Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

“if meron mang something (relationship), maybe we’ll just keep it private” 🤭 OH ALAM NYO NA HA KAYA WAG NYONG TINITIMBOG DAPAT SILA LANG TITIMBOG SA MGA SARILI NILA HSHSHSHSHHSHAHAHHA

W1LBEAR's profile picture

yzha ✰

3,155 subscribers

39,575 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Para sakin sapat na ang positive feedbacks from non-fans at casuals. Anong validation pb ang hanap nyo? Wala na silang dapat patunayan pa. Sa mga write-ups pa nga lang sa 2 days con nila lunod na sila sa mga papuri kaya tigilan nyo na kakabarda dyan.
0:45

Para sakin sapat na ang positive feedbacks from non-fans at casuals. Anong validation pb ang hanap nyo? Wala na silang dapat patunayan pa. Sa mga write-ups pa nga lang sa 2 days con nila lunod na sila sa mga papuri kaya tigilan nyo na kakabarda dyan.

meebaobei🌳

12,475 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Sya. Yung tipong nakipagbreak ka kasi alam mo mga pangarap nya. He wanted to become an actor/idol so bad pero alam mong naghohold back sya dahil sayo. Tapos after 7 years, nakikita mo sya sa lahat ng social media platforms na meron ka kasi sobrang successful na nya. Habang ikaw, nabubuhay pa rin sa ‘what ifs’ mo. What if di ka nakipag break? What if naglakas loob kang ipaglaban sya? What if you chose to stay with him? What hurts the most is that these are the questions you know will never be answered kasi ikakasal na sya. Kaya sabi mo sa sarili mo, kung hindi si Jun, wag na lang.
0:22

Sya. Yung tipong nakipagbreak ka kasi alam mo mga pangarap nya. He wanted to become an actor/idol so bad pero alam mong naghohold back sya dahil sayo. Tapos after 7 years, nakikita mo sya sa lahat ng social media platforms na meron ka kasi sobrang successful na nya. Habang ikaw, nabubuhay pa rin sa ‘what ifs’ mo. What if di ka nakipag break? What if naglakas loob kang ipaglaban sya? What if you chose to stay with him? What hurts the most is that these are the questions you know will never be answered kasi ikakasal na sya. Kaya sabi mo sa sarili mo, kung hindi si Jun, wag na lang.

anne 🐱🪽ia

40,928 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Are you really a fan? Coz if you've been here long enough, you'll know na hindi performative ang SB19. Hindi sila basta bumoboses lang just for clout. Hindi sila ganun. They make use of their platform wisely and creatively. Have you not seen their works? Have you not read the lyrics of their songs? Have you not listened to their spiels during their concerts? How about during their finale concert, na instead na ads from their brand partners ipakita nila sa LED, call out sa current political situation ng Pilipinas at ng mundo ang pinalabas nila for their 100k audience to see? Are you not aware how they use their art to make a statement? If not, then that's a you problem. Ang galing galing nating magdecipher ng mga teasers na nilalapag nila tuwing comeback tapos sa mga obvious hints of them making a statement biglang bulag kayo? Ano na? Hindi naman siguro kayo mga bobo para di sila magets, no? Ang sa akin lang, wag n'yo ireduce ang esbi to some cowardly celebrities na takot mabash kaya ayaw magsalita. Na para bang sukatan ng pagmamahal at malasakit sa bayan ang pakikisabay sa socmed lol. If you've really been paying attention, matagal na silang nagsalita! They have their own way of protesting and making a statement. And I know they're not done yet, just you wait and see. "Sining ang sandata sa kulturang mapagpalaya." - SB19
3:17

Are you really a fan? Coz if you've been here long enough, you'll know na hindi performative ang SB19. Hindi sila basta bumoboses lang just for clout. Hindi sila ganun. They make use of their platform wisely and creatively. Have you not seen their works? Have you not read the lyrics of their songs? Have you not listened to their spiels during their concerts? How about during their finale concert, na instead na ads from their brand partners ipakita nila sa LED, call out sa current political situation ng Pilipinas at ng mundo ang pinalabas nila for their 100k audience to see? Are you not aware how they use their art to make a statement? If not, then that's a you problem. Ang galing galing nating magdecipher ng mga teasers na nilalapag nila tuwing comeback tapos sa mga obvious hints of them making a statement biglang bulag kayo? Ano na? Hindi naman siguro kayo mga bobo para di sila magets, no? Ang sa akin lang, wag n'yo ireduce ang esbi to some cowardly celebrities na takot mabash kaya ayaw magsalita. Na para bang sukatan ng pagmamahal at malasakit sa bayan ang pakikisabay sa socmed lol. If you've really been paying attention, matagal na silang nagsalita! They have their own way of protesting and making a statement. And I know they're not done yet, just you wait and see. "Sining ang sandata sa kulturang mapagpalaya." - SB19

Android 18 💫

23,505 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Jhoanna: “Sobrang grateful kami kasi di namin in-expect na mangyayari ito samin na makakatungtong kami sa ibang stage.. pero senate naman diba…” Mikha: “us girls, we’re so grateful to be recognized, the fact na namention rin nila yung privacy and all of that and that they offered a prayer to us, it was a touching moment…” Sheena: “meron talaga kaming goal. Meron kaming stand na talagang gusto namin, everywhere we go, we bring our Filipinism with us, the whole OPM scene with us, and at the same time, our culture. We're so proud of it, why would we hide it?” Colet: “from the start naman, yun naman talaga ang goal ng BINI, ang makilala ang culture ng Filipino. yung Filipino culture mismo.. And itong nangyayari ngayon… naa-acknowledge yung lahat ng effort na ginagawa namin para sa Pilipinas, para sa OPM…” Aiah: “to be able to have a handshake with them parang sino ba kami.. and hearing them also talk about us and also acknowledge our hardwork, so it’s a good feeling and we’re so happy to be here.” Maloi: “i believe na dapat talagang ma-share ito to all the artist hindi lng OPM artist but also lahat ng mga creatives out there na walang means, walang kakayahan, walang outlet platform for it….” Gwen: “naniniwala po talaga kami na ang laking potential ng mga Pilipino, lahat ng artist. Ang dami pang kayang ibigay and ipakita out there globally, and sobrang laking bagay po nito samin.” Stacey: “I think now is the time, tayong mga Pinoy, yung pinoy talents, pinoy creativity, pinoy culture ay makilala din internationally… kung kaya ng ibang international artists, why not mga Filipino, kayang -kaya din natin makipagsabayan kaya now is the time na talang mag-go tayo sa global scene, dapat di tayo matakot, wag nating ikahiya kung sino tayo dahil lalaban ang mga pinoy.” credit: abscbnnews YouTube Channel
5:03

Jhoanna: “Sobrang grateful kami kasi di namin in-expect na mangyayari ito samin na makakatungtong kami sa ibang stage.. pero senate naman diba…” Mikha: “us girls, we’re so grateful to be recognized, the fact na namention rin nila yung privacy and all of that and that they offered a prayer to us, it was a touching moment…” Sheena: “meron talaga kaming goal. Meron kaming stand na talagang gusto namin, everywhere we go, we bring our Filipinism with us, the whole OPM scene with us, and at the same time, our culture. We're so proud of it, why would we hide it?” Colet: “from the start naman, yun naman talaga ang goal ng BINI, ang makilala ang culture ng Filipino. yung Filipino culture mismo.. And itong nangyayari ngayon… naa-acknowledge yung lahat ng effort na ginagawa namin para sa Pilipinas, para sa OPM…” Aiah: “to be able to have a handshake with them parang sino ba kami.. and hearing them also talk about us and also acknowledge our hardwork, so it’s a good feeling and we’re so happy to be here.” Maloi: “i believe na dapat talagang ma-share ito to all the artist hindi lng OPM artist but also lahat ng mga creatives out there na walang means, walang kakayahan, walang outlet platform for it….” Gwen: “naniniwala po talaga kami na ang laking potential ng mga Pilipino, lahat ng artist. Ang dami pang kayang ibigay and ipakita out there globally, and sobrang laking bagay po nito samin.” Stacey: “I think now is the time, tayong mga Pinoy, yung pinoy talents, pinoy creativity, pinoy culture ay makilala din internationally… kung kaya ng ibang international artists, why not mga Filipino, kayang -kaya din natin makipagsabayan kaya now is the time na talang mag-go tayo sa global scene, dapat di tayo matakot, wag nating ikahiya kung sino tayo dahil lalaban ang mga pinoy.” credit: abscbnnews YouTube Channel

binibloombelgium

86,889 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

BINI voice diaries — from colet — "to my past self. you did well. you did a great job. thank you for enduring everything kasi ikaw yung taong as much as possible kikimkimin para hindi makaperwisyo ng iba. maraming maraming salamat kasi naging strong ka, yung mind mo, yung heart mo, especially your body. yung mga dreams mo na gusto mo ng mga ganito at the age of ganyan naachieve mo na sya, so good job. wag ka masyado mag alala kasi madaming tao ang nasa paligid mo na genuinely caring for you and genuinely love ka talaga. wag kang mahiya humingi ng tulong, lalo na pag di kaya lumapit ka sa mga taong alam mong safe kang magshare at comfortable kang magshare and hindi ka ijujudge. sana maachieve mo pa yung mga dreams mo pa and mag pray ka lang kay lord lagi. that's it. ok bye." i'm glad you know by now that there are a lot of people who genuinely love you and will always be here for you col. just keep on dreaming and we will be right here with you along the way. always proud of you 💚
1:05

BINI voice diaries — from colet — "to my past self. you did well. you did a great job. thank you for enduring everything kasi ikaw yung taong as much as possible kikimkimin para hindi makaperwisyo ng iba. maraming maraming salamat kasi naging strong ka, yung mind mo, yung heart mo, especially your body. yung mga dreams mo na gusto mo ng mga ganito at the age of ganyan naachieve mo na sya, so good job. wag ka masyado mag alala kasi madaming tao ang nasa paligid mo na genuinely caring for you and genuinely love ka talaga. wag kang mahiya humingi ng tulong, lalo na pag di kaya lumapit ka sa mga taong alam mong safe kang magshare at comfortable kang magshare and hindi ka ijujudge. sana maachieve mo pa yung mga dreams mo pa and mag pray ka lang kay lord lagi. that's it. ok bye." i'm glad you know by now that there are a lot of people who genuinely love you and will always be here for you col. just keep on dreaming and we will be right here with you along the way. always proud of you 💚

mira

34,656 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

My honest review of Buruguduy The Musical Nung una, akala ko parang mababaw na patawa lang. Medyo nakornihan pa nga ako nung simula eh. Naisip ko "ang labo naman nito...patawa lang sila ng patawa" (buti nalang nakakatawa talaga sila✌🏼😅) Siguro I was trying to look for something deeper, and was hoping that things would soon make sense...or at least magkaroong ng satisfying amount of substance in their world of absurdity (naks...world of absurdity) Sure, it was fun and funny...and how the songs were used (and how the actors performed them), were amazing, and the visual assault was spectacular. Given na yun eh. ...but I kept asking myself, yun na ba talaga yun? Isang nakakatawang trip na may simpleng closure sa dulo? Then looking back, I soon realized how dark and simple the narrative was. Para akong binuhusan ng isang timba ng malamig na tubig. It was brilliant. Like a deep disturbing track disguised as a novelty song. Every single line and element pala were symbols and clues on what the story was all about...even the stupidest little things. Everything about it was precise and calculated. Lahat sinadya. Sobrang galing nung writer. Sobrang galing nila lahat. Napaka-fearless and unapologetic. Parang "kung di mo napansin yung serious side, oks lang...at least natawa at natuwa ka...and yun naman ang importante" 😁👍🏼 Kung na-gets mo naman, parang "p*tang ina...yun pala yun. Mga sira-ulo sila" 🤟🏼😳 sobrang in your face pala yung kwento. Sobrang dark and twisted, pero may subtle, at simple, and beautiful na silver lining.❤️ May seryosong matututunan, at makatotohanan na inspirasyon...na binalot sa isang makulit at magical na mundo. Basta...sobrang galing. ...and sobrang saya lang. Isang feel good na musical (na may dark twist all throughout) at siguradong lalabas kang naka-ngiti.❤️ Excited na ako manood ulit bukas...pero this time, I'll be looking out for more clues, hints, and easter eggs. ...or maybe, I'll just sit back, and simply enjoy the ride, without thinking too much. Cheers!!! P.S. sa mga magtatanong, hindi po ako nagbebenta ng tickets✌🏼😅 kung gusto nyo ng tickets try nyo tawagan si Pie +639178728765
0:32

My honest review of Buruguduy The Musical Nung una, akala ko parang mababaw na patawa lang. Medyo nakornihan pa nga ako nung simula eh. Naisip ko "ang labo naman nito...patawa lang sila ng patawa" (buti nalang nakakatawa talaga sila✌🏼😅) Siguro I was trying to look for something deeper, and was hoping that things would soon make sense...or at least magkaroong ng satisfying amount of substance in their world of absurdity (naks...world of absurdity) Sure, it was fun and funny...and how the songs were used (and how the actors performed them), were amazing, and the visual assault was spectacular. Given na yun eh. ...but I kept asking myself, yun na ba talaga yun? Isang nakakatawang trip na may simpleng closure sa dulo? Then looking back, I soon realized how dark and simple the narrative was. Para akong binuhusan ng isang timba ng malamig na tubig. It was brilliant. Like a deep disturbing track disguised as a novelty song. Every single line and element pala were symbols and clues on what the story was all about...even the stupidest little things. Everything about it was precise and calculated. Lahat sinadya. Sobrang galing nung writer. Sobrang galing nila lahat. Napaka-fearless and unapologetic. Parang "kung di mo napansin yung serious side, oks lang...at least natawa at natuwa ka...and yun naman ang importante" 😁👍🏼 Kung na-gets mo naman, parang "p*tang ina...yun pala yun. Mga sira-ulo sila" 🤟🏼😳 sobrang in your face pala yung kwento. Sobrang dark and twisted, pero may subtle, at simple, and beautiful na silver lining.❤️ May seryosong matututunan, at makatotohanan na inspirasyon...na binalot sa isang makulit at magical na mundo. Basta...sobrang galing. ...and sobrang saya lang. Isang feel good na musical (na may dark twist all throughout) at siguradong lalabas kang naka-ngiti.❤️ Excited na ako manood ulit bukas...pero this time, I'll be looking out for more clues, hints, and easter eggs. ...or maybe, I'll just sit back, and simply enjoy the ride, without thinking too much. Cheers!!! P.S. sa mga magtatanong, hindi po ako nagbebenta ng tickets✌🏼😅 kung gusto nyo ng tickets try nyo tawagan si Pie +639178728765

Chito Miranda

21,097 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

sheena's final ment Thank you everyone who came tonight, grabe. Thank you for buying tickets. Thank you for spending your—anong araw ngayon?—your Saturday with us. Thank you for all the greetings, all the gifts. Thank you to all the performers na nagperform today, grabe I can't believe na nakuha kayo lahat [...] But thank you so much, fantasy ko to, and the drag queens, thank you so much po, like... totoo yung sinabi ni Trish, honestly, sabi ko, "Wag na, gastos lang yan. Magbouldering nalang tayo." Mga ganun ganun. Pero I trusted you and look, oh. It's a success. [...] I know this is for me, but know na this is also for you. I know na if I'm happy, you're also happy. [...] Sobrang tagal na sakin ni Trish, since PBB pa lang. That's why I really appreciate her. And sobrang bata pa nya, obvious naman (laughs). Pero sobrang matured nya magisip and sa kanya rin ako kumukuha ng mga advice sa mga bagay bagay. I really love it. And of course, timshi thank you so much. Thank you El, thank you ate Gill, thank you Rai. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sobrang solid nila, feeling ko kaya kong mabuhay ng sila lang yung kasama ko... hindi, joke lang (laughs). Hindi ko kaya. But thank you. Thank you so much guys. Grabe, I feel so loved... kahit mukha akong relaxed lang na ano, pero, sobrang, sobra akong nata-touch. Siguro iiyak ko to pag-uwi. Pero I really appreciate na everyone na nandito for all the things you guys are doing for me. I don't know if I even deserve all of this, but thank you so much. Thank you Shinies. Ay grabe, Blooms! Shinies ko lang to gumawa ng grupo [...] Love it. Next Sheenayaw ha. Ayun lang. Thank you guys for coming. Grabe, I'm so happy... I'm so happy. Thank you Lord, thank you God. Good night, tara na (laughs). Maaga pa ako bukas. BINI SHEENA 22RIFIC YEARS #twenSHEEtwo #MagpaSHEEkat #BINI_Sheena
2:18

sheena's final ment Thank you everyone who came tonight, grabe. Thank you for buying tickets. Thank you for spending your—anong araw ngayon?—your Saturday with us. Thank you for all the greetings, all the gifts. Thank you to all the performers na nagperform today, grabe I can't believe na nakuha kayo lahat [...] But thank you so much, fantasy ko to, and the drag queens, thank you so much po, like... totoo yung sinabi ni Trish, honestly, sabi ko, "Wag na, gastos lang yan. Magbouldering nalang tayo." Mga ganun ganun. Pero I trusted you and look, oh. It's a success. [...] I know this is for me, but know na this is also for you. I know na if I'm happy, you're also happy. [...] Sobrang tagal na sakin ni Trish, since PBB pa lang. That's why I really appreciate her. And sobrang bata pa nya, obvious naman (laughs). Pero sobrang matured nya magisip and sa kanya rin ako kumukuha ng mga advice sa mga bagay bagay. I really love it. And of course, timshi thank you so much. Thank you El, thank you ate Gill, thank you Rai. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sobrang solid nila, feeling ko kaya kong mabuhay ng sila lang yung kasama ko... hindi, joke lang (laughs). Hindi ko kaya. But thank you. Thank you so much guys. Grabe, I feel so loved... kahit mukha akong relaxed lang na ano, pero, sobrang, sobra akong nata-touch. Siguro iiyak ko to pag-uwi. Pero I really appreciate na everyone na nandito for all the things you guys are doing for me. I don't know if I even deserve all of this, but thank you so much. Thank you Shinies. Ay grabe, Blooms! Shinies ko lang to gumawa ng grupo [...] Love it. Next Sheenayaw ha. Ayun lang. Thank you guys for coming. Grabe, I'm so happy... I'm so happy. Thank you Lord, thank you God. Good night, tara na (laughs). Maaga pa ako bukas. BINI SHEENA 22RIFIC YEARS #twenSHEEtwo #MagpaSHEEkat #BINI_Sheena

່͏

21,704 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

‘DAO MING SI-NYOR’ SA F4 CONCERT! 🥰 Senior citizen fans of the iconic F4 from “Meteor Garden” received loud cheers from the crowd! Uploader GB Jeshireen Santos captured the adorable moment as titas and mommies waved to the crowd while ascending the stairs of the Philippine Arena for the “F4 FOREVER” 1st World Tour concert on Saturday. “Pinauna ng staff ang senior citizens. Nang makita sila ng mga tao, bigla na lang nag-cheer at nagpalakpakan ang buong crowd. Sobrang heartwarming kasi nakakatuwang makita na hanggang ngayon, maraming senior fans pa rin ng F4 na dumayo para manood ng concert,” she told The Philippine STAR. In the video, it was evident that they were so excited to meet F4's Jerry Yan, Van Ness Wu, Vic Chou, and Taiwanese singer Ashin! “Sila ‘yung mga dating nanay na nag-aabang ng ‘Meteor Garden’ tuwing hapon,” she added. Santos, who is also a solid F4 fangirl for 23 years, described the concert as an unforgettable experience. “Hanggang ngayon, hindi pa rin ako maka-move on sa concert. Mahigit 20 years ko itong hinintay, kaya isa ito sa pinakamagandang araw sa buhay ko,” she added. As of this writing, the uploaded video on social media has garnered more than 2.4 million views! “Mabuhay ang mga anak na tinupad ang pangarap ng mga nanay nila,” a netizen commented. (Video courtesy of GB Jeshireen Santos) If you have a story, picture, or video you wish to share, you may join our community page.
1:19

‘DAO MING SI-NYOR’ SA F4 CONCERT! 🥰 Senior citizen fans of the iconic F4 from “Meteor Garden” received loud cheers from the crowd! Uploader GB Jeshireen Santos captured the adorable moment as titas and mommies waved to the crowd while ascending the stairs of the Philippine Arena for the “F4 FOREVER” 1st World Tour concert on Saturday. “Pinauna ng staff ang senior citizens. Nang makita sila ng mga tao, bigla na lang nag-cheer at nagpalakpakan ang buong crowd. Sobrang heartwarming kasi nakakatuwang makita na hanggang ngayon, maraming senior fans pa rin ng F4 na dumayo para manood ng concert,” she told The Philippine STAR. In the video, it was evident that they were so excited to meet F4's Jerry Yan, Van Ness Wu, Vic Chou, and Taiwanese singer Ashin! “Sila ‘yung mga dating nanay na nag-aabang ng ‘Meteor Garden’ tuwing hapon,” she added. Santos, who is also a solid F4 fangirl for 23 years, described the concert as an unforgettable experience. “Hanggang ngayon, hindi pa rin ako maka-move on sa concert. Mahigit 20 years ko itong hinintay, kaya isa ito sa pinakamagandang araw sa buhay ko,” she added. As of this writing, the uploaded video on social media has garnered more than 2.4 million views! “Mabuhay ang mga anak na tinupad ang pangarap ng mga nanay nila,” a netizen commented. (Video courtesy of GB Jeshireen Santos) If you have a story, picture, or video you wish to share, you may join our community page.

The Philippine Star

44,712 görüntüleme • 25 gün önce

Ive always wanted to post this whole conversation.. BIANCA' S PARENTS MUST HAVE AVAILED THE LIVESTREAM.. THATS WHY THEY NEVER judged DUSTIN. LIKE his haters did who probably watch it in Primetime, which is super edited or on tiktok vids who surely spliced it even more... to paint a certain narrative. He is just emotional of what happened.. Aminado nman silang lahat na sinadya nilang asarin sya ng paulit ulit. Kaya nya natawag na insensitive si michael kasi alam ng hurt na sya di pa rin tumitigil. ( even josh shared his experience with Michae and kira ) When he said di sya sanay sa ganun babae : putol lang kasi pero at the start of the video.. Dustin : ipaparinig mo na may gusto kang iba. my favorite part? How he explained "makakaapekto yun sa tingin ko syo." Dustin: ganun nman kasi talaga like yung actions natin.. for example sipain ko yan (cup tower) kahit sabihin kong joke lang nman anu magiging tingin mo sa kin? KUPS AKO. ginawa ko sya eh.. If anything this video proves kung gano nya talaga kagusto si Bianca from the start. Na before the incident puro positive lang yung nakikita nya sa kanya... and he was really happy. Natawa pa ko sa part na sabi nya.. Ienjoy na lang daw nya.. (stay sa PBB) di nman daw kailangan (lovelife) .. tapos sasabihin nyo sya ang may hanap ng loveteam... and sna na-air yung part na to.. Josh : outside ba di ka inaasar ng tropa mo? Dustin: inaasar nila ako sa gusto ko.. Hinde yung ganun.. Yung harapan tapos tropa tapos babae (na yung mga tropa nya tutuksuhin yung isa pa nyang tropa sa gusto nyang girl ) 😂 GETS?? he also mentioned that at that point.. they've had serious conversations na about family etc. Josh even asked if maingay pa din si bianca during those talks.. Dustin: TAHIMIK i also appreciate how he stopped talking when he noticed cameras were on him and how he said mabait si brenty. ( na di rin comfortable kay michael by the way eh first duo nya 😂) i hope everyone should see this.. the very conversation that has been blown out of proportion.. All villains have Backstories.. YES! but Dustin? he wasnt the villain...his backstory? makes him the victim.. Thank you sa pag edit sa primetime.. berigood kayo. #dustbia #dustinyu #BIANCADEVERA
14:28

Ive always wanted to post this whole conversation.. BIANCA' S PARENTS MUST HAVE AVAILED THE LIVESTREAM.. THATS WHY THEY NEVER judged DUSTIN. LIKE his haters did who probably watch it in Primetime, which is super edited or on tiktok vids who surely spliced it even more... to paint a certain narrative. He is just emotional of what happened.. Aminado nman silang lahat na sinadya nilang asarin sya ng paulit ulit. Kaya nya natawag na insensitive si michael kasi alam ng hurt na sya di pa rin tumitigil. ( even josh shared his experience with Michae and kira ) When he said di sya sanay sa ganun babae : putol lang kasi pero at the start of the video.. Dustin : ipaparinig mo na may gusto kang iba. my favorite part? How he explained "makakaapekto yun sa tingin ko syo." Dustin: ganun nman kasi talaga like yung actions natin.. for example sipain ko yan (cup tower) kahit sabihin kong joke lang nman anu magiging tingin mo sa kin? KUPS AKO. ginawa ko sya eh.. If anything this video proves kung gano nya talaga kagusto si Bianca from the start. Na before the incident puro positive lang yung nakikita nya sa kanya... and he was really happy. Natawa pa ko sa part na sabi nya.. Ienjoy na lang daw nya.. (stay sa PBB) di nman daw kailangan (lovelife) .. tapos sasabihin nyo sya ang may hanap ng loveteam... and sna na-air yung part na to.. Josh : outside ba di ka inaasar ng tropa mo? Dustin: inaasar nila ako sa gusto ko.. Hinde yung ganun.. Yung harapan tapos tropa tapos babae (na yung mga tropa nya tutuksuhin yung isa pa nyang tropa sa gusto nyang girl ) 😂 GETS?? he also mentioned that at that point.. they've had serious conversations na about family etc. Josh even asked if maingay pa din si bianca during those talks.. Dustin: TAHIMIK i also appreciate how he stopped talking when he noticed cameras were on him and how he said mabait si brenty. ( na di rin comfortable kay michael by the way eh first duo nya 😂) i hope everyone should see this.. the very conversation that has been blown out of proportion.. All villains have Backstories.. YES! but Dustin? he wasnt the villain...his backstory? makes him the victim.. Thank you sa pag edit sa primetime.. berigood kayo. #dustbia #dustinyu #BIANCADEVERA

little old me

47,999 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Even in a relatively smaller venue, SB19 proved exactly what we've always known: it's never about how big the stage is, it's about the heart, presence, and power they bring to it. Kahit stripped-down ang setup, they never let the audience feel like they're getting less. In fact, they always give more pa nga. Did you see how they improvised their intro and their adlibs sa ibang songs just to recreate that same epic, goosebump-inducing feeling from the SAW kickoff? Ganyan sila kagaling. Ganyan sila kagenerous sa pagpeperform. You can truly see how much they respect every stage they stand on and every audience they perform for. Alam nilang bawat show is special, kaya binubuhos talaga nila lahat, kahit saang venue pa yan. SB19 really knows how to make every space feel big because their presence is THAT massive. And honestly? Ang swerte din ng Taipei audience and yung mga susunod pang international stops nila. With a more intimate venue, parang naka-VIP na silang lahat diyan. Eh di ba sumulpot pa nga si Pablo dun sa second level for their first song na What? Grabeh. Imagine that. Kaya huge kudos and heartfelt congratulations to our incredible SB19 boys and the entire 1Z Entertainment team for consistently delivering nothing but the best: the best shows, the best performances, and the best experiences for us A'TIN. Your passion, hard work, and love for your craft will never ever go unnoticed. 💙 SB19 FIRES UP TAIPEI SB19 Official #SB19 #SimulaAtWakasInTaiwan
1:58

Even in a relatively smaller venue, SB19 proved exactly what we've always known: it's never about how big the stage is, it's about the heart, presence, and power they bring to it. Kahit stripped-down ang setup, they never let the audience feel like they're getting less. In fact, they always give more pa nga. Did you see how they improvised their intro and their adlibs sa ibang songs just to recreate that same epic, goosebump-inducing feeling from the SAW kickoff? Ganyan sila kagaling. Ganyan sila kagenerous sa pagpeperform. You can truly see how much they respect every stage they stand on and every audience they perform for. Alam nilang bawat show is special, kaya binubuhos talaga nila lahat, kahit saang venue pa yan. SB19 really knows how to make every space feel big because their presence is THAT massive. And honestly? Ang swerte din ng Taipei audience and yung mga susunod pang international stops nila. With a more intimate venue, parang naka-VIP na silang lahat diyan. Eh di ba sumulpot pa nga si Pablo dun sa second level for their first song na What? Grabeh. Imagine that. Kaya huge kudos and heartfelt congratulations to our incredible SB19 boys and the entire 1Z Entertainment team for consistently delivering nothing but the best: the best shows, the best performances, and the best experiences for us A'TIN. Your passion, hard work, and love for your craft will never ever go unnoticed. 💙 SB19 FIRES UP TAIPEI SB19 Official #SB19 #SimulaAtWakasInTaiwan

Android 18 💫

28,414 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

May El Niño ba sa utak ni Lustay? Parang wala na kasing mapiga even an iota of understanding on how oil prices actually work. Free naman magbasa kung may time pero hindi magawa? Ghorl, dependent ba ang presyo ng langis sa kung saan ito binili? You make it sound like the Philippines is stuck with the Middle East. Sila lang ba ang may langis? What about the other oil-producing countries outside the region? Yes, a large portion of our imports from the Middle East is crude oil; but the Philippines also sources from other suppliers like Russia, Malaysia, and other countries (possibly Latin America and Africa). For refined fuel, we import from Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, China and other regional suppliers. Which means: may alternative sources na ang Pilipinas. So, tanong: since may alternatives tayo, bumaba ba ang presyo ng langis? HINDI. Because oil prices are not determined by where the Philippines buys. Prices are set by global benchmarks. We can switch suppliers all we want, but if global prices are high, mataas pa rin ang presyo sa Pilipinas dahil private sector ang nagse-set ng presyo depende sa kung magkano ang bili nila. Alangan naman malugi sila. (Oil Deregulation Law yan). So, the claim that prices will keep rising unless we find alternatives to the Middle East speaks more of your brain’s capacity to understand the oil market. Even countries that don’t rely on the Middle East are affected because the market is global. And like I posted before, the Philippines is a price taker, not a price setter. We don’t influence prices, we follow them. Hindi naman tayo member ng OPEC+ to be able to influence the price. Kahit saan pa tayo bumili, kung mataas ang presyo sa global market, mataas pa rin ang babayaran natin. So, again, remind us, bakit gusto mo ulit maging presidente kung basic global pricing mechanics hindi mo gets?
0:31

May El Niño ba sa utak ni Lustay? Parang wala na kasing mapiga even an iota of understanding on how oil prices actually work. Free naman magbasa kung may time pero hindi magawa? Ghorl, dependent ba ang presyo ng langis sa kung saan ito binili? You make it sound like the Philippines is stuck with the Middle East. Sila lang ba ang may langis? What about the other oil-producing countries outside the region? Yes, a large portion of our imports from the Middle East is crude oil; but the Philippines also sources from other suppliers like Russia, Malaysia, and other countries (possibly Latin America and Africa). For refined fuel, we import from Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, China and other regional suppliers. Which means: may alternative sources na ang Pilipinas. So, tanong: since may alternatives tayo, bumaba ba ang presyo ng langis? HINDI. Because oil prices are not determined by where the Philippines buys. Prices are set by global benchmarks. We can switch suppliers all we want, but if global prices are high, mataas pa rin ang presyo sa Pilipinas dahil private sector ang nagse-set ng presyo depende sa kung magkano ang bili nila. Alangan naman malugi sila. (Oil Deregulation Law yan). So, the claim that prices will keep rising unless we find alternatives to the Middle East speaks more of your brain’s capacity to understand the oil market. Even countries that don’t rely on the Middle East are affected because the market is global. And like I posted before, the Philippines is a price taker, not a price setter. We don’t influence prices, we follow them. Hindi naman tayo member ng OPEC+ to be able to influence the price. Kahit saan pa tayo bumili, kung mataas ang presyo sa global market, mataas pa rin ang babayaran natin. So, again, remind us, bakit gusto mo ulit maging presidente kung basic global pricing mechanics hindi mo gets?

Thea Tan

18,589 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

I would never question Bianca’s clarity when it comes to who she chooses. If anything, living under one roof with both Will and Dustin gave her the ultimate reality check... She saw them as they really are, side by side, head to head..day in and day out. And even then, her choice was clear. "Sya ang pinaka stand out sa kin in terms of that aspect (romance)". Not once. Not twice. Multiple times, she chose Dustin. Multiple times, she reassured him..." you have nothing to worry about." That’s not confusion. That’s certainty. And let’s talk about this "kawawa" narrative… kawawa saan? 😅 Hurt from what? From something that never even existed? Be serious. Maybe she cared for him 3 years ago..fine. But let’s not romanticize a situation that lacked boundaries in the first place. Sino nga ule ang may GF?Pero sinasamahan si Bianca mag shopping?? Tagahawak pa nga ng basket lols.. Lumalabas outside work?? Ask natin si Coleen kung ok lang sa kanya na her BF back then is making time and nag eefort for another girl hahaha.. So di na ako magtataka kung naconfused si Bianca noon.. Ang feeling nyo ha na si Bianca lang ang may gusto.. CHE! But Inside BNK? There was no love triangle. No rivalry. No "almost." It was Dustin. Always Dustin. So let’s stop rewriting history just to push a ship that was never real. There was no Willca in PBB. Never was. Never will be. again "WALANG WILLCA". #DUSTBIA #DUSTINYU #BIANCADEVERA
1:09

I would never question Bianca’s clarity when it comes to who she chooses. If anything, living under one roof with both Will and Dustin gave her the ultimate reality check... She saw them as they really are, side by side, head to head..day in and day out. And even then, her choice was clear. "Sya ang pinaka stand out sa kin in terms of that aspect (romance)". Not once. Not twice. Multiple times, she chose Dustin. Multiple times, she reassured him..." you have nothing to worry about." That’s not confusion. That’s certainty. And let’s talk about this "kawawa" narrative… kawawa saan? 😅 Hurt from what? From something that never even existed? Be serious. Maybe she cared for him 3 years ago..fine. But let’s not romanticize a situation that lacked boundaries in the first place. Sino nga ule ang may GF?Pero sinasamahan si Bianca mag shopping?? Tagahawak pa nga ng basket lols.. Lumalabas outside work?? Ask natin si Coleen kung ok lang sa kanya na her BF back then is making time and nag eefort for another girl hahaha.. So di na ako magtataka kung naconfused si Bianca noon.. Ang feeling nyo ha na si Bianca lang ang may gusto.. CHE! But Inside BNK? There was no love triangle. No rivalry. No "almost." It was Dustin. Always Dustin. So let’s stop rewriting history just to push a ship that was never real. There was no Willca in PBB. Never was. Never will be. again "WALANG WILLCA". #DUSTBIA #DUSTINYU #BIANCADEVERA

little old me

15,932 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Just days after Claire Castro inaccurately and maliciously took Franco Cruz Mabanta's apology to the First Family out of context to allegedly help the narrative of nationally shamed former Martin Romualdez, the Presidential Spokesperson found herself on the receiving end of the verbal wrath of honorahle and patriotic Filipino protesters on the streets of Vancouver, Canada. The protesters did not hold back—directly calling her a liar, among a flurry of pejoratives. At a press conference this week, Castro deliberately spun a question from a reporter to make it look like Mabanta was spreading fake news about the First Family. However, PGMN has never once spread fake news about anyone. Moreover, although the PGMN Anchors are allowed to say whatever they want themselves, PGMN as a company itself has long made the strategic editorial decision to never attack President Bongbong Marcos, Vice President Sara Duterte, or Mayor Leni Robredo—a decision further concretized after Romualdez framed Mabanta in a fake extortion plot prompting PGMN to declare war exclusively against one enemy: Romualdez. This week at a Malacañang press conference, Castro was asked this question by a reporter: "Last week PGMN founder Franco mabanta posted a lengthy video. He apologized to the President and the First Lady for the past criticisms na ibinato ng PGMN against them and kasama rin din po doon yung kanyang paratang that Former Speaker Martin romualdez orchestrated the rift between the president and the vice president and also betrayed many of his political allies, including president Marcos. Your take on this?" Claire Castro responded: "Ang paghingi ng paumanhin ay pag amin ng kamalian. Ang pag amin ng kamalian papaano nila masasabi sa tao na totoo ang kanilang kwento taong aral dito. Wag gumawa ng intriga lalo na kung walang basehan. Ang pag iingay ng walang saysay ay nagiging biktima lamang ang mga Pilipino na walang malay. At ang paninira na walang basehan ginagawa lang na mangmang ang ating mga kababayan so iwasan ang mang intriga kung gagawa kayo ng anumang pag iimbestiga siguraduhin lamang ninyo na kayo ay may mga ebidensya. Hindi kailangan daanin sa pamilya. Hindi kailangan daanin kung saan saan kung mayroon kayong ebidensya, sampahan niyo na agad ng kaso." This entire answer from Castro was completely taken out of context. And was obviously perverse in intent. Mabanta did not apologize for criticism that never happened. Mabanta was apologizing for "feelings that had been hurt in the past", when he worked for the then-future First Couple back in 2017-18. A gesture that Mabanta felt was both "necessary" and "sincere" after having parted ways eight years prior. Instead of addressing the gesture truthfully, Castro twisted the message to supply ammunition for the hideously dishonest Romualdez camp, trying to make it look like Mabanta and PGMN's comprehensively accurate exposés against the former Speaker were fabricated. Planting loaded questions via corrupt reporters to be answered in a corrupt way by corrupt spokespersons while coordinating with corrupt media outlets to subsequently report a lie is a common practice in politics for governments around the world. Often this scheme is planned in the dark, without the knowledge of the principal.
1:52

Just days after Claire Castro inaccurately and maliciously took Franco Cruz Mabanta's apology to the First Family out of context to allegedly help the narrative of nationally shamed former Martin Romualdez, the Presidential Spokesperson found herself on the receiving end of the verbal wrath of honorahle and patriotic Filipino protesters on the streets of Vancouver, Canada. The protesters did not hold back—directly calling her a liar, among a flurry of pejoratives. At a press conference this week, Castro deliberately spun a question from a reporter to make it look like Mabanta was spreading fake news about the First Family. However, PGMN has never once spread fake news about anyone. Moreover, although the PGMN Anchors are allowed to say whatever they want themselves, PGMN as a company itself has long made the strategic editorial decision to never attack President Bongbong Marcos, Vice President Sara Duterte, or Mayor Leni Robredo—a decision further concretized after Romualdez framed Mabanta in a fake extortion plot prompting PGMN to declare war exclusively against one enemy: Romualdez. This week at a Malacañang press conference, Castro was asked this question by a reporter: "Last week PGMN founder Franco mabanta posted a lengthy video. He apologized to the President and the First Lady for the past criticisms na ibinato ng PGMN against them and kasama rin din po doon yung kanyang paratang that Former Speaker Martin romualdez orchestrated the rift between the president and the vice president and also betrayed many of his political allies, including president Marcos. Your take on this?" Claire Castro responded: "Ang paghingi ng paumanhin ay pag amin ng kamalian. Ang pag amin ng kamalian papaano nila masasabi sa tao na totoo ang kanilang kwento taong aral dito. Wag gumawa ng intriga lalo na kung walang basehan. Ang pag iingay ng walang saysay ay nagiging biktima lamang ang mga Pilipino na walang malay. At ang paninira na walang basehan ginagawa lang na mangmang ang ating mga kababayan so iwasan ang mang intriga kung gagawa kayo ng anumang pag iimbestiga siguraduhin lamang ninyo na kayo ay may mga ebidensya. Hindi kailangan daanin sa pamilya. Hindi kailangan daanin kung saan saan kung mayroon kayong ebidensya, sampahan niyo na agad ng kaso." This entire answer from Castro was completely taken out of context. And was obviously perverse in intent. Mabanta did not apologize for criticism that never happened. Mabanta was apologizing for "feelings that had been hurt in the past", when he worked for the then-future First Couple back in 2017-18. A gesture that Mabanta felt was both "necessary" and "sincere" after having parted ways eight years prior. Instead of addressing the gesture truthfully, Castro twisted the message to supply ammunition for the hideously dishonest Romualdez camp, trying to make it look like Mabanta and PGMN's comprehensively accurate exposés against the former Speaker were fabricated. Planting loaded questions via corrupt reporters to be answered in a corrupt way by corrupt spokespersons while coordinating with corrupt media outlets to subsequently report a lie is a common practice in politics for governments around the world. Often this scheme is planned in the dark, without the knowledge of the principal.

Peanut Gallery Media Network

20,607 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

1/2 🚨TOXIC DDS RED TAGGING QUEEN LORRAINE BADOY TARGETED ME ON SMNI FOR EXPOSING HER LIES. NOW SHE’S SUSPENDED AND I’M VINDICATED. 👏👏👏 [Long read but oddly satisfying 😂] 1. I kept this clip because I knew I’d laugh out loud one day because the universe will prove I was right all along. It is incredibly satisfying to rewatch this clip now. Let’s talk about the SMNI hosts of disinformation: Lorraine Badoy — the unhinged, newly suspended red-tagging queen; and Jeffrey Celiz. 2. But let’s talk about Jeffrey Celiz first. This is the same toxic propagandist from Iloilo City who used to be a lackey for former Iloilo City Mayor Jed Mabilog (now DILG USec) before his name ended up on Duterte’s infamous narco-list as a major drug personality. When the political winds shifted, Jeffrey Celiz miraculously underwent a "rebranding" and crawled out of the woodwork with a fake name, Ka Eric Almendras. He became a self-proclaimed “CPP-NPA cadre" who peddles fake news and red tags everyone. But he is a FAKE CADRE through and through. He left Iloilo because the other personalities in the narco-list got assassinated and he had to re-invent himself to avoid EJK. He even lied in front of Sen. Tito Sotto and Sen. Ping Lacson at the Senate by saying he was a government /PDEA asset. Huh? Kumukuha ang PDEA ng ex NPA Cadre and patay gutom na propagandist as an asset? Huwag mo nga kaming gawing tanga! Everyone in Iloilo knows who you are! Source: 3. Toxic DDS Red Tagging Queen Lorraine Badoy was furious in this video because my 2023 FB post caught her red-handed misquoting the Supreme Court’s resolution in Zarate vs. Aquino. I called her out because she has consistently used this specific case to give herself the fake authority to red-tag anyone. Kaya sya UNHINGED sa red tagging nya because she was quoting an SC ruling to make the DDS brainless minions believe she was doing the right thing. Yun pala, hindi nya binasa ang kaso. And if she did, she obviously didn’t understand the case. 😂 4. BADOY'S OWN FABRICATED DOCTRINE Badoy repeatedly lied on SMNI and claimed the Supreme Court ruled that [falsely] identifying someone as a member of the CPP-NPA-NDF carries "NO DANGER." She literally fabricated her own legal doctrine out of thin air just to justify her actions, and then turned around on-air to whine that I was merely being "too literal." Well, ate girl, a Supreme Court ruling explicitly states what it means. If the SC did not say it, then it doesn’t exist. Imbento ka ng ruling mo? Since you quoted the SC said something that’s literally non-existent, that means you literally spewed fake news and disinformation to put many people’s lives in danger! 5. Badoy and this kapalmuks Jeffrey Celiz even tried to insult me on-air by saying I am not a lawyer. Bakit, lawyers ba kayo? Kung hindi lawyer walang superior comprehension skills sa binabasa? Appeal to authority yarn? Ikaw, Jeffrey Celiz, did you even graduate from WVSU? Patingin nga ng diploma mo! You even falsely claimed you went to and graduated from UP Diliman when you didn’t even pass the UPCAT! Butigon! Palamunin ka lang naman sa Iloilo ng mga pulitiko who relied on your toxic propaganda and wrong grammar statements on the radio, and you were even seen rubbing shoulders with the biggest drug lord, Melvin Odicta. Sadly, he is now dead due to EJK. Di ba that’s the reason umalis ka sa Iloilo dahil takot ka na ikaw ang susunod na ma un-alive? And they can only quote Atty Topacio: a performative DDS lawyer na mahilig sa press conference and doesn’t even have a stellar record of courtroom wins. [Continue reading…]
1:04

1/2 🚨TOXIC DDS RED TAGGING QUEEN LORRAINE BADOY TARGETED ME ON SMNI FOR EXPOSING HER LIES. NOW SHE’S SUSPENDED AND I’M VINDICATED. 👏👏👏 [Long read but oddly satisfying 😂] 1. I kept this clip because I knew I’d laugh out loud one day because the universe will prove I was right all along. It is incredibly satisfying to rewatch this clip now. Let’s talk about the SMNI hosts of disinformation: Lorraine Badoy — the unhinged, newly suspended red-tagging queen; and Jeffrey Celiz. 2. But let’s talk about Jeffrey Celiz first. This is the same toxic propagandist from Iloilo City who used to be a lackey for former Iloilo City Mayor Jed Mabilog (now DILG USec) before his name ended up on Duterte’s infamous narco-list as a major drug personality. When the political winds shifted, Jeffrey Celiz miraculously underwent a "rebranding" and crawled out of the woodwork with a fake name, Ka Eric Almendras. He became a self-proclaimed “CPP-NPA cadre" who peddles fake news and red tags everyone. But he is a FAKE CADRE through and through. He left Iloilo because the other personalities in the narco-list got assassinated and he had to re-invent himself to avoid EJK. He even lied in front of Sen. Tito Sotto and Sen. Ping Lacson at the Senate by saying he was a government /PDEA asset. Huh? Kumukuha ang PDEA ng ex NPA Cadre and patay gutom na propagandist as an asset? Huwag mo nga kaming gawing tanga! Everyone in Iloilo knows who you are! Source: 3. Toxic DDS Red Tagging Queen Lorraine Badoy was furious in this video because my 2023 FB post caught her red-handed misquoting the Supreme Court’s resolution in Zarate vs. Aquino. I called her out because she has consistently used this specific case to give herself the fake authority to red-tag anyone. Kaya sya UNHINGED sa red tagging nya because she was quoting an SC ruling to make the DDS brainless minions believe she was doing the right thing. Yun pala, hindi nya binasa ang kaso. And if she did, she obviously didn’t understand the case. 😂 4. BADOY'S OWN FABRICATED DOCTRINE Badoy repeatedly lied on SMNI and claimed the Supreme Court ruled that [falsely] identifying someone as a member of the CPP-NPA-NDF carries "NO DANGER." She literally fabricated her own legal doctrine out of thin air just to justify her actions, and then turned around on-air to whine that I was merely being "too literal." Well, ate girl, a Supreme Court ruling explicitly states what it means. If the SC did not say it, then it doesn’t exist. Imbento ka ng ruling mo? Since you quoted the SC said something that’s literally non-existent, that means you literally spewed fake news and disinformation to put many people’s lives in danger! 5. Badoy and this kapalmuks Jeffrey Celiz even tried to insult me on-air by saying I am not a lawyer. Bakit, lawyers ba kayo? Kung hindi lawyer walang superior comprehension skills sa binabasa? Appeal to authority yarn? Ikaw, Jeffrey Celiz, did you even graduate from WVSU? Patingin nga ng diploma mo! You even falsely claimed you went to and graduated from UP Diliman when you didn’t even pass the UPCAT! Butigon! Palamunin ka lang naman sa Iloilo ng mga pulitiko who relied on your toxic propaganda and wrong grammar statements on the radio, and you were even seen rubbing shoulders with the biggest drug lord, Melvin Odicta. Sadly, he is now dead due to EJK. Di ba that’s the reason umalis ka sa Iloilo dahil takot ka na ikaw ang susunod na ma un-alive? And they can only quote Atty Topacio: a performative DDS lawyer na mahilig sa press conference and doesn’t even have a stellar record of courtroom wins. [Continue reading…]

Thea Tan

36,460 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce

When I was reading Brian Tully, Ken Mello and Robert Cosgrove's affidavits yesterday in the Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney case, I was challenged by an account that was intent on defending Leigha Bathtub Genduso and Kate Peter. Best quotes from my retort; "Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Thirdly: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. Why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record, as well? Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. Reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kit and caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done." PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: If you’re just tuning in, my name is Grant Smith Ellis, and we are reading through Brian Tully, Robert Cosgrove, and Ken Mello’s affidavit. It’s tough to call it an affidavit from Ken Mello, because quite frankly, he didn’t write an affidavit. Robert Cosgrove adapted hearsay statements in Ken Mello’s voice in his own affidavit. That might tell you something. I don’t know. What the fuck do I know? I’m just a towel. Thank you very much for tuning in. I have noticed that there is a very specific group of people in Kate Peter’s orbit trying to target Towel right now. People do not want Towel to be heard. That means I’m going to speak more. I am going to just keep talking and keep saying things, because now I have put it all together. Oh, that’s right. I have one more thing to type. Furthermore, as soon as, within weeks of Kate’s emails to Tully and Mello being turned over in, what was it? August of 2025, the TurtleBoy charges involving Lindsey Gaetani were dropped. And what do you know? Kate was involved in handling evidence submitted by Tully and Mello to the grand jury for Lindsey’s charges, for the charges involving Lindsey Gaetani, for Aiden’s charges involving Lindsey Gaetani. Furthermore, the new email from Kate to Mello indicates Kate was indeed also involved in the 2023 indictments against Kearney that the Norfolk DA seems intent on trying to wall off from Kate Peter’s involvement. Oh, little towels, I'm just a little towel. Steph, Grant says, “Why are you making fun of her by calling her bathtub.” Wait, what? No, no, no, Steph, let’s be very clear. When Leigha Genduso engaged in—and I think it was Kate actually who did it—but when Leigha Genduso or Kate responded to revenge porn with revenge porn, nothing about that was okay, okay? Whether it was legal or not at the time, nobody sharing revenge porn of anybody else was okay, all right? I just want to be very clear. So when Kate did it, it was not okay. When Aiden did it, if that’s what happened with Leigha—I don’t know, I wasn’t around—not okay. If Leigha did it to Aiden, not okay, okay? Everybody on the same page? Like, it’s not okay to do that to people. I just want everyone on the same page. No one would—it’s just like, treat people how you want to be treated, bro. So I just don’t do it. Now, I get some people would say, fight fire with fire, okay, still, don’t fucking do it. Please don’t do it. I don’t understand why people do it. It blows my mind. I don’t understand why people justify it. Oh, it’s okay that Kate or Leigha did it, cause Aiden did it too. It’s like, no, though. I get it's a shitty thing to happen. Don’t do it back. Just stop. It’s ridiculous. Steph's like—"I keep seeing you call her bathtub." Yea, bro she took a video in a bathtub once and posted it on social media. Okay, you want to livestream yourself from a fucking bathtub then I'm going to call you Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I don’t know what to tell you. You don’t have to call her that, but I’m going to do that, right? And I’m not going to stop. But yeah, Three-Clerk-Monte bang bang. Sometimes you just got to tell them how it is, Three-Clerk Monte, you know what I’m saying? Even while you’re on your break. By the way, Steph, I’m just going to break here just posting things, right? And I’m saying I’m not even supposed to be riled up right now. We’re going to go back to reading the indictment in a little bit. I’m just a little towel. I’m on one, you know what I’m saying? Absolutely not. I don’t know which Steph you are. I don’t know if you’re that Steph or whatever, the fake Canadian. You’re not going to come on here and tell me I cannot call her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. I’m going to triple down. I’m going to call Leigha Bathtub Genduso more now. Thank you for all the comments, by the way. It helps the stream get attention in the Kate Peter sucks. Remember that? Yes, that I want you to get this tattooed on your arm: Kate Peter sucks. I’ll help you spell it: K-A-T-E P-E-T-E-R, no S at the end, just Kate Peter, now a new word, sucks, S-U-C-K-S. Everybody on the same page? All right, it’s artistic expression, bro. What do you want to say? Oh no, she’s gone. Steph, I was enjoying all your comments. Yes, Steph, that’s exactly what I want. I want you to keep interacting in the comments because it gets the stream more attention in the feed. I want that. I want you to continue to engage, and I’m going to keep calling her Leigha Bathtub Genduso. It’s not an obsession. It is the product of multiple years of work on the story to uncover something hidden that you don’t want to be talked about in public. That’s the reality. Is that not right Steph, you’re concerned that Kate Peter compromised the cases against Aiden Kearney because she worked as a PI for Marty Craft, who’s now lost his license because of what she was up to according to people’s reports in this chat, and you feel that it’s uncomfortable to have to hold her to the same moral standard that you do Aiden because you’re biased, right? Fine, I don’t care. I’ll tell it to your face yes. No, Steph, you have something to say? You say it right here, one-on-one. Let’s debate. We can do it. I have all the evidence now. We can talk about it all. That’s correct. I don’t create realities, Steph. I bring them to light. Your normative moral framework and what you want to happen is just that. The descriptive reality is independent of what any of us want. It is simply a factual record. In the context of our asymptotic relationship with that factual record, notwithstanding, I was interested in the truth, and you are who is afraid of it, let’s be clear. I wouldn’t say you’re debating me, Steph. You can’t debate on the merit of the facts. You want to know why? Because, for example, it would be very hard for you to counter something like this paragraph right here, right? Where Robert Cosgrove says that any data missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s phone was not on the phone at the time Brian Tully did the extraction. And you might be saying to yourself, Grant, how can you know? How can you know that Brian Tully intentionally released the phone unredacted after only removing messages from Kate to Lindsey and from Tully to Lindsey and after removing things like audio messages from Leigha Genduso? How do I know? Well, because how else would Lindsey have posted it on social media? My word, Steph. It’s almost like there’s proof that Robert Cosgrove was withholding material information related to the sum and substance of Kate Peter’s communications with various members of the prosecution team and/or witnesses and/or the handling of evidence in order to insulate certain charges from Kate Peter touching that evidence so that they could continue to trial, notwithstanding the discovery obligations of the state under the new updated Rule 14 as implemented on March 1, 2025. And towel is in a snarky mood indeed. And you’re not going to be able to do anything about it—oh, please, you're not saying to yourself, "what’s wrong with towel, Steph?" You’re basically saying, "why are you crossing the thin blue line?" And I would like to respond to you by saying, in the least unloving way, but the fact that you would ask me, “What is Grant doing?” because I won’t adhere to your thin blue line? Get the fuck out of here. Go climb up somebody else’s tree. Go find your own treehouse. Not happening. Absolutely not happening. You will look this factual record in the eye. You will confront your moral problems with the various actions of different people involved on your own time. And Leigha Bathtub Genduso will be central to this moral reckoning. And there’s not a damn thing you or your fake Canadian ass can do about it. I’m on one. I told you. Listen, you want it? You want it to be on record? We’ll do it. No, no, I’m just not loyal to your interests, Steph. I’m loyal to truth. I’m loyal to the people who are actually harmed. I’m not loyal to you or any of your friends or Kate Peter or the thin blue line or the thin green line or the thin pink line for that matter. All of you can take your lines and go fuck yourselves. Fake Canadian. Yeah, right, Steph. Yeah, let’s go with that. Yep, let’s go with fake Canadian, because why would you want me looking more in to you? A reporter? You want me to look more into you? No. God, take the L, man, just move on. That’s correct. No, listen, Steph, you want to talk about Michael Proctor’s family’s relationship to my mother? You want to be the person who draws that line? I’ll tell you about it. You sure you want to talk about it? You damn fake Canadian. We may have to get this fake Canadian out of here. She’s riling me up. You’re riling me up by trying to defend Kate Peter. I knew you were a rat the whole time. Goddamn Kate Peter mole. I knew it. I saw through that shit. "I just heard you acknowledge me about the AI. No hate. I appreciate you reading this. Good content." Thank you, sir. Thank you, to the person who said that! You see what I’m saying, Steph? You know what? I think we should just let Steph talk to herself, all right? She can just keep promoting the stream and the algorithm. Let her talk to herself. But Steph, even if you’re talking to yourself, I still have to write the post, okay? Damn fake Canadians. Steph is a fake Canadian and she may or may not be a communist. What you gonna' do about it? You damn fake Canadian. All right, no, I actually have to write this follow-up post. Stop it, Steph. Stop trying to gaslight to protect Kate Peter. You’ll be thrown out of here faster than someone with a cannabis conviction trying to enter Canada who doesn’t actually live there. Damn fake Canadians. Thank you, Kristina. I appreciate it. Yes, and Kristina, you ever wonder if maybe people come in here specifically to derail the conversation because we’re talking about very damning things as to Kate Peter? Well then, let me write my other post, by the way. I’ll help. I will put it up on the screen for you in one second. I just got to get the video loading before I start typing. Oh, Steph, you were on assignment. Stop bitching. I hope they paid you well for it. Don’t bark up my towel tree about you had to spend time with me so you could run intel to all the Kate Peter people. I don’t care. I knew what you were doing. Do you think I was born yesterday? Come on. You all insult my intelligence routinely—not you in the chat. Some of you moles are just like, “He won’t know.” What, are you just going to tell me I’m the greatest thing ever and then it’s going to go along? I’m just saying, I’ve been posting on social media being like, “Aidan, if people tell you that you’re the greatest thing ever, that might be true, but some of them are going to tell you that because they’re moles.” Come on. This is very basic-level intel stuff here. Steph, that was very nice of you. I am never going to degrade you for supporting people in need. What I’m concerned about, okay—I’m not concerned about who you are as a person. I’m concerned about what you didn’t tell us. All right? Yeah? And that's my right. No, absolutely not, Steph. You know exactly what happened. You flipped on a dime as soon as I started asking questions about Kate Peter because she has a lot of moles in her orbit. And then as soon as we started talking about her today, coincidentally enough, you popped right back up. Oh, what’s this? Robert Cosgrove represented in a sworn affidavit that any material missing from Lindsey Gaetani’s—see what I’m doing, Steph? This is, uh, this is for you—Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was not on the phone when MSP did that extraction. And then Brian Tully leaked that extraction unredacted. That’s a message from Leigha Bathtub Genduso proves Tully failed to include material that was indeed on Lindsey's phone. That was for you too, Steph. It’s weird that you know Bathtub, by the way. That’s just odd. Like she’s known Kate Peter for years too. If this Steph, who I watched Sandlot with, is the same Steph as the one who’s a second cousin of John O’Keefe, then she lied to me. She lied to me. If we can prove that this is the same, same Steph, then she lied to me. She told me she was from Canada, Saskatchewan, whatever the fuck. That’s what I’m saying. So Steph, if you are that Steph from wherever the fuck you live, bro—if you are that Steph—you lied to us all. You told us you were fucking Canadian. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute—are you actually that Steph? No fucking way. You lied to all of us this whole time and pretended to be Canadian? No, that was not—I didn’t ask if you were from Canada. I said, are you the same Steph who was second cousins with John O’Keefe and did you come on this channel and go on a Zoom call with me representing yourself to be Canadian from Saskatchewan? I don’t even have—no, that is not the question I’m asking you. Are you the same Steph that is second cousins with John O’Keefe? Thanks for letting us know. See what I mean? Kristina, it’s not the same Steph. It’s just some random person who really likes Leigha Genduso, Leigha Bathtub Genduso, and Kate Peter. Random coincidence! Just totally random. Come on. I’m rolling my eyes so hard I’m laughing. This has been really interesting though. I know you said no. That makes it even weirder. If you’re not that Steph, your fervent defense of Kate Peter and Leigha Bathtub Genduso is even more weird. Go back to Discord. Come on now, shoo. You’re bothering me. If you bother me too much, I’m just going to go on a 45-minute rant eviscerating Kate Peter with facts, all right? So it’s better to just go. Like I told Benny Sweatpants the other day. Send him my regards, all right? No, I like calling out your hypocrisy. You wouldn’t say a negative word about Kate Peter if I demonstrated the factual record for you in real time. Live! Which I’m doing. You haven’t addressed one element of it on substance. All you’ve done is gaslight, and frankly you’re going to find yourself removed if you continue to fail to adhere to the rules of Towel Channel. As you know, the rules of Towel Channel are pretty simple, which is: one, don’t be discriminatory; two, don’t be derogatory; three, don’t sealion; four, don’t gaslight; and five, no Kate Peters. All right? Jay’s like, “I’m aboard the Grant train.” Thanks, Jay. It wasn’t one question, Steph. It was three questions. Let me reiterate them to you very quickly. Number one, Steph, please address the fact—please address why Kate Peter’s February 24, 2024 email to Ken Mello was not turned over in the 5,000 pages of emails that Robert Cosgrove spent seven months putting together that were between Kate Peter and Ken Mello and Kate Peter and Brian Tully. Why was that February 24, 2024 email not turned over? Secondly, is the fact that those emails were turned over—despite the fact that it wasn’t a full turnover of emails—in August of 2025 tie into why the Lindsey Gaetani charges involving Aiden were dismissed? Second question: is the fact that Kate Peter—now we know from these documents—directly handled two pieces of key evidence in the Gaetani indictments involving Kearney the reason why, coupled with the August 2025 disclosure of those manipulated email records between Tully and Kate and Kate Peter and Ken Mello, was that the reason why the 2024 indictments involving Lindsey Gaetani were actually null-prossed? Time to answer some tough questions, Steph. And furthermore, why was that audio of Leigha Genduso not included in the extraction that Brian Tully released completely unredacted in April of 2024? And why have you never said a word about how Tully manipulated that extraction to remove messages from Tully to Lindsey and from Kate to Lindsey before releasing it? And Tully apparently didn’t include Leigha Genduso’s audio message that is now part of the public court record. Yes, Steph, you can’t address it on merit, you can’t, because you’re not here to do that, are you? You’re here to vacuously distract with nonsensical emotional rhetoric. And I will not stand for it. No, I’ll continue reading. It’ll get worse before it gets better, Steph. I’ll tell you that right now. No, she did not, Steph. I’ll tell you what, right now. You know how I know? Because look at Steph, it was posted on social media. Oh, Steph, it was posted on social media and not included in the extraction. So how could Lindsey have deleted it? Lindsey saved it, because Tully didn’t include it in the extraction, and then Lindsey dropped it on social media. And that proves it. That absolutely proves it. All right, so Steph, if you don’t know and don’t care, that’s the end of this discussion. If we have to move you on begrudgingly, we will. But as of now, you can’t address any of this on merit. You don’t know the factual record. You’re getting humiliated. And furthermore, I’m sending a message through you to Kate that her moles are not welcome here. So, well, yeah, but no, that’s not—hold on, do you realize, Steph, the point is not where it was posted. It was that the audio file exists. If it was not on Lindsey’s phone when they did the extraction, she couldn’t have it. But she still has it. There you go. So, listen, oh, I knew we were onto something. I didn’t know it was this bad, Steph. You shouldn’t have tipped Kate’s hand like this, by the way. The reacting that way is only making me aware that this is the whole kitten caboodle. No, Steph, again, you have no standing to stand up for anyone, call anyone anything, or otherwise say anything here, because you will not address the merits of the argument. You just admitted you don’t care about the filings, you don’t know the details, and you refuse to engage. So therefore, we’re done. Oh, it’s such a shame. All right, I gotta move her on. All right, Steph, it was great. We’ll put you in a little timeout. You can come back tomorrow, okay? I’m glad you spent some time with us, but the reality is I just don’t—I don’t wanna play that type of Kate Peter game, all right? Yep, now, Christina, you, as you know, this channel in Br… every possible perspective. I don’t care what you want to come in here and believe, you know you and I align on a lot of the factual record about a lot of these different cases. It’s not that. I’ll never ever have a problem with that. It’s the bad faith—and it’s not you, Christina. You are wonderful. You’ve never done it—but it’s the people who get too close to Kate Peter and then as embodied in that colloquy with Steph right there, whoever the fuck she is, we still don’t know. As embodied in that colloquy, you have a situation where when confronted with the facts instead of responding or even giving the time of day to what Kate Peter or Tully or Cosgrove might have done wrong, immediately it starts with the emotional manipulation, the attacks, the distraction. So I hope that—I hope that tells us all something. But yes, let’s keep reading because before I got in that fun colloquy, we were—I bet Steph was sent here to try to derail me. Nice try, Steph, take it elsewhere. All right, so we got those two posts up, by the way. All right, following service. Do you remember where we were in all this? The very last—so we just read about the Kate emails. By the way, now we know the whole Kate and Kaboodle is the Kate emails. We just read about the Kate emails and take a look where it goes next. All right, it just keeps going and going. Oh, do you think I should add Kate, Steph to the chart, by the way? Where should she go on the chart? Should she go under the Trollhollmio section? I feel like that’s appropriate. You know, this is just my opinion of how all these people tie together. Say you got Kate Peter, the Lord of Darkness in the middle—that’s my opinion. Then you got Jamz up there, Llama over there, Jason Broyles down here, Gaffney over here, Trollhollomio here. Then you got people like Critical Mass, Virgil, that—I don’t know who that is. And then you got Tully, Michael Morrissey, and Michael Proctor. Then you got Jake Sun, Twisted Tragedies tied to Gaffney. Then you got that guy, Jason Broyles, who thinks—who pretends to be a woman online. You got him, I think he’s tied to Barry Lewis and this weird woman from Connecticut that Kate keeps working with. She used to pretend to be like an advocate for medical patients, but now apparently she’s a big advocate of prednisone. I don’t really understand. She’s been going online telling people that people with colitis have to use prednisone apparently and they can’t use cannabis. I’m baffled by it. I didn’t know she was a doctor. Listen, if I knew that this woman was a doctor, I would start looking to whether she’s received payments from the pharmaceutical industry because I’ve never met a cannabis advocate who tells people they have to use prednisone for colitis. So that woman baffles me. Also, she’s the reason consumption event in Massachusetts are now regulated by the CCC. So listen, you all think that Kate Peter’s just some kind of like moron. She just plays that role, okay? Like she plays like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and she doesn’t mostly with these court developments. But look at her network. Like people fawn over her like TurtleBoy. She is the female TurtleBoy in so many ways. And what makes her scary is she doesn’t own it.
33:21

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

Grant Smith Ellis

13,617 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

🚨 Rep. LUISTRO DARES TO ASK THE UNASKABLE🚨 Congresswoman Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro, unshaken and fearless, confronts former President Duterte in a gripping interpellation, seeking clarity and accountability for the war on drugs and its chilling legacy. Emphasizing his promise to take full legal responsibility, Luistro probes: What happened to the bodies buried in Laud Quarry? To the victims of the Davao Death Squad? To the lives lost in the 2004 Dumoy raid? Former President Duterte fires back, asking, "Where is your proof?" Luistro responds: "Mr. President, I’m anchoring my questions about these separate incidents from your initial statement—that you are taking full legal responsibility for all the victims of the war on drugs, both legal and illegal. You are a long-time prosecutor, and of course, it is fundamental among us all lawyers to uphold the requirements of due process." Duterte counters with: "We are zeroing in on a particular individual now." Luistro powerfully reminds: "Mr. President, due process is the law that hears before it condemns. Due process is the law that requires notice and hearing." The former president’s short rebuttal, "If you say so," leaves the air thick with tension. Luistro quips back with another gripping reminder: "Mister President, I hope that we will be reminded that by due process, THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS." Congresswoman Luistro proceeds to present statistics on the war on drugs: - 6,252 individuals killed in police anti-drug operations as of May 2022. - 27,000 to 30,000 individuals killed, including vigilante-style executions. - 427 activists, human rights defenders, and grassroots leaders killed as of December 2021. - 166 land and environmental defenders killed as of December 2020. - 23 journalists and media workers killed as of April 2022. - 66 judges, lawyers, and prosecutors killed as of December 2021. - 28 mayors and vice mayors killed as of December 2021. Cong. Luistro then delivers the crucial question: "Mr. President, my question is: When you implemented the war on drugs, did you strictly comply with the requirements of due process?" With a firm and unwavering tone, former President Duterte responds, "YES." She continues, pointing out: "It is my humble submission that, contrary to the answer of the former president, I humbly believe that the war on drugs never complied with the requirements of due process. The statistics show the huge number of victims of the war on drugs. If my memory serves me right, during the Aquino administration, there were around 200 victims, and during the present administration, there are around 200 victims as well. Given these statistics, there are almost or around 31,000 victims. If indeed they followed the requirements of due process, there should not have been this many deaths. Instead, there should have been many cases pending in court. I hope that all of us are reminded by the fundamental law that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It is the humble submission of this representation that the Quad Comm is ready to make a recommendation for the filing of the necessary actions in court for violations of RA 9851—an act defining and penalizing crimes against international humanitarian law—or, at the very least, for murder cases as defined under the Revised Penal Code." The Interpellation Intensifies To conclude her interpellation, she delivers a series of no-holds-barred questions: Luistro: "Mr. President, three Chinese drug lords were killed at the Davao Penal Colony. Are you willing to take accountability and responsibility for this?" Duterte: "Wala ako sa Davao, nandito na ako sa Manila." Luistro: "Are you saying no?" Duterte: "If gusto mong isali yan, idagdag mo, ok lang." Luistro: "How about the death of General (Ret.) Barayuga? Are you willing to take full legal responsibility for this?" Duterte: "No, I do not kill generals." Luistro: "The death of Mayor Parojinog and the 15 others in Ozamiz City. Are you taking full responsibility for this?" Duterte: "Hindi ako nagpapatay ng mga mayor, ma’am." Luistro: "The death of Mayor Espinosa of Albuera, Leyte. Are you taking full responsibility for this?" Duterte: "That is my birthplace." Luistro: "The death of Mayor Toni Halili of Tanauan City?" Duterte: "Malayo yan sa akin, ma’am." Luistro: "The death of Mayor Perez of Los Baños?" Duterte: "Lalo na." A Riveting Ending Luistro fires back: "If you are denying all these, alin po yung tinutukoy niyo when you said you are taking full responsibility for all the victims of the war on drugs, both legal and illegal?" The former president mumbles in response: "Yes, kasi order ko kasi yung, that is my campaign against drugs. Alam mo maraming estasyon, maraming police. Kung nagkaleche-leche doon, hindi ako maghuhugas ng kamay. Of course, nagkamali sila. If there is an appropriate action na gusto niyong ilabas, then file a case in court. I’m challenging anybody or everybody who makes the accusation, whether it is really true or not—maybe true—file the case in court, because may korte tayo. Even if I admit na totoo yan, because I will make the admission there again." Luistro counters: "Are you saying, Mr. President, when you go to court, you are willing to admit accountability for all the deaths during the war on drugs?" Duterte replies: "Of course, may abogado ako, ma’am. Kung ano ang sasabihin ng abogado ko, susunod ako." Luistro presses further: "I hope that everything you said before the Quad can be reduced in writing so that truly we can believe that you are taking full legal responsibility for all the victims of the war on drugs, both legal and illegal. Because as lawyers, we believe that by extrajudicial confession, we have to put that in writing, Mr. President." Duterte responds: "...It’s a policy of government or the president. Hindi ako maghuhugas ng kamay..." The Final Question Luistro asks: "If one of these days the ICC will come, will you voluntarily submit yourself?" Duterte retorts: "Sipain ko pa sila, ma’am." Luistro reminds him: "But you said a while ago, that if somebody will sponsor your fare to the ICC, you will voluntarily submit yourself to their investigation and jurisdiction." Duterte replies: "Yes, pero kung sila pumunta dito, sipain ko." Luistro clarifies: "But will you confirm that you are willing to voluntarily submit yourself to the ICC?" Duterte firmly states: "Oo, punta ako doon, sipain ko din sila." A Gripping Conclusion Luistro ends her interpellation with grace and precision: "I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. President." In this powerful exchange, Congresswoman Luistro demonstrates fearless leadership and unwavering commitment to truth and accountability, leaving no question unanswered in her pursuit of justice. #LargaLuistro2025
11:12

🚨 Rep. LUISTRO DARES TO ASK THE UNASKABLE🚨 Congresswoman Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro, unshaken and fearless, confronts former President Duterte in a gripping interpellation, seeking clarity and accountability for the war on drugs and its chilling legacy. Emphasizing his promise to take full legal responsibility, Luistro probes: What happened to the bodies buried in Laud Quarry? To the victims of the Davao Death Squad? To the lives lost in the 2004 Dumoy raid? Former President Duterte fires back, asking, "Where is your proof?" Luistro responds: "Mr. President, I’m anchoring my questions about these separate incidents from your initial statement—that you are taking full legal responsibility for all the victims of the war on drugs, both legal and illegal. You are a long-time prosecutor, and of course, it is fundamental among us all lawyers to uphold the requirements of due process." Duterte counters with: "We are zeroing in on a particular individual now." Luistro powerfully reminds: "Mr. President, due process is the law that hears before it condemns. Due process is the law that requires notice and hearing." The former president’s short rebuttal, "If you say so," leaves the air thick with tension. Luistro quips back with another gripping reminder: "Mister President, I hope that we will be reminded that by due process, THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS." Congresswoman Luistro proceeds to present statistics on the war on drugs: - 6,252 individuals killed in police anti-drug operations as of May 2022. - 27,000 to 30,000 individuals killed, including vigilante-style executions. - 427 activists, human rights defenders, and grassroots leaders killed as of December 2021. - 166 land and environmental defenders killed as of December 2020. - 23 journalists and media workers killed as of April 2022. - 66 judges, lawyers, and prosecutors killed as of December 2021. - 28 mayors and vice mayors killed as of December 2021. Cong. Luistro then delivers the crucial question: "Mr. President, my question is: When you implemented the war on drugs, did you strictly comply with the requirements of due process?" With a firm and unwavering tone, former President Duterte responds, "YES." She continues, pointing out: "It is my humble submission that, contrary to the answer of the former president, I humbly believe that the war on drugs never complied with the requirements of due process. The statistics show the huge number of victims of the war on drugs. If my memory serves me right, during the Aquino administration, there were around 200 victims, and during the present administration, there are around 200 victims as well. Given these statistics, there are almost or around 31,000 victims. If indeed they followed the requirements of due process, there should not have been this many deaths. Instead, there should have been many cases pending in court. I hope that all of us are reminded by the fundamental law that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It is the humble submission of this representation that the Quad Comm is ready to make a recommendation for the filing of the necessary actions in court for violations of RA 9851—an act defining and penalizing crimes against international humanitarian law—or, at the very least, for murder cases as defined under the Revised Penal Code." The Interpellation Intensifies To conclude her interpellation, she delivers a series of no-holds-barred questions: Luistro: "Mr. President, three Chinese drug lords were killed at the Davao Penal Colony. Are you willing to take accountability and responsibility for this?" Duterte: "Wala ako sa Davao, nandito na ako sa Manila." Luistro: "Are you saying no?" Duterte: "If gusto mong isali yan, idagdag mo, ok lang." Luistro: "How about the death of General (Ret.) Barayuga? Are you willing to take full legal responsibility for this?" Duterte: "No, I do not kill generals." Luistro: "The death of Mayor Parojinog and the 15 others in Ozamiz City. Are you taking full responsibility for this?" Duterte: "Hindi ako nagpapatay ng mga mayor, ma’am." Luistro: "The death of Mayor Espinosa of Albuera, Leyte. Are you taking full responsibility for this?" Duterte: "That is my birthplace." Luistro: "The death of Mayor Toni Halili of Tanauan City?" Duterte: "Malayo yan sa akin, ma’am." Luistro: "The death of Mayor Perez of Los Baños?" Duterte: "Lalo na." A Riveting Ending Luistro fires back: "If you are denying all these, alin po yung tinutukoy niyo when you said you are taking full responsibility for all the victims of the war on drugs, both legal and illegal?" The former president mumbles in response: "Yes, kasi order ko kasi yung, that is my campaign against drugs. Alam mo maraming estasyon, maraming police. Kung nagkaleche-leche doon, hindi ako maghuhugas ng kamay. Of course, nagkamali sila. If there is an appropriate action na gusto niyong ilabas, then file a case in court. I’m challenging anybody or everybody who makes the accusation, whether it is really true or not—maybe true—file the case in court, because may korte tayo. Even if I admit na totoo yan, because I will make the admission there again." Luistro counters: "Are you saying, Mr. President, when you go to court, you are willing to admit accountability for all the deaths during the war on drugs?" Duterte replies: "Of course, may abogado ako, ma’am. Kung ano ang sasabihin ng abogado ko, susunod ako." Luistro presses further: "I hope that everything you said before the Quad can be reduced in writing so that truly we can believe that you are taking full legal responsibility for all the victims of the war on drugs, both legal and illegal. Because as lawyers, we believe that by extrajudicial confession, we have to put that in writing, Mr. President." Duterte responds: "...It’s a policy of government or the president. Hindi ako maghuhugas ng kamay..." The Final Question Luistro asks: "If one of these days the ICC will come, will you voluntarily submit yourself?" Duterte retorts: "Sipain ko pa sila, ma’am." Luistro reminds him: "But you said a while ago, that if somebody will sponsor your fare to the ICC, you will voluntarily submit yourself to their investigation and jurisdiction." Duterte replies: "Yes, pero kung sila pumunta dito, sipain ko." Luistro clarifies: "But will you confirm that you are willing to voluntarily submit yourself to the ICC?" Duterte firmly states: "Oo, punta ako doon, sipain ko din sila." A Gripping Conclusion Luistro ends her interpellation with grace and precision: "I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. President." In this powerful exchange, Congresswoman Luistro demonstrates fearless leadership and unwavering commitment to truth and accountability, leaving no question unanswered in her pursuit of justice. #LargaLuistro2025

Informed PH

257,167 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs
24:38

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

545,386 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Farage and the suckers I used to regularly socialise with a group, one of whose number was a financial lawyer. He used to tell us about something that was surprisingly common in his line of work. He would be called in to give advice because someone wanted to spend their life savings on a scheme that was an obvious scam. He said that 99% of the time they could not be talked out of it. Nothing and nobody could persuade them not to do it, because they were convinced that a fortune was there to be made, and they were desperate to pour as much money as they could into the scheme. They would get really angry with anyone (like a spouse, or other family, or friends) who tried to stop them. Why are you stopping me from making a fortune, they would say. “You're ruining my chance of living the life of my dreams,” was their view. This was meant to happen. This was the life they deserved, which had been so cruelly denied to them for so long. Finally reality was going to turn around and favour them for a change. It was the “Shut up and take my money” meme in real life. It wasn’t that they didn't understand about scams. Yes, scams happen, they knew that, but they don’t happen to me. (That, at least, was my friend’s summation of their thinking based on talking to them.) They could barely take seriously the idea that they were a gullible fool who was being tricked. When obvious problems and flaws with the scheme were pointed out, they would come up with far-fetched and implausible explanations to wave the problems away. Any explanation would do, as long as it meant they didn’t have to wake up from the dream. In almost every case the person concerned decided to put their money into the scheme. Hardly anyone decided not to. In every single case they lost all the money. In every one of these cases the mark was completely shocked and stunned when it happened. They never saw it coming, despite so many people around them telling them it was a con. I bring this up because the situation with Nigel Farage is similar. People are desperate to believe that he is going to save the country. I don't blame them for being desperate. The situation *is* desperate. But that means that many people will cling onto anything which is presented to them as the solution. Farage, they are told by the media, is the big, bad anti-immigration, anti-green, anti-PC man. Great, they think. If the media doesn't like him, then he’s the man for me. I'm also against those things. So they buy into him, big time, without a proper examination. Look, they say, he was Mr Anti-EU for decades. He’s Mr Brexit. He released that poster during the Brexit campaign depicting a long line of foreigners trying to get into Britain. The hated MSM attacks him for being anti-immigration, etc. So how can you lose if you trust him? Life will become good again if we all just support Nigel. Sink your emotional life-savings into him, and watch the results pour in once he gets power. So when you tell them to read Farage’s fine-print, like the Reform manifesto (digging into what slogans like “Net Zero immigration” actually mean), or particular things he has publicly said over the years, and what many people who have worked with him say about him, they act exactly like those people who are advised not to invest their life savings into a get-rich-quick scheme. They get angry and offended. Why are you trying to take away my dream of a better life for me, and a better Britain for all of us? Why are you undermining the only man who stands any chance of transforming the country for us, and preventing my life from getting worse and worse? You’re just trying to ruin everything. You’re just a negative Nelly, who is too afraid to take a risk. Maybe you even support Labour, really. And so on. When asked to explain why it is that Farage’s actual positions, and his track record, indicate that he is not remotely the hard-liner they think he is, they act like the wannabe investors who will come up with any excuse, no matter how implausible, to preserve the dream. I know, I've seen many of them in my comments doing this. “He has to pretend to be more mainstream and mild than he really is in order that he doesn’t get bad MSM headlines” is the gist of it. “The BBC would tear him apart and his support would vanish overnight if he said anything stronger at this stage,” they say. In other words, “he has to get his party into a stronger position before he can say anything that might seem radical.” Apparently being neck-and-neck with Labour and the Conservatives in the polls, having MPs in Parliament, facing rival parties that are collapsing in unprecedented fashion for their adherence to the established ways, having the media hang on your every word, and facing a country crying out for a change in your supposed direction, isn’t a strong enough position for you to lay out your real agenda. You’ve still got to be timid and pretend to differ only slightly from the Conservative Party, lest the British people say, “Reducing mass immigration back to the levels they were in 2000 frightens me, who will cook our kebabs? I’m going to go back to the Tories/Labour/LibDems.” So it’s quite reasonable, apparently, for Farage to delay saying what he really thinks until 2034. Or 2039. Until then, we’ll just twiddle our thumbs and trust him with our support. It never occurs to them as a serious possibility that maybe Farage isn’t “hiding his real power levels,” but just isn’t very radical. In fact, his whole history indicates that not only does he have no interest in supporting robust anti-immigrationism, he is actively opposed to it. He left UKIP because he thought UKIP people were too concerned with Islamic immigration. When he was in charge of UKIP it worked with the intelligence services to weed out anyone who didn’t want Britain being filled up with foreigners. All his public statements going back thirty years indicate that he is a liberal, supply-side Thatcherite, who repudiates nationalism, unless it’s anodyne, flag-waving, Union-Jack-biscuit-tin civic nationalism, where anyone who can vaguely adopt some British cliches (cricket, tea, old Jags, etc.) gets a passport. If he’s playing a game to fool the media, it’s a game that goes back a long, long way. Where is the actual evidence, then, that shows that he is in any way a nativist? What reason is there to believe that he is really is a blood-and-soil nationalist who will suddenly reveal, once in power, his determination to remigrate millions of foreigners, when he’s spent his whole life urging against this? There is no reason to believe this at all, other than people’s desperation to search for a Messiah figure, and the fact that the media (and various hysterical left-wingers) give people the impression that this is Farage’s plan. But they have no evidence for this either, and anyway, why would the media give airtime to someone who genuinely thought this? Wouldn't that devious and tricksy ol’ MSM be more likely to give airtime to someone who was actually rather liberal when it comes down to it, but who can be made to seem like an attractive, anti-establishment rebel, while simultaneously sidelining the real rebels? It's like when the people who want to give away their life savings are shown the long history of bankruptcies that their Svengali has left behind, and they excuse it by saying something like, “Oh, that’s because he never had enough financial support from people. But thanks to me, I can finally give him the money he needs to succeed.” Or whatever excuse they kid themselves with. When asked, “But what evidence is there that he can make you money?”, they reply, “He’s told me his plan, and swears it will work, and it sounds good to me. Look, the rate of return is amazing, I can't pass that chance up, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” and so on. Farage also has a glib, charismatic manner, and is very good at talking in general-enough language that people can read into it what they like. “People on the streets have been talking to me, and they've had enough,” he kept saying during the summer 2024 election campaign, but he was rather vague about what exactly they were fed up with, and even vaguer about what he proposed to do about it, which allowed the sucker, er, supporter to decide that Farage was talking about just the very things the supporter thinks are important, and had in mind the same solutions. The media will admit, though, when it thinks the average Joe isn’t listening, that Farage isn’t anywhere near as bad as they normally make him out to be. This is what’s going on in this video clip of Michael Crick, which was from Times Radio, which the average Joe doesn’t listen to. The point of Crick admitting this is to calm down any naive liberals or leftists who are starting to froth at the mouth at the prospect of Farage getting anywhere. (“Look, we don't like him, but we can live with him, he's tamer than you think, better him than some genuine nationalist party.”) I haven't even talked about the idiocy of thinking that Reform’s support would plummet overnight instead of rising (or at least staying roughly the same) if they started talking tougher. (The Telegraph’s pet hamster Tim Stanley hysterically claimed recently that if Reform decided to do this they would lose 10,000 votes for every “far-Right” voter they courted.) I haven’t said anything about how an anti-establishment party must of necessity drive changes in stateable public opinion, rather than accept the status quo. Nor have I talked about the foolishness of trusting a party that you think is cowardly and constantly lying. Or the problem of how rational it is to believe that a timid party, that said for years that it definitely won't do X, Y and Z, will be capable of doing X, Y and Z when it gets power, especially seeing as it will face the real wrath of the establishment at that point. These are all legitimate topics for discussion, but in this article I have been mainly concerned with the parallels with the self-deluding life-savings investor. The conman doesn’t need that many suckers to be a success. He just needs a few. Similarly, Farage doesn’t need that many people to fall for his shtick. With the other big parties’ support in free fall, he can set Reform up as the rebel outsider party for years on the back of a minority of votes, without ever having to make any hard choices, or commit to any positions which will genuinely set the establishment against him. He also has an advantage over the traditional conman, who operates on the margins and in the shadows, of having the media there to endorse him as the “official” rebel. Their every warning makes him seem more attractive to the dissatisfied: “Don’t vote for that Farage, don’t you know he’s anti-immigration and anti-Net Zero? He’s a maverick who doesn’t do what he’s told.” No wonder Reform’s membership numbers are going through the roof. When one person loses their head to a charismatic phony it’s a private tragedy. When enough voters lose their heads to a political phony, who’s taking away the oxygen that a real opposition needs, it’s a public tragedy. So I say, keep your political life savings in a box under your bed for now. And if you must spend some or all of it on Farage, be demanding. Keep all your receipts, note what he says and doesn’t say, and demand that he clearly articulates the feelings of the people he claims to represent. Don’t let him fob you off with vague and airy platitudes. He’s not Barack Obama. He’s your rebel, so make him speak for you, and if he won’t, find someone else who will.
1:41

Farage and the suckers I used to regularly socialise with a group, one of whose number was a financial lawyer. He used to tell us about something that was surprisingly common in his line of work. He would be called in to give advice because someone wanted to spend their life savings on a scheme that was an obvious scam. He said that 99% of the time they could not be talked out of it. Nothing and nobody could persuade them not to do it, because they were convinced that a fortune was there to be made, and they were desperate to pour as much money as they could into the scheme. They would get really angry with anyone (like a spouse, or other family, or friends) who tried to stop them. Why are you stopping me from making a fortune, they would say. “You're ruining my chance of living the life of my dreams,” was their view. This was meant to happen. This was the life they deserved, which had been so cruelly denied to them for so long. Finally reality was going to turn around and favour them for a change. It was the “Shut up and take my money” meme in real life. It wasn’t that they didn't understand about scams. Yes, scams happen, they knew that, but they don’t happen to me. (That, at least, was my friend’s summation of their thinking based on talking to them.) They could barely take seriously the idea that they were a gullible fool who was being tricked. When obvious problems and flaws with the scheme were pointed out, they would come up with far-fetched and implausible explanations to wave the problems away. Any explanation would do, as long as it meant they didn’t have to wake up from the dream. In almost every case the person concerned decided to put their money into the scheme. Hardly anyone decided not to. In every single case they lost all the money. In every one of these cases the mark was completely shocked and stunned when it happened. They never saw it coming, despite so many people around them telling them it was a con. I bring this up because the situation with Nigel Farage is similar. People are desperate to believe that he is going to save the country. I don't blame them for being desperate. The situation *is* desperate. But that means that many people will cling onto anything which is presented to them as the solution. Farage, they are told by the media, is the big, bad anti-immigration, anti-green, anti-PC man. Great, they think. If the media doesn't like him, then he’s the man for me. I'm also against those things. So they buy into him, big time, without a proper examination. Look, they say, he was Mr Anti-EU for decades. He’s Mr Brexit. He released that poster during the Brexit campaign depicting a long line of foreigners trying to get into Britain. The hated MSM attacks him for being anti-immigration, etc. So how can you lose if you trust him? Life will become good again if we all just support Nigel. Sink your emotional life-savings into him, and watch the results pour in once he gets power. So when you tell them to read Farage’s fine-print, like the Reform manifesto (digging into what slogans like “Net Zero immigration” actually mean), or particular things he has publicly said over the years, and what many people who have worked with him say about him, they act exactly like those people who are advised not to invest their life savings into a get-rich-quick scheme. They get angry and offended. Why are you trying to take away my dream of a better life for me, and a better Britain for all of us? Why are you undermining the only man who stands any chance of transforming the country for us, and preventing my life from getting worse and worse? You’re just trying to ruin everything. You’re just a negative Nelly, who is too afraid to take a risk. Maybe you even support Labour, really. And so on. When asked to explain why it is that Farage’s actual positions, and his track record, indicate that he is not remotely the hard-liner they think he is, they act like the wannabe investors who will come up with any excuse, no matter how implausible, to preserve the dream. I know, I've seen many of them in my comments doing this. “He has to pretend to be more mainstream and mild than he really is in order that he doesn’t get bad MSM headlines” is the gist of it. “The BBC would tear him apart and his support would vanish overnight if he said anything stronger at this stage,” they say. In other words, “he has to get his party into a stronger position before he can say anything that might seem radical.” Apparently being neck-and-neck with Labour and the Conservatives in the polls, having MPs in Parliament, facing rival parties that are collapsing in unprecedented fashion for their adherence to the established ways, having the media hang on your every word, and facing a country crying out for a change in your supposed direction, isn’t a strong enough position for you to lay out your real agenda. You’ve still got to be timid and pretend to differ only slightly from the Conservative Party, lest the British people say, “Reducing mass immigration back to the levels they were in 2000 frightens me, who will cook our kebabs? I’m going to go back to the Tories/Labour/LibDems.” So it’s quite reasonable, apparently, for Farage to delay saying what he really thinks until 2034. Or 2039. Until then, we’ll just twiddle our thumbs and trust him with our support. It never occurs to them as a serious possibility that maybe Farage isn’t “hiding his real power levels,” but just isn’t very radical. In fact, his whole history indicates that not only does he have no interest in supporting robust anti-immigrationism, he is actively opposed to it. He left UKIP because he thought UKIP people were too concerned with Islamic immigration. When he was in charge of UKIP it worked with the intelligence services to weed out anyone who didn’t want Britain being filled up with foreigners. All his public statements going back thirty years indicate that he is a liberal, supply-side Thatcherite, who repudiates nationalism, unless it’s anodyne, flag-waving, Union-Jack-biscuit-tin civic nationalism, where anyone who can vaguely adopt some British cliches (cricket, tea, old Jags, etc.) gets a passport. If he’s playing a game to fool the media, it’s a game that goes back a long, long way. Where is the actual evidence, then, that shows that he is in any way a nativist? What reason is there to believe that he is really is a blood-and-soil nationalist who will suddenly reveal, once in power, his determination to remigrate millions of foreigners, when he’s spent his whole life urging against this? There is no reason to believe this at all, other than people’s desperation to search for a Messiah figure, and the fact that the media (and various hysterical left-wingers) give people the impression that this is Farage’s plan. But they have no evidence for this either, and anyway, why would the media give airtime to someone who genuinely thought this? Wouldn't that devious and tricksy ol’ MSM be more likely to give airtime to someone who was actually rather liberal when it comes down to it, but who can be made to seem like an attractive, anti-establishment rebel, while simultaneously sidelining the real rebels? It's like when the people who want to give away their life savings are shown the long history of bankruptcies that their Svengali has left behind, and they excuse it by saying something like, “Oh, that’s because he never had enough financial support from people. But thanks to me, I can finally give him the money he needs to succeed.” Or whatever excuse they kid themselves with. When asked, “But what evidence is there that he can make you money?”, they reply, “He’s told me his plan, and swears it will work, and it sounds good to me. Look, the rate of return is amazing, I can't pass that chance up, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” and so on. Farage also has a glib, charismatic manner, and is very good at talking in general-enough language that people can read into it what they like. “People on the streets have been talking to me, and they've had enough,” he kept saying during the summer 2024 election campaign, but he was rather vague about what exactly they were fed up with, and even vaguer about what he proposed to do about it, which allowed the sucker, er, supporter to decide that Farage was talking about just the very things the supporter thinks are important, and had in mind the same solutions. The media will admit, though, when it thinks the average Joe isn’t listening, that Farage isn’t anywhere near as bad as they normally make him out to be. This is what’s going on in this video clip of Michael Crick, which was from Times Radio, which the average Joe doesn’t listen to. The point of Crick admitting this is to calm down any naive liberals or leftists who are starting to froth at the mouth at the prospect of Farage getting anywhere. (“Look, we don't like him, but we can live with him, he's tamer than you think, better him than some genuine nationalist party.”) I haven't even talked about the idiocy of thinking that Reform’s support would plummet overnight instead of rising (or at least staying roughly the same) if they started talking tougher. (The Telegraph’s pet hamster Tim Stanley hysterically claimed recently that if Reform decided to do this they would lose 10,000 votes for every “far-Right” voter they courted.) I haven’t said anything about how an anti-establishment party must of necessity drive changes in stateable public opinion, rather than accept the status quo. Nor have I talked about the foolishness of trusting a party that you think is cowardly and constantly lying. Or the problem of how rational it is to believe that a timid party, that said for years that it definitely won't do X, Y and Z, will be capable of doing X, Y and Z when it gets power, especially seeing as it will face the real wrath of the establishment at that point. These are all legitimate topics for discussion, but in this article I have been mainly concerned with the parallels with the self-deluding life-savings investor. The conman doesn’t need that many suckers to be a success. He just needs a few. Similarly, Farage doesn’t need that many people to fall for his shtick. With the other big parties’ support in free fall, he can set Reform up as the rebel outsider party for years on the back of a minority of votes, without ever having to make any hard choices, or commit to any positions which will genuinely set the establishment against him. He also has an advantage over the traditional conman, who operates on the margins and in the shadows, of having the media there to endorse him as the “official” rebel. Their every warning makes him seem more attractive to the dissatisfied: “Don’t vote for that Farage, don’t you know he’s anti-immigration and anti-Net Zero? He’s a maverick who doesn’t do what he’s told.” No wonder Reform’s membership numbers are going through the roof. When one person loses their head to a charismatic phony it’s a private tragedy. When enough voters lose their heads to a political phony, who’s taking away the oxygen that a real opposition needs, it’s a public tragedy. So I say, keep your political life savings in a box under your bed for now. And if you must spend some or all of it on Farage, be demanding. Keep all your receipts, note what he says and doesn’t say, and demand that he clearly articulates the feelings of the people he claims to represent. Don’t let him fob you off with vague and airy platitudes. He’s not Barack Obama. He’s your rebel, so make him speak for you, and if he won’t, find someone else who will.

Hector Drummond

34,408 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce