Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
Interrupted before I could name Sidhu Moosewala and Deep Sidhu but why do parliamentarians get agitated when I raise real issues? ਜਦ ਮੈਂ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਮੁੱਦੇ ਚੁੱਕੇ ਤਾਂ ਤੜਫ ਉੱਠੇ, ਆਖ਼ਰ ਪਾਰਲੀਮੈਂਟ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਸਲੀ ਮੁੱਦੇ ਚੁੱਕਣ ਅਤੇ ਸੁਣਨ ਤੋਂ ਭੱਜਦੇ ਕਿਉਂ ਹਨ ਸਾਂਸਦ?
40,301 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)
22 Comments
@SAD_Amritsar Thank you very much Sirdar Mann Sahib! The murderers sitting in the Parliament, with no morality, can’t dare to face the truth as such try to muzzle your voice too.
LAB CERTIFIED 108+1 Bead Indian Origin Rudraksha Mala 5 mukhi 5 faces Lord Shivas Rosary Jaap Mala Yoga Prayer Healing Meditation 8mm approx
@SAD_Amritsar Only Sikh leader who can challenge the Indian system standing in the Parliament Thank you Mr. Mann🙏
@SAD_Amritsar Justice for Hardeep S Nijjar, Ripudaman S Malik, Sardool Singh, Paramjit S Panjwar, Sidhu Moosewala, Deep Singh Sidhu 🙏
@SAD_Amritsar House is itself suffering from disorder, Descent are being suppressed,We hardly see any real issue being addressed.
@SAD_Amritsar To hell with this constitution and it’s administration
@SAD_Amritsar The Indian Brahmanical state is designed to suppress minority groups.
@SAD_Amritsar parliament wale sab BJP k dalle hai
@SAD_Amritsar As usual Hindutava system is running away from the heinous crimes they have committed against Sikhs
@SAD_Amritsar great true leader.
@SAD_Amritsar #sikhrights #punjabrights #humanrights 🦅🙏#wmk 🙏
@SAD_Amritsar @hrw @UN_HRC @UN @antonioguterres @SFJGenCounsel @SFJ_US_Official @democracynow @FinancialTimes @guardiannews @DOJNatSec #targetting #harassed #killed #sikhactivist #worldwide 💔💎#sikhneverforget ❤️🔥❤️🔥#sikhlivesmatter ⚠️⚠️ #HumanRightsViolations #humanrightswatch
@SAD_Amritsar Only person with a backbone in that Parliament, ankh of old. Respect to Mann sahib.
@SAD_Amritsar I m proud of you sir👏🏻 you are doing a great job. Atleast someone stand for our community and speak in parliament.
@SAD_Amritsar
@SAD_Amritsar Panth ki Jeet.
@SAD_Amritsar Chekkaaaan
@SAD_Amritsar ਸਰ ਜੀ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਮਿਲਣਾ ਸੀ ਬਹੁਤ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਮੁਦਾ ਹੈ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਬਹੁਤ ਮੇਹਰਬਾਨੀ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ ਜੀ
@SAD_Amritsar No seriously whatever he said does that make sense ??? Seems he just read some pages and skipped a random page from the stack
@SAD_Amritsar @SimranjitSADA Would you like to be president of Khalistan? Please let me know so I can make necessary arrangements 🙏. Don’t worry you can also keep your Indian parliament seat because after all, you did swear to protect Indian constitution during oath taking ceremony 👍
@SAD_Amritsar They only want the Hindutav agenda in parliament 🙏 No member of other ideology is allowed to raise their issues
@SAD_Amritsar ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਬੋਲਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੀ ਹੁੰਦਾ.?
![[ condition update ] 🐻❄ In short of what happen with me is an inflammation on heart muscle from a virus infection which still cant be identified yet. The symptoms I experience are painful breathing, heart racing, tight chest, difficulty breathing, kinda thing. I’m told not to overwork my heart because it could make the inflammation gets worse. That’s basically in short. As for the details, it was 4-5 days ago, I started feeling uncomfortable in my chest, it felt tight and I had trouble breathing as well. Anytime I did something, like exercising or walking on a treadmill, my body felt hurt, and my heart rate went up way higher than usual. It’s normally around 100, but it went to 150 even when I was just doing little activity. It felt off, so I thought I might have caught some kind of infection. The other day I made a doctor appointment in the hospital as I got some free time. I was told to go to internal medicine doctor and was asked about what I’ve been experiencing. I had fever, waking up found tightness in chest at one night, a nausea, but nothing came out. I just felt like about to vomiting but nothing came out at all, so I thought it was unusual. At that time, my face went all pale and lips went all purple already, which why I decided to go to the hospital. Once I was in the internal medicine, well, they did some screening. I said I have low fever, painful breathing, body and muscle pain, so I was sent to ENT because I experience a ringing in my ear as well, I then sent to do a hearing function test. Right ear was normal, while my left ear was.. what’s it called.. ringing in ear. My left ear hearing function drops down one level. It’s not that serious but since it’s related to inner ear, and it's a part of nervous system, right? If it’s affecting that, the doctor afraid it could lead to permanent hearing function loss. Yeah, that part is concerning. So I was prescribed steroids to be consumed to prevent further inflammation and damage more than this. Not sure if I’m explaining it right, but that’s what I remember. I’m not a doctor, lol. And then, after I got the steroids and back home, I had work to film on the next day. I was like, why I feel so tired going for work at 6 in the morning, why my body feels this exhausting, just bending over to grab something or doing other things made me feel like I was gonna pass out. Thought I was just old lol. But at that time I felt unwell, my chest felt tight, and I felt exhausted. That day, I kept working even though I was exhausted. I felt like I don’t wanna work anymore, it was tiring, even just walking up the stairs, I had to stop and take a break. I couldn’t do it, it felt so tiring. When filming, just stepping my legs already felt tiring that I didn’t want to step my legs anymore. So that day decided to see a doctor, focusing to check my heart as it felt tight and was racing, and I had pain when breathing as well so I decided to see a heart specialist doctor but I arrived there at 2 PM and there was no available appointment anymore. Also, the Echo or ECG machine was all used so I had to schedule an appointment for the next day. I went there in the afternoon. Blood pressure and other test was normal, around 110-160, and it’s normal. Pulse is normal. Blood pressure was okay. And what else, yeah that’s it. I had an ECG, the result came out normal. I’ve also just get physical check up recently and the result were almost the same when compared. But since I still didn’t feel well, I wanted to know what’s wrong with me so I asked for a blood test. It’s a blood test that focusing on troponin and CRP level, which are enzymes in blood cells that indicate heart issues if the levels are high. After my blood test, I waited an hour for the results. When they called me, they said my symptom is serious, it’s a heart disease. Normal troponin levels are below 1 for healthy human, but mine was 3800, which is extremely high, so I had to be admitted. This is an enzyme level in the heart muscle cells. If heart muscle is damaged or its cells break down, the enzyme will mix into the blood and can be detected in the blood indicating a heart problem, so I need to be admitted for further examination with echo. It’s an ultrasound for heart. The result saying that there’s an inflammation in my heart as predicted by the doctors. The heart muscle is really swollen and… [takes deep breath] oh I’m tired already. It's enlarging which makes my heart race and feel tight and uncomfortable. That’s what they said. It’s not working the way it should, which is why I get tired so easily. So it answers everything. After the echo I took a rest and got therapy regimen… as what I understand, consuming steroid can suppress the immune system, right? They help reduce inflammation while the body fights the virus. It’s reducing the inflammation, right? But they said steroids alone weren’t enough because my troponin levels were way too abnormally high, so I got an injection instead. [deep breath] I got injected last night for only three dosage because I had to work today in the morning.asked the doctor to discharge me cause I had to work first. But the decision was taken with condition. I got injected three dosage in the morning and did another blood test which show a result of a decrease in troponin level from 3800 to 1600. Doctor said it was probably 5000 before this and it keeps decreasing to 3800, and to 1600, So if the work isn’t too hard physically, I’m allowed to go, I then go to work. Today at work I was only standing around and talking around. I can stand and talk, but I can’t do any heavy work as it’ll will make my heart work hard and affecting the recovery, I then have to walk slowly. But even so, I can’t even walk fast tho, I get tired easily. Yeah, that’s all. It’s not like I’m completely bedrotting or something, it’s just heart muscle problem, so… fighting ✌🏻](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1897270428084953113/amplify_video_thumb/1897264590565826560/img/jzS4KegPq6tUsXn4.jpg)
![If you want to understand the Joe FlipperHead, Olivia Lamb, Karen Read and Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney chaos; FlipperHead (a guy named Nick from Philly) got confirmation Aidan recorded Karen Read. Then the recordings leaked. Basically, Olivia works for Aidan as a paralegal, now, but Olivia used to be close to Karen in the past (and Olivia and FlipperHead used to be close, as well, on a personal level). FlipperHead, for his part, is loyal to Olivia and Karen but FlipperHead doesn't like Aidan (much like other people close to Karen). Aidan, in turn, seems to be using Olivia to discredit Flipperhead (potentially without Olivia's permission). VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: [Opening remarks on social media and focus] Grant: [Lindsey Gaetani's] been talking about on social media, but let's get to that second. What I wanna start with—let me find the tab—I wanna start with the developments related to Aidan Kearney and Karen Read, okay? So we're gonna jump right into that, and what I have here is the actual discussion. Now, if you go on my X, you will be able to see the entire transcript. I'm gonna try to scroll with you as the video plays. It's a lot, okay? And then we're gonna do part two as well. So eventually, we're gonna hit part two of the transcript. I'm gonna pause, and we're gonna go to the second video. Now, this discussion—the reason why I wanna go over this—is I was listening to it, and I was like, "Wait a minute, I speak this language that they're all talking. I understand sort of the subtext of all of this, but they weren't really talking on the surface." It's a conversation between somebody named Chris, who Aidan Kearney calls a "koala," somebody named Joe Flipperhead—who's actually named Nick from Philadelphia, who was apparently close to a woman named Olivia Lamb, who is gonna come up in this as well. Now, Olivia Lamb did a lot of social media posts about the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial on her profile on Twitter under Olivia. Now, then Olivia started—in a public announcement—saying that she started working for Aidan Kearney. And what you're gonna hear in this conversation is there's also a woman named—who else? There's a woman who's Australian that Aidan also knows named Lily. She introduces herself in the beginning, and then she's kind of the moderator-mediator. And then there's another woman that pops up in the middle named Erika Walsh. She only speaks two or three times. She's one of Turtle Boy's moderators. She interjects at two random times: one, when someone starts talking about Meredith; and two, when Aidan starts saying how bad the content of the conversation in question—that was allegedly recorded and sent to Karen Read, between Aidan and Karen—is for Karen. And then there's a third unknown voice that pops up at the end, who sounds like—it's a female, she's American. I don't know her voice, but it sounds like she's very close to Joe Flipperhead, this guy Nick. And she uses this phrase about Nick "leaving Olivia's ass" in a way that makes me think maybe this girl is close to Nick, and like, she got close to him after Olivia and Nick separated. Now you might say to yourself, "Oh dear God, why—first of all, Grant, why do you know all this?" These people post a lot; I don't know. Tracking this thing is something I've been doing for a while. So it's not like I went into it because I wanted to know who the hell Joe Flipperhead was, or Olivia Lamb was. They entered into a world that I knew a lot about because they were trying to cover this case. And so inevitably, I just had them on my radar, and when things pop up like this, I just connect the dots. [Background on Olivia Lamb] In terms of Olivia though—so she, I don't know. There was this weird situation, I think, at the end of trial one for Karen Read. So somewhere in—I don't know—late 2024, summer 2024 or so. Weird situation where Olivia kind of then, for a few months, wasn't around as much, or she was, but not as much. And then she came back around for Aidan and said she was working on his team or something. Now, Olivia—I don't think Olivia Lamb's necessarily a bad person. I think whoever she is, and whatever she's doing, is very intelligent. But if you kind of look into that family, her mom is named Christina Lamb, and her mom does boutique consulting for law firms. I think her mom might be a lawyer, but she doesn't really—I think the way that she does consulting is more like tactically how lawyers should think about how a case is presented in the public, et cetera, stuff like that. And you have to tie this into this Elizabeth Dombrowski person out of New York that runs this Good Counsel Legal Services that proclaimed that Jen Altman and whoever else were paralegals for Aidan. You see what I'm saying? And what I think Olivia's role is—I think she just does PR. She does some paralegal work clearly, but I think she's mostly like a PR specialist. But I think why there's so much obfuscation—and I'm giving you all this background, because the conversation you're about to hear makes no sense if you don't know all this background. The context there, I think, is that—I think Olivia is a person. Like, I think she is real. But I think the reason why there's so many smoke and mirrors is that she's a conduit for implausible deniability. In the world of public relations—especially this kind of public relations—is incredibly important. So I think she's like a conduit for more entrenched public relations interests, which—okay, fine. I don't see that as per se evil. I'm a critical theorist. So I study propaganda. So like, if you are doing anything that emerged from Edward Bernays's systemic weaponization of his uncle Sigmund Freud's study of the mass psychology of the mind—if you do any of that—you're inevitably gonna catch my attention. Not because I necessarily per se think it's evil, but because that's my wheelhouse. Like, I reconstruct public relations and then I figure out what's driving that. Okay. So she—Olivia—got on my radar because of that, not necessarily because she's evil. Same, because I never really saw it. Now maybe some of the witnesses in the trial would think differently, but that's not my role here. I am like—I'm an objective observer. And um, Olivia was never really cruel. Like she just does PR. So I wouldn't necessarily say like everything she did was like right. But if you look at her style, it's not polemical. It's not—it's mostly analytical. Okay. So that's not an aphoristic or manipulative or evil person really. That's a PR specialist. And this guy, Nick—very similar, Joe Flipperhead. Okay. If you look at his posts—like, I wouldn't exactly say he's a cruel human being, you know, like he memes and stuff. Okay. He's kind of like Dave Cullinane a little bit, but he's just like a human. And you can hear it in this conversation. Like Joe is the one who's really holding Aidan accountable. Joe Flipperhead—whose name is Nick—he's from Philly. And um, I noticed 'cause I watched the stream of them one time—I don't know—he seems all right. I don't have anything against him or Olivia. In fact, I think they did a damn good job, at least Joe. Because what you'll also see here is there's another subtext. What this conversation is about is an allegation that Aidan Kearney sent a recorded conversation to Karen Read—a conversation with her—and then someone—nobody knows who—sent the recording to Karen's lawyers, David Yannetti and Alan Jackson. Now, what's weird about this is that there's also—and I don't like, whatever, I guess it is what it is—but the host, one of the hosts, Chris, this Australian guy—he might be a New Zealander, I don't know. But anyway, he starts saying directly to Aidan, "Listen Aidan, you went to lunch with Meredith—this Turtle Boy's former girlfriend—but her name is Meredith O'Neill (Meredith O). She's a person; she has an existence outside of Aidan Kearney and whether—a lot of people, I think, rightfully so, will take issue with some of the things Meredith has posted. But that's for her soul to deal with. She has to reckon with it, reflect on it, whatever the fuck, okay? That's separate from; she exists outside of the fact that she used to date Aidan Kearney." And I just wanna make that as a blanket point that like Aidan Kearney does not own someone's soul because they had some connection to him at any point in time. These people are independent people who have their own lives. So Meredith O'Neill is her name. And Meredith—like, clearly something happened between Aidan and Meredith because over the past few weeks—like, first of all, there's some more subtext to this, which is Aidan's paralegal team before Olivia Lamb came on was Courtney Healy and this woman named Tina Murray. Tina Murray —I didn't even know THE NAME until two weeks ago—but I had seen her before because she had silver hair when she was in court one time. I had no idea who it was, but she was sitting next to Courtney Healy. Now, way back when Aidan Kearney was incarcerated in late 2023, early 2024—apparently these two women, Courtney Healy and Tina Murray, were very close to Aidan Kearney. Someone had his logins, allegedly. They were helping like post for him while he was in jail, et cetera. Now, there's time back to that as well. Jen Altman is a key figure in all of this. And the reason why is that Jen Altman was the reason that Aidan Kearney and Karen Read got hooked up initially through Natalie Wiweke-Bershneider or whatever her name is. Jen Altman was also among this weird group of people. It was Tina Murray, Courtney Healy, Jen Altman, I think, and maybe just them three, who had access to Aidan in jail on a paralegal list. And at one point, Tim Bradl, Aidan's lawyer, wrote down that Jen Altman was a lawyer. She got so mad that she messaged Bradl, and then those messages got leaked. So there's all this discontent brewing within Aidan Kearney's kind of like organization, if you wanna call it. I'd call it more like a—yeah, it's like a hierarchy. And like he's at the—it's like a politician almost, but he's not a politician. You have like a top person at the top, and then you have all these staffers, and you have to manage the staffers. That's what he's dealing with. And he's gotta keep everybody like in line because like at one person breaks—especially a key—all right, two things. One, there's a reason you compartmentalize information, and you're not gonna be able to get in these type of operations because nobody needs to know everything. If you did that, then everyone would be a weak link. The problem is though, in order to compartmentalize in a bureaucracy or a schema like this, you have to have some people who actually know what's going on. Those people are liabilities. They're weak links. If you have someone who is too close and they know how you compartmentalized information, they'll see the full picture. They're the weak link. That's Courtney Healy, Tina Murray, Jen Altman, Meredith, Lindsey a little bit. These people are the weak links for Aidan because they see the full picture, whether they are aligned with him, don't like him, etc. etc. It's just they're the biggest weaknesses for him because they see the full picture. That's why he tries to either control them—in my opinion—or destroy them. But Aidan's in a real tough spot here because you can't run that playbook on Karen Read. Clearly, these people are incredibly loyal to her. Flipperhead, Olivia, etc. They may have been helping Aidan, but they're incredibly loyal to Karen. Now, what I've always suspected is that the whole point of charging Aidan Kearney was—one, he did bad things to the witnesses in the retrial, Lindsey Gaetani. He did bad things allegedly. Okay, the grand jury indicted him. But I think Brian Tully and the MSP unit that investigated Aidan—they were more interested in two different goals. Okay, they had parallel objectives beyond just the criminal proceeding. One: get information about who the target of the federal probe was after August of 2023. And it was Tully's unit and Matthew Farwell related to the Sandra Birchmore murder coverup. Number two: I think Tully wanted—and Kate Peter and Marty Keach wanted—Aidan Kearney and Michael Morrissey wanted Aidan Kearney to flip on Karen Read. It was a pressure tactic. It was always just a pressure tactic. That's what I fully believe. Now, I'm not saying he didn't do bad things. I just believe in the mind of the DA—these people were using pressure tactics to get Aidan Kearney in a tactical position where he would flip. Why do I think this? Well, a few things. One: in the fall of 2023, between like August and November, Aidan Kearney didn't need an intermediary with Karen Read. Natalie was out of the picture, although I'm suspect, because there's this new text from Natalie from August saying that like she was still loyal to Karen Read—although ostensibly they had a falling out in June of 2023 because Natalie called Karen late at night and she was upset about it. I always thought that was BS. Now I know why it was BS because there's also a March 24 message about like Joe Warren and Natalie wanting to go to court. I just have this suspicion that Natalie was never really like against Karen. What Natalie was doing was using Turtle Boy as leverage with Karen's permission—using it's called a limited hangout. Limited information about Turtle Boy's culpability for witness intimidation to the MSP so that the MSP would trust Natalie—so that Natalie could relay information back to Karen about the ongoing investigation of Karen and Aidan for conspiracy under 2747 and witness intimidation under 26813B. Now they did try to eventually indict Karen on that in March of 2024 at No True Bill, but they can do it again. They got more evidence—the state in May of 2024 about Aidan saying in Facebook messages that one Karen told him not to go to Lindsey Gaetani's apartment on December 23rd, 2023, and then some other stuff—basically where Aidan was implying that someone told him to run Jen McCabe's license plates. Who would that be? Karen Read. He didn't say it but he implied it to Jenna Rocco and Amy D'Angelis and whoever else was in that internal chat that got leaked. So I really believe that the reason why Aidan Kearney was such a liability to Karen Read—and why she was saying it out loud—is that Karen Read always saw Aidan Kearney as vulnerable to flip. Why? Because Brian Tully did his homework—whatever his motives were—and he found a few things. And I think that him and Kate Peter profiled Aidan Kearney. That's why Kate Peter had some role in this—because they thought Kate Peter should really like Aidan in a lot of ways because he used to be colleagues. Two: I think the state police thought she saw his psyche—Aidan's psyche—and could help them profile him. Three: I think Kate Peter is very hard into the world, and Tully and those other people in the unit could say like, "Yeah, we're worried about Birchmore; we got to do damage control here. Nothing's really wrong with the O'Keefe death investigation," and just—they're going to find out about Birchmore—and Kate would go along with it. That's my opinion. But Tully gets this video of Aidan that he had sent to Lindsey—and it's out there on the internet. I don't want to play the content; it's sad. But this is why I think this is what was in the prosecutor's mind when they were going—and the MSP's mind—when they were going after Kearney. Yes, he did bad things—especially to people that knew the DA and Tully like McCabe, Jen McCabe, etc. But also Aidan was an Achilles heel for Karen. Think about MSP, right? And the way we're analyzing Aidan's weaknesses via weak links in the compartmentalization chain. Okay, flip it around and think about MSP thinking about Karen. What's a weak link in her compartmentalization chain? Aidan Kearney. Now, in that regard, Aidan Kearney—if he flips on Karen Read—guarantees a conviction for Karen Read for the state, even if they can't get her on John's death. It was a backup plan. Second to that, I think though—it's a dynamic situation—and that something must have fucking happened recently. Okay, and I've long thought—and we'll read Lindsey's post on this later because she was talking about it on Twitter overnight, and I was reading it this morning, and it made me think about this—I've long suspected that Kate Peter made a deal with Aidan Kearney in the past like 6-8 months. And the deal was involving the Norfolk DA and the people prosecuting Kearney, and the goal was to get Kearney to flip. And I also think Kate wants Kearney in the Netflix documentary that she's working on with Gretchen and Sandpaper—which, they don't really understand. Like, bro, you think you're getting my footage and me if you're going to enable Kate Peter and try to portray her as the Charlotte of the internet? What planet are you on? No. No, the answer is no. But anyway, I really believe that this deal was made because why else—and I think Karen found out about it—because why else would Karen—[we're going to—the conversation is going to clarify all this]—why else would Karen on Friday authorize Joe Flipperhead to release information that confirms that Aidan recorded Karen. Now, why Karen is not going to do this if she didn't hear the fucking recording? She's not a moron. She's a tactical genius. I'm telling you—I don't necessarily agree with all the things she's done. I personally think she's responsible for John's death, but like—she's a fucking tactical genius. And you have to understand in some sense—like she wouldn't do this unless it's real. Like someone sent her that recording, and I don't believe Aidan Kearney sent it to intermediaries because if Meredith is the closest person to him—or was—in the world, and he's going to lunch with her and will only play it for her allegedly—okay, there's no way in hell that he would just send it to people. I believe—whether through a fake account or otherwise—Aidan Kearney sent that to Karen's lawyers. That's just my opinion. I think there's strong reason for him to do it. It's a message. Okay. As a result, I think Karen Read doing this had to sense that this was the moment—like this was the moment where the decision was going to be made about whether or not he cooperated. And now is Aidan's kind of like signal flare that I'm thinking—from Karen Read's perspective—Aidan sending that recording to Jackson and Yannetti is a signal flare that if she doesn't act now, he's making the choice to flip on her. Okay, well, what did she just do? She in essence just put him in the worst position possible because he had to be able to—him and Kate Peter—had to sell the narrative in public that—and this is why I was on Lindsey's profile earlier. Let me see if I can bring that up—him and Kate Peter had to sell the narrative in public that Karen was worse than Aidan Kearney. All right, so let's take a look at Lindsey Gaetani's post here. Let's read this first and then let's look at the post from Kate Peter. So Kate Peter post last night: "Karen Read has killed a man before and to my knowledge, Aidan Kearney has yet to do anything like that. Take that as you will. Regardless, they're both giant DBAGs, but you can decide who is worse. My vote is Karen Read." That's Kate Peter—one of the closest people in the world right now to Brian Tully, Michael Morrissey, and the decision makers who were initially prosecuting Kearney—telling you in plain sight what's going on. So let's read Lindsey's post: "Yes, we already know a deal was made a long time ago. How cute of Kate trying to win over the turtle riders after she pretended she was still trying to put him in jail the past several months. Does anyone of the turtle riders know who Christine Gagne is? I have no idea who that is. Does anyone know who that is? That's the woman Kate Peter blamed for wiretapping charges with TB and the person she blamed when I asked her where her deleted Google Drive went with the state's evidence. Why would Kate blame this woman for deleting evidence when this woman's name was never mentioned during the grand jury or in a single email or police report? Interesting." Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. So we know Kate Peter was providing evidence to the grand jury. We know that from the recently released court documents and discovery in the Kearney criminal case. Why was—why is Kate Peter blaming someone? Who is Christine Gagne, who—why is Kate blaming her when Kate was the one who was—there's evidence that Kate was directly providing this material to Tully, who was taking it to the grand jury. And by the way, I want people to understand: my anger here is not because Aidan Kearney was prosecuted. I think he should be held accountable. My anger here is because the people prosecuting him had ulterior motives. Lindsey Gaetani didn't have an ulterior motive. She was victimized. She was an unwitting pawn in this proxy war between Karen and the DOJ—Karen and the DOJ and Aidan on one side, and the Norfolk DA and the MSP unit on the other. But instead of trying to prosecute Aidan, it was all tactical. And nobody was told—that's the worst part. And that's why I'm so upset about all of this, because it was a disgrace. It was a disgrace to the process. If you're going to hold someone accountable, do it. You don't use it as leverage to get someone else. And if you're going to do that, be open with the people who are victimized. Otherwise, you are going to build resentment. Why would you ever want to be in a situation where you have to handle a victim? Because if they were made aware of what was actually going on, they would be upset. That is a very prime example—on its face example—that something is very wrong. Not because Aidan Kearney is absolved of liability or because I think he did nothing wrong. Absolutely not. No. Other way around. But because that kind of behavior—given impunity basically, because there's a larger fish—it's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, not because the prosecution exists. In my opinion, a grand jury indicted him; he should be prosecuted. That's what happens when indictments get handed up. But because the aim of the prosecution was not to seek justice—it was to get—it was to pressure Kearney to flip on Karen Read. [Transition to the conversation] Now, to bring this all back—because we got to go—I want to look at this conversation here. I want to actually listen to this chat a minute. I'm going to explicate; I'm going to try to tell you what happens. "Hi, Bunny Towel. Hi, Christina. No haircut. But guess if you want to send donations—today's a good day for that. We got to get Towel to the end of the month. Towel's not going to be able to move very much for the next few days. So I could use some food if you want to send me some gift cards. I just need some help. All right. I'm a little towel. I got a lot going on. And anyway, so I'll—I'm sitting in my chair. That's as much as I can do right now. I can talk; my brain works. I can sit in my chair. I'm not doing anything else, but I should eat at some point. Anyway, so we're going to listen to this conversation because you have to think of all that background when you're analyzing. Why right now? Okay, why would Karen Read tactically right now burn Aidan Kearney? Aidan Kearney supporters are very loyal, but a lot of Aidan Kearney's base are becoming alienated because either they care more about Karen Read than Aidan Kearney or because Aidan Kearney's been on this weird tear recently where he like been attacking middle-aged women who are most of his fans. All right. Most of his fans are middle-aged women. And he goes after people's looks like whatever. So there's already this alienation happening. I believe the only reason Karen Read does this right now is because what it did—and what it's doing to Aidan Kearney—is it's decimating his support. Okay. Well, why are you decimating his support? Why are you forcing people to pick sides? Why would you do that right now? Either [he] cooperated or he's about to. All right. Now Karen Read—if she was—here's my read of this—if Karen Read was just going to cooperate, she wouldn't have done this this way. Okay. I'm sorry. It would have been completely different. I don't believe that she would have done it this way. I believe she would have done it a completely different way. And the reason why I believe that—we're going to read the text from Karen before we start listening to this. By the way, you can see I have the video here for you. What happened? By the way, just to give you a little more context. So this X Spaces that we're going to listen to—I have the full 37-minute X Space. This X Space, okay—it was before the text messages from Karen to Joe Flipperhead got released. So what you have to realize is these texts you're seeing on the screen got released because of this conversation. You're going to hear Joe Flipperhead say it.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1972809333571502470/amplify_video_thumb/1972808166204137472/img/XOOS2z0jZvC0WHzY.jpg)
![🔥 Knapp and I, "have seen high-quality everything [UAP] that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing." ~Corbell 🔥 (Great way to end the year. Unless you think Corbell and Knapp are lying or have been fooled by nothing but fake photos and videos, the good stuff DOES exist. Damn. Wasn't expecting this, but it's very important to hear. You'll have to decide what this means for you. Happy New Year!) ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "George and I are reporters and people send us stuff. He and I can both attest: We have seen high-fidelity, of things that like, are so egregiously bizarre, you guys (Knapp shaking his head up and down in agreement). I'll just admit it. We have been exposed to every type of footage you can imagine. Every type. Lots of it. And this has happened for a while, and I don't know what to do. I mean, as a journalist, we are able to be exposed to these things, and they're...you know, it's shocking. "There's a lot of footage from this aggregate program called IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION, and not even within that program. That program was just siphoning off. Here's the deal: Our sensor platforms - from space, to air, to sea, to undersea - pick up, all the time, highly-anomalous things that are unambiguously UAP. That's fact. I can attest to that as a human being sitting in front of you, that George and I have been exposed to it. I'm not gonna go any further today, but that is fact, we have been. "So, what happens is, you have our government saying, all of this reporting is coming in and it's going up on these classified servers, but like, what do we do with it, what do we do with it? So they've developed one of many programs that used to be called Immaculate Constellation, where they will pull the best of the best, a lot of it using AI. And they will pull these into an archive and have them assessed in secret groups. So that's what Immaculate Constellation actually was, was an aggregate program to take all of that footage, bring it, and nothing facing internally to the U.S. So if we're doing any exploitation (reverse engineering efforts. ~Joe), if it's anything with us? Nothing. But to other countries, and just passive and active picking up UAP, that's what Immaculate Constellation did. And now it's under a different name. But it does the same thing, and it's one of many programs. "So, I can attest, and so can George, that that footage of high-quality from all-domain is something that exists, it's unambiguous. Now the question is: Who do you show it to? Who gets to see it? What actions can they take? I don't know. I don't know. I'm not in charge here. Is there an adult in the room?" George Knapp: "Jeremy, DoD spokesperson says there is no record of anything called Immaculate Constellation within the Department of Defense. I guess it can't be real then, right?" Corbell: "You know, I think there will be clarity on that, because I think there's humans behind whistleblowing, and I think one day we're going to learn more about that. I hope that that helps. Like, when David Grusch came forward, and he said, 'Look, I dug into all these black projects, and I had 40 witnesses.' By the way, it's not the people that you know of and this sort of thing. This is like, deep within our intelligence agencies. David Grusch DID bring 40 people to the IC IG. He did do that. He told it like it is. Yeah, it exists. It exists. It's the most frustrating thing in the world, once you know for sure that high-quality data exists and that people that should see it haven't seen it, and you're kind of stuck. You don't know what to do about it. That's how I feel.: Knapp: "But maybe a technicality could be it exists or existed, but not within the Pentagon." Corbell: "Oh, yeah, all those games like, Immaculate Constellation was not a DoD USAP. So that's like, why you see Susan Gough like, technically, she's telling the truth. So, Immaculate Constellation was a USAP (Unacknowledged Special Access Program ~Joe) under a different heading. So imagine this: Imagine even the Department of Energy has its own USAPs. The White House has its own USAPs. So you can technically say it's not under DoD. They might have actuated some things for that operation, which was an operation, Immaculate Constellation, but they can get away with these technicalities. But there are USAPs in a lot of different departments, as you can imagine." Joe Murgia - Joe Murgia: "I am not letting you guys get away with not commenting again on what you've seen, image-wise. I mean, have you guys seen craft, structured craft, up close (Corbell and Knapp both shaking their heads up and down)?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Flying saucer-type craft?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Triangles?" Corbell: "Yeah." Murgia: "What else can you say about that?" Corbell: "The weirdest sh*t I've ever seen in my life, man. As journalists, we get a lot of weird stuff, and George and I, we'll look at it and assess it, and it's legitimate, and we've seen it. And, yeah, I don't know what else to say, George, unless you want to say something." Knapp: "We've seen stuff that we're not supposed to see. Put it that way." Murgia: "From government sensors?" Corbell: "Oh yeah." Knapp: "Yeah." Corbell: "Yeah. Look, as journalists, we don't know at first, right? Like, we'll get a bunch of information. We'll be exposed to a bunch of information. It's a very tricky place for us to be. First, are people f*cking with us? You know, is this a lie, is this real? We had that debate about the Jellyfish. Like, we had to, like, dig in and find out, which base, where was it, who's seen it? Multiple sources that have seen it at that base. It takes time. We're in that position now. We've been exposed to a lot of stuff and everything you just said, Joe, yeah. I mean, I could tell you as a friend, straight up, George could affirm this, with his own eyes, too. What that means, I don't know, and I don't know where to go from there. But we have seen high-quality everything that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1874258646508634486/ext_tw_video_thumb/1874246145226268674/pu/img/B2QPH6uyoAol1MiH.jpg)
![🤯Whitney Webb pitches mind-blowing theory on Joe Kent's real narrative purpose: engineer "anti-semitic, right-leaning domestic terrorists" to feed to the "pre-crime" machine: "[Kent's] an intelligence officer and top CIA guy." "Be careful in trusting 'former spooks' who come out of nowhere and are saying what you want to hear right away." "Basically, the first Trump administration defined the rising domestic terror threat because after 9/11 they've been building all this infrastructure for a war on domestic terror. Every administration has advanced it, Democrat and Republican. So who are they saying the domestic terrorists are? Anti-Semitic Right-leaning populists." "I worry when people from that exact nexus that existed in [Trump's first administration] come out and are trying to get Right-leaning populists in particular to do things that the Trump administration itself—even if no one else agrees with the definition—would define as anti-Semitic." This clip of Webb (Whitney Webb), author of One Nation Under Blackmail and contributing editor of unlimitedhangout(.)com, is taken from an interview with Jimmy Dore (Jimmy Dore) posted to Rumble on March 26, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Dore: "What do you make of Joe Kent?" Webb: "Yeah, so with Joe Kent, he's a intelligence officer and top CIA guy. I think a lot of stuff is going on right now, and I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it. But I think people should be careful in trusting former, quote–unquote, former spooks who come out of nowhere and are saying what you want to hear right away. Because a lot of times what happens is that these figures will do that to build up trust with the public and then they'll misdirect you somewhere else if you're not careful. "So I would advise vigilance and critical thinking, which is often in short supply, but should not be, about, that figure in, in particular. But I think— Dore: "So you think there's like, there might be some kind of a long-game plan with Joe Kent?" Webb: "Oh, yeah. So you saw—" Dore: "So, so I've heard this argument and, and that you know, don't take him as face value, that they're just setting him up to be the next Trump or JD Vance or something and then he's going to do all the horrible thing. So that's—" Webb: "They could. It's very possible, but I don't know how it'll go. But let me give you an example of why I'm really skeptical of him. "So when Trump was, I encourage people to go back and look at the first iteration of the Trump administration to understand what's happening now. And since my career in journalism began during Trump's first term, I thankfully remember a good amount of it. "So, about a year before the January Six event, there was this DHS official and this is the Trump administration, Elizabeth Neuman, I think her name was. She was basically saying, there's going to be a domestic terror event. We can see it building, but we can't quite stop it. It's another 9/11. Oh no. If only we had more surveillance powers and whatever, we could maybe stop this other imminent 9/11, whatever. "And so basically in that hearing, it was a hearing where she was testifying. Top officials from DHS and, and other intelligence agencies were basically painting who is the up-and-coming domestic terrorist profile in the United States, what Americans are domestic terrorists. "And so basically, the— I, I really wish I could remember the specific name of the hearing to direct people to that because it is on C-SPAN, still. But basically, the profile they gave were anti-Semitic Trump supporters or anti-Semitic Right-leaning populists. So I worry when people from that exact nexus that existed in Trump One come out and are trying to get Right-leaning populists in particular to do things that the Trump administration itself, even if it, no one else agrees with the definition, would define as anti-Semitic." Dore: "So, so what I— explain that again to me because you lost me a little bit right at the end. So you're saying that—" Webb: "Okay, so basically the first Trump administration defined the rising domestic terror threat because after 9/11 they've been building all this infrastructure for a war on domestic terror. Every administration has advanced it, Democrat and Republican. So who are they saying the domestic terrorists are? Anti-Semitic Right-leaning populists." Dore: "And so do you think Joe Kent is, is one of those?" Webb: "So before this era they had the domestic terror threat they were trying to put in front of you were obviously these groups of like Feds, like Patriot Front and the Proud Boys. And all of that. Okay, so how, if you, if, if you can't fake the demographic, how do you engineer the demographic?... "So basically if you have Trump officials that are part of this apparatus claiming right-leaning anti- Semites are domestic terrorists that need to be targeted by this infrastructure and the surveillance infrastructure, in pre-crime and all of that, that's been a part of this buildup of the war on domestic terror. And then you have people coming out and being like we're going to blame, you know, you know, saying what people want to hear because obviously Israel absolutely is intimately involved with getting us involved in the Iran war. "But the other side of it is you create— you, you signal boost that with people like Joe Kent potentially. And then you have people sort of muddy the waters between Israel and all Jewish people, which is not fair. And then you can have the Trump administration swoop in and you know, look at Alexis Wilkins. Foreign government operators are driving these narratives. "It's, it's like reverse Russiagate. And well, I mean I probably should have thought this theory a little bit more before explaining it on your show, but basically I worry that someone like Joe Kent is coming out of, out of nowhere to try and sort of engineer this problem that the US Government has had is we can't make domestic terrorists appear that fit our profile. "So now we want people to create a class of right- leaning populists who basically fit our definition. If we just define anti-Semites as people who are critical of Israel and then we can target these people with our domestic terror infrastructure. So I worry that could be happening."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2037354939635442113/amplify_video_thumb/2037350889284071424/img/h0fAF1sNQM8NIvCW.jpg)
![The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036795243681423518/amplify_video_thumb/2036794127560613888/img/52_cdbzzL6_foTSI.jpg)
