Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Kapil Dev aged into Honour Imran Khan aged into Confinement. That contrast will haunt the record books far longer than any political verdict. Because long after governments change, and headlines fade, there will still be one undeniable truth: A country is judged not by how loudly it celebrates its... heroes at their peak, but by how humanely it treats them when they are at their weakest. And today, Imran Khan’s silence from behind bars speaks louder than any speech he ever gave. Today, no Pakistani players say anything about him or support him. Earlier the Cricketing story in Pakistan used to revolve around him. Not in disagreement. Not in criticism. But in forgetting. A nation can oppose a leader without humiliating a legend. A country can argue with politics without erasing history. But when a World Cup–winning captain is reduced to a prisoner, treated not as a symbol of national pride but as a problem to be silenced, something far deeper has broken. Now Sir Kapil Dev Kapil Dev’s story did not end when the applause faded. Years passed. Records were broken. New idols emerged. Yet India never pushed Kapil Dev into silence. He always gets respect. He is remembered as the man who gave India belief before money, leagues, and global fame arrived. He was allowed to live freely, speak openly and disagree without fear. When Kapil Dev walks into a stadium today he does not need an introduction. The respect rises before the applause. India understood something vital: A hero’s greatest contribution doesn’t expire with time.show more

Akul (𝑨𝑻10)

11,365 subscribers

68,526 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik Gesundheit & Wellness Sport

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

I think the presenter is on to something big, but where I disagree with her is that she accuses African leaders and gives a subtle pass to African citizens. It is not true that African citizens were oblivious to what Trump or Epstein are. They knew, but they simply did not have the ability to think critically that when Trump talks about LGBT issues, it is not necessarily that he does not support them, but that he understood there is a group of foolish people out there who would buy into that rhetoric without interrogating why he was deploying it. Some of Trump’s best friends, like Peter Mandelson, are gay, yet some Africans were foolish enough to believe that Trump is anti-gay. He simply understood how human beings operate, that there are times when people fail to think, a tragic failure to think, and they just go with the flow. If you ask Africans today what they gained from the perceived homophobia that Trump projected, which we know was political theatre targeted at a particular audience, they will not be able to tell you. Trump might be many things to many people. I do not like him and everybody knows that, but the one thing I respect him for is that he understands his audience. He knows what to say when he is talking to foolish people. He knows what to say when he is talking to idiotic people. He knows what to say when he is talking to sycophants. He knows what to say when he is talking to people who do not understand the world of politics, and he gets away with it. And for that, I give it to him. He becomes a political superstar precisely because you then have black people in Africa supporting him. That in itself shows you the scale of political illiteracy that exists, where people rally behind rhetoric crafted to manipulate them, not to advance their interests.

I think the presenter is on to something big, but where I disagree with her is that she accuses African leaders and gives a subtle pass to African citizens. It is not true that African citizens were oblivious to what Trump or Epstein are. They knew, but they simply did not have the ability to think critically that when Trump talks about LGBT issues, it is not necessarily that he does not support them, but that he understood there is a group of foolish people out there who would buy into that rhetoric without interrogating why he was deploying it. Some of Trump’s best friends, like Peter Mandelson, are gay, yet some Africans were foolish enough to believe that Trump is anti-gay. He simply understood how human beings operate, that there are times when people fail to think, a tragic failure to think, and they just go with the flow. If you ask Africans today what they gained from the perceived homophobia that Trump projected, which we know was political theatre targeted at a particular audience, they will not be able to tell you. Trump might be many things to many people. I do not like him and everybody knows that, but the one thing I respect him for is that he understands his audience. He knows what to say when he is talking to foolish people. He knows what to say when he is talking to idiotic people. He knows what to say when he is talking to sycophants. He knows what to say when he is talking to people who do not understand the world of politics, and he gets away with it. And for that, I give it to him. He becomes a political superstar precisely because you then have black people in Africa supporting him. That in itself shows you the scale of political illiteracy that exists, where people rally behind rhetoric crafted to manipulate them, not to advance their interests.

Hopewell Chin’ono

20,339 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Is Kapil Dev right about Mohammad Azharuddin?? Agree or disagree 🤔 "I like to know Azharuddin what he did for the country, that is important. What story goes along... If his conscience allowed, it's okay. But to me, I think he was the finest cricketer during that period. What happened behind that nobody knows, but making an allegation like that... how can you pick somebody who has a red dot? 90% of politicians have a red dot, why do you sit with them? I think it's sad. People do get into a time when your weak moment comes and you make a mistake. I don't know he made a mistake or not, but what he did for the country, that's what I like to remember. Take the positive side of his, not the negative."

Is Kapil Dev right about Mohammad Azharuddin?? Agree or disagree 🤔 "I like to know Azharuddin what he did for the country, that is important. What story goes along... If his conscience allowed, it's okay. But to me, I think he was the finest cricketer during that period. What happened behind that nobody knows, but making an allegation like that... how can you pick somebody who has a red dot? 90% of politicians have a red dot, why do you sit with them? I think it's sad. People do get into a time when your weak moment comes and you make a mistake. I don't know he made a mistake or not, but what he did for the country, that's what I like to remember. Take the positive side of his, not the negative."

Buntyy Bagga

126,589 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Periods are natural. Stigma is not. If a girl misses school because there are no sanitary pads, no water and no privacy, it is not her personal problem. It is our collective failure. We live in a country where alcohol and cigarettes are sold openly, but sanitary pads are still wrapped in newspaper as if they must be hidden. Somewhere along the way, society turned a biological fact into a social taboo. A matter of science has been turned into a matter of silence. Menstrual hygiene is not charity. It is not a favour. It is not a side issue. It is a matter of health, education and equality. Above all, it is a matter of dignity. Raised this issue in Parliament today because it affects over 35 crore women and girls in India. A nation cannot call itself truly progressive if millions of girls still face fear, shame and silence for something so basic. The real test of progress is simple. The day every girl in India can go to school, live with dignity and speak about this without stigma, that will be the day we can truly say our society has moved forward.

Periods are natural. Stigma is not. If a girl misses school because there are no sanitary pads, no water and no privacy, it is not her personal problem. It is our collective failure. We live in a country where alcohol and cigarettes are sold openly, but sanitary pads are still wrapped in newspaper as if they must be hidden. Somewhere along the way, society turned a biological fact into a social taboo. A matter of science has been turned into a matter of silence. Menstrual hygiene is not charity. It is not a favour. It is not a side issue. It is a matter of health, education and equality. Above all, it is a matter of dignity. Raised this issue in Parliament today because it affects over 35 crore women and girls in India. A nation cannot call itself truly progressive if millions of girls still face fear, shame and silence for something so basic. The real test of progress is simple. The day every girl in India can go to school, live with dignity and speak about this without stigma, that will be the day we can truly say our society has moved forward.

Raghav Chadha

436,081 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Before Imran Khan’s dirty politics, lies, and propaganda, Pakistanis used to celebrate with unity and joy. This is how people once prayed for Nawaz Sharif for making Pakistan a nuclear state. But ever since Imran Khan came into politics, he has filled the nation with nothing but hatred. No one questions him about what development he has brought to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 13 years, even the roads there are still broken. If you remove Nawaz Sharif and Shehbaz Sharif from Pakistan’s politics, there would have been no development in the country at all.

Before Imran Khan’s dirty politics, lies, and propaganda, Pakistanis used to celebrate with unity and joy. This is how people once prayed for Nawaz Sharif for making Pakistan a nuclear state. But ever since Imran Khan came into politics, he has filled the nation with nothing but hatred. No one questions him about what development he has brought to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 13 years, even the roads there are still broken. If you remove Nawaz Sharif and Shehbaz Sharif from Pakistan’s politics, there would have been no development in the country at all.

Saad Kaiser 🇵🇰

14,166 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

"He is not in a Team, He is in a Family." 🥹 Jean Alesi on if he gave Sir Lewis Hamilton any advice, what Lewis brings to Ferrari, and how "impressed" the guys who worked on Lewis' car were: Q: Did you give Lewis Hamilton any advice? Alesi: No, no, no. I wouldn't allow it, even if as a member of the Italian family I could give him some advice. Not advice, but the way an Italian family behaves. Because today he is not in a team, he is in a family and it is important to understand the mechanism, the mentality. But I am sure he has already understood many things. Q: What can he bring to Ferrari? Alesi: He brings quality. He is a guy who is seven times world champion. Arriving here, he brings his experience, but also his humility. Because when I talk to the guys who worked on his car, they were impressed by how he behaves.

"He is not in a Team, He is in a Family." 🥹 Jean Alesi on if he gave Sir Lewis Hamilton any advice, what Lewis brings to Ferrari, and how "impressed" the guys who worked on Lewis' car were: Q: Did you give Lewis Hamilton any advice? Alesi: No, no, no. I wouldn't allow it, even if as a member of the Italian family I could give him some advice. Not advice, but the way an Italian family behaves. Because today he is not in a team, he is in a family and it is important to understand the mechanism, the mentality. But I am sure he has already understood many things. Q: What can he bring to Ferrari? Alesi: He brings quality. He is a guy who is seven times world champion. Arriving here, he brings his experience, but also his humility. Because when I talk to the guys who worked on his car, they were impressed by how he behaves.

sim

35,195 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#WATCH | Delhi: On the international cricket captains' letter to the Pakistan government regarding Imran Khan's health and well-being, former Indian cricketer Kapil Dev says, "...I like to support our friend whom we played with and admired for his cricketing skill. We don't know the law of the country; that's fine. But humanity and simply giving facilities to a prisoner, whoever it may be, and he was the former Prime Minister of the country and a top cricketer of the world, we want him to get the best treatment as we are asking for. We are not asking for anything else... When you request, you are not asking for a reply..."

#WATCH | Delhi: On the international cricket captains' letter to the Pakistan government regarding Imran Khan's health and well-being, former Indian cricketer Kapil Dev says, "...I like to support our friend whom we played with and admired for his cricketing skill. We don't know the law of the country; that's fine. But humanity and simply giving facilities to a prisoner, whoever it may be, and he was the former Prime Minister of the country and a top cricketer of the world, we want him to get the best treatment as we are asking for. We are not asking for anything else... When you request, you are not asking for a reply..."

ANI

217,973 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Every time a catastrophe strikes India, without even flinching, they immediately jump to blame Pakistan and this dangerous pattern has continued for far too long. This must stop. As two nuclear armed nations, we must act with maturity and foresight. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan had already warned the international community during his address to the UN General Assembly in 2019: this is not a threat, but a fair warning, he said. Because when a nuclear armed country fights to the end, it will have consequences far beyond the borders. Imran Khan

Every time a catastrophe strikes India, without even flinching, they immediately jump to blame Pakistan and this dangerous pattern has continued for far too long. This must stop. As two nuclear armed nations, we must act with maturity and foresight. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan had already warned the international community during his address to the UN General Assembly in 2019: this is not a threat, but a fair warning, he said. Because when a nuclear armed country fights to the end, it will have consequences far beyond the borders. Imran Khan

PTI

59,991 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Issues of paternity have shaped our society for generations, especially in Zimbabwe. They did not start today. I remember going to a funeral with my father in the 1990s, and as we sat around the fire the men began sharing stories. One of them has stayed with me ever since. A Zimbabwean doctor had married a nurse, and they struggled to have children. As usual, when there is no child, the blame was placed on the woman. She went to see her own doctor, who told her plainly that she was not the problem, and advised her to bring her husband for testing. The husband refused, as many Zimbabwean men tend to do. Their marriage eventually collapsed, with the man insisting he could not be the problem because he had a child with another woman before marrying the nurse. That woman, he said, was also a doctor, and he was raising that child. After the divorce, the nurse remarried another doctor, and she immediately fell pregnant. Because it was a tight medical community, the whole situation became a talking point. The ex-husband had loudly declared that his former wife was barren, yet here she was having one child after another, three in total, with her new husband. Meanwhile, the ex-husband remarried, and again there were no children. One day the ex-husband and his former wife met at a gathering. During a casual conversation, as people who once knew each other, she told him directly that he was raising a child who was not his. She told him that he had no capacity to father a child and that if he finally went for tests, he would discover the truth. She reminded him how he had insulted her and her parents, and how he had refused to listen. The revelation shook him. He went for tests, and it was confirmed that he was the problem. He had spent seventeen years looking after a child who was not his. The moral of the story is simple, and I always stress this when mentoring young people. When in doubt, check. In fact, even without doubt, check. A DNA test at birth saves you from future heartbreak. Many men are raising children who are not theirs. Some women know exactly what they are doing. Others genuinely do not know because their relationships overlapped before they settled down. In those cases, even the woman cannot be sure who the father is. So when you have a child, get a DNA test. If you ask for one and a woman becomes defensive or resistant, that is a major red flag. At that point, the test is no longer optional, it is necessary. That is the reality of life today. As they say, trust is beautiful, but DNA is confirmation. In this life we live, hope is not a strategy when it comes to your children, so test your child and protect your future, as the saying goes. I have DNA stories that I could share for a whole year. If compulsory DNA testing was demanded of all of us today, you will be shocked by what will come out. This brother in the video is now going through denial. He has been told the truth, but he is still in shock, which is why he is asking for silly things from this woman. It is hard for any man to discover that the child he believed was his belongs to another man. That is why DNA testing is a necessity and why it should be compulsory.

Issues of paternity have shaped our society for generations, especially in Zimbabwe. They did not start today. I remember going to a funeral with my father in the 1990s, and as we sat around the fire the men began sharing stories. One of them has stayed with me ever since. A Zimbabwean doctor had married a nurse, and they struggled to have children. As usual, when there is no child, the blame was placed on the woman. She went to see her own doctor, who told her plainly that she was not the problem, and advised her to bring her husband for testing. The husband refused, as many Zimbabwean men tend to do. Their marriage eventually collapsed, with the man insisting he could not be the problem because he had a child with another woman before marrying the nurse. That woman, he said, was also a doctor, and he was raising that child. After the divorce, the nurse remarried another doctor, and she immediately fell pregnant. Because it was a tight medical community, the whole situation became a talking point. The ex-husband had loudly declared that his former wife was barren, yet here she was having one child after another, three in total, with her new husband. Meanwhile, the ex-husband remarried, and again there were no children. One day the ex-husband and his former wife met at a gathering. During a casual conversation, as people who once knew each other, she told him directly that he was raising a child who was not his. She told him that he had no capacity to father a child and that if he finally went for tests, he would discover the truth. She reminded him how he had insulted her and her parents, and how he had refused to listen. The revelation shook him. He went for tests, and it was confirmed that he was the problem. He had spent seventeen years looking after a child who was not his. The moral of the story is simple, and I always stress this when mentoring young people. When in doubt, check. In fact, even without doubt, check. A DNA test at birth saves you from future heartbreak. Many men are raising children who are not theirs. Some women know exactly what they are doing. Others genuinely do not know because their relationships overlapped before they settled down. In those cases, even the woman cannot be sure who the father is. So when you have a child, get a DNA test. If you ask for one and a woman becomes defensive or resistant, that is a major red flag. At that point, the test is no longer optional, it is necessary. That is the reality of life today. As they say, trust is beautiful, but DNA is confirmation. In this life we live, hope is not a strategy when it comes to your children, so test your child and protect your future, as the saying goes. I have DNA stories that I could share for a whole year. If compulsory DNA testing was demanded of all of us today, you will be shocked by what will come out. This brother in the video is now going through denial. He has been told the truth, but he is still in shock, which is why he is asking for silly things from this woman. It is hard for any man to discover that the child he believed was his belongs to another man. That is why DNA testing is a necessity and why it should be compulsory.

Hopewell Chin’ono

68,177 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

THE BMW MYSTERY AROUND KAPIL DEV 🚘💸 Back then, Indian cricketers reportedly earned around ₹14,600 per Test and ₹6,000 per ODI, while Kapil later said that, including his brand endorsements, his total annual earnings were around ₹23 lakh. He got a BMW for him at a time when Indian cricket was nowhere near the money-making machine it is today. So naturally, people wondered: Where did the BMW come from? When asked about it, Kapil reportedly said that a man named Ibrahim had given him the car in exchange for a modelling assignment. But the story got a twist when no such record of modelling assignment was found in the records. However, CBI ultimately found no credible evidence, so the BMW remained one of the intriguing mysteries surrounding Indian cricket's most iconic era. 🚘🤯

Kshitij

756,002 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Is it true that when Saudi Crown Prince MBS lent his personal plane to Imran Khan for his trip to the U.S., Imran Khan and his team made critical remarks about MBS that were overheard by the Saudis, prompting MBS to take back his plane? If so, this perfectly encapsulates Imran Khan’s diplomatic record. From his provocative, offensive, and hollow speech against India’s Modi on occupied Kashmir at the UNGA, where he sounded more like a jihadi leader addressing a jirga in Waziristan than a statesman addressing the global leaders, to his suicidal attempt to form a "new Islamic bloc" with Turkey, Malaysia, and Iran, as well as his ill-advised comments about the Taliban after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Imran Khan consistently failed to justify his position or leverage opportunities effectively. While I have no doubt that Imran Khan is the best option for the people of Pakistan, he lacked the diplomatic finesse needed to carve out a role for himself on the global stage. It's such a shame that a cricketing legend and a former prime minister of a country has no friends to support him today. If not for the efforts of overseas Pakistanis, you wouldn't be seeing the little attention he gets from American and some British politicians. I wish, as a prime minister, Imran Khan was advised by educated and intelligent people who helped him establish himself as a world leader, not surrounded by emotional idiots who sent him to interviews unprepared, turned every interaction with the international press a PR disaster, sent him to Russia on the day Putin brutally invaded Ukraine, and asked him to walk barefoot in Madina like an ignorant, overly emotional person. Worse, they facilitated the mismanagement of priceless, personalized gifts he received from foreign leaders at Toshakhana, selling them and tarnishing his reputation and relationships. I hope that if and when Imran Khan gets another chance, he has a better team and conducts himself as a more effective leader, not just for his people, but on the global stage.

Is it true that when Saudi Crown Prince MBS lent his personal plane to Imran Khan for his trip to the U.S., Imran Khan and his team made critical remarks about MBS that were overheard by the Saudis, prompting MBS to take back his plane? If so, this perfectly encapsulates Imran Khan’s diplomatic record. From his provocative, offensive, and hollow speech against India’s Modi on occupied Kashmir at the UNGA, where he sounded more like a jihadi leader addressing a jirga in Waziristan than a statesman addressing the global leaders, to his suicidal attempt to form a "new Islamic bloc" with Turkey, Malaysia, and Iran, as well as his ill-advised comments about the Taliban after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Imran Khan consistently failed to justify his position or leverage opportunities effectively. While I have no doubt that Imran Khan is the best option for the people of Pakistan, he lacked the diplomatic finesse needed to carve out a role for himself on the global stage. It's such a shame that a cricketing legend and a former prime minister of a country has no friends to support him today. If not for the efforts of overseas Pakistanis, you wouldn't be seeing the little attention he gets from American and some British politicians. I wish, as a prime minister, Imran Khan was advised by educated and intelligent people who helped him establish himself as a world leader, not surrounded by emotional idiots who sent him to interviews unprepared, turned every interaction with the international press a PR disaster, sent him to Russia on the day Putin brutally invaded Ukraine, and asked him to walk barefoot in Madina like an ignorant, overly emotional person. Worse, they facilitated the mismanagement of priceless, personalized gifts he received from foreign leaders at Toshakhana, selling them and tarnishing his reputation and relationships. I hope that if and when Imran Khan gets another chance, he has a better team and conducts himself as a more effective leader, not just for his people, but on the global stage.

Pakistan Walli

150,071 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

15,487 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

President Zelenskyy: Ukraine did not choose this war and it's wrong to assume that this is a permanent arrangement that others can stay safe behind Ukraine forever. Ukrainians are people, not terminators. That is why we are doing everything to stop this war and to guarantee security. But the problem is this. Putin is no longer interested in anything else. Putin does not live like ordinary people. He doesn't walk the streets. You will not see him in a cafe. Putin consults more with Tsar Peter and Empress Catherine about territorial gains than with any living person about real, real life. Can you imagine Putin without war? Be honest. Right now his focus is on Ukraine and no one in Ukraine believes he will ever let our people go. But he will not let other European nations go either because he cannot let go of the very idea of war. He may see himself as a Tsar but in reality he is a slave to war.

President Zelenskyy: Ukraine did not choose this war and it's wrong to assume that this is a permanent arrangement that others can stay safe behind Ukraine forever. Ukrainians are people, not terminators. That is why we are doing everything to stop this war and to guarantee security. But the problem is this. Putin is no longer interested in anything else. Putin does not live like ordinary people. He doesn't walk the streets. You will not see him in a cafe. Putin consults more with Tsar Peter and Empress Catherine about territorial gains than with any living person about real, real life. Can you imagine Putin without war? Be honest. Right now his focus is on Ukraine and no one in Ukraine believes he will ever let our people go. But he will not let other European nations go either because he cannot let go of the very idea of war. He may see himself as a Tsar but in reality he is a slave to war.

Anton Gerashchenko

37,147 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

An eighteen-year-old German is handed a microphone and asked the oldest question a country can ask a young man. “If this place is attacked, will you defend it.” He says no. Not because he has a better plan. Because borders are an abstraction to him, and dying for them sounds like a story other people were stupid enough to believe. Then he goes further. Ukraine should have surrendered. Yes… seriously. Living under Putin would be preferable to living in a Germany that is actually at war. He says it calmly, on a lighted stage, as if he has solved a math problem. That is not an eccentric. That is a product. A generation raised to treat the country as a hotel, the army as a costume, and survival as someone else’s job. They will march for slogans. They will not stand in a doorway when the slogan arrives with a rifle. They have been taught that the highest virtue is never to be the one who fights, and they have taken the lesson all the way to its logical end, which is surrender with a clean conscience. The world did not lose its spine in one night. It raised children who were never required to grow one, and now those children are of age. When the test comes, a lot of confident talk will collapse in a single minute. Some people will do what survival requires. Some will not. He has already told you which side of that line he is on.

An eighteen-year-old German is handed a microphone and asked the oldest question a country can ask a young man. “If this place is attacked, will you defend it.” He says no. Not because he has a better plan. Because borders are an abstraction to him, and dying for them sounds like a story other people were stupid enough to believe. Then he goes further. Ukraine should have surrendered. Yes… seriously. Living under Putin would be preferable to living in a Germany that is actually at war. He says it calmly, on a lighted stage, as if he has solved a math problem. That is not an eccentric. That is a product. A generation raised to treat the country as a hotel, the army as a costume, and survival as someone else’s job. They will march for slogans. They will not stand in a doorway when the slogan arrives with a rifle. They have been taught that the highest virtue is never to be the one who fights, and they have taken the lesson all the way to its logical end, which is surrender with a clean conscience. The world did not lose its spine in one night. It raised children who were never required to grow one, and now those children are of age. When the test comes, a lot of confident talk will collapse in a single minute. Some people will do what survival requires. Some will not. He has already told you which side of that line he is on.

Mor Edge Insight

140,314 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

Bro, Take Retirement. These Are Hypocrites. Nothing Will Change by Playing County Cricket 😭 You can check the stats: - No one is better than him in Tests. - No one is better than him in ODIs. - No one is better than him in T20Is. Yet he continues to be completely ignored. 😥 Gautam Gambhir says players should be backed and given a long rope, but he forgets his own words when it comes to Kuldeep Yadav. If Kuldeep had been playing for any other team, he would have been a permanent member of the playing XI in 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘀. But in India, his career has been ruined. He has always been treated like a disposable player. Whenever something goes right or wrong, Kuldeep is the first one to be dropped. My suggestion: either retire from international cricket and play franchise leagues around the world, or move to another country. At least you'll get a fair opportunity and the respect you deserve. 🙏

Bro, Take Retirement. These Are Hypocrites. Nothing Will Change by Playing County Cricket 😭 You can check the stats: - No one is better than him in Tests. - No one is better than him in ODIs. - No one is better than him in T20Is. Yet he continues to be completely ignored. 😥 Gautam Gambhir says players should be backed and given a long rope, but he forgets his own words when it comes to Kuldeep Yadav. If Kuldeep had been playing for any other team, he would have been a permanent member of the playing XI in 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘀. But in India, his career has been ruined. He has always been treated like a disposable player. Whenever something goes right or wrong, Kuldeep is the first one to be dropped. My suggestion: either retire from international cricket and play franchise leagues around the world, or move to another country. At least you'll get a fair opportunity and the respect you deserve. 🙏

Jara

59,412 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

$In the hush of the storm, when shadows stretch long and the world whispers fear, be still. Let your soul settle like a leaf on quiet water, anchored not by the chaos around you, but by the One who spoke the seas into silence. “Be still, and know that I am God.” These words are not a suggestion—they are a stronghold. Even when evil snarls at your door, when injustice rages and the night feels endless, trust in Him with all your heart. Not a fraction. Not a backup plan. All. Lean not on the fragile scaffolding of your own understanding, but on the unshakable faithfulness of the One who turns graves into gardens, mourning into morning. Be still. Not passive. Not defeated. Stillness here is surrendered strength—a defiant act of faith that says, “I will not be moved, because my God is already moving.” The battle is not yours to win in frenzy. It is His to win in glory. So rest. Breathe. Trust. He is near. He is enough. And in His stillness, you will find your peace. Happy Sunday everyone. ☀️$

In the hush of the storm, when shadows stretch long and the world whispers fear, be still. Let your soul settle like a leaf on quiet water, anchored not by the chaos around you, but by the One who spoke the seas into silence. “Be still, and know that I am God.” These words are not a suggestion—they are a stronghold. Even when evil snarls at your door, when injustice rages and the night feels endless, trust in Him with all your heart. Not a fraction. Not a backup plan. All. Lean not on the fragile scaffolding of your own understanding, but on the unshakable faithfulness of the One who turns graves into gardens, mourning into morning. Be still. Not passive. Not defeated. Stillness here is surrendered strength—a defiant act of faith that says, “I will not be moved, because my God is already moving.” The battle is not yours to win in frenzy. It is His to win in glory. So rest. Breathe. Trust. He is near. He is enough. And in His stillness, you will find your peace. Happy Sunday everyone. ☀️

MJTruthUltra

104,229 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

RadiantFilm

27,723 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

These were the days when the world not only had respect for a U.S. president, they loved him as much as America did. His representation of his country on the world stage was NEVER viewed as it is by a man now viewed as the global village idiot. His name appears ZERO times in the Epstein files. He never needed to praise himself once, name a road or a building after him. He never sued the DOJ or filed malicious law suits against those who disagreed with or criticised him, because real men can take criticism. He didn’t pretend to have a healthcare plan, he passed one into law. He never mocked disabled people or asked not to be seen with service members who had lost limbs in service of this nation, neither did he call those who fought and died for this nation ‘suckers and losers’ He won an ACTUAL Nobel Peace Prize and didn’t have to make up numbers for how many people attended his inauguration. He needed no monuments to his presidency because he had absolutely nothing to prove. He served his nation with honour dignity and respect, the same respect he afforded America’s allies. He did not run an international extortion gang from the Oval Office and certainly didn’t send masked thugs into red state communities to brutalise them in order to instil fear. He rebuilt a broken economy after the housing crash he faced in the year he was elected, handing off a growing economy when he left office in 2016. He never stole money from low and middle income workers to hand tax cuts to the rich, while setting up a crypto bribe pipeline. His speeches will go down in history as rhetorical masterpieces, with joined up coherent sentences and punctuation. He never once felt the need to post an inflammatory vile and disgusting video about ANYONE, because he is a good and honest man, who remains to this day a beloved statesman and a man Donald J Trump will never be, even in a tan suit. 🎥 TikTok -

These were the days when the world not only had respect for a U.S. president, they loved him as much as America did. His representation of his country on the world stage was NEVER viewed as it is by a man now viewed as the global village idiot. His name appears ZERO times in the Epstein files. He never needed to praise himself once, name a road or a building after him. He never sued the DOJ or filed malicious law suits against those who disagreed with or criticised him, because real men can take criticism. He didn’t pretend to have a healthcare plan, he passed one into law. He never mocked disabled people or asked not to be seen with service members who had lost limbs in service of this nation, neither did he call those who fought and died for this nation ‘suckers and losers’ He won an ACTUAL Nobel Peace Prize and didn’t have to make up numbers for how many people attended his inauguration. He needed no monuments to his presidency because he had absolutely nothing to prove. He served his nation with honour dignity and respect, the same respect he afforded America’s allies. He did not run an international extortion gang from the Oval Office and certainly didn’t send masked thugs into red state communities to brutalise them in order to instil fear. He rebuilt a broken economy after the housing crash he faced in the year he was elected, handing off a growing economy when he left office in 2016. He never stole money from low and middle income workers to hand tax cuts to the rich, while setting up a crypto bribe pipeline. His speeches will go down in history as rhetorical masterpieces, with joined up coherent sentences and punctuation. He never once felt the need to post an inflammatory vile and disgusting video about ANYONE, because he is a good and honest man, who remains to this day a beloved statesman and a man Donald J Trump will never be, even in a tan suit. 🎥 TikTok -

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

329,568 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

🚨Pep Guardiola on Julian Alvarez situation concerning Barcelona, Arsenal, Simeone and Atletico Madrid president, Gil Marin: 🎙️Reporter: Pep, Álvarez wants Barcelona, but Atlético prefer Arsenal. You let him leave City when he was contracted — do you see the hypocrisy in Simeone’s handling of this? 🗣️Pep: Yes. And I will not pretend I don’t. When Julián was at City he had a contract until 2028. A real contract. Diego wanted him. Fine. Every coach wants good players. But what did he do? He called Julián five times during the negotiation. Five. His son Giuliano was messaging him. De Paul. Molina. The whole Argentine family inside Atlético selling him the same line: ‘Come here, you will be the main man, not second behind Erling.’ That is tapping. That is convincing a player who is under contract to walk away from the club that paid him, trained him, and won everything with him. And what did I do? I did not go on television to cry. I did not send my players to WhatsApp him at midnight. I did not tell the world that City would rather sell him to anyone except the club he actually wanted. I sat with him. He said he wanted a new challenge. I said: okay. If a player wants to leave, I am not a jailer. I thanked him for two years of enormous contribution. We facilitated the deal. We treated him like a human being, not a hostage. Now the same player says, in public, with honesty: I want to fulfil my dream. Barcelona. Everyone in football knows what that means for an Argentine who grew up watching that shirt. And now Simeone and the president discover principles. Suddenly the contract is sacred. Suddenly ‘he is our player and we will look after him.’ Suddenly they will sell him to Arsenal, to the moon, to anyone — just not to the one club he named as his dream. That is not protecting the club. That is spite. That is ego. That is a coach who was happy to tap a contracted City player when it suited him, and now pretends he is the guardian of loyalty when the player wants to go to Camp Nou. You cannot call a boy five times to steal him from Manchester and then whistle him in your own stadium because he wants Barcelona. You cannot use De Paul and Molina as recruiters and then act shocked when the same player is honest two years later. Either contracts are holy or they are not. You cannot change the religion depending on who is buying. Julián was never a problem for me. He worked, he pressed, he scored, he never complained in the dressing room. When he asked to leave, I helped him leave. That is respect. What they are doing now is the opposite. They are telling a World Cup winner: you can go anywhere except the place that lives in your head. If Simeone wanted to be consistent, he would pick up the phone the same way he did in 2024 and say: ‘Go. We will not hold you hostage.’ Instead they hide behind Gil Marín, behind a clause nobody will ever pay, and they shop him to Arsenal like a punishment. I have nothing against Atlético as a club. I have a problem with hypocrisy. You cannot hunt a player under contract and then chain him when he hunts his own dream. That is not leadership. That is fear dressed up as dignity.

🚨Pep Guardiola on Julian Alvarez situation concerning Barcelona, Arsenal, Simeone and Atletico Madrid president, Gil Marin: 🎙️Reporter: Pep, Álvarez wants Barcelona, but Atlético prefer Arsenal. You let him leave City when he was contracted — do you see the hypocrisy in Simeone’s handling of this? 🗣️Pep: Yes. And I will not pretend I don’t. When Julián was at City he had a contract until 2028. A real contract. Diego wanted him. Fine. Every coach wants good players. But what did he do? He called Julián five times during the negotiation. Five. His son Giuliano was messaging him. De Paul. Molina. The whole Argentine family inside Atlético selling him the same line: ‘Come here, you will be the main man, not second behind Erling.’ That is tapping. That is convincing a player who is under contract to walk away from the club that paid him, trained him, and won everything with him. And what did I do? I did not go on television to cry. I did not send my players to WhatsApp him at midnight. I did not tell the world that City would rather sell him to anyone except the club he actually wanted. I sat with him. He said he wanted a new challenge. I said: okay. If a player wants to leave, I am not a jailer. I thanked him for two years of enormous contribution. We facilitated the deal. We treated him like a human being, not a hostage. Now the same player says, in public, with honesty: I want to fulfil my dream. Barcelona. Everyone in football knows what that means for an Argentine who grew up watching that shirt. And now Simeone and the president discover principles. Suddenly the contract is sacred. Suddenly ‘he is our player and we will look after him.’ Suddenly they will sell him to Arsenal, to the moon, to anyone — just not to the one club he named as his dream. That is not protecting the club. That is spite. That is ego. That is a coach who was happy to tap a contracted City player when it suited him, and now pretends he is the guardian of loyalty when the player wants to go to Camp Nou. You cannot call a boy five times to steal him from Manchester and then whistle him in your own stadium because he wants Barcelona. You cannot use De Paul and Molina as recruiters and then act shocked when the same player is honest two years later. Either contracts are holy or they are not. You cannot change the religion depending on who is buying. Julián was never a problem for me. He worked, he pressed, he scored, he never complained in the dressing room. When he asked to leave, I helped him leave. That is respect. What they are doing now is the opposite. They are telling a World Cup winner: you can go anywhere except the place that lives in your head. If Simeone wanted to be consistent, he would pick up the phone the same way he did in 2024 and say: ‘Go. We will not hold you hostage.’ Instead they hide behind Gil Marín, behind a clause nobody will ever pay, and they shop him to Arsenal like a punishment. I have nothing against Atlético as a club. I have a problem with hypocrisy. You cannot hunt a player under contract and then chain him when he hunts his own dream. That is not leadership. That is fear dressed up as dignity.

Vfynn_🥷🏼 𐙚

183,004 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat