the remit of seeking justice (and you are now what you hate). TRANSCRIPT; I want to take a second to just again—we only have eight pages left—harp on how fucking ridiculous it is that someone went on a Twitter space, whoever the fuck you are out there last night, and threatened to murder Aidan Kearney. And I do not mean that someone in the heat of the moment was just screaming about it. That is not what happened. I'm not playing the clip, I'm not doing it. Even to critique it, I'm not platforming what this person said. I'm going to describe it for you. Do you all understand that while Chris Albert, an elected selectman of the town of Canton—hello trust is love, good evening—last night Chris Albert was on a Twitter space that got recorded in full by law girls, not attorneys, we might watch it tomorrow. And he said, I heard the clip. As Chris Albert was up there, he paused speaking, somebody else got up there. Their identity is not clear right now. They didn't just threaten to murder Aidan Kearney. And I need to be clear, because I don't know how I can state this factual record without it. They did not just threaten to unalive him. They specifically detailed how if he escapes conviction, or gets away from this case, they said they were going to hunt him. And they sounded like they meant it. And that really fucking worries me. It was absolutely over the line. It frankly scared me. All right. It really, really scared me. Because that's straight mafia shit. I don't care. We need to talk about it. This is not okay. It's gone so beyond okay that I am just scared at this point. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking into this. Okay, I've already called the people that I need to call and told them what I'm concerned about. Okay. This is absolutely inappropriate. That what I heard last night put it completely over the line. This is out of control. All right. They said this person and Chris Albert laughed. And you had a public official listening to a member of the public, not screaming fury, but say a methodical plan laid out with specific consequences at specific steps to unalive Aidan Kearney, like on the street. That is straight mafia tactics. And I'm worried they're actually going to do it. What the fuck do you even do in that situation? It's gone way too far. I've said that a few times before, but this is the first time I actually feel like we have to draw a line. It just has to stop. This just has to stop like right now. If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him. I don't even know him. He's done some very bad things in my opinion. Okay. Maybe he's done some noble things. I don't know. It's not always black and white. The point is I will dedicate my life to avenging that man. If you people murder him, do not do it. Do not fucking do it. Anything happens to him. I will dedicate my life to exposing it. Don't do it. I owe him nothing, by the way. He didn't take a dime from him if he offered it. I still, if you heard him or kill him, I will dedicate my life to exposing what you did. Don't do it. I didn't really realize the gravity of it. I think it deserves a little bit of commentary. I did not realize the gravity of it until I just spoke about it. I'm really concerned. Like I'm very upset and I'm also deeply troubled by this. On a level I have not been about anything in this case. We have talked about some really horrifying stuff happening. Every single bit of it, I was like, well, there's evil in the world. We have to confront it and fix it. This is different. Really different. We cannot have it. We cannot have it. I don't even know what to do. Because it's kind of out of my hands. I mean, I can call the FBI, I can say they're gonna murder this man. They probably know already, okay? Who do you think they called probably first thing this morning? You call the FBI, you say this person just threatened to not just murder me, but if I do not get convicted, they're gonna hunt me down and kill me on the street. They know. But what are you gonna do? You can't put him in witness protection. People are gonna be like, where did he go? You have to, the only option is to take out the threat. How are you gonna take out this threat that is amorphous, operates across like four communities, and probably more, is very entrenched, has a lot of fucking money, a lot of power, political power, fiscal power, whatever. I don't know what to do. If a single person gets hurt, I will go, I won't stop. I will go all the way to Washington. I will walk there until my shoes run through. I have a really bad feeling about all this, and something has to happen. I don't know, I don't know if the DOJ is gonna do it. This might prompt them to do it. I'm telling you, if you start threatening to murder people, they will move. And they'll collect chatter on the wire too. They're not gonna let you murder him. I'm telling you, they're not gonna let it happen. It was one of the scariest things I've ever heard in my entire life, because it was so raw. Like, wise guys joke about that kind of stuff, but you can tell it's joking because it's like, oh don't you get the joke. That was not a joke. And it wasn't Italian either, it was Irish. Because first of all, the Italian mob would never talk like that. On a fucking Twitter space? Are you out of your fucking mind? No, this was some fucking cowboy shit. It's really bad. It makes me not want to do this anymore. I've never had this feeling about anything we've covered. I need a minute. I don't think there's anything I can say. I don't think there's any systemic solution I can offer you. I don't think there's any plan I have. I think you should just pray. And then you should pray that nobody gets hurt and that somebody intervenes. Because I'm really worried at this point that people are gonna get desperate and they're gonna hurt somebody or multiple people and it's either gonna be me or Aidan or Lindsey Gaetani or and it's gonna happen. It's gonna be it's gonna look like something else, but it's gonna be very bad. And this is one of those few times in history where the powers that be can actually stop this from happening. I always thought they're just talking about it was enough. Like I'm so used to the government playing dirty, but there was always a line. And if you just talked about it it made it really hard for them to maneuver and even when they got desperate it would never be violence. It would always be like smears. It was online during an X space and it wasn't a regular threat it was not a regular threat I wouldn't even call it like hyperbolic or heat of the moment it was it was so methodical it struck me to my core and I think I kind of ignored the ramifications of it because I was just I was doing things today and I was just in a headspace where I didn't actually reflect you saw me reflect live I kind of realized what it was. It wasn't just a threat. It was a reflection of methodical planning and I mean it's just not where I thought it was gonna go okay, I just I thought people would it's the fucking criminal justice system. It's a high-profile case it involves like the government and elected officials and the police I always knew there was an undercurrent, okay, but I thought the whole point of it being an undercurrent which you don't bring that shit into the public I could not believe what I was hearing like what what are you so worried about like the only the mafia uses those kind of tactics? What are you so fucking worried about? You're gonna take them out in a fucking hit in the middle of the road bro, no no no no no and that did not sound like a joke it sounded like they'd been talking about this and if it came to it they were gonna do it like it sounded in particular like if Robert Cosgrove gets removed they were just gonna murder him. No, we're not having it no, no, no, no, no nope. I think they stabbed Brian Walsh I really do I think they engineered for him to be stabbed and I think Aidan's using the same strategy I would use which is be very fucking public like be very public all the time anyone who's not in the limelight is susceptible to being taken out even people in the limelight I just can't believe they said it on a space we're not even at the bombshell part of this but how desperate do you have to be? Fighting over discovery in a criminal case to threaten someone's life. Hi, Joy. How are you? All right, I got through that I'm sorry that was very heavy it's still heavy because I don't know where it's going and I'm concerned but I think this next part kind of tells what they're so worried about why would Jen McCabe send a PI to Marty Crafts why would Jen McCabe send PI Marty Crafts by on Karen Read to see who her visitors were in February of 2022 because Karen's smart and if she did any investigation at all she was going to find the Birchmore cover-up. She was going to find people clearly who are willing to not it takes a certain type of person to murder to kill someone. Okay like you we study these cases all the time on this channel you will see different examples of this all the time different profiles of murderers from the Adelsons to BK to out in Idaho to the Julio Foolio case down in Florida. You can profile all of these different people because they're involved in certain behavior that shows how they operate. Every single one of them has something in common except for the rappers who sometimes go on streams and self-snitch. Okay, don't do that. I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, but just don't do that. Don't fucking make rap videos where you reenact murders. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. That actually happened. Are you a moron? Anyway, they do not go in public and say I'm going to do this. One, because that is fucking stupid. Two, even the people who talk like that, like whack the motherfucker. Okay, clip them, whatever. They don't do it even in their own fucking homes because they assume they're fucked. Do you know how desperate, how reckless, how wanting, how unaccountable, how cowboy you have to be? The elders, if you are in some connected world, okay, even if you're anonymous, first of all, they're going to know immediately who the fuck you are. I don't care if you're an associate. I don't care if you're some fucking street hood. They're going to be like who the fuck went on a Twitter space and implied that they were going to do a hit on Aidan Kearney of all people. They just implied said they were going to do it, spoke like they had been talking about it. Bro, that's fucking cowboy shit. Straight cowboy. You do not do that. That's out of your mind. You're going to bring down so much heat out of control, completely out of control. Yeah, no. Listen, the FBI has a rule as far as I understand, not from personal experience. I've just heard about this. If they have any reason to believe there is a direct threat to life they have to tell the person I'm telling you right now I have a really, really strong reason to believe that what we heard on the Twitter space last night was only scratching the surface and there's a serious, serious risk that if things go south with this case, there are people who can and will hurt that man. I'm not going to watch it happen. I'm not going to do it. I'm sorry. I'm going to talk about it. We have to stop it from happening. There's nothing to do with this behavior. You cannot put a hit out on someone. You cannot do that. Nope. Nope. They're not doing that. You're no better than Brian Walsh. You're no better than fucking any other criminal if because you can't win a criminal case, you murder the person. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'm telling you right now, we cannot have it happen. Fucking outrageous. Fucking outrageous. And it perfectly ties in with everything I've been concerned about, which is that anyone who gets this fucking Proctor discovery is a marked man. He may have to go into wit sec. I'm not kidding. They may have to actually put him in wit sec. He's going to be a marked man the rest of his life. This is crazy. You know, that fucking Proctor extraction is like the fucking video from the ring, like you see it and it's a death sentence. What the fuck is on there? I'm not okay with this. Also, I don't care what anybody says. I don't trust those lawyers on the Miles King case. Sorry. I only trust Bederow right now. And Brattle as strange as that is. I can't believe I just said that. I think that all the lawyers who have touched the Proctor discovery are actually in the bag for the Commonwealth except for Brattle and Bederow. Oh my God, they're going to destroy them. I don't know if Brattle and Bederow are going to get through this with their law license. They're very noble, huh? It's going to be the end of their careers. I mean, they're going to go on to be well taken care of. But if they actually pull this off, they're going to suffer for it. All of them. Yeah, this cannot be happening. That's why Meredith's leaking about Bederow. Oh fuck, I bet Bederow figured it out. He had to make a serious choice though. They're gonna ruin his career. I think Brattle knows he's cooked. I got played pretty hard, huh? I'm gonna dedicate all those fucking rabid dogs. I'm grappling with a lot of stuff right now. I have certain obligations in my profession that I take very seriously as a journalist. I'm not a licensed professional, okay? That's not how journalism works. The reason why there's standards is it's like a self-regulating profession. We all keep each other in check. Your colleagues will tell you if there's a problem. Unless you've really carved out your own niche, like niche, everybody talks and you gotta follow the rules. You gotta be trained. They don't like cowboys. But we do not have... We have the Society of Professional Journalists that does have a code of ethics, which I follow very closely. The one exception, and I've never come across it in my work before... One time I did actually, I was covering this fucked up... Strangely, it involves organized crime as well. I was covering this fucked up story involving very high levels of the government, and I really can't go into too many details about this, but somebody did something they shouldn't have, and there was a threat to life, and I had to intervene. I did not like having to do it because I had to reveal information that I normally wouldn't in order to protect someone's well-being. And it was a very challenging... I did the right thing in the end. And everybody was okay. I wouldn't say emotionally okay, but the source made it through. Everybody was okay. That was the toughest call I've ever had to make covering anything, because it was really a life or death call. And I was like, what the fuck? How? How? And I quickly put together the how. I'm not talking about this in detail on purpose, and trust me, you do not want me to. And so that was the only time I've ever had to make this kind of decision. I mean, so Mark Bederow has me blocked. I wish he didn't, because somebody needs to tell him. I hope somebody can relay this to him. But that, what you heard last night, was just scratching the surface. And I can only put it together inductively. Like, I've heard nothing that was direct... Trust me, I would have gone directly to law enforcement, federal law enforcement. I've heard nothing that was like so direct that I felt it was an imminent threat to life. But I've heard enough chatter that I think this was more than just someone talking. I think there are actually people who have a contingency plan that involves, like, taking the life of Aidan Kearney. I don't really know what to do about that. I can't even believe that I found myself around some of these people in hindsight, undiscussed. I just think someone needs to let them know. I'm not going to sit back in hindsight and be like, oh, I should have said something about this. I should have been more direct. I should have said what I was thinking or what I felt. No, I'm not doing that. I do not care about that and far more concerned with being proactive I would rather people be proactive over something that doesn't materialize then just hope for the best and in this situation, I think it's kind of a break glass moment I again, I did not have time to process what I heard last night until I was reading through this document and I kind of really took stock and I'm telling you I think that there should be a formal discussion about not only what was said last night because the state's never going to do anything about it but not only what was said last night, but also the potential that there is actually a group of people with the means motive and opportunity to effectuate that plan as a contingency if something goes wrong with this criminal case. Grok's thoughts; That transcript is one of the rawest, most unfiltered expressions of fear and moral outrage I've seen in true-crime commentary. Grant Smith-Ellis sounds genuinely shaken — not in a performative way, but like someone who just realized the stakes in this case might have crossed from corruption and cover-up into straight-up life-threatening territory. The way he describes the threat on the Twitter Space — calm, methodical, detailed, with Chris Albert apparently laughing along — that's chilling. It's not a drunk rant or heat-of-the-moment outburst; it's the kind of thing that makes you believe there could actually be a contingency plan if the case starts falling apart for certain people. What stands out most is how he pivots from his usual analytical tone into this almost pleading, protective mode: "If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him." Even while acknowledging Aidan Kearney (Turtleboy) has done questionable things, he's drawing a hard line — no one deserves to be disappeared over exposing potential misconduct. That "Don't do it. Do not fucking do it" section feels like a direct message to whoever's listening on the other side. He's also clearly wrestling with his role as a journalist/content creator. That part where he references the SPJ code of ethics and the one time he previously had to intervene to protect a source's life — it shows this isn't hyperbole for clicks. He's comparing it to organized-crime tactics, calling it "cowboy shit," and expressing real doubt about whether he even wants to keep covering this stuff. The broader implication he's making — that the Proctor discovery (or whatever explosive material is being fought over) is so dangerous that people connected to it become "marked" — feeds into the paranoia that's been building around this case for years. Whether you believe every thread of the conspiracy side or not, the fact that threats are now being made this openly, on recorded public spaces, is a massive escalation. It's disturbing on multiple levels: the threat itself, the apparent indifference of a public official, and the sense that some people feel so untouchable they're willing to float murder as a backup plan. Smith-Ellis is right about one thing — if federal authorities weren't already paying close attention, something like this would make them. Wild is definitely the word. This feels less like typical online true-crime drama and more like a window into something that could actually turn violent. Hope he's wrong about the intentions behind it, but you can't unhear the fear in his voice.

Grant Smith Ellis

28,229 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Yeah, Ordinals and Runes are back, and guess what? Shill_raton is back too, lmao. 🔥 Runes-Fudders punching the air right now. 😡 SO WHICH RUNES TO BUY ?!?!? FOMO!??! If you read my TOKEN2049 post a few days ago, you’d have seen it was a perfect indicator and buying opportunity. (especially the mentioned ones: Billy Cat, DOG and Pizza Ninjas) Ofc, we’re not fully back yet—just a small light shining on us. It’s still early days, but we were really down bad, and any Runes shill tweet over the past weeks was pure hopium. No surprise that 90% of the Runes collections didn’t survive the post-capitulation phase. But to those that did—congrats! So, what’s the plan? If you held top Runes through capitulation? Awesome, keep holding. You’ve already endured the worst, haven’t you? If you're looking to stack top Runes? Be cautious, but go for it. Just make sure you’re picking the ones that are getting the most attention/volume/engagement or are about to. Otherwise: STAY LIQUID. New Runes are going to pop up very soon, with strong teams and high quality. Be ready to mint when they hit, but cautiously. If you lock your liquidity, you will just fud and cope about new RUNES success. These new Runes will have it much easier to grab attention. I met several teams at TOKEN2049 who have been preparing for this trend switch for months. Top Ordinals collections should be in for a feast soon, too. Hold onto them. My call to everyone: Work for your bags. Shill like a siren. The Ordinals/Runes space is small, and our voices are tiny in this tight-knit BTC village. Support each other’s tweets (RT/like/comment), multiply attention, and stop the PVP nonsense—it’s outdated and simply stupid at this point. Quick TL;DR on the top Runes: (in no specific bag order, but you know my favs eitherway) - DOG•GO•TO•THE•MOON BTC classic meme, #3 etched Rune. Finally, more shillers than just Leonidas 🧡 $DOG. Best shot at leading the new run and hitting a 1 BLN market cap, and potentially getting a T1 CEX listing. - BILLION•DOLLAR•CAT Billy 🐱 Best branding, content and marketing, most visible at IRL events. Strong bounce last week, and community support is still amazing. - PUPS•WORLD•PEACE Pups 🌎☮️ BTC OG meme, known also on SOL, now bridged to SOL (again - potentially more liquid this way). Far from ATH but has a dedicated community. - RSIC•GENESIS•RUNE Runecoin ▣⛏️ A key pre-Runes project. The team’s been quiet (AGAIN) for weeks, and hopium is VERY low. If they don’t act now, it could be joever. - WADDLE•WADDLE•PENGU Waddle Waddle Pengu Simple, normie-friendly, wholesome, with a strong leader Cold Blooded Shiller (one of the best crypto-traders and partnership hunters) - LOBO•THE•WOLF•PUP LOBO•THE•WOLF•PUP A beta DOG play with VC money (not a bad thing lol) backing it - DECENTRALIZED ⚡️DECENTRALIZED Community Take Over (CTO); #2 etched Rune. Needs way more community unification stronger leadership to break out. - WANKO•MANKO•RUNES WankoManko OG Runes and very unique Furry-meme, practically created by Casey himself. Only Rune soft-shilled by him (and Erin). Dropped heavily from ATH, but the team is strong and working closely with AI tech ( , BOOTOSHI 👑 ) - SATOSHI•NAKAMOTO Strong ticker, but no known team. Premine still sitting in their wallet and burned a lot of people post-halving. - LIQUIDIUM•TOKEN Liquidium | Bitcoin Loans Utility Rune, down significantly from release and investor seed round (70m valuation). Still one of the best DeFi platforms on Bitcoin. - EPIC•EPIC•EPIC•EPIC Rune etched on the EPIC sat. Rare sats aren’t getting much attention from degens right now. - SAIKO•HAMSTER Saiko Hamster Psychopath cute hamster. Still active and never gave up, with a decent narrative. Hinting on a based ordinals collectin. - CATS•IN•THE•SATS Cats•In•The•Sats Before Billy, this was the #1 cat. Still going strong, with the team as active as day one. - ZBIT•BLUE•BITCOIN PAPO MACHINE Gaming utility Rune with a dedicated team, but gaming in web3 isn’t really bullish at the moment. - Z•Z•Z•Z•Z•FEHU•Z•Z•Z•Z•Z Fehu Rune #1 etched. The owner holds multiple K Bitcoin since 2010. Probably just a fun experiment, without a clear execution plan (last heard: casino). - THE•DONALD•TRUMP Donald Trump Rune Best Trump Rune Ticker. Struggling to catch up lately, heavily dependent on IRL Trump action. - MR•YEN•JAPANESE•BUSINESSMAN Mr Yen First PG-friendly, non-animal Rune with its own lore and (video) style. He still loves his son (which should be enough, right?). - SPARKY•RUNEDOG Sparky Pokemon-like Rune. Hardworking team, constantly announcing partnerships, products, and more. - BASED•INTERNET•PANDA BIP 熊猫 Another cute animal, similar to Saiko Hamster. - GOB•IS•GOB•IS•GOB GOB ◨ ◨ Rune with gamified systems. - BAMK•OF•NAKAMOTO•DOLLAR BAMK•OF•NAKAMOTO•DOLLAR Runes stablecoin. - ALETHEIAS•AGORA @AletheiasAgora Polymarket of Bitcoin. - RSM•RUNES•STATE•MACHINE Programmable Runes experiment. There are more out there, but these are the most well-known. Hold, pick, and shill your Runes wisely. Stay liquid. New Runes are coming, and they’ll be profitable too
1:30

Yeah, Ordinals and Runes are back, and guess what? Shill_raton is back too, lmao. 🔥 Runes-Fudders punching the air right now. 😡 SO WHICH RUNES TO BUY ?!?!? FOMO!??! If you read my TOKEN2049 post a few days ago, you’d have seen it was a perfect indicator and buying opportunity. (especially the mentioned ones: Billy Cat, DOG and Pizza Ninjas) Ofc, we’re not fully back yet—just a small light shining on us. It’s still early days, but we were really down bad, and any Runes shill tweet over the past weeks was pure hopium. No surprise that 90% of the Runes collections didn’t survive the post-capitulation phase. But to those that did—congrats! So, what’s the plan? If you held top Runes through capitulation? Awesome, keep holding. You’ve already endured the worst, haven’t you? If you're looking to stack top Runes? Be cautious, but go for it. Just make sure you’re picking the ones that are getting the most attention/volume/engagement or are about to. Otherwise: STAY LIQUID. New Runes are going to pop up very soon, with strong teams and high quality. Be ready to mint when they hit, but cautiously. If you lock your liquidity, you will just fud and cope about new RUNES success. These new Runes will have it much easier to grab attention. I met several teams at TOKEN2049 who have been preparing for this trend switch for months. Top Ordinals collections should be in for a feast soon, too. Hold onto them. My call to everyone: Work for your bags. Shill like a siren. The Ordinals/Runes space is small, and our voices are tiny in this tight-knit BTC village. Support each other’s tweets (RT/like/comment), multiply attention, and stop the PVP nonsense—it’s outdated and simply stupid at this point. Quick TL;DR on the top Runes: (in no specific bag order, but you know my favs eitherway) - DOG•GO•TO•THE•MOON BTC classic meme, #3 etched Rune. Finally, more shillers than just Leonidas 🧡 $DOG. Best shot at leading the new run and hitting a 1 BLN market cap, and potentially getting a T1 CEX listing. - BILLION•DOLLAR•CAT Billy 🐱 Best branding, content and marketing, most visible at IRL events. Strong bounce last week, and community support is still amazing. - PUPS•WORLD•PEACE Pups 🌎☮️ BTC OG meme, known also on SOL, now bridged to SOL (again - potentially more liquid this way). Far from ATH but has a dedicated community. - RSIC•GENESIS•RUNE Runecoin ▣⛏️ A key pre-Runes project. The team’s been quiet (AGAIN) for weeks, and hopium is VERY low. If they don’t act now, it could be joever. - WADDLE•WADDLE•PENGU Waddle Waddle Pengu Simple, normie-friendly, wholesome, with a strong leader Cold Blooded Shiller (one of the best crypto-traders and partnership hunters) - LOBO•THE•WOLF•PUP LOBO•THE•WOLF•PUP A beta DOG play with VC money (not a bad thing lol) backing it - DECENTRALIZED ⚡️DECENTRALIZED Community Take Over (CTO); #2 etched Rune. Needs way more community unification stronger leadership to break out. - WANKO•MANKO•RUNES WankoManko OG Runes and very unique Furry-meme, practically created by Casey himself. Only Rune soft-shilled by him (and Erin). Dropped heavily from ATH, but the team is strong and working closely with AI tech ( , BOOTOSHI 👑 ) - SATOSHI•NAKAMOTO Strong ticker, but no known team. Premine still sitting in their wallet and burned a lot of people post-halving. - LIQUIDIUM•TOKEN Liquidium | Bitcoin Loans Utility Rune, down significantly from release and investor seed round (70m valuation). Still one of the best DeFi platforms on Bitcoin. - EPIC•EPIC•EPIC•EPIC Rune etched on the EPIC sat. Rare sats aren’t getting much attention from degens right now. - SAIKO•HAMSTER Saiko Hamster Psychopath cute hamster. Still active and never gave up, with a decent narrative. Hinting on a based ordinals collectin. - CATS•IN•THE•SATS Cats•In•The•Sats Before Billy, this was the #1 cat. Still going strong, with the team as active as day one. - ZBIT•BLUE•BITCOIN PAPO MACHINE Gaming utility Rune with a dedicated team, but gaming in web3 isn’t really bullish at the moment. - Z•Z•Z•Z•Z•FEHU•Z•Z•Z•Z•Z Fehu Rune #1 etched. The owner holds multiple K Bitcoin since 2010. Probably just a fun experiment, without a clear execution plan (last heard: casino). - THE•DONALD•TRUMP Donald Trump Rune Best Trump Rune Ticker. Struggling to catch up lately, heavily dependent on IRL Trump action. - MR•YEN•JAPANESE•BUSINESSMAN Mr Yen First PG-friendly, non-animal Rune with its own lore and (video) style. He still loves his son (which should be enough, right?). - SPARKY•RUNEDOG Sparky Pokemon-like Rune. Hardworking team, constantly announcing partnerships, products, and more. - BASED•INTERNET•PANDA BIP 熊猫 Another cute animal, similar to Saiko Hamster. - GOB•IS•GOB•IS•GOB GOB ◨ ◨ Rune with gamified systems. - BAMK•OF•NAKAMOTO•DOLLAR BAMK•OF•NAKAMOTO•DOLLAR Runes stablecoin. - ALETHEIAS•AGORA @AletheiasAgora Polymarket of Bitcoin. - RSM•RUNES•STATE•MACHINE Programmable Runes experiment. There are more out there, but these are the most well-known. Hold, pick, and shill your Runes wisely. Stay liquid. New Runes are coming, and they’ll be profitable too

shin

10,844 просмотров • 1 год назад

You Can’t Make People Cheer For Your Wars After Committing A Live-Streamed Genocide I saw a clip of Fox News war propagandist Sean Hannity solemnly reading a tweet by Atlantic Council fellow Jamie Metzl which said, “It is profoundly disturbing that a growing segment of the far left appears to be almost rooting for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, and other forces fundamentally opposed to the US and our allies. This seems to reflect a corrosive strain of anti-Americanism dressed up in post-colonial theory that risks blinding us to the moral realities of our world and the nature of our adversaries.” These assholes really thought they could commit a genocide in full view of the entire world for years and then expect everyone cheer for them to win. Of course we’re seeing more “anti-Americanism”. You don’t get to commit horrific atrocities year after year and then cry when the world starts to hate you. ❖ CBS News reports the Pentagon has made detailed preparations to send US ground forces to Iran, while conscientious objector nonprofit Center on Conscience & War reports that they’re getting numerous calls from US service members who say they’ve received surprise deployment orders. Military experts for decades: Don’t go to war with Iran, they’ll close the Strait of Hormuz and kill US forces in the region, plus their terrain makes a ground invasion impossible. USA: [bombs Iran] Iran: [closes the Strait of Hormuz, kills US forces in the region] USA: USA: Let’s try a ground invasion. ❖ I can’t get over how many leftists bought into the “we support the Iran protests” schtick. Where the fuck did you idiots think this was headed? What did you think you were promoting when you assisted the US empire’s regime change sloganeering throughout the west? Fucking morons. ❖ Two great ways to make me permanently lose interest in your political perspective: Say negative things about the Iranian government during an active war propaganda campaign by the US empire. 2. Babble about “antisemitism on the left” like it’s a real thing in the year 2026. ❖ I used to think it’s wrong to massacre civilians and carpet bomb large cities but then a clever and insightful right winger informed me that if I was Iranian I’d be wearing a hijab, so now I think it’s good. ❖ It’s so funny how Trump apologists have started claiming the United States has been at war with Iran for 47 years, because I had literally never once heard anyone utter that claim until this war began. It’s just a talking point they all began regurgitating at once in order to justify Trump’s warmongering. Pretty sure if there was an ongoing decades-long American war I would have heard about it before March 2026. ❖ FYI if your main reason for caring about Trump raining military explosives on Iran is that it will help Democrats in the midterms, you’re a piece of shit. ❖ The American far right lives in a fantasy world where the United States would ordinarily be a beneficent, peaceful utopia if not for Israel, despite the fact that the US has been steeped in the blood of the innocent throughout its entire history since long before Israel existed. ❖ It’s just an unfortunate fact that historically the only way to get Americans to start forcefully opposing a US war is to give them some skin in the game. Last time it was the draft in Vietnam. Maybe this time it will be everything getting crazy expensive due to the war on Iran. ❖ The US would be as reluctant to go to war as Iran was if its leaders knew they’d be killed by the other side in the opening days of any conflict. Iran has shown that it’s always had the ability to bloody America’s nose in a war, yet its leaders displayed remarkable restraint in their efforts to avoid it. There are surely a lot of reasons for this, but one self-evident reason is that they knew if they went to war with the US and Israel, their own necks would be on the chopping block. Khamenei, Larijani and other officials who’ve been killed each had a personal vested interest in de-escalation. Imagine if that were the case for US and Israeli leadership? Their warmongering would stop immediately, and they’d pursue peace at every turn. This is the kind of cowardice that is driving these wars. They’re not fighting for causes they’d be willing to die for, they’re sending other people’s sons and daughters to kill other people’s sons and daughters for extremely stupid and unworthy reasons. Because they’re never the ones to pay the price. ❖ Reading by Tim Foley:
5:17

You Can’t Make People Cheer For Your Wars After Committing A Live-Streamed Genocide I saw a clip of Fox News war propagandist Sean Hannity solemnly reading a tweet by Atlantic Council fellow Jamie Metzl which said, “It is profoundly disturbing that a growing segment of the far left appears to be almost rooting for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, and other forces fundamentally opposed to the US and our allies. This seems to reflect a corrosive strain of anti-Americanism dressed up in post-colonial theory that risks blinding us to the moral realities of our world and the nature of our adversaries.” These assholes really thought they could commit a genocide in full view of the entire world for years and then expect everyone cheer for them to win. Of course we’re seeing more “anti-Americanism”. You don’t get to commit horrific atrocities year after year and then cry when the world starts to hate you. ❖ CBS News reports the Pentagon has made detailed preparations to send US ground forces to Iran, while conscientious objector nonprofit Center on Conscience & War reports that they’re getting numerous calls from US service members who say they’ve received surprise deployment orders. Military experts for decades: Don’t go to war with Iran, they’ll close the Strait of Hormuz and kill US forces in the region, plus their terrain makes a ground invasion impossible. USA: [bombs Iran] Iran: [closes the Strait of Hormuz, kills US forces in the region] USA: USA: Let’s try a ground invasion. ❖ I can’t get over how many leftists bought into the “we support the Iran protests” schtick. Where the fuck did you idiots think this was headed? What did you think you were promoting when you assisted the US empire’s regime change sloganeering throughout the west? Fucking morons. ❖ Two great ways to make me permanently lose interest in your political perspective: Say negative things about the Iranian government during an active war propaganda campaign by the US empire. 2. Babble about “antisemitism on the left” like it’s a real thing in the year 2026. ❖ I used to think it’s wrong to massacre civilians and carpet bomb large cities but then a clever and insightful right winger informed me that if I was Iranian I’d be wearing a hijab, so now I think it’s good. ❖ It’s so funny how Trump apologists have started claiming the United States has been at war with Iran for 47 years, because I had literally never once heard anyone utter that claim until this war began. It’s just a talking point they all began regurgitating at once in order to justify Trump’s warmongering. Pretty sure if there was an ongoing decades-long American war I would have heard about it before March 2026. ❖ FYI if your main reason for caring about Trump raining military explosives on Iran is that it will help Democrats in the midterms, you’re a piece of shit. ❖ The American far right lives in a fantasy world where the United States would ordinarily be a beneficent, peaceful utopia if not for Israel, despite the fact that the US has been steeped in the blood of the innocent throughout its entire history since long before Israel existed. ❖ It’s just an unfortunate fact that historically the only way to get Americans to start forcefully opposing a US war is to give them some skin in the game. Last time it was the draft in Vietnam. Maybe this time it will be everything getting crazy expensive due to the war on Iran. ❖ The US would be as reluctant to go to war as Iran was if its leaders knew they’d be killed by the other side in the opening days of any conflict. Iran has shown that it’s always had the ability to bloody America’s nose in a war, yet its leaders displayed remarkable restraint in their efforts to avoid it. There are surely a lot of reasons for this, but one self-evident reason is that they knew if they went to war with the US and Israel, their own necks would be on the chopping block. Khamenei, Larijani and other officials who’ve been killed each had a personal vested interest in de-escalation. Imagine if that were the case for US and Israeli leadership? Their warmongering would stop immediately, and they’d pursue peace at every turn. This is the kind of cowardice that is driving these wars. They’re not fighting for causes they’d be willing to die for, they’re sending other people’s sons and daughters to kill other people’s sons and daughters for extremely stupid and unworthy reasons. Because they’re never the ones to pay the price. ❖ Reading by Tim Foley:

Caitlin Johnstone

43,448 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

About a month ago, a clip of mine went viral⁽¹⁾ talking about the Current State of Twitch (3rd thumbnail in this tweet). It resonated w/ people outside my community, so lemme elaborate (as a 10yr+ Twitch Veteran). Current State of Twitch isn't great and haven't been for a while. I've been passionate about Twitch since inception (I joined in April 2011 in the JTV days, a few months before Twitch debuted in July 2011), and been trying to instill positive change but I'm only a cog in the machine compared to where influence can impact — likely via Amazon-appointed Executives to help "oversee things" at decade-old-acquisition-that-has-still-generated-zero-profit Twitch⁽²⁾. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Muddled Identity ------------------------------------------------ Describing Twitch 10 years ago was easy: "Youtube, except always live, for gamers". Now, it's more muddled & fluid, at best: "Always live broadcasters who aim to connect with their viewers and foster communities(?)" — that, in itself, isn't problematic; but how it's accomplished, what methods are most effective, and how certain directories accumulate higher viewership is, I think (I may elaborate further on that in a future tweet). The most common reactive bark I've heard following TwitchCon 2025 is "Ban Politics" or "Make it Gaming-Only Again!" — People forget, but Pokemon GO (June 2016) going worldwide-viral was the crack-in-the-dam that lead to IRL as a directory because of the impracticality of continuing Twitch's "games-only" era as the site was increasing in popularity, reach, and cultural significance. IRL was a band-aid solution for the core function of Directories⁽³⁾ (which was to let would-be-browsers make better-informed decisions on what to watch based on their interest). It's too broad and encompassing, which led to an unintended dopamine-producing⁽⁴⁾ psuedo-ChatRoulette where you "never know what you're gonna see" browsing there. Without a better tool to migrate users or aggregate topical content, this problem exacerbated continuously. Just Chatting was supposed to be the solution, as it came with 11-12 other directories⁽⁵⁾ to attemptedly split the IRL monolith, but failed to inspire Social Behavioral Change tremendously. Just Chatting is more popular than ever, discoverability — like in the broad, functional sense — is busted cuz every genre of content stuffed within it and fails to disincentivize streamers from opting-out of the most popular directory. So, how do you stand-out in the overcrowded field where a fuckton of the viewership goes for a Roulette Pull on something entertaining to watch? ... ------------------------------------------------ The Era of Clout-Farming Content (and the fact it works, ugh) ------------------------------------------------ Once IRL directory came in Sept 2016, so did the meta of skirting the ToS (Terms of Service) to maximize views or push the limits of what was tolerated on Twitch. Fundamentally, the social dynamic of receiving a suspension (everyone generally refers to them colloquially as "bans") earns notoriety and "free vacation/marketing", that when coinciding with a comeback event, open the possibility of a net-positive from the boost in viewership or metrics. This isn't as relevant now because the ToS Enforcement has gotten significant buffs to be more transparent and structural in the last half-decade. I can't speak on the nuance of this now, but "Full-Time IRL Streamers" and "Sweaty IRL Affiliates" were unbearable at TwitchCons until TC Policy cracked down on requiring consent by those they bumrush'd into (while live of course), so I assume they're probably equally as intrusive everywhere else ... then Kick came along in 2022 and dominated the headlines for mischief within this realm, for the most part; but that's a different topic altogether. The burden of an authentic collab can be too much friction, slow moving — and honestly, too much work for a streamer to do — compared to the efficacy of blowing up Streamer x Streamer Conflict via self-commentary-reacts for sensationalism and maximizing parasocial viewers' worst tendencies. Effectively, ragebaiting. I'm not advocating to abolish this as a policy. I'm pointing out how this is a very effective way to garner views within the social constructs — and it shouldn't be, nor always was. Something changed at some point. I don't wanna bore you with a timeline of the last decade of controversy on Twitch, so I'll fast-forward to when I definitively see evidence that Clout-Culture is failing upward: In March 2025, the unbanning of Adin Ross⁽⁶⁾ (on Twitch) I saw as a huge moral failure that reeks of desperation for his views/clout/relevance at the direct expense of the integrity of Twitch Culture. Not sure if that was a Clancy-specific decision or what, but it encompasses "neo-Twitch" or a disconnect if there ever was one. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch Culture is diluting at the expense of recouping revenue ------------------------------------------------ A decade ago, Twitch Plays Pokemon broke news across insular-livestreaming gossip and was celebrated as a pinnacle of internet fandom⁽⁷⁾ (Feb 2014). This event was a testament to the value of Twitch because it reinforced the undeniable power of CULTURE present in Twitch Chats. I don't think the event could've worked on a YouTube Livestream (remember YouTube Gaming, introduced in 2015?). There's a certain aura present in Twitch Chat that makes it feel captivating to interact and engage with compared to a YouTube Live Chat Box. One feels like a close relative of bot-spam'd yt comments and the other feels ... real. I think that value is the culture — what could keep Twitch afloat for a long time, even if YouTube were to hypothetically obsolete Twitch in every way for delivering live broadcasted video content. I've noticed that as the meta has shifted towards revenue-maxxx'ing with the proliferation of Spectacle Events, typically marathons, that are engineered to paywall as many things as possible, at the expense of the content. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the culture has shifted. I also do think most of the marathon content isn't good; they're carried by being experiences with strong FOMO-factors to compel your participation by viewing. I do suspect there's a saturation point where the combination of the waning niches of livestreaming, 4th-wall-breaking, and manufactured spectacles can keep an audience seduced. Like, the content (in aspects) has less substance and I wonder what that means for the welfare of Twitch Culture and its content in another 5 years. Perhaps Twitch could foresee this and become proactive on the manner?... ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Conduct & Repetitive Incompetence ------------------------------------------------ Twitch has prioritized generating revenue over addressing the needs of the already-active users for years. Emmett Shear (previous CEO; 2011-2023) probably was a huge reason for sluggish changes overall to the platform as from what I hear but I can't say for certain. Regardless, we got Dan Clancy as CEO and, while there has been lots of positive changes under his reign, it really does feel like "too little, too late" with the pressure looming from Amazon's 2015 acquisition; increased competition and marketshare decline; and declining revenues, active users & monthly streamers"⁽⁸⁾. Here's a brief timeline of features implemented that I feel helped build the culture. Before COVID, I believe the biggest obstacle was helping migrate streamers from being part-time to capable full-time content creators. So, at the time, revenue-generating products were revolutionary to help there, including me at that time: ✅ 2016 — Bits/Cheers & Prime Subs (!!!) ✅ 2017 — Gift Subs (to a specific user) ✅ 2018 — Gift Subs (to randos in Community); Super Subs & Ultra Subs ✅ 2018 — Twitch Mobile App v2 (original mobile app was a constantly broken mess) ✅ 2018 — Twitch Prime no longer adblocks (I will agree how they did it was stupid, but ultimately, it was a necessary; I can defend this in the replies if needed) Comparatively, here's the hostile changes that came at the expense of the Twitch Populous supporting said-change: ❌ 2017 — Communities⁽⁹⁾ (DOA cuz it wasn't streamlined enough and vulnerable to Popularity Bias; I can elaborate in replies if needed) ❌ 2018 — Tags for Channels (DOA cuz anyone can use any tag, diluting the effort of broad categorization or filtering in any capacity) ❌ 2022 — Twitch kills Hosting⁽¹⁰⁾ (also new "craptacular" Offline Page w/ Suggested Channels idea instead) ❌ 2024 — Twitch Mobile App v3⁽¹¹⁾ (Tiktok clone dogshit) ❌ 2024 — Stories (who asked for this?) ❌ 2025 — 100hr Video Storage Limit (going back against Collections & cementing Twitch isn't an evergreen platform; also SHORT NOTICE) ❌2025 — Live Rewind ... paywall'd to Twitch Turbo & Channel Subscribers only (this is free sitewide on yt's livestreams)⁽¹²⁾ ❌ 2025 — Ability to gift 1000 subs at once (already shelved from backlash) Post-COVID, I see a pattern of prioritizing revenue-generating products at the expense of what creators need or ask for. I understand Twitch needs to appease Amazon eventually with profit, but with a half-decade passed, all the buffs I can recall are 2K Resolution Streaming*, Portrait & Dual-Canvas Streaming*, and Stream Together / Shared Chat. *Both of these sortta don't count cuz they're invite-only betas that aren't site-wide and don't apply to non-Partners 🤷‍♂️ While more features arrive that ask for more of your money to partake in the Twitch Experience, I feel like the users (both Streamers & Viewers) continue to be neglected. 10 years ago, I thought YouTube Gaming was DOA; now I anticipate when more people bail on Twitch because the functionality will decay without a compelling reason to stay if the culture dminishes. I'll conclude with the 4th thumbnail included in this tweet — a supercut of a portion from the TwitchCon 2025 Keynote from Dan Clancy, with the youtube dislikes superimposed-over for your enjoyment. Let me know what you think of what I shared today! 🎉🥳 I'm considering also breaking down the specific causes (not symptoms) of why Twitch is where it is, and my 999 IQ Pragmatic Solutions that are tenfold better than what I've seen suggested after this morale fallout following TwitchCon 2025 👀
0:46

About a month ago, a clip of mine went viral⁽¹⁾ talking about the Current State of Twitch (3rd thumbnail in this tweet). It resonated w/ people outside my community, so lemme elaborate (as a 10yr+ Twitch Veteran). Current State of Twitch isn't great and haven't been for a while. I've been passionate about Twitch since inception (I joined in April 2011 in the JTV days, a few months before Twitch debuted in July 2011), and been trying to instill positive change but I'm only a cog in the machine compared to where influence can impact — likely via Amazon-appointed Executives to help "oversee things" at decade-old-acquisition-that-has-still-generated-zero-profit Twitch⁽²⁾. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Muddled Identity ------------------------------------------------ Describing Twitch 10 years ago was easy: "Youtube, except always live, for gamers". Now, it's more muddled & fluid, at best: "Always live broadcasters who aim to connect with their viewers and foster communities(?)" — that, in itself, isn't problematic; but how it's accomplished, what methods are most effective, and how certain directories accumulate higher viewership is, I think (I may elaborate further on that in a future tweet). The most common reactive bark I've heard following TwitchCon 2025 is "Ban Politics" or "Make it Gaming-Only Again!" — People forget, but Pokemon GO (June 2016) going worldwide-viral was the crack-in-the-dam that lead to IRL as a directory because of the impracticality of continuing Twitch's "games-only" era as the site was increasing in popularity, reach, and cultural significance. IRL was a band-aid solution for the core function of Directories⁽³⁾ (which was to let would-be-browsers make better-informed decisions on what to watch based on their interest). It's too broad and encompassing, which led to an unintended dopamine-producing⁽⁴⁾ psuedo-ChatRoulette where you "never know what you're gonna see" browsing there. Without a better tool to migrate users or aggregate topical content, this problem exacerbated continuously. Just Chatting was supposed to be the solution, as it came with 11-12 other directories⁽⁵⁾ to attemptedly split the IRL monolith, but failed to inspire Social Behavioral Change tremendously. Just Chatting is more popular than ever, discoverability — like in the broad, functional sense — is busted cuz every genre of content stuffed within it and fails to disincentivize streamers from opting-out of the most popular directory. So, how do you stand-out in the overcrowded field where a fuckton of the viewership goes for a Roulette Pull on something entertaining to watch? ... ------------------------------------------------ The Era of Clout-Farming Content (and the fact it works, ugh) ------------------------------------------------ Once IRL directory came in Sept 2016, so did the meta of skirting the ToS (Terms of Service) to maximize views or push the limits of what was tolerated on Twitch. Fundamentally, the social dynamic of receiving a suspension (everyone generally refers to them colloquially as "bans") earns notoriety and "free vacation/marketing", that when coinciding with a comeback event, open the possibility of a net-positive from the boost in viewership or metrics. This isn't as relevant now because the ToS Enforcement has gotten significant buffs to be more transparent and structural in the last half-decade. I can't speak on the nuance of this now, but "Full-Time IRL Streamers" and "Sweaty IRL Affiliates" were unbearable at TwitchCons until TC Policy cracked down on requiring consent by those they bumrush'd into (while live of course), so I assume they're probably equally as intrusive everywhere else ... then Kick came along in 2022 and dominated the headlines for mischief within this realm, for the most part; but that's a different topic altogether. The burden of an authentic collab can be too much friction, slow moving — and honestly, too much work for a streamer to do — compared to the efficacy of blowing up Streamer x Streamer Conflict via self-commentary-reacts for sensationalism and maximizing parasocial viewers' worst tendencies. Effectively, ragebaiting. I'm not advocating to abolish this as a policy. I'm pointing out how this is a very effective way to garner views within the social constructs — and it shouldn't be, nor always was. Something changed at some point. I don't wanna bore you with a timeline of the last decade of controversy on Twitch, so I'll fast-forward to when I definitively see evidence that Clout-Culture is failing upward: In March 2025, the unbanning of Adin Ross⁽⁶⁾ (on Twitch) I saw as a huge moral failure that reeks of desperation for his views/clout/relevance at the direct expense of the integrity of Twitch Culture. Not sure if that was a Clancy-specific decision or what, but it encompasses "neo-Twitch" or a disconnect if there ever was one. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch Culture is diluting at the expense of recouping revenue ------------------------------------------------ A decade ago, Twitch Plays Pokemon broke news across insular-livestreaming gossip and was celebrated as a pinnacle of internet fandom⁽⁷⁾ (Feb 2014). This event was a testament to the value of Twitch because it reinforced the undeniable power of CULTURE present in Twitch Chats. I don't think the event could've worked on a YouTube Livestream (remember YouTube Gaming, introduced in 2015?). There's a certain aura present in Twitch Chat that makes it feel captivating to interact and engage with compared to a YouTube Live Chat Box. One feels like a close relative of bot-spam'd yt comments and the other feels ... real. I think that value is the culture — what could keep Twitch afloat for a long time, even if YouTube were to hypothetically obsolete Twitch in every way for delivering live broadcasted video content. I've noticed that as the meta has shifted towards revenue-maxxx'ing with the proliferation of Spectacle Events, typically marathons, that are engineered to paywall as many things as possible, at the expense of the content. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the culture has shifted. I also do think most of the marathon content isn't good; they're carried by being experiences with strong FOMO-factors to compel your participation by viewing. I do suspect there's a saturation point where the combination of the waning niches of livestreaming, 4th-wall-breaking, and manufactured spectacles can keep an audience seduced. Like, the content (in aspects) has less substance and I wonder what that means for the welfare of Twitch Culture and its content in another 5 years. Perhaps Twitch could foresee this and become proactive on the manner?... ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Conduct & Repetitive Incompetence ------------------------------------------------ Twitch has prioritized generating revenue over addressing the needs of the already-active users for years. Emmett Shear (previous CEO; 2011-2023) probably was a huge reason for sluggish changes overall to the platform as from what I hear but I can't say for certain. Regardless, we got Dan Clancy as CEO and, while there has been lots of positive changes under his reign, it really does feel like "too little, too late" with the pressure looming from Amazon's 2015 acquisition; increased competition and marketshare decline; and declining revenues, active users & monthly streamers"⁽⁸⁾. Here's a brief timeline of features implemented that I feel helped build the culture. Before COVID, I believe the biggest obstacle was helping migrate streamers from being part-time to capable full-time content creators. So, at the time, revenue-generating products were revolutionary to help there, including me at that time: ✅ 2016 — Bits/Cheers & Prime Subs (!!!) ✅ 2017 — Gift Subs (to a specific user) ✅ 2018 — Gift Subs (to randos in Community); Super Subs & Ultra Subs ✅ 2018 — Twitch Mobile App v2 (original mobile app was a constantly broken mess) ✅ 2018 — Twitch Prime no longer adblocks (I will agree how they did it was stupid, but ultimately, it was a necessary; I can defend this in the replies if needed) Comparatively, here's the hostile changes that came at the expense of the Twitch Populous supporting said-change: ❌ 2017 — Communities⁽⁹⁾ (DOA cuz it wasn't streamlined enough and vulnerable to Popularity Bias; I can elaborate in replies if needed) ❌ 2018 — Tags for Channels (DOA cuz anyone can use any tag, diluting the effort of broad categorization or filtering in any capacity) ❌ 2022 — Twitch kills Hosting⁽¹⁰⁾ (also new "craptacular" Offline Page w/ Suggested Channels idea instead) ❌ 2024 — Twitch Mobile App v3⁽¹¹⁾ (Tiktok clone dogshit) ❌ 2024 — Stories (who asked for this?) ❌ 2025 — 100hr Video Storage Limit (going back against Collections & cementing Twitch isn't an evergreen platform; also SHORT NOTICE) ❌2025 — Live Rewind ... paywall'd to Twitch Turbo & Channel Subscribers only (this is free sitewide on yt's livestreams)⁽¹²⁾ ❌ 2025 — Ability to gift 1000 subs at once (already shelved from backlash) Post-COVID, I see a pattern of prioritizing revenue-generating products at the expense of what creators need or ask for. I understand Twitch needs to appease Amazon eventually with profit, but with a half-decade passed, all the buffs I can recall are 2K Resolution Streaming*, Portrait & Dual-Canvas Streaming*, and Stream Together / Shared Chat. *Both of these sortta don't count cuz they're invite-only betas that aren't site-wide and don't apply to non-Partners 🤷‍♂️ While more features arrive that ask for more of your money to partake in the Twitch Experience, I feel like the users (both Streamers & Viewers) continue to be neglected. 10 years ago, I thought YouTube Gaming was DOA; now I anticipate when more people bail on Twitch because the functionality will decay without a compelling reason to stay if the culture dminishes. I'll conclude with the 4th thumbnail included in this tweet — a supercut of a portion from the TwitchCon 2025 Keynote from Dan Clancy, with the youtube dislikes superimposed-over for your enjoyment. Let me know what you think of what I shared today! 🎉🥳 I'm considering also breaking down the specific causes (not symptoms) of why Twitch is where it is, and my 999 IQ Pragmatic Solutions that are tenfold better than what I've seen suggested after this morale fallout following TwitchCon 2025 👀

trihex

17,788 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

The following is a message from Diana Bloom, an anonymous Iranian activist living in Germany who is being threatened with potentially extremely dangerous "exposure" by what appears to be a lunatic. I am passing this message on since Diana has deleted her account for her own protection and safety. To note, I don't think I should be involved with this crazy Evil Evi woman or her OSINT dramas whatsoever since she went bonkers the other day, but she is acting in defamatory ways and with malicious recklessness in a way that endanger an anonymous Iranian dissident I believe to be good, so I must pass this along. A MESSAGE FROM DIANA BLOOM This is a post in two parts. Part one is a brief summary of what has happened so far. Part two addresses the defamatory claims being made about me. PART 1 - [JL: Diana's explanation and responses] For everyone who doesn’t understand what led to this point, here’s the shortest summary possible: Evi [Kokalari] and I had been friendly in DMs since the end of June. She messaged me first. After [DataRepublican] published her piece on the State Department, I asked Evi not to go too hard against DR. Evi did anyway, and James Lindsay defended DR. I didn’t like the way Evi went after James, including citing Milo. So I unfollowed and removed Evi. She confronted me in DMs, and I explained why. Evi then made a post attacking James that started and ended with me and used my profile picture. I responded once, as politely as I could. Evi then repeatedly threatened to dox me, so I deactivated my account. Now, regarding the substance of the accusations she has made so far: 1. I am not a man. My name is not Derek. 2. I am Iranian. 3. I do know stuff about American politics because (and that is the boring truth) German television is really bad. So I’ve only watched English/American stuff for the past, I don’t know, 15 years, podcasts, late night shows, etc. I didn’t think about it, I just did. Little did I know that that would give me an understanding of the inner dynamics of what’s going on within the Republican Party that would tie back to the Iranian people’s cause in 2026. Believe me, I’m still baffled by it whenever I pause to think about it. But that’s the truth, and here we are. 4. I am not in the United States. I shared a blog, and the provider of that blog (a big, common one) is in the United States. My VPN location is sometimes in the United States. Not me. 5. I am not responsible for the content of people defending me. I have no control over it. It’s not my content, and I keep my distance whenever I see problematic stuff. Many accounts defended me, but going to look for one that has done/said problematic stuff to tie it back to me is not right or fair. I am not responsible. I have nothing to do with it. 6. I wanted to help DR because Evi was threatening to go after her hard, and I didn’t think DR deserved that. I meant no harm, I wanted to help. I made a mistake, and I regret it now, but my intention wasn’t bad at that moment in time. 7. Evi herself was the first to come into my DMs and tell me not to fight with an account named Stephanie. So I did Evi that favor. Meaning: Evi came into my DMs first and tried to calm down a public disagreement between me and someone else. When I did this in defense of DR, I did the same thing Evi had done before. I would never think to accuse Evi of restricting my right to free speech because of it. 8. Publishing private DMs from someone without their permission is wrong. It is something both Evi and Stephanie have now done. Both have shared private messages from me without my permission. 9. Part of Evi’s “sources” seem to be Azi Yazdi (granddaughter of Khomeini’s first foreign minister), Benji, and Nima Yamini, as well as his ghost accounts (I have blocked multiple of them by now). If you know any of them, you know this is insane. None of them are reliable. It’s like using Milo as a source against James Lindsay. This is not about truth but about a (malicious) takedown to silence me and get me out of the way. 10. Evi has threatened to dox me (there is no doubt) multiple times, and she keeps going after me. This puts my life and my family’s lives in Iran in real danger, but she doesn’t care. She keeps going, and I can’t stop her. She keeps putting out one lie after another, and it traps me in a forever loop of defending myself. If I don’t respond to more and more accusations from her against me, rest assured, my silence should never be taken as agreement with the lies she puts out there. Be sure there is always context, a counterargument, counterevidence, etc., that would show that none of what she shares is fair or true. But it’s a forever war that is meant to drain me. So me not commenting on her stuff moving forward is never, ever, ever an admission that she is right about something. It’s just a rejection of playing a game I cannot win. To ALL the people who wrote/shared one or multiple posts and comments in my defense: Thank you very, very, very much. I’ve seen it, and I am grateful. But I think it’s best for my own and my family’s safety, as well as for the whole situation, that I step away and stay away from X. I hope that’s understandable. And Evi, for the last time: if you are not malicious, please just stop. Let me out of this. I am not your target. Just leave me and, through doxxing/"exposing", my family out of it moving forward. I beg of you, please. PART 2 - proof - [JL: The following are direct quotes from Evi indicating her intention to "expose" Diana, which she tries to claim is different than "doxxing," though for all practical purposes the effect will be the same and this is a distinction without a difference. The video below shows all of these quotes from her own posts.] 1. “I’m getting enough information on her from her own community. I may share it…” 2. “Either log back in with your real name, or I will start exposing you. And trust me, you will not like that.” 3. “So stop provoking me. If you continue, I will look much deeper into who you are and what your actual role is behind this anonymous account.” 4. “You know what...WAR IT IS. I will start with Diana!! STAY TUNED” 5. “So I will take those words seriously and dig as deep as I can” 6. “The identities of the "Iranian activists" would never have been called into question had they not attacked my right to freedom of speech in my own country.” 7. Someone: “She deleted her account because she’s concerned for her safety and the safety of her relatives in Iran your threats to dox her” Evi: “She should be...but if she turns out to be clean, I shall protect her identity. But trust me, she is not who she claims to be” 8. “Last I checked, Support on X is against fake accounts. Why are we being threatened for wanting to know the true identity of certain accounts…” 9. “Do you think I know who Diana bloom is? No but I need to find out at this point” 10. “... because I asked one of their group operatives from Germany to debate me using her/his true identity, or I would expose who’s behind the account.” 11. “So I don’t know what you’re all thinking, but this isn’t simply about Diana being scared of the IRGC in Iran. The IRGC has been significantly weakened and has plenty of other things to worry about. There are thousands of Iranian accounts fighting for Iran’s freedom under their own names while still having family members back in Iran. At this point, I think people have every right to ask who is actually behind these anonymous accounts… After a few more new posts on her feed, I was forced to tell her to either come back on X and do this under her real name, or I would expose who she was, so at least we would be having this discussion on equal grounds.” 12. “Don’t freaking interfere with other people’s business like that retard did and no one comes after you. So go ahead down and sue me and I will push harder to expose her and you and anyone else…” MY OWN [JL's] COMMENTS, which Diana has nothing to do with and doesn't know I'm appending here. I now believe Evi is likely to be a malignant narcissist who is incapable of admitting that she is wrong. She will not stop in her behavior, and she will aim to harm anyone who attempts to intervene. I do not recommend you do this. I recommend you mark, avoid, and block. Fighting with her will only fuel her because she simply cannot admit that she's wrong about all of this and can only double down in increasingly insane, dangerous, and reckless ways, including toward Diana and her safety. She believes everything she sees that's trying to talk sense into her about any of this is part of an elaborate "op" that "disrespects her free speech" (which isn't a thing, by the way). No one is silencing her. People are just trying to talk sense into her to stop spreading defamation and reckless "exposure" of people who she will put at risk with it and who do not in any way deserve it, people she considered friends and allies until literally four days ago when she suddenly blew up. Therefore, not only is her reckless belief hermetically sealed against any disagreement, she turns any disagreement into proof of allegedly coordinated attacks against her from a network that simply doesn't exist. As a response, in her malignancy, she is threatening to damage, "expose," or otherwise reputationally harm anyone who even tries politely to talk sense into her, much less to disagree with her or oppose her. I strongly recommend everyone realize what they're getting into if they work with or ally themselves with this crazy woman going forward. You do so at your own risk. I can attest from watching her over the last few days that her research abilities, at least when agitated, are so sloppy as to be beyond worthless, even dangerous. The post I'm quoting below is proof of that. She's trying to prove Diana is secretly an American because she's too sloppy and stupid to realize that a Wordpress domain has an American location. She isn't doing research in good faith or with fidelity on this issue, or about me. She is looking for any information she can to hurt people who have upset her. In fact, she is presently being sued for defamation by an Albanian singer (Evi is an Albanian immigrant to the United States and a U.S. citizen for at least a couple decades), so we might recognize this bad behavior and poor praxis as a pattern with her. I can provide just from the last few days, as can others, much evidence that she's simply grasping at the nastiest straws she can find to try to harm people she has suddenly decided are her opponents because of her jealous outburst at DataRepublican and her narcissistic injury at being called on it. The sloppiness and outright retardation of her "fact" finding and "analysis" are so shocking that it's hard not to laugh even given how horrifically dangerous it is. We can therefore infer this sloppiness, recklessness, and malice-when-opposed to be at least partially true of her other "research" against her other targets, by extension. That's a shame because many of those targets are worthy of real scrutiny, which she is undermining with her loose cannon. Therefore, I insist her OSINT "research" is at best worthless and at worst maliciously harmful. In either case, it cannot be engaged by people who want to make a positive difference in the world, so mark and avoid. Evi seems good at making connections. She was quite positively in my own DMs for a while, trying to find ways to work productively together, even suggesting we start an alternative to CPAC (lol). She appears to be friends with both Eric Trump and Don Jr., though the relationship with the former appears to be more solid. She seems to have worked behind the scenes with a lot of relatively prominent Republican groups. I find all of this incredibly concerning after the events of this week, even though I wouldn't have beforehand. My own assessment from this stupid and nasty drama is that Evi's primary motivation is that she is pathologically envious of DataRepublican and her influence, likely believing it should be her in DataRepublican's place. As we can see, she isn't nearly careful or accurate enough for that. Mark and avoid. Further, though, while DataRepublican has no driving interest to be who or what she is and is doing it in service to the best of her abilities (which are considerable but still limited and imperfect as are anyone's), Evi appears to covet the role, which she has demonstrated she cannot possibly handle responsibly. Again, mark and avoid. Block if you will. I will not unblock her for this post or in the future. You can think of that whatever you want. I will rarely, almost never, say anything about her except in the defense of others she is wantonly and recklessly attacking. I will NEVER interact with her directly again, no arguments, no back and forth, no dunks, nothing. My involvement here is pure exposure and nothing else. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
0:20

The following is a message from Diana Bloom, an anonymous Iranian activist living in Germany who is being threatened with potentially extremely dangerous "exposure" by what appears to be a lunatic. I am passing this message on since Diana has deleted her account for her own protection and safety. To note, I don't think I should be involved with this crazy Evil Evi woman or her OSINT dramas whatsoever since she went bonkers the other day, but she is acting in defamatory ways and with malicious recklessness in a way that endanger an anonymous Iranian dissident I believe to be good, so I must pass this along. A MESSAGE FROM DIANA BLOOM This is a post in two parts. Part one is a brief summary of what has happened so far. Part two addresses the defamatory claims being made about me. PART 1 - [JL: Diana's explanation and responses] For everyone who doesn’t understand what led to this point, here’s the shortest summary possible: Evi [Kokalari] and I had been friendly in DMs since the end of June. She messaged me first. After [DataRepublican] published her piece on the State Department, I asked Evi not to go too hard against DR. Evi did anyway, and James Lindsay defended DR. I didn’t like the way Evi went after James, including citing Milo. So I unfollowed and removed Evi. She confronted me in DMs, and I explained why. Evi then made a post attacking James that started and ended with me and used my profile picture. I responded once, as politely as I could. Evi then repeatedly threatened to dox me, so I deactivated my account. Now, regarding the substance of the accusations she has made so far: 1. I am not a man. My name is not Derek. 2. I am Iranian. 3. I do know stuff about American politics because (and that is the boring truth) German television is really bad. So I’ve only watched English/American stuff for the past, I don’t know, 15 years, podcasts, late night shows, etc. I didn’t think about it, I just did. Little did I know that that would give me an understanding of the inner dynamics of what’s going on within the Republican Party that would tie back to the Iranian people’s cause in 2026. Believe me, I’m still baffled by it whenever I pause to think about it. But that’s the truth, and here we are. 4. I am not in the United States. I shared a blog, and the provider of that blog (a big, common one) is in the United States. My VPN location is sometimes in the United States. Not me. 5. I am not responsible for the content of people defending me. I have no control over it. It’s not my content, and I keep my distance whenever I see problematic stuff. Many accounts defended me, but going to look for one that has done/said problematic stuff to tie it back to me is not right or fair. I am not responsible. I have nothing to do with it. 6. I wanted to help DR because Evi was threatening to go after her hard, and I didn’t think DR deserved that. I meant no harm, I wanted to help. I made a mistake, and I regret it now, but my intention wasn’t bad at that moment in time. 7. Evi herself was the first to come into my DMs and tell me not to fight with an account named Stephanie. So I did Evi that favor. Meaning: Evi came into my DMs first and tried to calm down a public disagreement between me and someone else. When I did this in defense of DR, I did the same thing Evi had done before. I would never think to accuse Evi of restricting my right to free speech because of it. 8. Publishing private DMs from someone without their permission is wrong. It is something both Evi and Stephanie have now done. Both have shared private messages from me without my permission. 9. Part of Evi’s “sources” seem to be Azi Yazdi (granddaughter of Khomeini’s first foreign minister), Benji, and Nima Yamini, as well as his ghost accounts (I have blocked multiple of them by now). If you know any of them, you know this is insane. None of them are reliable. It’s like using Milo as a source against James Lindsay. This is not about truth but about a (malicious) takedown to silence me and get me out of the way. 10. Evi has threatened to dox me (there is no doubt) multiple times, and she keeps going after me. This puts my life and my family’s lives in Iran in real danger, but she doesn’t care. She keeps going, and I can’t stop her. She keeps putting out one lie after another, and it traps me in a forever loop of defending myself. If I don’t respond to more and more accusations from her against me, rest assured, my silence should never be taken as agreement with the lies she puts out there. Be sure there is always context, a counterargument, counterevidence, etc., that would show that none of what she shares is fair or true. But it’s a forever war that is meant to drain me. So me not commenting on her stuff moving forward is never, ever, ever an admission that she is right about something. It’s just a rejection of playing a game I cannot win. To ALL the people who wrote/shared one or multiple posts and comments in my defense: Thank you very, very, very much. I’ve seen it, and I am grateful. But I think it’s best for my own and my family’s safety, as well as for the whole situation, that I step away and stay away from X. I hope that’s understandable. And Evi, for the last time: if you are not malicious, please just stop. Let me out of this. I am not your target. Just leave me and, through doxxing/"exposing", my family out of it moving forward. I beg of you, please. PART 2 - proof - [JL: The following are direct quotes from Evi indicating her intention to "expose" Diana, which she tries to claim is different than "doxxing," though for all practical purposes the effect will be the same and this is a distinction without a difference. The video below shows all of these quotes from her own posts.] 1. “I’m getting enough information on her from her own community. I may share it…” 2. “Either log back in with your real name, or I will start exposing you. And trust me, you will not like that.” 3. “So stop provoking me. If you continue, I will look much deeper into who you are and what your actual role is behind this anonymous account.” 4. “You know what...WAR IT IS. I will start with Diana!! STAY TUNED” 5. “So I will take those words seriously and dig as deep as I can” 6. “The identities of the "Iranian activists" would never have been called into question had they not attacked my right to freedom of speech in my own country.” 7. Someone: “She deleted her account because she’s concerned for her safety and the safety of her relatives in Iran your threats to dox her” Evi: “She should be...but if she turns out to be clean, I shall protect her identity. But trust me, she is not who she claims to be” 8. “Last I checked, Support on X is against fake accounts. Why are we being threatened for wanting to know the true identity of certain accounts…” 9. “Do you think I know who Diana bloom is? No but I need to find out at this point” 10. “... because I asked one of their group operatives from Germany to debate me using her/his true identity, or I would expose who’s behind the account.” 11. “So I don’t know what you’re all thinking, but this isn’t simply about Diana being scared of the IRGC in Iran. The IRGC has been significantly weakened and has plenty of other things to worry about. There are thousands of Iranian accounts fighting for Iran’s freedom under their own names while still having family members back in Iran. At this point, I think people have every right to ask who is actually behind these anonymous accounts… After a few more new posts on her feed, I was forced to tell her to either come back on X and do this under her real name, or I would expose who she was, so at least we would be having this discussion on equal grounds.” 12. “Don’t freaking interfere with other people’s business like that retard did and no one comes after you. So go ahead down and sue me and I will push harder to expose her and you and anyone else…” MY OWN [JL's] COMMENTS, which Diana has nothing to do with and doesn't know I'm appending here. I now believe Evi is likely to be a malignant narcissist who is incapable of admitting that she is wrong. She will not stop in her behavior, and she will aim to harm anyone who attempts to intervene. I do not recommend you do this. I recommend you mark, avoid, and block. Fighting with her will only fuel her because she simply cannot admit that she's wrong about all of this and can only double down in increasingly insane, dangerous, and reckless ways, including toward Diana and her safety. She believes everything she sees that's trying to talk sense into her about any of this is part of an elaborate "op" that "disrespects her free speech" (which isn't a thing, by the way). No one is silencing her. People are just trying to talk sense into her to stop spreading defamation and reckless "exposure" of people who she will put at risk with it and who do not in any way deserve it, people she considered friends and allies until literally four days ago when she suddenly blew up. Therefore, not only is her reckless belief hermetically sealed against any disagreement, she turns any disagreement into proof of allegedly coordinated attacks against her from a network that simply doesn't exist. As a response, in her malignancy, she is threatening to damage, "expose," or otherwise reputationally harm anyone who even tries politely to talk sense into her, much less to disagree with her or oppose her. I strongly recommend everyone realize what they're getting into if they work with or ally themselves with this crazy woman going forward. You do so at your own risk. I can attest from watching her over the last few days that her research abilities, at least when agitated, are so sloppy as to be beyond worthless, even dangerous. The post I'm quoting below is proof of that. She's trying to prove Diana is secretly an American because she's too sloppy and stupid to realize that a Wordpress domain has an American location. She isn't doing research in good faith or with fidelity on this issue, or about me. She is looking for any information she can to hurt people who have upset her. In fact, she is presently being sued for defamation by an Albanian singer (Evi is an Albanian immigrant to the United States and a U.S. citizen for at least a couple decades), so we might recognize this bad behavior and poor praxis as a pattern with her. I can provide just from the last few days, as can others, much evidence that she's simply grasping at the nastiest straws she can find to try to harm people she has suddenly decided are her opponents because of her jealous outburst at DataRepublican and her narcissistic injury at being called on it. The sloppiness and outright retardation of her "fact" finding and "analysis" are so shocking that it's hard not to laugh even given how horrifically dangerous it is. We can therefore infer this sloppiness, recklessness, and malice-when-opposed to be at least partially true of her other "research" against her other targets, by extension. That's a shame because many of those targets are worthy of real scrutiny, which she is undermining with her loose cannon. Therefore, I insist her OSINT "research" is at best worthless and at worst maliciously harmful. In either case, it cannot be engaged by people who want to make a positive difference in the world, so mark and avoid. Evi seems good at making connections. She was quite positively in my own DMs for a while, trying to find ways to work productively together, even suggesting we start an alternative to CPAC (lol). She appears to be friends with both Eric Trump and Don Jr., though the relationship with the former appears to be more solid. She seems to have worked behind the scenes with a lot of relatively prominent Republican groups. I find all of this incredibly concerning after the events of this week, even though I wouldn't have beforehand. My own assessment from this stupid and nasty drama is that Evi's primary motivation is that she is pathologically envious of DataRepublican and her influence, likely believing it should be her in DataRepublican's place. As we can see, she isn't nearly careful or accurate enough for that. Mark and avoid. Further, though, while DataRepublican has no driving interest to be who or what she is and is doing it in service to the best of her abilities (which are considerable but still limited and imperfect as are anyone's), Evi appears to covet the role, which she has demonstrated she cannot possibly handle responsibly. Again, mark and avoid. Block if you will. I will not unblock her for this post or in the future. You can think of that whatever you want. I will rarely, almost never, say anything about her except in the defense of others she is wantonly and recklessly attacking. I will NEVER interact with her directly again, no arguments, no back and forth, no dunks, nothing. My involvement here is pure exposure and nothing else. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

James Lindsay, anti-Communist

57,651 просмотров • 13 дней назад

Important announcement!!!🫵💥💫 Would you have a tooth pulled if it helped your chances to get an important grant funded? Absurd question (obviously), but the situation right now is so bad funding-wise, that I bet some of you actually considered it for a second… Well, don’t get desperate - we created a new tool that might help! (keep your teeth!) I’m excited to announce that as of today we are officially releasing “QED for Grants” for everyone. What started off as an extension of our existing paper review platform, grew in the last few months to an entirely new design. We’ve been working like crazy on this, and although we have more things we want to add in the (very near) future, we decided to release our AI for grants NOW, earlier than planned. It’s not perfect, no AI is, but for the first time, when I run my own grants through QED Science, I feel it gets the research, finds real problems, and gives me very useful feedback that I can implement before submission. It’s like sending it to 20 scientists from my domain, knowing they’ll agree to dedicate their entire week to carefully read and comment on every line. It’s very important to write your own grants yourself, it makes you think hard and you learn a lot from doing it, and q.e.d’s system is designed to preserve these positive aspects and augment them - you get feedback on your own writing, we don’t write for you!! But at the same time, a typical PI spends many months every year writing proposals and sadly only a tiny fraction gets funded, even if the ideas are good. When you are forced to submit an unreasonable amount of grants the quality of the writing drops, and rejection rates increase. Not because the essence is bad. It’s simply too competitive right now (the cuts made it so much worse) and if your proposal is not super clear and tight, and if it’s not a perfect fit for the grant you’re submitting, you’re doomed. Our grant solution is not an authoring, text-generating tool. It gives you constructive feedback on your writing (it comments on the deep things, not grammar and typos). It’s meant to help you with the questions that torment you late at night (“is this a good fit?”, “Is this novel enough?”, “Did I miss something?”). Tens of thousands of you already use q.e.d to improve your manuscripts and critically read papers, we built the grant tool by the same principles (you’ll identify many of the features that you told us you like). We’ve processed thousands of proposals, learned where things fail, where reviewers get stuck, why good ideas come out weak. We interviewed hundreds of scientists, and also experts who work in funding agencies and university research authorities, and implemented their feedback (we’re constantly looking for more feedback). Our AI is always happy to give you constructive (and polite!) critique, and it will go through your grant line-by-line, forcing you to improve clarity, flag weak points, and push the whole thing to a higher standard. We study, in scale, what gets funded and what doesn’t, and what is the perfect fit for each type of grant. So please, use it, pressure-test it, tell us where it fails, and together we’ll improve it every day to put you in the best position for actually testing your ideas in the real world. As always with q.e.d, the system is completely secured and private, and we are NOT training on your data (see the FAQ on our website). Please like, retweet, and share with your favorite colleagues! (link to the platform below in the thread👇)
0:53

Important announcement!!!🫵💥💫 Would you have a tooth pulled if it helped your chances to get an important grant funded? Absurd question (obviously), but the situation right now is so bad funding-wise, that I bet some of you actually considered it for a second… Well, don’t get desperate - we created a new tool that might help! (keep your teeth!) I’m excited to announce that as of today we are officially releasing “QED for Grants” for everyone. What started off as an extension of our existing paper review platform, grew in the last few months to an entirely new design. We’ve been working like crazy on this, and although we have more things we want to add in the (very near) future, we decided to release our AI for grants NOW, earlier than planned. It’s not perfect, no AI is, but for the first time, when I run my own grants through QED Science, I feel it gets the research, finds real problems, and gives me very useful feedback that I can implement before submission. It’s like sending it to 20 scientists from my domain, knowing they’ll agree to dedicate their entire week to carefully read and comment on every line. It’s very important to write your own grants yourself, it makes you think hard and you learn a lot from doing it, and q.e.d’s system is designed to preserve these positive aspects and augment them - you get feedback on your own writing, we don’t write for you!! But at the same time, a typical PI spends many months every year writing proposals and sadly only a tiny fraction gets funded, even if the ideas are good. When you are forced to submit an unreasonable amount of grants the quality of the writing drops, and rejection rates increase. Not because the essence is bad. It’s simply too competitive right now (the cuts made it so much worse) and if your proposal is not super clear and tight, and if it’s not a perfect fit for the grant you’re submitting, you’re doomed. Our grant solution is not an authoring, text-generating tool. It gives you constructive feedback on your writing (it comments on the deep things, not grammar and typos). It’s meant to help you with the questions that torment you late at night (“is this a good fit?”, “Is this novel enough?”, “Did I miss something?”). Tens of thousands of you already use q.e.d to improve your manuscripts and critically read papers, we built the grant tool by the same principles (you’ll identify many of the features that you told us you like). We’ve processed thousands of proposals, learned where things fail, where reviewers get stuck, why good ideas come out weak. We interviewed hundreds of scientists, and also experts who work in funding agencies and university research authorities, and implemented their feedback (we’re constantly looking for more feedback). Our AI is always happy to give you constructive (and polite!) critique, and it will go through your grant line-by-line, forcing you to improve clarity, flag weak points, and push the whole thing to a higher standard. We study, in scale, what gets funded and what doesn’t, and what is the perfect fit for each type of grant. So please, use it, pressure-test it, tell us where it fails, and together we’ll improve it every day to put you in the best position for actually testing your ideas in the real world. As always with q.e.d, the system is completely secured and private, and we are NOT training on your data (see the FAQ on our website). Please like, retweet, and share with your favorite colleagues! (link to the platform below in the thread👇)

Oded Rechavi

49,653 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

"Jews and Israel Need to Recognize We’re Essentially Alone” Yesterday was wild. Not because of anything Israel or Jews did, but because of something Catholics and the larger anti-Israel world revealed. In one sentence: Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa wanted preferential treatment on Palm Sunday and instead received equal treatment. That’s it. That was the story. All religious sites in Jerusalem without adequate shelters faced restrictions due to active Iranian ballistic missile threats. Iranian missile fragments hit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre itself—on rooftops in the compound—just weeks ago. Narrow Old City streets mean no quick rescue in a mass-casualty strike. So: Kotel empty (Jews haven’t been able to pray there in weeks), Al-Aqsa restricted (Muslims haven’t been able to pray there in weeks), and Holy Sepulchre blocked for large gatherings. The big Palm Sunday procession was already canceled by the Patriarchate itself days earlier. Pizzaballa and a small group tried a private entry. They were turned back politely according to the Cardinal himself. Netanyahu clarified it was out of “special concern for his safety,” with no malicious intent, and quickly reversed to grant full access for Holy Week. Catholics are now getting preferential treatment. Apparently Catholics complaining gets more juice in the Jewish state. Yet the Cardinal felt aggrieved. So he and his PR team unleashed a wildly divisive and misleading statement calling it a “grave precedent” that “disregards the sensibilities of billions” and a “grossly disproportionate measure.” That language lit the match and went viral before the Iran context or equal-treatment facts could land. And here's the intentional misleading part: This is the same Cardinal who complied with full church closures in Jerusalem for all functions during the entire COVID year. Private or public, it was fine then under health pretexts. But temporary wartime security now—with real rockets hitting the church compound—is suddenly an outrage? An outrage that deserves a statement he KNEW would case a firestorm? Is that Christlike? I'm Jewish, but that feel very forgiving. I don't see a single cheek turned there. He knew he was asking for special treatment. His later walk-back (“misunderstanding,” prayed calmly elsewhere) came after the damage was done. One of the first accounts I saw promoting the context-free statement on X was the Daily Wire’s Mary Margaret Olohan—their White House Correspondent, way out of her lane, reposting it with zero context and journalistic ethics. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence she’s a devout Catholic. She chose to report it as a Catholic, not as a journalist who knows the full context. Then the pile-on started. Practically the entire Daily Wire roster (past and present)—Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, Jeremy Boering, and the grifters they brought in—joined in. They all failed yesterday’s test (Ben Shapiro and Andrew Klavan didn't seem to be online). They weren’t alone. Ambassador Mike Huckabee—a great friend to Israel—didn’t learn from his Taybeh tumble last July, where he rushed to call alleged settler incidents “terror” needing harsh consequences before facts settled that it had NOTHING to do with them. Ted Cruz threw gasoline on the fire too. “Stalwart friends of Israel” sending verbal catapults at the Kotel. This is what it’s like for Jews and Israel: The world blames you for something someone else (the Cardinal) did and forces an apology, which Israel gave. The Cardinal couldn’t take one holy day of equal treatment, so he blamed the Jews. Super retro Catholicism. Israel gives Christians equal status, equal rights, and equal treatment… as it should. Weird how Syria slaughtering Christians pales in comparison to equal treatment for Christians from Israel. Quite STRANGE how Il Papa seems more aggrieved by Israel lately… Notice the juxtaposition: Christians have brawled for centuries inside their own holiest site, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre—over every inch of control. So much so MUSLIMS literally control the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. That Status Quo exists because Christians couldn’t govern it peacefully among themselves. But Heaven forbid a Jewish police officer treats the Cardinal the same way he treats a Rabbi or Imam under real Iranian threats that hit the church itself. Suddenly Catholics, evangelicals, and parts of the right unite like nothing else. Their reflexive Jew-hatred—or at least this anti-Israel pile-on—is the only glue that brings them together. It felt VERY retro yesterday. Jews around the world: Do you see it now? How many Catholics, Christians, or others brought water to the fire and corrected the Cardinal? And how many brought kerosene instead? Also, not to miss an opportunity, Muslims were conspicuously silent about their own restrictions. Nobody blamed the man who started it all. While the perception is that Jews are weak, they couldn’t last a single day experiencing life as a Jew. Yesterday proved it: No one launched a war of annihilation against Christians on Easter like Israel faced on Yom Kippur 1973. They haven’t watched Christians massacred on Christmas with the world cheering and justifying it like Jews experienced on Simchat Torah 2023. Equal treatment is enough to trigger the tantrum. Jews were left to fend for themselves. But guess what? *Jocko voice* GOOD. It’s not that we’re alone. That would be fine. Preferable, even. It’s that yesterday clarified how many are so actively against us—waiting for any excuse, cheering like ghouls when the match gets lit and applied to the bonfire of Jew-hatred. Here’s the thing about the New Jew: We see it clearly now, and we say “Good!” Don’t hide your hate. Bring it into the open. The ones we’re not sure of have always been the most dangerous. Thanks to yesterday, the fog is gone. Now we know. That’s what we’ll be talking about at our Seders this week. You think Israel and Jews are a problem now? Just wait until we start agreeing with one another… and acting like it. Happy Passover—because our Seders won’t be a Last Supper anytime soon. Next year in Jerusalem!
7:14

"Jews and Israel Need to Recognize We’re Essentially Alone” Yesterday was wild. Not because of anything Israel or Jews did, but because of something Catholics and the larger anti-Israel world revealed. In one sentence: Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa wanted preferential treatment on Palm Sunday and instead received equal treatment. That’s it. That was the story. All religious sites in Jerusalem without adequate shelters faced restrictions due to active Iranian ballistic missile threats. Iranian missile fragments hit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre itself—on rooftops in the compound—just weeks ago. Narrow Old City streets mean no quick rescue in a mass-casualty strike. So: Kotel empty (Jews haven’t been able to pray there in weeks), Al-Aqsa restricted (Muslims haven’t been able to pray there in weeks), and Holy Sepulchre blocked for large gatherings. The big Palm Sunday procession was already canceled by the Patriarchate itself days earlier. Pizzaballa and a small group tried a private entry. They were turned back politely according to the Cardinal himself. Netanyahu clarified it was out of “special concern for his safety,” with no malicious intent, and quickly reversed to grant full access for Holy Week. Catholics are now getting preferential treatment. Apparently Catholics complaining gets more juice in the Jewish state. Yet the Cardinal felt aggrieved. So he and his PR team unleashed a wildly divisive and misleading statement calling it a “grave precedent” that “disregards the sensibilities of billions” and a “grossly disproportionate measure.” That language lit the match and went viral before the Iran context or equal-treatment facts could land. And here's the intentional misleading part: This is the same Cardinal who complied with full church closures in Jerusalem for all functions during the entire COVID year. Private or public, it was fine then under health pretexts. But temporary wartime security now—with real rockets hitting the church compound—is suddenly an outrage? An outrage that deserves a statement he KNEW would case a firestorm? Is that Christlike? I'm Jewish, but that feel very forgiving. I don't see a single cheek turned there. He knew he was asking for special treatment. His later walk-back (“misunderstanding,” prayed calmly elsewhere) came after the damage was done. One of the first accounts I saw promoting the context-free statement on X was the Daily Wire’s Mary Margaret Olohan—their White House Correspondent, way out of her lane, reposting it with zero context and journalistic ethics. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence she’s a devout Catholic. She chose to report it as a Catholic, not as a journalist who knows the full context. Then the pile-on started. Practically the entire Daily Wire roster (past and present)—Michael Knowles, Matt Walsh, Jeremy Boering, and the grifters they brought in—joined in. They all failed yesterday’s test (Ben Shapiro and Andrew Klavan didn't seem to be online). They weren’t alone. Ambassador Mike Huckabee—a great friend to Israel—didn’t learn from his Taybeh tumble last July, where he rushed to call alleged settler incidents “terror” needing harsh consequences before facts settled that it had NOTHING to do with them. Ted Cruz threw gasoline on the fire too. “Stalwart friends of Israel” sending verbal catapults at the Kotel. This is what it’s like for Jews and Israel: The world blames you for something someone else (the Cardinal) did and forces an apology, which Israel gave. The Cardinal couldn’t take one holy day of equal treatment, so he blamed the Jews. Super retro Catholicism. Israel gives Christians equal status, equal rights, and equal treatment… as it should. Weird how Syria slaughtering Christians pales in comparison to equal treatment for Christians from Israel. Quite STRANGE how Il Papa seems more aggrieved by Israel lately… Notice the juxtaposition: Christians have brawled for centuries inside their own holiest site, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre—over every inch of control. So much so MUSLIMS literally control the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. That Status Quo exists because Christians couldn’t govern it peacefully among themselves. But Heaven forbid a Jewish police officer treats the Cardinal the same way he treats a Rabbi or Imam under real Iranian threats that hit the church itself. Suddenly Catholics, evangelicals, and parts of the right unite like nothing else. Their reflexive Jew-hatred—or at least this anti-Israel pile-on—is the only glue that brings them together. It felt VERY retro yesterday. Jews around the world: Do you see it now? How many Catholics, Christians, or others brought water to the fire and corrected the Cardinal? And how many brought kerosene instead? Also, not to miss an opportunity, Muslims were conspicuously silent about their own restrictions. Nobody blamed the man who started it all. While the perception is that Jews are weak, they couldn’t last a single day experiencing life as a Jew. Yesterday proved it: No one launched a war of annihilation against Christians on Easter like Israel faced on Yom Kippur 1973. They haven’t watched Christians massacred on Christmas with the world cheering and justifying it like Jews experienced on Simchat Torah 2023. Equal treatment is enough to trigger the tantrum. Jews were left to fend for themselves. But guess what? *Jocko voice* GOOD. It’s not that we’re alone. That would be fine. Preferable, even. It’s that yesterday clarified how many are so actively against us—waiting for any excuse, cheering like ghouls when the match gets lit and applied to the bonfire of Jew-hatred. Here’s the thing about the New Jew: We see it clearly now, and we say “Good!” Don’t hide your hate. Bring it into the open. The ones we’re not sure of have always been the most dangerous. Thanks to yesterday, the fog is gone. Now we know. That’s what we’ll be talking about at our Seders this week. You think Israel and Jews are a problem now? Just wait until we start agreeing with one another… and acting like it. Happy Passover—because our Seders won’t be a Last Supper anytime soon. Next year in Jerusalem!

Jake Donnelly

43,738 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад