Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

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

It's not cheating, if you're both winning 😈🔥 TAGS #Cuck #cuckold #interracial #wifesharing #sexywife #hotwife #corno #cuckolding #cornos #Cornudos #cornudo #wifecheats #wife4bbc

World of Cucks

13,912 subscribers

19,094 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #Cuck #cuckold #interracial #wifesharing #sexywife #hotwife #corno #cuckolding #cornos #Cornudos #cornudo #wifecheats #wife4bbc

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

I can't stop thinking about this question: Are you willing to sprint when the distance is unknown? In 2021, Georgia Tech strength coach Lewis Caralla delivered this epic speech to the football team. If it doesn't get you motivated, you may need to check your pulse... He opens with a few harsh truths: • Winning isn't loyal to you • Winning doesn't care about you • Winning doesn't care how sore you are • Winning doesn't care how hard you work • Winning doesn't care how much sleep you get But it's his question that stuck with me: Are you willing to sprint when the distance is unknown? The willingness to sprint with no clear view of the finish line is rare. It requires two things: 1. A deep belief in one's self 2. A deep belief in the mission If you have 1 but not 2, you won't be able to do it. If you have 2 but not 1, you won't be able to do it. You need both. In my observation, the greatest things in life are accomplished when you're willing to sprint when the distance is unknown: The sprint to care for your loved ones in their time of need. The sprint to build something meaningful. The sprint to serve others and create positive ripples in the world. Goal: Find those rare things in life that you're willing to sprint for when the distance is unknown. That, to me, is the definition of winning. "And why chase winning? Because the only thing that's guaranteed in life if you don't chase it is losing."

Sensitive content

I can't stop thinking about this question: Are you willing to sprint when the distance is unknown? In 2021, Georgia Tech strength coach Lewis Caralla delivered this epic speech to the football team. If it doesn't get you motivated, you may need to check your pulse... He opens with a few harsh truths: • Winning isn't loyal to you • Winning doesn't care about you • Winning doesn't care how sore you are • Winning doesn't care how hard you work • Winning doesn't care how much sleep you get But it's his question that stuck with me: Are you willing to sprint when the distance is unknown? The willingness to sprint with no clear view of the finish line is rare. It requires two things: 1. A deep belief in one's self 2. A deep belief in the mission If you have 1 but not 2, you won't be able to do it. If you have 2 but not 1, you won't be able to do it. You need both. In my observation, the greatest things in life are accomplished when you're willing to sprint when the distance is unknown: The sprint to care for your loved ones in their time of need. The sprint to build something meaningful. The sprint to serve others and create positive ripples in the world. Goal: Find those rare things in life that you're willing to sprint for when the distance is unknown. That, to me, is the definition of winning. "And why chase winning? Because the only thing that's guaranteed in life if you don't chase it is losing."

Sahil Bloom

5,844,428 views • 2 years ago

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Dan Bongino just MIC DROPPED the left’s “both sides BULLSH*T” on political violence “Here's the problem with the both sides bullsh*t. The problem is it diffuses responsibility away from the individuals in charge and doesn't push people to change and call it out!” “It's not out there. It is YOUR thing. It is YOUR thing on the left!” “It is your thing. The suspect in this case wrote a manifesto, man, you can read it.” “Obama's confused about the motive here. ‘Although we don't have the details about the motive behind last night.’” “You don't have the details about the motive. Why would you even put that in there?!” “Number one, we DID have the details about the motive. You're the former president, you know, cut this SH*T!” “Stop pretending like people didn't tell you what was going on. And second, even if you didn't know the details about the motive, you putting that in there, you know exactly what you're doing. Oh, we don't know what happened, bro.” “Gee, I don't know. It's only like fourth or fifth time we know about, there's probably tons of other cases that were stopped, that this president, President Trump, they've tried to kill him. If you don't know, just SHUT UP!” NAILED IT Dan Bongino 🔥🔥👏🏻 H/t miguelifornia

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Dan Bongino just MIC DROPPED the left’s “both sides BULLSHT” on political violence “Here's the problem with the both sides bullsht. The problem is it diffuses responsibility away from the individuals in charge and doesn't push people to change and call it out!” “It's not out there. It is YOUR thing. It is YOUR thing on the left!” “It is your thing. The suspect in this case wrote a manifesto, man, you can read it.” “Obama's confused about the motive here. ‘Although we don't have the details about the motive behind last night.’” “You don't have the details about the motive. Why would you even put that in there?!” “Number one, we DID have the details about the motive. You're the former president, you know, cut this SH*T!” “Stop pretending like people didn't tell you what was going on. And second, even if you didn't know the details about the motive, you putting that in there, you know exactly what you're doing. Oh, we don't know what happened, bro.” “Gee, I don't know. It's only like fourth or fifth time we know about, there's probably tons of other cases that were stopped, that this president, President Trump, they've tried to kill him. If you don't know, just SHUT UP!” NAILED IT Dan Bongino 🔥🔥👏🏻 H/t miguelifornia

Eric Daugherty

24,969 views • 3 months ago

Victor Wembanyama was asked in French about being a reactionary team: 🇫🇷: Hello Victor, I get the impression that there’s no team better than yours when it comes to responding after a loss and winning when your backs are against the wall. Do you agree with that and how do you explain it? What needs to happen for you to stop being a "reactionary team"—a team that only finds solutions after running into problems? Even if you're the best at it, it can be both a strength and a weakness. 👽: Definitely. I completely agree. I think it's due to both our lack of experience and our youth, especially since we're playing against experienced teams. To me, the two best examples are Minnesota and New York. They understand how fortunate they are to be in the Finals, and they know it's not guaranteed they'll ever get another chance like this. As for us, we're kind of like spoiled kids. For some of us, it's our first season—or one of our first seasons—and we're already in the Finals. We don't fully realize it yet. And to me, the team that appreciates the position we're in the most will be the one that wins. (Thanks to @ orewaddl for the translation) #GoSpursGo #PorVida

Victor Wembanyama was asked in French about being a reactionary team: 🇫🇷: Hello Victor, I get the impression that there’s no team better than yours when it comes to responding after a loss and winning when your backs are against the wall. Do you agree with that and how do you explain it? What needs to happen for you to stop being a "reactionary team"—a team that only finds solutions after running into problems? Even if you're the best at it, it can be both a strength and a weakness. 👽: Definitely. I completely agree. I think it's due to both our lack of experience and our youth, especially since we're playing against experienced teams. To me, the two best examples are Minnesota and New York. They understand how fortunate they are to be in the Finals, and they know it's not guaranteed they'll ever get another chance like this. As for us, we're kind of like spoiled kids. For some of us, it's our first season—or one of our first seasons—and we're already in the Finals. We don't fully realize it yet. And to me, the team that appreciates the position we're in the most will be the one that wins. (Thanks to @ orewaddl for the translation) #GoSpursGo #PorVida

Wemby Alien Era

59,213 views • 2 months ago

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 views • 8 months ago

THIS IS SO SWEET!!! Jimin's girly 🔥❤️‍🩹🥹 👩🏻 So you don't have an all-time favorite? 👩🏼 "Serendipity! You know, Jimin!" 👩🏼 "I mean, Boy With Love, I do, because whenever I hear that song I think of Jimin. And I saw him, it was in Brussels." 👩🏻 You have seen him before? 👩🏼 "I saw him in Vegas night 1 and 2 at the AMAs, and then we went to Madrid, and then, or I went to Madrid, and then Brussels both nights, and then Paris night 1, night 2." 👩🏻 So this is your fifth concert?! 👩🏼 "Sixth! This is my sixth, oh my god! And we have Toronto as well, so we're gonna do two in Toronto when I get home." 👩🏻 So lucky! Have they noticed you? 👩🏼 "No, and that's not the point for me. It's not about being noticed, it's about if they feel the love, if they feel the energy, and I come and I represent for Jimin and screaming my head off. And that's what that's what I want to do, that's what it's all about. Absolutely." 👩🏻 If you could say anything to Jimin, what would you say? 👩🏼 "I'd say that you're beautiful no matter what your hair looks like, no matter what you have on. It's it's you. Um, and you have made me feel so good, and if I could make you feel a little bit of happiness, then I would feel content." 👩🏼 "Love him. Thank you so much."

THIS IS SO SWEET!!! Jimin's girly 🔥❤️‍🩹🥹 👩🏻 So you don't have an all-time favorite? 👩🏼 "Serendipity! You know, Jimin!" 👩🏼 "I mean, Boy With Love, I do, because whenever I hear that song I think of Jimin. And I saw him, it was in Brussels." 👩🏻 You have seen him before? 👩🏼 "I saw him in Vegas night 1 and 2 at the AMAs, and then we went to Madrid, and then, or I went to Madrid, and then Brussels both nights, and then Paris night 1, night 2." 👩🏻 So this is your fifth concert?! 👩🏼 "Sixth! This is my sixth, oh my god! And we have Toronto as well, so we're gonna do two in Toronto when I get home." 👩🏻 So lucky! Have they noticed you? 👩🏼 "No, and that's not the point for me. It's not about being noticed, it's about if they feel the love, if they feel the energy, and I come and I represent for Jimin and screaming my head off. And that's what that's what I want to do, that's what it's all about. Absolutely." 👩🏻 If you could say anything to Jimin, what would you say? 👩🏼 "I'd say that you're beautiful no matter what your hair looks like, no matter what you have on. It's it's you. Um, and you have made me feel so good, and if I could make you feel a little bit of happiness, then I would feel content." 👩🏼 "Love him. Thank you so much."

ꜱʟʏᴛʜᴇʀɪɴ_ᴊɪᴍɪɴ_ot⁷

42,690 views • 20 days ago

The late Dolores Cannon spent decades documenting something her thousands of hypnosis subjects kept describing independently, across countries, across decades, without ever reading each other's transcripts: A split was coming. Not a war. Not a catastrophe. A frequency separation. Two versions of Earth — diverging not geographically, but vibrationally. Those operating on the old frequency would continue in one reality. Those who raised their frequency would shift into another. She said most people wouldn't even notice it happening. It's happening. And you've already noticed. Here's what it looks like: Conversations that used to flow now feel like speaking two different languages. Not because someone is wrong — because you're no longer tuned to the same channel. People you've known your entire life suddenly feel distant. Not angry. Not estranged. Just... somewhere else. Like you're both in the same room but no longer in the same reality. The news feels like fiction. The outrage feels manufactured. The narratives that used to grip you now slide off like water. You can see the code behind the content — and once you see it, you can't unsee it. Here's what it feels like: Grief without a funeral. You're mourning something that hasn't died — it's just no longer yours. A version of your life. A version of yourself. A frequency you lived in for years that you can't return to even if you wanted to. And the loneliness. The specific kind that comes not from being alone, but from being awake in a room full of people who are still sleeping — and loving them too much to pretend you don't see the difference. That's the split. It's not dramatic. It's quiet. And it's already here. So here's what to expect: It will continue. The gap will widen. The old frequency will get louder, more chaotic, more desperate — because systems built on control do not go quietly. They escalate. But the escalation is not a sign of strength. It's a sign of collapse. And as some relationships feel like they're slipping — whether family, childhood friends, or bonds you thought would last forever — know this: The conditioning can separate frequencies. Education, media, politics, ideology — these programs can tune two people to different channels until they can barely hear each other. But love is the glue that no conditioning can ever break. The people you love are not lost. They are on their own timeline. And love does not require two people to be on the same frequency — it only requires that neither one lets go. The split is real. But so is the thread that holds. You are more powerful than you know. 🧬📡🔥

The late Dolores Cannon spent decades documenting something her thousands of hypnosis subjects kept describing independently, across countries, across decades, without ever reading each other's transcripts: A split was coming. Not a war. Not a catastrophe. A frequency separation. Two versions of Earth — diverging not geographically, but vibrationally. Those operating on the old frequency would continue in one reality. Those who raised their frequency would shift into another. She said most people wouldn't even notice it happening. It's happening. And you've already noticed. Here's what it looks like: Conversations that used to flow now feel like speaking two different languages. Not because someone is wrong — because you're no longer tuned to the same channel. People you've known your entire life suddenly feel distant. Not angry. Not estranged. Just... somewhere else. Like you're both in the same room but no longer in the same reality. The news feels like fiction. The outrage feels manufactured. The narratives that used to grip you now slide off like water. You can see the code behind the content — and once you see it, you can't unsee it. Here's what it feels like: Grief without a funeral. You're mourning something that hasn't died — it's just no longer yours. A version of your life. A version of yourself. A frequency you lived in for years that you can't return to even if you wanted to. And the loneliness. The specific kind that comes not from being alone, but from being awake in a room full of people who are still sleeping — and loving them too much to pretend you don't see the difference. That's the split. It's not dramatic. It's quiet. And it's already here. So here's what to expect: It will continue. The gap will widen. The old frequency will get louder, more chaotic, more desperate — because systems built on control do not go quietly. They escalate. But the escalation is not a sign of strength. It's a sign of collapse. And as some relationships feel like they're slipping — whether family, childhood friends, or bonds you thought would last forever — know this: The conditioning can separate frequencies. Education, media, politics, ideology — these programs can tune two people to different channels until they can barely hear each other. But love is the glue that no conditioning can ever break. The people you love are not lost. They are on their own timeline. And love does not require two people to be on the same frequency — it only requires that neither one lets go. The split is real. But so is the thread that holds. You are more powerful than you know. 🧬📡🔥

Claire Taylor 🇬🇧ioekah Lumish , ( Alcyone )

47,288 views • 11 days ago

🚨BREAKING: Candace Owens Just SNATCHED #1 Podcast Globally AGAIN PROVING We Are The MAJORITY and The Lamestream Media Is DEAD 🔥 Just hopped on to say: Congratulations Queen, she stays winning. Her show pulls more views than CNN + MSNBC combined because people run to TRUTH and authenticity. Nobody does it better than Candace Owens . Shoutout to her powerhouse team of 5 grinding behind the scenes while legacy media crumbles. This isn't just a ranking—it's proof the people are done with gatekeepers. Clip attached: Me giving her the flowers she deserves. Keep exposing, keep fighting, keep rising. We love you, queen. 👑🙌 Thank you to everyone worldwide tuning in and supporting her. She is the tip of the spear and our movement is unstoppable.⚔️ If you're not subscribed yet... fix that NOW.

🚨BREAKING: Candace Owens Just SNATCHED #1 Podcast Globally AGAIN PROVING We Are The MAJORITY and The Lamestream Media Is DEAD 🔥 Just hopped on to say: Congratulations Queen, she stays winning. Her show pulls more views than CNN + MSNBC combined because people run to TRUTH and authenticity. Nobody does it better than Candace Owens . Shoutout to her powerhouse team of 5 grinding behind the scenes while legacy media crumbles. This isn't just a ranking—it's proof the people are done with gatekeepers. Clip attached: Me giving her the flowers she deserves. Keep exposing, keep fighting, keep rising. We love you, queen. 👑🙌 Thank you to everyone worldwide tuning in and supporting her. She is the tip of the spear and our movement is unstoppable.⚔️ If you're not subscribed yet... fix that NOW.

Project Constitution

20,569 views • 4 months ago

Do you know why these progressive Democrats and woke pro-Palestinians are flooding the streets right now to protest the killing of Khamenei and condemn the attacks on Iran? It's not just hatred for Trump this time. On the surface, it looks wildly contradictory: the same people screaming for women's rights, LGBTQ freedoms, justice for Palestinians, and against every form of oppression suddenly align with the Islamic Regime, a regime that massacred 40,000 unarmed Iranians, women, men, and children in just two days, all because they wanted freedom. It seems insane. But dig a little deeper, and you see what really glues them together. Both sides are obsessed with the same black-and-white worldview: oppressed vs oppressor. Here's the key thing you may not know: the Iranian regime is the only Shia Islamic state out there, unlike the Arab Sunni monarchies. Shias are essentially the leftists of the Muslim world. Throughout history, they've always seen themselves as the oppressed victims of Sunni caliphs and their empires. In the video, that black flag with red Persian text is the 'Ya Hussein' flag. Hussein was the a Shia Imam that was killed by a Sunni caliph. This event is the core of Shia identity and symbol of oppression by powerful. The mullahs built their entire ideology around this victimhood: we're the eternal righteous underdogs, oppressed by the strong (Sunnis back then, now the US, Israel, and the old Shah's Iran) Sound familiar? It's exactly the same narrative the Western left uses for every 'marginalized' group. The Marxists, cultural Marxists (woke feminists, and LGBTQ activists) view the world through this same lens: if you're not with the 'oppressed,' you're evil. America, the West, Israel, the Shah's Iran? All oppressors, imperialists, colonial villains, US puppets, Zionists. So Iran's regime , because it's anti-American and anti-Israel , automatically gets a free pass as the 'victim' fighting back. This shared victimhood mindset is the real glue. It's not about genuine values like freedom or equality, it's about ressentiment, that Nietzsche concept: deep-seated envy and resentment toward anyone successful, beautiful, powerful, or winning. Instead of competing, creating, or getting better, they morally subvert everything: label the winners 'evil oppressors,' justify tearing them down, and feel righteous while doing violence. Scarcity trauma turns into: 'If I can't have it, no one can – and it's moral to destroy it.' Now you know why the regime is so fixated on destroying symbols like the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Both Shias and these liberals resent prosperity, innovation, freedom, and success. They disguise their envy as justice and anti-imperialism. Their mask is slipping, and more people are seeing it: this was never about freedom or justice. If it were, they'd stand with the Iranian people fighting tyrants, not with the oppressive regime. The left is getting exposed alongside their favorite regime. Tomorrow is going to be better , not just for Iran, but for the whole world. #iranwar #ThankYouTrump #ThankYouBibi

Do you know why these progressive Democrats and woke pro-Palestinians are flooding the streets right now to protest the killing of Khamenei and condemn the attacks on Iran? It's not just hatred for Trump this time. On the surface, it looks wildly contradictory: the same people screaming for women's rights, LGBTQ freedoms, justice for Palestinians, and against every form of oppression suddenly align with the Islamic Regime, a regime that massacred 40,000 unarmed Iranians, women, men, and children in just two days, all because they wanted freedom. It seems insane. But dig a little deeper, and you see what really glues them together. Both sides are obsessed with the same black-and-white worldview: oppressed vs oppressor. Here's the key thing you may not know: the Iranian regime is the only Shia Islamic state out there, unlike the Arab Sunni monarchies. Shias are essentially the leftists of the Muslim world. Throughout history, they've always seen themselves as the oppressed victims of Sunni caliphs and their empires. In the video, that black flag with red Persian text is the 'Ya Hussein' flag. Hussein was the a Shia Imam that was killed by a Sunni caliph. This event is the core of Shia identity and symbol of oppression by powerful. The mullahs built their entire ideology around this victimhood: we're the eternal righteous underdogs, oppressed by the strong (Sunnis back then, now the US, Israel, and the old Shah's Iran) Sound familiar? It's exactly the same narrative the Western left uses for every 'marginalized' group. The Marxists, cultural Marxists (woke feminists, and LGBTQ activists) view the world through this same lens: if you're not with the 'oppressed,' you're evil. America, the West, Israel, the Shah's Iran? All oppressors, imperialists, colonial villains, US puppets, Zionists. So Iran's regime , because it's anti-American and anti-Israel , automatically gets a free pass as the 'victim' fighting back. This shared victimhood mindset is the real glue. It's not about genuine values like freedom or equality, it's about ressentiment, that Nietzsche concept: deep-seated envy and resentment toward anyone successful, beautiful, powerful, or winning. Instead of competing, creating, or getting better, they morally subvert everything: label the winners 'evil oppressors,' justify tearing them down, and feel righteous while doing violence. Scarcity trauma turns into: 'If I can't have it, no one can – and it's moral to destroy it.' Now you know why the regime is so fixated on destroying symbols like the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Both Shias and these liberals resent prosperity, innovation, freedom, and success. They disguise their envy as justice and anti-imperialism. Their mask is slipping, and more people are seeing it: this was never about freedom or justice. If it were, they'd stand with the Iranian people fighting tyrants, not with the oppressive regime. The left is getting exposed alongside their favorite regime. Tomorrow is going to be better , not just for Iran, but for the whole world. #iranwar #ThankYouTrump #ThankYouBibi

Ida Turan 🇮🇷 ایده توران

99,586 views • 5 months ago

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. Rep. Elise Stefanik surged onto Jake Tapper's show and PUMMELED his lies about Trump to his face! "TYPICAL CNN! If you want to compare the president to university presidents who failed to call for the condemnation of calls for GENOCIDE of Jews, that's on YOU!" 🔥 TAPPER: Call for genocide on a college campus and a call for genocide made by the president of the United States, like, they're both bad, right? STEFANIK: President Trump didn't call for genocide, Jake. You were putting those words in his MOUTH. He is engaging in diplomatic back and forth! TAPPER: Your entire civilization will die? STEFANIK: It's the terrorist regime, Jake. He's targeting the terrorist regime. You're adding genocide. That's NOT what he's stated! He wasn't calling for genocide. It was targeted towards the Iranian terrorist regime. It was targeted towards the Iranian terrorist regime. TAPPER: Agree to disagree. Elise Stefanik

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. Rep. Elise Stefanik surged onto Jake Tapper's show and PUMMELED his lies about Trump to his face! "TYPICAL CNN! If you want to compare the president to university presidents who failed to call for the condemnation of calls for GENOCIDE of Jews, that's on YOU!" 🔥 TAPPER: Call for genocide on a college campus and a call for genocide made by the president of the United States, like, they're both bad, right? STEFANIK: President Trump didn't call for genocide, Jake. You were putting those words in his MOUTH. He is engaging in diplomatic back and forth! TAPPER: Your entire civilization will die? STEFANIK: It's the terrorist regime, Jake. He's targeting the terrorist regime. You're adding genocide. That's NOT what he's stated! He wasn't calling for genocide. It was targeted towards the Iranian terrorist regime. It was targeted towards the Iranian terrorist regime. TAPPER: Agree to disagree. Elise Stefanik

Eric Daugherty

143,264 views • 3 months ago

Every night as a kid, Kobe Bryant fell asleep visualizing basketball. He’d see himself scoring 10 straight. Then 20. Then 30. “But in the dream, why would you ever interrupt that?” “So you keep dreaming.” “Before I go to sleep, I’m at 120 points.” In 2006, he scored 81. Kobe spent an hour at USC explaining what Mamba Mentality really means: He was born to play. "I started playing at like 2 years old." "My father wasn't one of these fathers that was like: you're going to play basketball. It was just I was around the game a lot and I gravitated to the ball." "I was completely geeking out about the smell of the ball. The way it sounds when it hits concrete versus how it hits a parquet floor." "The sound of the nets. The different material of the nets." "There's certain basketball hoops where the rim sits slightly above the backboard. I was geeking out if I got into a gym where they were completely parallel." "Little shit like that would freak me out." "To answer your question, I was born to do this thing, man. And I did it non-stop all day long from the age of 2 to when I retired." He explains how to know if you've found your thing. "That's the trick, isn't it? Finding what you love to do." "We talk about hard work all the time. And it's like, if you got to get up every single morning and remind yourself how hard you need to work, you probably need to choose a different profession." "That shouldn't be there." "I wake up in the morning excited to get to it. If I'm not training, I'm missing it. If I'm not watching a game of basketball, I miss it." "There's no place I'd rather be." "If you have that feeling, then you're truly doing what God has put you on this earth to do." He explains the 81-point game. "When you grow up downloading that into your brain over and over and over..." "That summer, I made 1000 shots a day. 1000. On top of weight training and conditioning." "And they weren't just shots. They were shots that you saw in that game." "Coming out of the corner. Going to the pinch post. Footwork in the post. Coming off the screen." "It was very specific." "So when you download that into your system and you go out on the court, you're just executing things that you've done thousands of times before." "And you have that dream." "Then that becomes possible." He explains why he doesn't reinvent. "Everything's been not choreographed, but it's been practiced so many times that it's second nature." "Why reinvent it?" "I don't understand that. You go out and play the game and you're just trying to create something new. No." "This is what I do. This is what I do extremely well." "You're going to have to stop me from doing that. And if you do stop me from doing that, I have a counter to that." "Done." He explains the pain. "To be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the game." "My knee was hurting so much. I didn't know then, but I had a flap of cartilage stuck in my joint line." "My mind was really trying to go to a place where I don't feel that pain." "The game started. And because of that, I was just in a different space." "I wasn't worried about what was to come. I wasn't worried about what just happened. I was just here." "When you're just there in the moment, your focus is heightened because nothing else matters." Pete Carroll asked the hard question. "What was it like for you to play with people that weren't as gritty as you were?" Kobe's response. "I'd kill them. I'd bury them." "The kind of culture that the Laker organization stood for, winning championships, is not tolerated." "You're going to show up to play. And you're going to lollygag through this scrimmage, through this drill? I'm going to beat you." "I'm going to let you know I beat you." "I'm going to want you to reconsider your professional life choice." "People will say: okay, that doesn't make a great teammate." "Well, I'm not here to be a great teammate. I'm here to help you win championships." "So it's different." He explains practice. "As a leader of a team, it's your responsibility to elevate the rest of the guys." "What people tend to get stuck on is saying: the way to make players better is to pass them the ball when they're open." "That's a very trivial way to look at things." "You have to get them emotionally to want to be better. You have to get them to an emotional space where they wake up every morning driven to be the best version of themselves." "How do you do that?" "In practice for me, it was a chance to drive them, to challenge them." "You have to know your teammates. Because then you know what nerve to touch." "Some guys, it's like: okay, come on, we can do this. That'll get them going." "Other guys, no. You got to figure out what button to push." He gives an example. "Pau was always Spain." "If I tell him how they lost in the gold medal to us and how they're going to lose again, how I'm going to beat your ass in practice just like I beat you in the gold medal game." "Oh. He would hate that. He would hate that." "But that's what practice was. You have to drive them." "If practice is more intense and harder than a game seven will be, then a game seven will be easy." "But if it's not, then that's when teams start folding and capitulating." He explains standards. "If I got to fight to get you in the gym, that's a problem. That's a problem." "You want players that are gym rats. Players that want to be in the gym, that want to work." "Then from there, you build on top of that." "But if you're lazy, man, I don't want to talk to you. I don't want to deal with you. You make me feel dumber." "You're going to lower my level. I don't think so." "You can go over there. There's plenty of teams where you'll fit right in." He explains loyalty. The Lakers offered to trade him to a contending team. His response. "We've known each other for a very long time. I'm questioning myself because I'm wondering what about me makes you think I would jump ship." "We don't do that." "As a leader, you got to be able to take the good with the bad." "You can't just because the ship's sinking all of a sudden jump off and swim to another. You don't do that." "If you can win championships in front of everybody, then you could miss the playoffs in front of everybody." "You got to be able to take both sides of it." "If you're doing something that's easy, you might want to reconsider what you're doing." He explains what he wishes he knew earlier. "Understanding empathy and compassion." "As a young kid when I came in the league, it was like: I'm driving this way and either you're going to be on the train or be on the track." "There was no such thing as understanding that people have lives outside of the game. Which apparently I did not." "If I understood that at an early age, then it helps me as a leader to communicate better." "Getting to know people on a personal level. What are their fears. What are their insecurities. What are their dreams and ambitions." "When you come to understand that about a person, then you can help them reach the best version of themselves." "I wish I'd known that earlier." He explains how he teaches his daughter. "My daughter said: Dad, can you teach me how to play basketball? I want to be better than you." "All right, cool. Let's start with 15 minutes a day." "For 15 minutes a day, we just stood right in front of the hoop and just shot. Right under the hoop. We didn't move around. We didn't do any dribbling." "Just 15 minutes a day just shoot here." "You do that for a month and a half. Then next month, you step back. Then next month, you step back again. Then you start working on dribbling." "Through actionable things is how we teach our children." "If it becomes a part of their process in sports, it'll become a part of their process in life as well." He explains dreams. "I just dream. I have dreams." "Dreams should be pure." "A lot of times when we're born into this world, we actually wind up going backwards." "The more we mature, the more responsible our dreams become. The more governors we put on ourselves and our ability to dream and to reimagine." "It's always a fight for us to make sure that our dreams always stay pure." "It's not a matter of pushing beyond your limitations or expectations." "It's really a matter of protecting your dreams. Protecting your imagination." "That's really the key." "When you do that, then the world just seems limitless."

Every night as a kid, Kobe Bryant fell asleep visualizing basketball. He’d see himself scoring 10 straight. Then 20. Then 30. “But in the dream, why would you ever interrupt that?” “So you keep dreaming.” “Before I go to sleep, I’m at 120 points.” In 2006, he scored 81. Kobe spent an hour at USC explaining what Mamba Mentality really means: He was born to play. "I started playing at like 2 years old." "My father wasn't one of these fathers that was like: you're going to play basketball. It was just I was around the game a lot and I gravitated to the ball." "I was completely geeking out about the smell of the ball. The way it sounds when it hits concrete versus how it hits a parquet floor." "The sound of the nets. The different material of the nets." "There's certain basketball hoops where the rim sits slightly above the backboard. I was geeking out if I got into a gym where they were completely parallel." "Little shit like that would freak me out." "To answer your question, I was born to do this thing, man. And I did it non-stop all day long from the age of 2 to when I retired." He explains how to know if you've found your thing. "That's the trick, isn't it? Finding what you love to do." "We talk about hard work all the time. And it's like, if you got to get up every single morning and remind yourself how hard you need to work, you probably need to choose a different profession." "That shouldn't be there." "I wake up in the morning excited to get to it. If I'm not training, I'm missing it. If I'm not watching a game of basketball, I miss it." "There's no place I'd rather be." "If you have that feeling, then you're truly doing what God has put you on this earth to do." He explains the 81-point game. "When you grow up downloading that into your brain over and over and over..." "That summer, I made 1000 shots a day. 1000. On top of weight training and conditioning." "And they weren't just shots. They were shots that you saw in that game." "Coming out of the corner. Going to the pinch post. Footwork in the post. Coming off the screen." "It was very specific." "So when you download that into your system and you go out on the court, you're just executing things that you've done thousands of times before." "And you have that dream." "Then that becomes possible." He explains why he doesn't reinvent. "Everything's been not choreographed, but it's been practiced so many times that it's second nature." "Why reinvent it?" "I don't understand that. You go out and play the game and you're just trying to create something new. No." "This is what I do. This is what I do extremely well." "You're going to have to stop me from doing that. And if you do stop me from doing that, I have a counter to that." "Done." He explains the pain. "To be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the game." "My knee was hurting so much. I didn't know then, but I had a flap of cartilage stuck in my joint line." "My mind was really trying to go to a place where I don't feel that pain." "The game started. And because of that, I was just in a different space." "I wasn't worried about what was to come. I wasn't worried about what just happened. I was just here." "When you're just there in the moment, your focus is heightened because nothing else matters." Pete Carroll asked the hard question. "What was it like for you to play with people that weren't as gritty as you were?" Kobe's response. "I'd kill them. I'd bury them." "The kind of culture that the Laker organization stood for, winning championships, is not tolerated." "You're going to show up to play. And you're going to lollygag through this scrimmage, through this drill? I'm going to beat you." "I'm going to let you know I beat you." "I'm going to want you to reconsider your professional life choice." "People will say: okay, that doesn't make a great teammate." "Well, I'm not here to be a great teammate. I'm here to help you win championships." "So it's different." He explains practice. "As a leader of a team, it's your responsibility to elevate the rest of the guys." "What people tend to get stuck on is saying: the way to make players better is to pass them the ball when they're open." "That's a very trivial way to look at things." "You have to get them emotionally to want to be better. You have to get them to an emotional space where they wake up every morning driven to be the best version of themselves." "How do you do that?" "In practice for me, it was a chance to drive them, to challenge them." "You have to know your teammates. Because then you know what nerve to touch." "Some guys, it's like: okay, come on, we can do this. That'll get them going." "Other guys, no. You got to figure out what button to push." He gives an example. "Pau was always Spain." "If I tell him how they lost in the gold medal to us and how they're going to lose again, how I'm going to beat your ass in practice just like I beat you in the gold medal game." "Oh. He would hate that. He would hate that." "But that's what practice was. You have to drive them." "If practice is more intense and harder than a game seven will be, then a game seven will be easy." "But if it's not, then that's when teams start folding and capitulating." He explains standards. "If I got to fight to get you in the gym, that's a problem. That's a problem." "You want players that are gym rats. Players that want to be in the gym, that want to work." "Then from there, you build on top of that." "But if you're lazy, man, I don't want to talk to you. I don't want to deal with you. You make me feel dumber." "You're going to lower my level. I don't think so." "You can go over there. There's plenty of teams where you'll fit right in." He explains loyalty. The Lakers offered to trade him to a contending team. His response. "We've known each other for a very long time. I'm questioning myself because I'm wondering what about me makes you think I would jump ship." "We don't do that." "As a leader, you got to be able to take the good with the bad." "You can't just because the ship's sinking all of a sudden jump off and swim to another. You don't do that." "If you can win championships in front of everybody, then you could miss the playoffs in front of everybody." "You got to be able to take both sides of it." "If you're doing something that's easy, you might want to reconsider what you're doing." He explains what he wishes he knew earlier. "Understanding empathy and compassion." "As a young kid when I came in the league, it was like: I'm driving this way and either you're going to be on the train or be on the track." "There was no such thing as understanding that people have lives outside of the game. Which apparently I did not." "If I understood that at an early age, then it helps me as a leader to communicate better." "Getting to know people on a personal level. What are their fears. What are their insecurities. What are their dreams and ambitions." "When you come to understand that about a person, then you can help them reach the best version of themselves." "I wish I'd known that earlier." He explains how he teaches his daughter. "My daughter said: Dad, can you teach me how to play basketball? I want to be better than you." "All right, cool. Let's start with 15 minutes a day." "For 15 minutes a day, we just stood right in front of the hoop and just shot. Right under the hoop. We didn't move around. We didn't do any dribbling." "Just 15 minutes a day just shoot here." "You do that for a month and a half. Then next month, you step back. Then next month, you step back again. Then you start working on dribbling." "Through actionable things is how we teach our children." "If it becomes a part of their process in sports, it'll become a part of their process in life as well." He explains dreams. "I just dream. I have dreams." "Dreams should be pure." "A lot of times when we're born into this world, we actually wind up going backwards." "The more we mature, the more responsible our dreams become. The more governors we put on ourselves and our ability to dream and to reimagine." "It's always a fight for us to make sure that our dreams always stay pure." "It's not a matter of pushing beyond your limitations or expectations." "It's really a matter of protecting your dreams. Protecting your imagination." "That's really the key." "When you do that, then the world just seems limitless."

Jaynit

17,383 views • 2 months ago

Robert Peston, "Are the British people wrong to want migration to come down?" Zack Polanski, "No, they aren't wrong" "But it's also true they've been pumped stories, negative stories about migration for decades now" "In fact the Prime Minister Keir Starmer said we're squeamish to talk about migration - it seems to me that we rarely talk about anything else" Robert Peston, "Sounds as if you're saying the voters are wrong" Zack Polanski, "No, I'm not" "It's just that 5% of migration is small boats but it covers 95% of the coverage we hear about" "We need politicians to tell the public the truth, and to make sure we're winning people over" "And that the problems in the country are down to multi millionaires and billionaires" Robert Peston, "Would you bring down controlled legal migration?" Zack Polanski, "It would be ludicrous to do that, we have for example 150,000 vacancies in the NHS" "Of course we need to train British workers as well but actually there are huge skills gaps in the green transition and the green economy, where we need to train people up: both British workers and migrants coming here looking for a home" "I think diversity is one of the best things about this country" "This country was built on migration. Of course we should celebrate people who were born here but also people who come here and make this their home too" "I think that's part of being a patriot: a caring and compassionate approach towards others" "I think that's part of being British" "Cultural coherence isn't something for politicians to do" "That's for communities to do" "We had 14 years of Conservative austerity that's destroyed integration, because we don't have community centres, we don't have arts and culture" "And we need to do that collectively" "It's for communities to create social cohesion"

Robert Peston, "Are the British people wrong to want migration to come down?" Zack Polanski, "No, they aren't wrong" "But it's also true they've been pumped stories, negative stories about migration for decades now" "In fact the Prime Minister Keir Starmer said we're squeamish to talk about migration - it seems to me that we rarely talk about anything else" Robert Peston, "Sounds as if you're saying the voters are wrong" Zack Polanski, "No, I'm not" "It's just that 5% of migration is small boats but it covers 95% of the coverage we hear about" "We need politicians to tell the public the truth, and to make sure we're winning people over" "And that the problems in the country are down to multi millionaires and billionaires" Robert Peston, "Would you bring down controlled legal migration?" Zack Polanski, "It would be ludicrous to do that, we have for example 150,000 vacancies in the NHS" "Of course we need to train British workers as well but actually there are huge skills gaps in the green transition and the green economy, where we need to train people up: both British workers and migrants coming here looking for a home" "I think diversity is one of the best things about this country" "This country was built on migration. Of course we should celebrate people who were born here but also people who come here and make this their home too" "I think that's part of being a patriot: a caring and compassionate approach towards others" "I think that's part of being British" "Cultural coherence isn't something for politicians to do" "That's for communities to do" "We had 14 years of Conservative austerity that's destroyed integration, because we don't have community centres, we don't have arts and culture" "And we need to do that collectively" "It's for communities to create social cohesion"

Farrukh

711,943 views • 9 months ago

💊 Sometimes, The Truth is a Hard Pill to Swallow 💊 "There's no indication that (firsthand whistleblowers who claim they worked hands-on an NHI craft) are, at this moment, willing to come forward. If people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." ~Corbell (This is not the sensational and misleading "stuff" that tends to go semi-viral in this community. But it's reality. It sucks, but I'd rather hear the truth than have smoke blown up our asses. That's why I asked. Will this post spread like wildfire? Probably not.) "What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen." ~Corbell (the "me" in that quote is not Corbell and is clarified in the full version below.) ~~~ Joe Murgia: "Have you, or do you know of anybody else, who has claimed to have, spoken to the witness I described earlier: Somebody who claims to have worked in a program for a decent amount of time, and who had hands-on a craft, and said, 'Yeah, I worked on it, and my conclusion was, after three years,' or whatever, 'this was a non-human craft'"? Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Yes! I know people in an official capacity who have interviewed with people that exactly fit this description, and I have pushed on them, being like, 'What is it going to take for someone like that to come forward, publicly?' And by the way, that was part of an ICIG investigation where people of that level were communicated with, and I know exactly who is doing that back and forth." (I'd love to know more about that ICIG investigation. Is it related to what Grusch claimed?) Corbell: "And here's the deal, man. They said to me, 'What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen. It just not gonna happen.' (If those folks are sharing that information with Corbell, it appears that it's not classified. So those investigators should be able to tell us what they told Corbell. Will they? Probably not. On the flip side, those people who spoke to Corbell could get around the classified aspect by offering up a hypothetical: "Jeremy, if witnesses like that exist, and have spoken to me, why would they destroy their whole lives and go public? Just because they were told they needed to speak with me? Again, hypothetically speaking.") Corbell: "There has to be somebody who's so upset with something surrounding this, that they're just like, gonna try to burn it all down. And usually those people never make it to the starting point, you know? If they're coming from that attitude. People that work in those programs are so highly monitored with polygraphs, and, you know, their family lives, making sure they're stable. "If you remember, all the way back, looking to Lazar, why did he get not called back for The Program? It was because they found out his wife was cheating on him and he became a security risk. That's how security clearances work, is you have to have a stable family life. So people that would break from the fold, that are feeling all that type of pressure and just try to burn the whole house down? Dude, they're going to find out they're in that mental state way prior to them ever being able to get to the starting point. "So it's a long way to say, yeah, man, the Holy Grail? Yeah, I know about those conversations. I've talked to people on both sides of those conversations." (Both sides to me means that Corbell is saying he DID talk to the people who interviewed the whistleblowers and the actual whistleblowers themselves. That's not the biggest takeaway from what he said, but it would be nice to know if he or George Knapp have spoken directly to those firsthand folks and aren't just hearing it second hand.) Corbell: "The thing is, there's no indication that people like that are at this moment willing to come forward. And in fact - I can't go further than that - but in fact, if people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." (What's changed to where Corbell doesn't think it's possible any more? That's extremely important to know.) Murgia: "And just to be clear, you're talking about other people have had the conversations with those whistleblowers?" Corbell: "Yes." Murgia: "Not you?" Corbell: "Well, what I'm admitting to is that, in official capacity, there are people doing this investigation that have conveyed to me their direct, official debriefing with individuals in those programs. Like, working on the technology, currently. Non-human technology. So I know these people have had those investigatory roles and had those briefings and took the information because of the ICIG, you know, reports." (That makes it seem like it was more than just a hypothetical, which I mentioned earlier.) Murgia: "Cool." Corbell: "Yeah, I wish I could help more on that, guys, you know?" (If you've been waiting for those types of hands-on, firsthand folks to come forward, you need to adjust your expectations after seeing what Corbell said. I have. Some will decide they're tired of waiting and leave this field. Others, who are interested in the phenomenon and not just relying on what happens with witnesses, will always be here. And we still have a hearing coming in September where we will, hopefully, learn new and interesting information from firsthand witnesses who we have never heard from before.)

💊 Sometimes, The Truth is a Hard Pill to Swallow 💊 "There's no indication that (firsthand whistleblowers who claim they worked hands-on an NHI craft) are, at this moment, willing to come forward. If people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." ~Corbell (This is not the sensational and misleading "stuff" that tends to go semi-viral in this community. But it's reality. It sucks, but I'd rather hear the truth than have smoke blown up our asses. That's why I asked. Will this post spread like wildfire? Probably not.) "What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen." ~Corbell (the "me" in that quote is not Corbell and is clarified in the full version below.) ~~~ Joe Murgia: "Have you, or do you know of anybody else, who has claimed to have, spoken to the witness I described earlier: Somebody who claims to have worked in a program for a decent amount of time, and who had hands-on a craft, and said, 'Yeah, I worked on it, and my conclusion was, after three years,' or whatever, 'this was a non-human craft'"? Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Yes! I know people in an official capacity who have interviewed with people that exactly fit this description, and I have pushed on them, being like, 'What is it going to take for someone like that to come forward, publicly?' And by the way, that was part of an ICIG investigation where people of that level were communicated with, and I know exactly who is doing that back and forth." (I'd love to know more about that ICIG investigation. Is it related to what Grusch claimed?) Corbell: "And here's the deal, man. They said to me, 'What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen. It just not gonna happen.' (If those folks are sharing that information with Corbell, it appears that it's not classified. So those investigators should be able to tell us what they told Corbell. Will they? Probably not. On the flip side, those people who spoke to Corbell could get around the classified aspect by offering up a hypothetical: "Jeremy, if witnesses like that exist, and have spoken to me, why would they destroy their whole lives and go public? Just because they were told they needed to speak with me? Again, hypothetically speaking.") Corbell: "There has to be somebody who's so upset with something surrounding this, that they're just like, gonna try to burn it all down. And usually those people never make it to the starting point, you know? If they're coming from that attitude. People that work in those programs are so highly monitored with polygraphs, and, you know, their family lives, making sure they're stable. "If you remember, all the way back, looking to Lazar, why did he get not called back for The Program? It was because they found out his wife was cheating on him and he became a security risk. That's how security clearances work, is you have to have a stable family life. So people that would break from the fold, that are feeling all that type of pressure and just try to burn the whole house down? Dude, they're going to find out they're in that mental state way prior to them ever being able to get to the starting point. "So it's a long way to say, yeah, man, the Holy Grail? Yeah, I know about those conversations. I've talked to people on both sides of those conversations." (Both sides to me means that Corbell is saying he DID talk to the people who interviewed the whistleblowers and the actual whistleblowers themselves. That's not the biggest takeaway from what he said, but it would be nice to know if he or George Knapp have spoken directly to those firsthand folks and aren't just hearing it second hand.) Corbell: "The thing is, there's no indication that people like that are at this moment willing to come forward. And in fact - I can't go further than that - but in fact, if people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." (What's changed to where Corbell doesn't think it's possible any more? That's extremely important to know.) Murgia: "And just to be clear, you're talking about other people have had the conversations with those whistleblowers?" Corbell: "Yes." Murgia: "Not you?" Corbell: "Well, what I'm admitting to is that, in official capacity, there are people doing this investigation that have conveyed to me their direct, official debriefing with individuals in those programs. Like, working on the technology, currently. Non-human technology. So I know these people have had those investigatory roles and had those briefings and took the information because of the ICIG, you know, reports." (That makes it seem like it was more than just a hypothetical, which I mentioned earlier.) Murgia: "Cool." Corbell: "Yeah, I wish I could help more on that, guys, you know?" (If you've been waiting for those types of hands-on, firsthand folks to come forward, you need to adjust your expectations after seeing what Corbell said. I have. Some will decide they're tired of waiting and leave this field. Others, who are interested in the phenomenon and not just relying on what happens with witnesses, will always be here. And we still have a hearing coming in September where we will, hopefully, learn new and interesting information from firsthand witnesses who we have never heard from before.)

Joe Murgia

53,949 views • 1 year ago

The most dangerous thing a company can do right now is rent intelligence from the same place as its competitors (Save this). You cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor as Chamath Palihapitiya points out. If every company in an industry is feeding their workflows into the same frontier model, they are all converging on the same outputs, the same decisions, the same product improvements. The model becomes the equalizer and everyone pays a premium to become more mediocre. This is happening exactly as Chamath predicted, and the evidence is now concrete. Anthropic and OpenAI have established what analysts are now openly calling an emerging model layer duopoly. Anthropic crossed $45 billion ARR in may 2026, more than tripling from $9 billion at the end of 2025, OpenAI was at roughly $24 to $33 billion ARR at the same time. Together, the two companies combined could hit $160 to $240 billion ARR by end of 2026 and Anthropic and OpenAI now control 88% of enterprise LLM spend. That concentration is the structural problem Chamath is pointing at. And Anthropic isn't just winning on merit because it's actively lobbying for regulatory outcomes that would make that duopoly permanent. Dario Amodei has explicitly framed open source models as unsafe, pushing a safety agenda that, if enshrined in regulation, would effectively make it illegal for enterprises to use the cheaper, private, sovereign alternatives locking them into a closed model dependency by government decree rather than by choice. So you have market forces producing a duopoly, and potential regulatory capture moving to enforce it from the top down. This is exactly why the Nvidia Palantir partnership is not just a product announcement but rather a strategic counter to that duopoly. The logic is straightforward from both sides because If you're Palantir, sitting at the application layer, the last thing you want is to be permanently beholden to Anthropic or OpenAI for the intelligence that powers your product. You want competitive model options, sovereignty and be able to tell enterprise customers they can run AI on their own infrastructure with their own data without any of it touching a frontier lab's servers. If you're Nvidia, sitting at the chip layer, an Anthropic-OpenAI duopoly is an existential concentration risk. Right now, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and dozens of other companies buy Nvidia's hardware. If the model layer consolidates into two players, both of which are building their own chips Nvidia faces a monopsony where its best customers are building the tools to displace it. A healthy open source ecosystem where thousands of enterprises train, fine tune, and deploy their own models is Nvidia's ideal market structure. More buyers, more diversity, more demand, less pricing leverage from any single customer.

The most dangerous thing a company can do right now is rent intelligence from the same place as its competitors (Save this). You cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor as Chamath Palihapitiya points out. If every company in an industry is feeding their workflows into the same frontier model, they are all converging on the same outputs, the same decisions, the same product improvements. The model becomes the equalizer and everyone pays a premium to become more mediocre. This is happening exactly as Chamath predicted, and the evidence is now concrete. Anthropic and OpenAI have established what analysts are now openly calling an emerging model layer duopoly. Anthropic crossed $45 billion ARR in may 2026, more than tripling from $9 billion at the end of 2025, OpenAI was at roughly $24 to $33 billion ARR at the same time. Together, the two companies combined could hit $160 to $240 billion ARR by end of 2026 and Anthropic and OpenAI now control 88% of enterprise LLM spend. That concentration is the structural problem Chamath is pointing at. And Anthropic isn't just winning on merit because it's actively lobbying for regulatory outcomes that would make that duopoly permanent. Dario Amodei has explicitly framed open source models as unsafe, pushing a safety agenda that, if enshrined in regulation, would effectively make it illegal for enterprises to use the cheaper, private, sovereign alternatives locking them into a closed model dependency by government decree rather than by choice. So you have market forces producing a duopoly, and potential regulatory capture moving to enforce it from the top down. This is exactly why the Nvidia Palantir partnership is not just a product announcement but rather a strategic counter to that duopoly. The logic is straightforward from both sides because If you're Palantir, sitting at the application layer, the last thing you want is to be permanently beholden to Anthropic or OpenAI for the intelligence that powers your product. You want competitive model options, sovereignty and be able to tell enterprise customers they can run AI on their own infrastructure with their own data without any of it touching a frontier lab's servers. If you're Nvidia, sitting at the chip layer, an Anthropic-OpenAI duopoly is an existential concentration risk. Right now, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and dozens of other companies buy Nvidia's hardware. If the model layer consolidates into two players, both of which are building their own chips Nvidia faces a monopsony where its best customers are building the tools to displace it. A healthy open source ecosystem where thousands of enterprises train, fine tune, and deploy their own models is Nvidia's ideal market structure. More buyers, more diversity, more demand, less pricing leverage from any single customer.

Milk Road AI

34,385 views • 1 month ago

With 7M+ views on just their X & YT.. Anduril's "Don't work at Anduril" campaign is one of the most viral & effective recruiting creatives of all time David Ulevitch (David Ulevitch 🇺🇸) shares unexpected inspiration, the process, & 5 insights, from Matt Grimm, Jeff Miller, & the Anduril Industries team 1.) Winning marketing comes from the company’s actual DNA. 2.) Sharp, polarizing messaging quickly filters out the wrong people & pulls in the right ones. 3.) Evocative, talk-worthy campaigns cut through the noise & create lasting impressions 4.) You can’t copy another company’s ethos — inauthentic marketing is a weak signal (negative aura) 5.) Mission-led companies 100% have an unfair advantage in storytelling. . . . "When they did this don't work at Anduril campaign.. it was brilliant because it was actually it was evocative. And I've talked to to Jeff Miller (Jeff Miller) about this It was evocative of a campaign done like a decade earlier from Netflix when Netflix wanted to create this line of comedy that they were coming out with and they had all these comedians signing up for Netflix they put up billboards that said like "Netflix is a joke." And people didn't know who put up the billboards, like was somebody really angry with Netflix Like "Netflix is a joke you can't take them seriously?" Or was it like "Netflix is a joke because they're launching this huge comedy thing and it's like really funny," and it got more people talking. And this is like before Netflix was huge. Got more people talking about Netflix. So with Anduril they said "Hey wait a minute." Like Matt Grimm (Matt Grimm) the COO, who's an amazing guy, was like: "Look we can just enumerate all the reasons why somebody who just wants to like not work that hard should not work at Anduril. Like we're in the office It's long hours. You might have to travel and you might have to travel to like not the best places because that's sometimes where our forward operating bases are. And you know you're gonna have to do work that is really mission-driven and it's gonna be difficult and you're gonna be on a factory floor sometimes. Like it's not a cushy office. We don't have nap pods." Like that's a very Matt Grimm thing to say, "We don't have nap pods here." And so like you put those things together and it's like "Look you should not work at Anduril. But if on the other hand you get super fired up about building the future of technology, if you wanna go to some of these countries that are like less fun to hang out in and some of these forward operating bases and help the men & women who serve and protect our country well then like you do you should work at Anduril." So they launched this campaign. They actually had both domains don'tworkatanduril .com & workatanduril .com It was an amazing campaign, applications skyrocketed. They got tons of coverage for it. And you can now see other companies sort of trying to emulate that marketing ethos. And I think that unless it's sort of core to the company's culture of it kinda it can like fall flat. Like you know you have to be authentic about it and it has to really resonate at a like at a true level inside of like what is the DNA and the heartbeat of the company.. and then the marketing can flow from that, and I think Anduril just nails it over and over again. I think Base Power (Base Power) had an awesome campaign recently where they were trying to recruit in Austin & they were like "Look you can like change the way energy is delivered & stored & increase people's reliability or you can work on like B2B SaaS."

With 7M+ views on just their X & YT.. Anduril's "Don't work at Anduril" campaign is one of the most viral & effective recruiting creatives of all time David Ulevitch (David Ulevitch 🇺🇸) shares unexpected inspiration, the process, & 5 insights, from Matt Grimm, Jeff Miller, & the Anduril Industries team 1.) Winning marketing comes from the company’s actual DNA. 2.) Sharp, polarizing messaging quickly filters out the wrong people & pulls in the right ones. 3.) Evocative, talk-worthy campaigns cut through the noise & create lasting impressions 4.) You can’t copy another company’s ethos — inauthentic marketing is a weak signal (negative aura) 5.) Mission-led companies 100% have an unfair advantage in storytelling. . . . "When they did this don't work at Anduril campaign.. it was brilliant because it was actually it was evocative. And I've talked to to Jeff Miller (Jeff Miller) about this It was evocative of a campaign done like a decade earlier from Netflix when Netflix wanted to create this line of comedy that they were coming out with and they had all these comedians signing up for Netflix they put up billboards that said like "Netflix is a joke." And people didn't know who put up the billboards, like was somebody really angry with Netflix Like "Netflix is a joke you can't take them seriously?" Or was it like "Netflix is a joke because they're launching this huge comedy thing and it's like really funny," and it got more people talking. And this is like before Netflix was huge. Got more people talking about Netflix. So with Anduril they said "Hey wait a minute." Like Matt Grimm (Matt Grimm) the COO, who's an amazing guy, was like: "Look we can just enumerate all the reasons why somebody who just wants to like not work that hard should not work at Anduril. Like we're in the office It's long hours. You might have to travel and you might have to travel to like not the best places because that's sometimes where our forward operating bases are. And you know you're gonna have to do work that is really mission-driven and it's gonna be difficult and you're gonna be on a factory floor sometimes. Like it's not a cushy office. We don't have nap pods." Like that's a very Matt Grimm thing to say, "We don't have nap pods here." And so like you put those things together and it's like "Look you should not work at Anduril. But if on the other hand you get super fired up about building the future of technology, if you wanna go to some of these countries that are like less fun to hang out in and some of these forward operating bases and help the men & women who serve and protect our country well then like you do you should work at Anduril." So they launched this campaign. They actually had both domains don'tworkatanduril .com & workatanduril .com It was an amazing campaign, applications skyrocketed. They got tons of coverage for it. And you can now see other companies sort of trying to emulate that marketing ethos. And I think that unless it's sort of core to the company's culture of it kinda it can like fall flat. Like you know you have to be authentic about it and it has to really resonate at a like at a true level inside of like what is the DNA and the heartbeat of the company.. and then the marketing can flow from that, and I think Anduril just nails it over and over again. I think Base Power (Base Power) had an awesome campaign recently where they were trying to recruit in Austin & they were like "Look you can like change the way energy is delivered & stored & increase people's reliability or you can work on like B2B SaaS."

Molly O’Shea

40,134 views • 8 months ago

🔥 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."

🔥 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 sht 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 fcking 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."

Joe Murgia

140,668 views • 1 year ago

🚨EXPOSED: Charlie's SECRET NOTE Reveals ERIKA Wasn't Even a Priority – NO WEDDING RING, Is She Dating Ex, Or Hiding Something Bigger? 😱 The cracks in the official story are turning into chasms. In a raw Glenn Beck interview on Dec 11 from Charlie Kirk's home office, Erika Kirk stumbles upon a handwritten note from Charlie she "hadn't seen before" – and reads it live on air. The priorities? "Family, children, legacy, kids #1" vs. "careerism, consumerism, loneliness." Ouch. Erika? Nowhere on the list. "Family" is vague at best – this is about unity and kids, not his wife. In Christian circles, your spouse is supposed to be #1. Instead, she's struck by "loneliness" – the thing Charlie was avoiding. Authentic reaction or calculated slip? She exposes their marriage without realizing it. But wait – where's her wedding ring? Zoom in: It's GONE during the interview. Trouble in paradise? Charlie's own sister dropped the bomb: Before his death, Charlie confided he "doesn't recognize Erika anymore" and she's "NOT the woman he married." Now whispers: Erika MAY be back with ex Cabot Phillips? Since Charlie's gone, Cabot's suddenly headlining Turning Point events. Coincidence? Or did she "move on" – or backwards – suspiciously fast? And the kicker: When Erika holds up the note, her hand conveniently covers part of it. What's hidden? More priorities? A damning confession? We need the full truth. This isn't grief – this smells like a scripted unraveling. Charlie deserved better. The veil is lifting on the psyop. Demand answers: What was under her hand? Subpoena the note. Erika, explain yourself. Shoutout to iSaidKnow who noticed no wedding ring, also to Christine Fekete on YT for the 🔥 video. Go FOLLOW/SUB top both these awesome patriots. Tag Candace Owens and Share if you're awake.

🚨EXPOSED: Charlie's SECRET NOTE Reveals ERIKA Wasn't Even a Priority – NO WEDDING RING, Is She Dating Ex, Or Hiding Something Bigger? 😱 The cracks in the official story are turning into chasms. In a raw Glenn Beck interview on Dec 11 from Charlie Kirk's home office, Erika Kirk stumbles upon a handwritten note from Charlie she "hadn't seen before" – and reads it live on air. The priorities? "Family, children, legacy, kids #1" vs. "careerism, consumerism, loneliness." Ouch. Erika? Nowhere on the list. "Family" is vague at best – this is about unity and kids, not his wife. In Christian circles, your spouse is supposed to be #1. Instead, she's struck by "loneliness" – the thing Charlie was avoiding. Authentic reaction or calculated slip? She exposes their marriage without realizing it. But wait – where's her wedding ring? Zoom in: It's GONE during the interview. Trouble in paradise? Charlie's own sister dropped the bomb: Before his death, Charlie confided he "doesn't recognize Erika anymore" and she's "NOT the woman he married." Now whispers: Erika MAY be back with ex Cabot Phillips? Since Charlie's gone, Cabot's suddenly headlining Turning Point events. Coincidence? Or did she "move on" – or backwards – suspiciously fast? And the kicker: When Erika holds up the note, her hand conveniently covers part of it. What's hidden? More priorities? A damning confession? We need the full truth. This isn't grief – this smells like a scripted unraveling. Charlie deserved better. The veil is lifting on the psyop. Demand answers: What was under her hand? Subpoena the note. Erika, explain yourself. Shoutout to iSaidKnow who noticed no wedding ring, also to Christine Fekete on YT for the 🔥 video. Go FOLLOW/SUB top both these awesome patriots. Tag Candace Owens and Share if you're awake.

Project Constitution

81,221 views • 7 months ago

In 2002, Elon Musk flew to Moscow three times to buy a refurbished missile. He couldn't close the deal. On the flight home, he asked himself: "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" He started SpaceX instead. 1 year later, he stood in front of Stanford students and spent 45 minutes explaining everything he'd learned about building companies: On starting Zip2: This was 1995. Most VCs on Sand Hill Road hadn't even heard of the internet. "I thought it would be a pretty huge thing. It was one of those things that only came along once in a very long while." He got a deferment from Stanford to start the company. "When I talked to my professor and told him this, he said, 'Well, I don't think you'll be coming back.' That was the last conversation I had with him." The problem: he had no money. "I couldn't afford a place to stay and an office. So I rented an office instead, because I got a cheaper office than I could get a place to stay." "I slept on the futon and showered at the YMCA on Page Mill and El Camino." "I was in the best shape I've ever been. Go to shower, work out, and you're good to go." There was an ISP on the floor below them. "We drilled a hole through the floor and connected a null modem cable. That gave us our internet connectivity for like 100 bucks a month." "We had an absurdly tiny burn rate. And we also had a really tiny revenue stream. But we actually had more revenue than we had expenses." They sold Zip2 to Compaq in early 1999 for over $300 million. "In cash. That's a currency I highly recommend." On starting PayPal: "I didn't really take any time off." He was looking for what remained in the internet. Financial services hadn't seen much innovation. "When you think about it, money is low bandwidth. You don't need some big infrastructure improvement. It's really just an entry in a database." They built a platform that combined banking, brokerage, and insurance in one place. That took enormous effort. Then they added a little feature that took one day: the ability to email money from one customer to another. "Whenever we demonstrated these two sets of features, we'd say, 'Look how you can see your bank statement and your mutual funds and insurance, all on one page. Look how convenient that is.'" "And people would go, 'Ho hum.'" "Then we'd say, 'And by the way, we have this feature where you can enter somebody's email address and transfer funds.'" "And they'd go, 'Wow.'" "So we focused the company's business on email payments." On viral growth: "PayPal is really a perfect case example of viral marketing." "One customer would essentially act as a salesperson for you. They would send money to a friend and essentially recruit that friend into the network." "So you had this exponential growth. The more customers you had, the faster it grew." "It was like bacteria in a Petri dish. It just goes like this S-curve." The results: "I ran PayPal for about the first two years of its existence. We launched after year one. By the end of year two, we had a million customers." "We didn't have a sales force. We didn't have a VP of sales. We didn't have a VP of marketing. And we didn't spend any money on advertising." On why product matters: "The essence of viral marketing is: do you have something where one customer is going to sell another customer without you having to do anything?" "Product matters incredibly. Because if you're going to recommend something to somebody, you've got to really love the product experience. Otherwise you're not going to recommend it." "You don't want to burn your friend." On company culture: "We had a pretty flat hierarchy. Everybody had a roughly similar cube. Anyone could talk to anyone." "We had a philosophy of best idea wins. As opposed to the person proposing the idea winning because they are who they are." "Even though there were times when I thought that should have been the way to go." On decision-making: "If there were two paths and one wasn't obviously better than the other, rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one was slightly better, we would just pick one and do it." "Sometimes we'd be wrong and pick the suboptimal path. But often it's better to pick a path and do it than to just vacillate endlessly on a choice." On focus: "We didn't worry too much about intellectual property, paperwork, legal stuff." "We were very focused on building the best product we possibly could." "We were incredibly obsessive about how to build something that is really going to be the best possible customer experience." "That was a far more effective selling tool than having a giant sales force or thinking of marketing gimmicks or 12-step processes." On why he started SpaceX: "I was trying to figure out why we had not made more progress since Apollo." "In the 60s, we went from basically nothing to putting people on the moon. Yet in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we've kind of gone sideways." "The computer you could have bought in the early 70s would have filled this room and had less computing power than your cell phone. Just about every sector of technology has improved. Why has this not improved?" He thought maybe public support was the problem. So he planned a privately funded Mars mission: put plants growing on Mars for $15-20 million. But the cheapest US rocket was $50 million. So he flew to Moscow. Three trips. Couldn't close the deal. "When I got back from the third trip, I thought: why is it the Russians can build these low-cost launch vehicles? It's not like we drive Russian cars, fly Russian planes, or have Russian kitchen appliances." "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" "I think the US is a pretty competitive place. We should be able to build a cost-efficient launch vehicle." On why rockets are expensive: "The energy and velocity required to get into orbit is so substantial that you have almost no margin to play with." "A launch vehicle will get about 2% of its liftoff mass to orbit." "If you're wrong by 2%, you're not going to get anything to orbit. It'll come crashing down in the Pacific somewhere." "That means all of your calculations have to be right. If you miscalculate something, it blows up." On how SpaceX got costs down: Their rocket: $6 million. Nearest competitor: $25 million for less capability. "There's no silver bullet. It's been really hundreds of small innovations and improvements." "We've done improvements in the propulsion system, the structure, the avionics, and the launch operations." "Our overhead in a 30-person company is an order of magnitude less than Lockheed or Boeing. Just for starters." "Every decision we've made has been with consideration to simplicity. Because simplicity both improves reliability and reduces cost." "If you've got fewer components, that's fewer components to go wrong and fewer components to buy." On being an entrepreneur: "I think really an obsessive nature with respect to the quality of the product is very important." "Being obsessive-compulsive is a good thing in this context." "Really liking what you do is important. If you don't like it, life is too short." "If you like what you're doing, you think about it even when you're not working. Your mind is drawn to it." "If you don't like it, you just really can't make it work." On parallelization: "Try not to serialize dependencies. Put as many elements in parallel as possible." "A lot of things have a gestation period. There's really nothing you can do to accelerate that gestation period." "If you can have all those things gestating in parallel, that is one way to substantially accelerate your timeline." "People tend to serialize things too much." On space as a business: Someone asked if SpaceX was a good first company to start. "No. I would not recommend it." "This is advanced entrepreneuring." "You know how many people have said: the fastest way to make a small fortune in the aerospace industry is to start with a large one." This 45 minute Stanford lecture will teach you more about building companies than every startup book combined. Bookmark & give it 45 minutes today, no matter what.

In 2002, Elon Musk flew to Moscow three times to buy a refurbished missile. He couldn't close the deal. On the flight home, he asked himself: "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" He started SpaceX instead. 1 year later, he stood in front of Stanford students and spent 45 minutes explaining everything he'd learned about building companies: On starting Zip2: This was 1995. Most VCs on Sand Hill Road hadn't even heard of the internet. "I thought it would be a pretty huge thing. It was one of those things that only came along once in a very long while." He got a deferment from Stanford to start the company. "When I talked to my professor and told him this, he said, 'Well, I don't think you'll be coming back.' That was the last conversation I had with him." The problem: he had no money. "I couldn't afford a place to stay and an office. So I rented an office instead, because I got a cheaper office than I could get a place to stay." "I slept on the futon and showered at the YMCA on Page Mill and El Camino." "I was in the best shape I've ever been. Go to shower, work out, and you're good to go." There was an ISP on the floor below them. "We drilled a hole through the floor and connected a null modem cable. That gave us our internet connectivity for like 100 bucks a month." "We had an absurdly tiny burn rate. And we also had a really tiny revenue stream. But we actually had more revenue than we had expenses." They sold Zip2 to Compaq in early 1999 for over $300 million. "In cash. That's a currency I highly recommend." On starting PayPal: "I didn't really take any time off." He was looking for what remained in the internet. Financial services hadn't seen much innovation. "When you think about it, money is low bandwidth. You don't need some big infrastructure improvement. It's really just an entry in a database." They built a platform that combined banking, brokerage, and insurance in one place. That took enormous effort. Then they added a little feature that took one day: the ability to email money from one customer to another. "Whenever we demonstrated these two sets of features, we'd say, 'Look how you can see your bank statement and your mutual funds and insurance, all on one page. Look how convenient that is.'" "And people would go, 'Ho hum.'" "Then we'd say, 'And by the way, we have this feature where you can enter somebody's email address and transfer funds.'" "And they'd go, 'Wow.'" "So we focused the company's business on email payments." On viral growth: "PayPal is really a perfect case example of viral marketing." "One customer would essentially act as a salesperson for you. They would send money to a friend and essentially recruit that friend into the network." "So you had this exponential growth. The more customers you had, the faster it grew." "It was like bacteria in a Petri dish. It just goes like this S-curve." The results: "I ran PayPal for about the first two years of its existence. We launched after year one. By the end of year two, we had a million customers." "We didn't have a sales force. We didn't have a VP of sales. We didn't have a VP of marketing. And we didn't spend any money on advertising." On why product matters: "The essence of viral marketing is: do you have something where one customer is going to sell another customer without you having to do anything?" "Product matters incredibly. Because if you're going to recommend something to somebody, you've got to really love the product experience. Otherwise you're not going to recommend it." "You don't want to burn your friend." On company culture: "We had a pretty flat hierarchy. Everybody had a roughly similar cube. Anyone could talk to anyone." "We had a philosophy of best idea wins. As opposed to the person proposing the idea winning because they are who they are." "Even though there were times when I thought that should have been the way to go." On decision-making: "If there were two paths and one wasn't obviously better than the other, rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one was slightly better, we would just pick one and do it." "Sometimes we'd be wrong and pick the suboptimal path. But often it's better to pick a path and do it than to just vacillate endlessly on a choice." On focus: "We didn't worry too much about intellectual property, paperwork, legal stuff." "We were very focused on building the best product we possibly could." "We were incredibly obsessive about how to build something that is really going to be the best possible customer experience." "That was a far more effective selling tool than having a giant sales force or thinking of marketing gimmicks or 12-step processes." On why he started SpaceX: "I was trying to figure out why we had not made more progress since Apollo." "In the 60s, we went from basically nothing to putting people on the moon. Yet in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we've kind of gone sideways." "The computer you could have bought in the early 70s would have filled this room and had less computing power than your cell phone. Just about every sector of technology has improved. Why has this not improved?" He thought maybe public support was the problem. So he planned a privately funded Mars mission: put plants growing on Mars for $15-20 million. But the cheapest US rocket was $50 million. So he flew to Moscow. Three trips. Couldn't close the deal. "When I got back from the third trip, I thought: why is it the Russians can build these low-cost launch vehicles? It's not like we drive Russian cars, fly Russian planes, or have Russian kitchen appliances." "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" "I think the US is a pretty competitive place. We should be able to build a cost-efficient launch vehicle." On why rockets are expensive: "The energy and velocity required to get into orbit is so substantial that you have almost no margin to play with." "A launch vehicle will get about 2% of its liftoff mass to orbit." "If you're wrong by 2%, you're not going to get anything to orbit. It'll come crashing down in the Pacific somewhere." "That means all of your calculations have to be right. If you miscalculate something, it blows up." On how SpaceX got costs down: Their rocket: $6 million. Nearest competitor: $25 million for less capability. "There's no silver bullet. It's been really hundreds of small innovations and improvements." "We've done improvements in the propulsion system, the structure, the avionics, and the launch operations." "Our overhead in a 30-person company is an order of magnitude less than Lockheed or Boeing. Just for starters." "Every decision we've made has been with consideration to simplicity. Because simplicity both improves reliability and reduces cost." "If you've got fewer components, that's fewer components to go wrong and fewer components to buy." On being an entrepreneur: "I think really an obsessive nature with respect to the quality of the product is very important." "Being obsessive-compulsive is a good thing in this context." "Really liking what you do is important. If you don't like it, life is too short." "If you like what you're doing, you think about it even when you're not working. Your mind is drawn to it." "If you don't like it, you just really can't make it work." On parallelization: "Try not to serialize dependencies. Put as many elements in parallel as possible." "A lot of things have a gestation period. There's really nothing you can do to accelerate that gestation period." "If you can have all those things gestating in parallel, that is one way to substantially accelerate your timeline." "People tend to serialize things too much." On space as a business: Someone asked if SpaceX was a good first company to start. "No. I would not recommend it." "This is advanced entrepreneuring." "You know how many people have said: the fastest way to make a small fortune in the aerospace industry is to start with a large one." This 45 minute Stanford lecture will teach you more about building companies than every startup book combined. Bookmark & give it 45 minutes today, no matter what.

Jaynit

423,205 views • 3 months ago