Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

My chud Animation that i hate how she didn't get perma banned here is insane those streaming platforms will let anything slide.. Models: Yoboop 🏳️‍🌈/dzooworks🔞 VA for both: 𐔌 MDNI🔞 ⋮ strawbz .ᐟ ֹ🍓🍃 ₊ ꒱ Sound Edit 🏹Tress 性 Soundpacks:HentAudio 🇺🇦 🟢COMMS OPEN🟢/@Lewdksound/LeHornySFX3D🔞 (COMMS OPEN) #rule34 #futa

TheMadCommander's profile picture

TheMadCommander

54,391 subscribers

180,077 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#rule34#futa
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Fascinating exchange: Jon Karl lightly confronts Zohran Mamdani with Darializa Avila-Chevalier's insane positions. Mamdani says DAC won because of affordability before tripling down on the virulent anti-semitism that undergirds DSA. Karl takes two passes at getting Mamdani to condemn the coffee shop that banned Rep. Dan Goldman, allows Mamdani to skate with a non-critical critique. JON KARL: Now, you know, there's been a lot of attention on one of the candidates you supported, one who knocked off an incumbent Democrat, is Darializa Avila Chevalier. She said some very controversial things, including calling for the abolition of prisons- couldn't say whether or not somebody who had committed murder should be in prison. Called for open borders. Against all deportations, including those of violent criminals. Are those positions that the Democratic Party could win on nationally? ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I think what the Democratic Party can win on nationally is a focus on working people, and I think that what I saw from Darializa when I would walk the streets of her district was a focus on what she describes as the politics of life. She would talk about how we have to invest in babies, not bombs. She's now going to represent what is one of the poorest districts in the United States of America. And what people in that district are exhausted by is a politics that has justified the spending of tens of billions of dollars in killing civilians overseas, while working people are struggling just to do the basics. KARL: But how does that -- how does abolishing prisons or having open borders fit into that? I mean, do you see how that's -- those are ideas that a lot of your Democrats that are warning about what happened here say are toxic, most of America won't go along with. They are bad ideas. They are dangerous ideas. MAMDANI: I think what the focus of her race was, what the focus of her candidacy was, was about the struggle that working people are facing. And I think that we can have disagreements on policy positions. What we have to agree on is what are we fighting for, and who are we fighting for? She showed that in her race, and I think that many people will come to appreciate that in her leadership to come. KARL: So we can disagree on something as basic as whether or not there should be prisons? MAMDANI: There -- KARL: That's not your position? MAMDANI: There are prisons. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: And what we're also showing in this city is that safety is not something that's up for debate. It’s something that we're actually delivering on. And I'm proud to be the mayor of a city that currently has the lowest recorded number of murders and shootings in recorded history in New York City. KARL: So there was also a take -- it's not just Democrats. You probably heard what President Trump had to say about you and about the candidates you supported. And he warned that if socialists win -- and he calls you communists but -- you will start living in squalor, there'll be no food, no housing, no military, no law and order. There'll be nothing, and he had a few other choice words. By the way, he also said he still likes you. (LAUGHTER) KARL: But what do you make of what he -- I mean, the Democrat -- Republicans are going to make you the poster child for the Democratic Party. MAMDANI: Let them. We don't have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins. I won last November, and over the course of these last six months, what we've delivered for working people are the very things we were told were impossible. We've delivered free childcare for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history. We've delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords. We've delivered 165,000 potholes being paved. And we've done all of these things while also delivering the lowest recorded crime in our city's history. That's what it looks like to have Democratic socialism. And what you're seeing is that New Yorkers experienced this for six months and made the decision that they wanted to see more of it on the national stage as well. KARL: Can a Democratic socialist get elected president? MAMDANI: I think a Democratic socialist can get elected anywhere across this country for any position. What I think we need to bring is a focus on working people. KARL: And that's the direction that the party should go in, in terms of selecting a candidate for 2028? MAMDANI: I think the direction that the party should go in is how best to fight for working people. I think we need to have a platform and a vision that doesn't sound as if it was cooked up by consultants, but instead one that you would say in response to someone who's asking, why can't I afford my rent, why can't I afford my groceries, why can't I afford my childcare? We need to make clear who we stand for, how we're going to stand for them, and that we're actually willing to fight for them when the going gets tough. KARL: Obviously, Israel was a big issue in these races. Not the only issue, but a big issue. Is there room in the Democratic Party for candidates, officials who support Israel, not just support Israel, but support military aid for Israel? This was a huge issue for you. MAMDANI: Well, I think what we've seen is that the time for us, as elected officials, to pronounce what the party should be is one that should come to an end, and we should let Democratic voters themselves take the lead. We've seen on Tuesday evening, we saw Democrats turn out in districts across the city to make clear that they were tired of tens of billions of dollars being spent in our taxpayer dollars to violate international law, to kill thousands of civilians. And you and I know that right now, the way that Palestine is described is as if there is a ceasefire. That's the language that's typically used. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: More than a thousand Palestinians have been killed in that ceasefire. And what New Yorkers want to see is a politics of conscience, a politics of clarity, a politics of conviction. And to follow international law, to believe in the humanity of all people, it shouldn't be a journey too far. And I think that our party needs to hear what Democrats are telling them. KARL: Democratic Socialists of America now says they no longer favor a two-state solution. Is that the way you see it as well, the idea of two states, Palestinian and Jewish states, side by side, living in peace? MAMDANI: The way I see it is, equal rights for all people. And I think that that's the truth for Israel. It's the truth for any country in the world. And frankly, as we're coming up close to the 250th anniversary of our nation, one of the things that makes me proudest to be an American is the belief that equal rights are at the bedrock of our notion of what it means to be an American. KARL: And the idea of a Jewish state, Israel as a Jewish state, that's in the charter, that's the way it is now. Do you support that? MAMDANI: I've said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights. I believe that any state that -- KARL: But as a Jewish state is the question. MAMDANI: I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can't tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. And a lot of that comes back to a fundamental belief that we should all be considered equal, no matter what our faith is. KARL: How big a problem -- you've said it's rising -- is anti-Semitism in this city? MAMDANI: We've seen anti-Semitism rise in this city. We've seen the fact that Jewish New Yorkers comprise a minority of our city's population, and yet continue to constitute a majority of the hate crimes that have been purveyed in this city. And that's something that's unacceptable. It's something that we will never come to see as if it is a part of life. It's something that has to be fought and rooted out of every one of the five boroughs. KARL: What did you think when Dan Goldman -- that coffee shop in Brooklyn said that they didn't -- they wouldn't serve him because of his support for Israel. Do you have a problem with – I mean, the idea of, you know, of an establishment like that saying they're not going to serve somebody if they support Israel? MAMDANI: I've said that I have political disagreements with Congressmember Goldman. I do believe that that's a response that goes beyond that. KARL: So, that's not the right kind of thing? MAMDANI: No, I think -- I think it's much better to keep that critique in the way that we’ve done it.
7:04

Fascinating exchange: Jon Karl lightly confronts Zohran Mamdani with Darializa Avila-Chevalier's insane positions. Mamdani says DAC won because of affordability before tripling down on the virulent anti-semitism that undergirds DSA. Karl takes two passes at getting Mamdani to condemn the coffee shop that banned Rep. Dan Goldman, allows Mamdani to skate with a non-critical critique. JON KARL: Now, you know, there's been a lot of attention on one of the candidates you supported, one who knocked off an incumbent Democrat, is Darializa Avila Chevalier. She said some very controversial things, including calling for the abolition of prisons- couldn't say whether or not somebody who had committed murder should be in prison. Called for open borders. Against all deportations, including those of violent criminals. Are those positions that the Democratic Party could win on nationally? ZOHRAN MAMDANI: I think what the Democratic Party can win on nationally is a focus on working people, and I think that what I saw from Darializa when I would walk the streets of her district was a focus on what she describes as the politics of life. She would talk about how we have to invest in babies, not bombs. She's now going to represent what is one of the poorest districts in the United States of America. And what people in that district are exhausted by is a politics that has justified the spending of tens of billions of dollars in killing civilians overseas, while working people are struggling just to do the basics. KARL: But how does that -- how does abolishing prisons or having open borders fit into that? I mean, do you see how that's -- those are ideas that a lot of your Democrats that are warning about what happened here say are toxic, most of America won't go along with. They are bad ideas. They are dangerous ideas. MAMDANI: I think what the focus of her race was, what the focus of her candidacy was, was about the struggle that working people are facing. And I think that we can have disagreements on policy positions. What we have to agree on is what are we fighting for, and who are we fighting for? She showed that in her race, and I think that many people will come to appreciate that in her leadership to come. KARL: So we can disagree on something as basic as whether or not there should be prisons? MAMDANI: There -- KARL: That's not your position? MAMDANI: There are prisons. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: And what we're also showing in this city is that safety is not something that's up for debate. It’s something that we're actually delivering on. And I'm proud to be the mayor of a city that currently has the lowest recorded number of murders and shootings in recorded history in New York City. KARL: So there was also a take -- it's not just Democrats. You probably heard what President Trump had to say about you and about the candidates you supported. And he warned that if socialists win -- and he calls you communists but -- you will start living in squalor, there'll be no food, no housing, no military, no law and order. There'll be nothing, and he had a few other choice words. By the way, he also said he still likes you. (LAUGHTER) KARL: But what do you make of what he -- I mean, the Democrat -- Republicans are going to make you the poster child for the Democratic Party. MAMDANI: Let them. We don't have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins. I won last November, and over the course of these last six months, what we've delivered for working people are the very things we were told were impossible. We've delivered free childcare for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history. We've delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords. We've delivered 165,000 potholes being paved. And we've done all of these things while also delivering the lowest recorded crime in our city's history. That's what it looks like to have Democratic socialism. And what you're seeing is that New Yorkers experienced this for six months and made the decision that they wanted to see more of it on the national stage as well. KARL: Can a Democratic socialist get elected president? MAMDANI: I think a Democratic socialist can get elected anywhere across this country for any position. What I think we need to bring is a focus on working people. KARL: And that's the direction that the party should go in, in terms of selecting a candidate for 2028? MAMDANI: I think the direction that the party should go in is how best to fight for working people. I think we need to have a platform and a vision that doesn't sound as if it was cooked up by consultants, but instead one that you would say in response to someone who's asking, why can't I afford my rent, why can't I afford my groceries, why can't I afford my childcare? We need to make clear who we stand for, how we're going to stand for them, and that we're actually willing to fight for them when the going gets tough. KARL: Obviously, Israel was a big issue in these races. Not the only issue, but a big issue. Is there room in the Democratic Party for candidates, officials who support Israel, not just support Israel, but support military aid for Israel? This was a huge issue for you. MAMDANI: Well, I think what we've seen is that the time for us, as elected officials, to pronounce what the party should be is one that should come to an end, and we should let Democratic voters themselves take the lead. We've seen on Tuesday evening, we saw Democrats turn out in districts across the city to make clear that they were tired of tens of billions of dollars being spent in our taxpayer dollars to violate international law, to kill thousands of civilians. And you and I know that right now, the way that Palestine is described is as if there is a ceasefire. That's the language that's typically used. KARL: Yes. MAMDANI: More than a thousand Palestinians have been killed in that ceasefire. And what New Yorkers want to see is a politics of conscience, a politics of clarity, a politics of conviction. And to follow international law, to believe in the humanity of all people, it shouldn't be a journey too far. And I think that our party needs to hear what Democrats are telling them. KARL: Democratic Socialists of America now says they no longer favor a two-state solution. Is that the way you see it as well, the idea of two states, Palestinian and Jewish states, side by side, living in peace? MAMDANI: The way I see it is, equal rights for all people. And I think that that's the truth for Israel. It's the truth for any country in the world. And frankly, as we're coming up close to the 250th anniversary of our nation, one of the things that makes me proudest to be an American is the belief that equal rights are at the bedrock of our notion of what it means to be an American. KARL: And the idea of a Jewish state, Israel as a Jewish state, that's in the charter, that's the way it is now. Do you support that? MAMDANI: I've said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights. I believe that any state that -- KARL: But as a Jewish state is the question. MAMDANI: I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can't tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. And a lot of that comes back to a fundamental belief that we should all be considered equal, no matter what our faith is. KARL: How big a problem -- you've said it's rising -- is anti-Semitism in this city? MAMDANI: We've seen anti-Semitism rise in this city. We've seen the fact that Jewish New Yorkers comprise a minority of our city's population, and yet continue to constitute a majority of the hate crimes that have been purveyed in this city. And that's something that's unacceptable. It's something that we will never come to see as if it is a part of life. It's something that has to be fought and rooted out of every one of the five boroughs. KARL: What did you think when Dan Goldman -- that coffee shop in Brooklyn said that they didn't -- they wouldn't serve him because of his support for Israel. Do you have a problem with – I mean, the idea of, you know, of an establishment like that saying they're not going to serve somebody if they support Israel? MAMDANI: I've said that I have political disagreements with Congressmember Goldman. I do believe that that's a response that goes beyond that. KARL: So, that's not the right kind of thing? MAMDANI: No, I think -- I think it's much better to keep that critique in the way that we’ve done it.

Jorge Bonilla

43,262 次观看 • 1 个月前

Maple is preparing for the release of a co-working agent. You install it locally and it works with your files, whether it's office work or building websites and apps. It's a turnkey solution, as easy as Claude Code, that keeps your data secure and private, no data sharing with closed AI labs. This is THE sovereign AI app for individuals and businesses who want powerful AI while retaining ownership of their information. Why build an agent into the Maple app when other agents already exist? Easy, we want to give you control over your work. We don't have a business plan that incorporates making money off our users' data. In the age of AI, your information, whether it's personal or company trade secrets, is the single thing that differentiates you from everyone else. We all have access to AI that can build a professional website for selling shoes. But your strategy and network for how you sell shoes should not be shared with your competitors. Sovereignty is the path to protecting what makes you, you. Maple sits at the intersection of Usability and Sovereignty. Maple gives you the best tools that are both easy to use and maintain your data sovereignty. Sovereign for one, sovereign for all. It has been a journey to get here. We brought to market the very first personal chatbot with end-to-end encryption using TEEs in late 2024. Prior to that there were proofs of concept but no full product offerings. Every other AI chat product on the market handled your data in plain text, either selling you a service to get your data or asking you to trust that they won't snoop on you. Quickly people found Maple and latched onto its open-source code and verifiable encryption. We didn't stop there. You may remember earlier this year we teased a product called "Maple Agent" and opened up a waiting list. That product is a mobile app that acts as your AI "friend", maintaining one long continuous chat, and getting to know you over time. I dislike using the word "friend" there, but it's the best way to convey the UX in a few words. AI is a tool, always has been, always will be. Any kind of friendly personality on top is just synthetic. In our testing, the UX of Maple Agent is really powerful for what it does. Think about the many short AI chats you have in your favorite app, whether it's looking up a historical fact or asking advice about a topic. With Maple Agent, those all go away in favor of the long-running chat with the friendly agent. It's like you have your own personal assistant who knows you so well and can look up anything for you. When I ask AI certain questions, I want to ask an expert who already understands my situation so I'm not repeating myself for the 100th time. That's the amazing value the personal agent brings to the table. We still see great utility for a personal agent like the "Maple Agent". Thousands of people on the waiting list, hoping to get their hands on it, agree that the concept is worth exploring and trying out. We were constrained in launching it due to a few circumstances, one of them being access to the scale of compute needed to power it. We have a clear path laid out for how to get there, but today is not the day to execute on that. It will be in the near future. Instead we have a different agent ready to go that we think is also incredible. We now have an agentic harness inside of the Maple Research app. This thing is a powerhouse. It even builds and publishes its own software releases. The agent in Maple Research works with your local filesystem, speaks to the largest open models running in TEEs, utilizes local models for certain tasks, is compatible with MCP tools, has an API for connecting to anything you need, and also supports the ACP protocol, which means it can be extended in the future to speak to other tools like Claude Code, Codex, and local models running on your own hardware. A big unlock for us was the Goose Development Kit, which powers the core of our agent harness. More on that to come as we publish articles and documentation later about the agent. The agent inside Maple Research doesn't have a name. At least not yet, not sure if it ever will. For now we call it "Chat Mode" and "Agent Mode". Think of this as the workhorse, the truck, the heavy lifter. Our other "Agent", the phone app, is your sidekick in your pocket, ready to help with quick things and ongoing conversations about life. I am incredibly excited about the Maple Research Agent. While I'm already seeing great results using it for internal work items, I'm especially thrilled about the personal health and wellness work it's doing for me. I know there are plenty of apps out there for compiling wellness data, but I'm having it build a tool tailored specifically for what I need, without the extra fluff. And none of my health data is being donated to the closed AI labs or sent to advertisers. I know that the AI logic is not being silently adjusted to fit the whims of a large corporation that has paid for product placement. It's me, state of the art AI, and my data. That's how I want it. Maple's new agent makes that possible. We can't wait for you to try it out. If you want early access, comment here, email us, reach out in some way. To those on the other agent waitlist, you're already in the queue. Thanks for reading this lengthy update. :)
0:49

Maple is preparing for the release of a co-working agent. You install it locally and it works with your files, whether it's office work or building websites and apps. It's a turnkey solution, as easy as Claude Code, that keeps your data secure and private, no data sharing with closed AI labs. This is THE sovereign AI app for individuals and businesses who want powerful AI while retaining ownership of their information. Why build an agent into the Maple app when other agents already exist? Easy, we want to give you control over your work. We don't have a business plan that incorporates making money off our users' data. In the age of AI, your information, whether it's personal or company trade secrets, is the single thing that differentiates you from everyone else. We all have access to AI that can build a professional website for selling shoes. But your strategy and network for how you sell shoes should not be shared with your competitors. Sovereignty is the path to protecting what makes you, you. Maple sits at the intersection of Usability and Sovereignty. Maple gives you the best tools that are both easy to use and maintain your data sovereignty. Sovereign for one, sovereign for all. It has been a journey to get here. We brought to market the very first personal chatbot with end-to-end encryption using TEEs in late 2024. Prior to that there were proofs of concept but no full product offerings. Every other AI chat product on the market handled your data in plain text, either selling you a service to get your data or asking you to trust that they won't snoop on you. Quickly people found Maple and latched onto its open-source code and verifiable encryption. We didn't stop there. You may remember earlier this year we teased a product called "Maple Agent" and opened up a waiting list. That product is a mobile app that acts as your AI "friend", maintaining one long continuous chat, and getting to know you over time. I dislike using the word "friend" there, but it's the best way to convey the UX in a few words. AI is a tool, always has been, always will be. Any kind of friendly personality on top is just synthetic. In our testing, the UX of Maple Agent is really powerful for what it does. Think about the many short AI chats you have in your favorite app, whether it's looking up a historical fact or asking advice about a topic. With Maple Agent, those all go away in favor of the long-running chat with the friendly agent. It's like you have your own personal assistant who knows you so well and can look up anything for you. When I ask AI certain questions, I want to ask an expert who already understands my situation so I'm not repeating myself for the 100th time. That's the amazing value the personal agent brings to the table. We still see great utility for a personal agent like the "Maple Agent". Thousands of people on the waiting list, hoping to get their hands on it, agree that the concept is worth exploring and trying out. We were constrained in launching it due to a few circumstances, one of them being access to the scale of compute needed to power it. We have a clear path laid out for how to get there, but today is not the day to execute on that. It will be in the near future. Instead we have a different agent ready to go that we think is also incredible. We now have an agentic harness inside of the Maple Research app. This thing is a powerhouse. It even builds and publishes its own software releases. The agent in Maple Research works with your local filesystem, speaks to the largest open models running in TEEs, utilizes local models for certain tasks, is compatible with MCP tools, has an API for connecting to anything you need, and also supports the ACP protocol, which means it can be extended in the future to speak to other tools like Claude Code, Codex, and local models running on your own hardware. A big unlock for us was the Goose Development Kit, which powers the core of our agent harness. More on that to come as we publish articles and documentation later about the agent. The agent inside Maple Research doesn't have a name. At least not yet, not sure if it ever will. For now we call it "Chat Mode" and "Agent Mode". Think of this as the workhorse, the truck, the heavy lifter. Our other "Agent", the phone app, is your sidekick in your pocket, ready to help with quick things and ongoing conversations about life. I am incredibly excited about the Maple Research Agent. While I'm already seeing great results using it for internal work items, I'm especially thrilled about the personal health and wellness work it's doing for me. I know there are plenty of apps out there for compiling wellness data, but I'm having it build a tool tailored specifically for what I need, without the extra fluff. And none of my health data is being donated to the closed AI labs or sent to advertisers. I know that the AI logic is not being silently adjusted to fit the whims of a large corporation that has paid for product placement. It's me, state of the art AI, and my data. That's how I want it. Maple's new agent makes that possible. We can't wait for you to try it out. If you want early access, comment here, email us, reach out in some way. To those on the other agent waitlist, you're already in the queue. Thanks for reading this lengthy update. :)

Mark

29,937 次观看 • 10 天前

Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.
23:28

Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.

Grant Smith Ellis

27,665 次观看 • 1 年前

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:
31:35

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:

Mike

14,195 次观看 • 8 个月前

I have a story about addiction from a different perspective. A story where recovery was not possible. I have one sibling. An older brother. Everyone loved him. It was easy to love him. He died 10 years ago. It was a horrible death that took him 20 years to accomplish, dragging everyone who loved him along the way. He was an amazing musician. He didn't read music. No lessons. Hand him any instrument, and he can play it. He had a big heart. He was easily the funniest person I've ever known. And he is the only other human being who speaks fluent movie-script-quotes with precision and skill. But alcohol took over in his mid-20s. Bam Margera is just 2 years younger than my brother. He reminds me of my brother *so* much. Everything Bam and his family went through with his addiction is what my brother and family went through. My brother left high school because he was a gifted songwriter and musician. Bam left because he was a gifted skater. My brother was really into editing and producing films, and so is Bam. When Ryan Dunn died, and Bam went off the deep end, I was watching my brother do the same thing every time a strong emotion hit him, and he simply didn't know what to do with it. My brother was so beautiful on the outside, yet unrecognizable at the end. I can not tell you how many times my brother would go missing. Hundreds of times. He would sometimes go missing for up to a week. Then we'd get a call from the police or a hospital. Usually, the hospital would be first because he'd be near death. Then they would keep him on a 5150 at a mental health facility. Then he would come home. One time, he chased me with a knife in his hand, screaming he was going to kill me as I was running out of my parents' home on a cordless phone dialing 911. I found a fifth of vodka in his room and poured it down the drain. He went looking for it 20 minutes later, and it was empty...and I told him I poured it out. When I was 24 years old, I landed my first job that came with an office. My name was outside of it. I was stoked. I worked my ass off to get there. But there was no happiness at that time in my life. I remember my father calling me at work, sitting in that office, to say he was coming to pick me up because he knew where my brother, who had been missing for 4 days, was. The credit card he stole from my mother showed he was at a little oceanfront motel 10 minutes away. And I remember thinking to myself on the way over there...I have to open the motel room door. I can't let my dad see him hanging. It will destroy his life. I told my dad to wait about 10 feet to my left, and I opened the door, and there was my brother fashioning a sheet into a noose. Another time he went missing, and they found him on the roof of a building with the inside of his arms slashed from elbow to wrist, just lying in a pool of blood. Dark shit. Both of the insides of his arms were mutilated from being sliced open so many times. At least 30, if not more. He stopped wearing short-sleeved shirts in public about 10 years before he died. He got to the point of seizures when he withdrew and had alcohol-related dementia for the last 3 years of his life, which would come and go. Then one day, after 2 decades, he called my parents and said something was wrong. My parents went over to his place, ended up calling 911, the ambulance got there, and he started walking outside with assistance from paramedics and collapsed. In front of my parents. He was rushed to the hospital. I had not seen my brother for the last 9 years of his life. He disowned me. Because he felt he had to. He killed my dog when he got drunk 9 years before he died. No one knows if he meant to or not, he was so wasted. He couldn't face me after that. So he disowned me. And a piece of my heart died the day he did it. I talked to my parents right before they left to see what was wrong that day. The last thing I said to my dad was, "Do not let him die without me having an opportunity to say goodbye." My dad called me from the er 2 hours later and said, "You should come over now. He won't know you're here." When I got there, I was shocked at what I saw. He wasn't the right color. He was in a coma. Severe internal bleeding. On life support. It was jarring even after seeing him in a much similar state hundreds of times for such a long time. He was taken to the ICU 3 hours later, where they would transfuse blood by the bag damn near constantly, and it just shot out of his nose. It was bloody. A lot of blood. After about 6 hours, I told my parents to go home and get some rest. I would stay with him. And I talked to him like he was right there. Like one of the hundreds of pillow-fort slumber parties we had as kids. Like no time had passed, and his addiction never existed. I showed him pictures of my life over the past decade on my phone...just like he was there. But he wasn't there. And after 3 hours and extensive talks with several doctors and specialists, I had to make the decision to remove his life support. After my parents returned and said goodbye, I told them to wait out in the hall until he passed because I could not allow them to have the memory of him dying, and I returned to my brother's side, and said what I needed to say, bawling my heart out. I told them to turn off the machines, and I held him in my arms as he died. It took just over 7 minutes. And I just held him. I had Nine Inch Nails playing for him. One of his favorites thanks to Pretty Hate Machine. He was a fan for life after that. He was my best friend. But he was also someone I had to protect myself from if he was intoxicated. This is the end that usually becomes a reality for addicts and their families. Then there's someone like Bam Margera. He went to the same place my brother went to in his head. And he came back. Bam is one of the greatest comebacks ever and a story of recovery worth knowing. I see YouTube shorts of Bam skating again every day, and I'm so moved that I just sit here and cry. You can see his personality is back. You have no idea how rare that is. Their personality shows very little while they're in their addiction. Recovery stories are incredibly personal to so many people, including those who have gone through addiction with an addict because they love them so much...they'd see anything they had to see and endure anything they have to endure just to be there with them at their lowest point. Addicts are not monsters. The stuff they use to numb the pain they do not understand is the real monster. And when you put enough of that into a human being, they do things they would *never* do without it. People are not pure. We are more complex than that. We are good and bad. Light and dark. Right and wrong. Chaotic and serene. You will find that the answer to every question you have about life is usually "both" for a reason. Because one can not exist without the other. With recovery stories like Hunter Biden's and Bam Margera's out in the ether, more people will be less ignorant as to how this disease plays out, and that will do nothing but good for so many families struggling with this issue. Addiction isn't just for the addict. Addiction is for everyone who loves them, as well. It's just a different perspective of hell. So listen to recovery stories with renewed respect because most addicts end up the way it ended for the only sibling I'll ever have.
2:04

I have a story about addiction from a different perspective. A story where recovery was not possible. I have one sibling. An older brother. Everyone loved him. It was easy to love him. He died 10 years ago. It was a horrible death that took him 20 years to accomplish, dragging everyone who loved him along the way. He was an amazing musician. He didn't read music. No lessons. Hand him any instrument, and he can play it. He had a big heart. He was easily the funniest person I've ever known. And he is the only other human being who speaks fluent movie-script-quotes with precision and skill. But alcohol took over in his mid-20s. Bam Margera is just 2 years younger than my brother. He reminds me of my brother *so* much. Everything Bam and his family went through with his addiction is what my brother and family went through. My brother left high school because he was a gifted songwriter and musician. Bam left because he was a gifted skater. My brother was really into editing and producing films, and so is Bam. When Ryan Dunn died, and Bam went off the deep end, I was watching my brother do the same thing every time a strong emotion hit him, and he simply didn't know what to do with it. My brother was so beautiful on the outside, yet unrecognizable at the end. I can not tell you how many times my brother would go missing. Hundreds of times. He would sometimes go missing for up to a week. Then we'd get a call from the police or a hospital. Usually, the hospital would be first because he'd be near death. Then they would keep him on a 5150 at a mental health facility. Then he would come home. One time, he chased me with a knife in his hand, screaming he was going to kill me as I was running out of my parents' home on a cordless phone dialing 911. I found a fifth of vodka in his room and poured it down the drain. He went looking for it 20 minutes later, and it was empty...and I told him I poured it out. When I was 24 years old, I landed my first job that came with an office. My name was outside of it. I was stoked. I worked my ass off to get there. But there was no happiness at that time in my life. I remember my father calling me at work, sitting in that office, to say he was coming to pick me up because he knew where my brother, who had been missing for 4 days, was. The credit card he stole from my mother showed he was at a little oceanfront motel 10 minutes away. And I remember thinking to myself on the way over there...I have to open the motel room door. I can't let my dad see him hanging. It will destroy his life. I told my dad to wait about 10 feet to my left, and I opened the door, and there was my brother fashioning a sheet into a noose. Another time he went missing, and they found him on the roof of a building with the inside of his arms slashed from elbow to wrist, just lying in a pool of blood. Dark shit. Both of the insides of his arms were mutilated from being sliced open so many times. At least 30, if not more. He stopped wearing short-sleeved shirts in public about 10 years before he died. He got to the point of seizures when he withdrew and had alcohol-related dementia for the last 3 years of his life, which would come and go. Then one day, after 2 decades, he called my parents and said something was wrong. My parents went over to his place, ended up calling 911, the ambulance got there, and he started walking outside with assistance from paramedics and collapsed. In front of my parents. He was rushed to the hospital. I had not seen my brother for the last 9 years of his life. He disowned me. Because he felt he had to. He killed my dog when he got drunk 9 years before he died. No one knows if he meant to or not, he was so wasted. He couldn't face me after that. So he disowned me. And a piece of my heart died the day he did it. I talked to my parents right before they left to see what was wrong that day. The last thing I said to my dad was, "Do not let him die without me having an opportunity to say goodbye." My dad called me from the er 2 hours later and said, "You should come over now. He won't know you're here." When I got there, I was shocked at what I saw. He wasn't the right color. He was in a coma. Severe internal bleeding. On life support. It was jarring even after seeing him in a much similar state hundreds of times for such a long time. He was taken to the ICU 3 hours later, where they would transfuse blood by the bag damn near constantly, and it just shot out of his nose. It was bloody. A lot of blood. After about 6 hours, I told my parents to go home and get some rest. I would stay with him. And I talked to him like he was right there. Like one of the hundreds of pillow-fort slumber parties we had as kids. Like no time had passed, and his addiction never existed. I showed him pictures of my life over the past decade on my phone...just like he was there. But he wasn't there. And after 3 hours and extensive talks with several doctors and specialists, I had to make the decision to remove his life support. After my parents returned and said goodbye, I told them to wait out in the hall until he passed because I could not allow them to have the memory of him dying, and I returned to my brother's side, and said what I needed to say, bawling my heart out. I told them to turn off the machines, and I held him in my arms as he died. It took just over 7 minutes. And I just held him. I had Nine Inch Nails playing for him. One of his favorites thanks to Pretty Hate Machine. He was a fan for life after that. He was my best friend. But he was also someone I had to protect myself from if he was intoxicated. This is the end that usually becomes a reality for addicts and their families. Then there's someone like Bam Margera. He went to the same place my brother went to in his head. And he came back. Bam is one of the greatest comebacks ever and a story of recovery worth knowing. I see YouTube shorts of Bam skating again every day, and I'm so moved that I just sit here and cry. You can see his personality is back. You have no idea how rare that is. Their personality shows very little while they're in their addiction. Recovery stories are incredibly personal to so many people, including those who have gone through addiction with an addict because they love them so much...they'd see anything they had to see and endure anything they have to endure just to be there with them at their lowest point. Addicts are not monsters. The stuff they use to numb the pain they do not understand is the real monster. And when you put enough of that into a human being, they do things they would *never* do without it. People are not pure. We are more complex than that. We are good and bad. Light and dark. Right and wrong. Chaotic and serene. You will find that the answer to every question you have about life is usually "both" for a reason. Because one can not exist without the other. With recovery stories like Hunter Biden's and Bam Margera's out in the ether, more people will be less ignorant as to how this disease plays out, and that will do nothing but good for so many families struggling with this issue. Addiction isn't just for the addict. Addiction is for everyone who loves them, as well. It's just a different perspective of hell. So listen to recovery stories with renewed respect because most addicts end up the way it ended for the only sibling I'll ever have.

Nicole Minét

407,918 次观看 • 1 个月前

If you want to understand the Joe FlipperHead, Olivia Lamb, Karen Read and Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney chaos; FlipperHead (a guy named Nick from Philly) got confirmation Aidan recorded Karen Read. Then the recordings leaked. Basically, Olivia works for Aidan as a paralegal, now, but Olivia used to be close to Karen in the past (and Olivia and FlipperHead used to be close, as well, on a personal level). FlipperHead, for his part, is loyal to Olivia and Karen but FlipperHead doesn't like Aidan (much like other people close to Karen). Aidan, in turn, seems to be using Olivia to discredit Flipperhead (potentially without Olivia's permission). VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: [Opening remarks on social media and focus] Grant: [Lindsey Gaetani's] been talking about on social media, but let's get to that second. What I wanna start with—let me find the tab—I wanna start with the developments related to Aidan Kearney and Karen Read, okay? So we're gonna jump right into that, and what I have here is the actual discussion. Now, if you go on my X, you will be able to see the entire transcript. I'm gonna try to scroll with you as the video plays. It's a lot, okay? And then we're gonna do part two as well. So eventually, we're gonna hit part two of the transcript. I'm gonna pause, and we're gonna go to the second video. Now, this discussion—the reason why I wanna go over this—is I was listening to it, and I was like, "Wait a minute, I speak this language that they're all talking. I understand sort of the subtext of all of this, but they weren't really talking on the surface." It's a conversation between somebody named Chris, who Aidan Kearney calls a "koala," somebody named Joe Flipperhead—who's actually named Nick from Philadelphia, who was apparently close to a woman named Olivia Lamb, who is gonna come up in this as well. Now, Olivia Lamb did a lot of social media posts about the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial on her profile on Twitter under Olivia. Now, then Olivia started—in a public announcement—saying that she started working for Aidan Kearney. And what you're gonna hear in this conversation is there's also a woman named—who else? There's a woman who's Australian that Aidan also knows named Lily. She introduces herself in the beginning, and then she's kind of the moderator-mediator. And then there's another woman that pops up in the middle named Erika Walsh. She only speaks two or three times. She's one of Turtle Boy's moderators. She interjects at two random times: one, when someone starts talking about Meredith; and two, when Aidan starts saying how bad the content of the conversation in question—that was allegedly recorded and sent to Karen Read, between Aidan and Karen—is for Karen. And then there's a third unknown voice that pops up at the end, who sounds like—it's a female, she's American. I don't know her voice, but it sounds like she's very close to Joe Flipperhead, this guy Nick. And she uses this phrase about Nick "leaving Olivia's ass" in a way that makes me think maybe this girl is close to Nick, and like, she got close to him after Olivia and Nick separated. Now you might say to yourself, "Oh dear God, why—first of all, Grant, why do you know all this?" These people post a lot; I don't know. Tracking this thing is something I've been doing for a while. So it's not like I went into it because I wanted to know who the hell Joe Flipperhead was, or Olivia Lamb was. They entered into a world that I knew a lot about because they were trying to cover this case. And so inevitably, I just had them on my radar, and when things pop up like this, I just connect the dots. [Background on Olivia Lamb] In terms of Olivia though—so she, I don't know. There was this weird situation, I think, at the end of trial one for Karen Read. So somewhere in—I don't know—late 2024, summer 2024 or so. Weird situation where Olivia kind of then, for a few months, wasn't around as much, or she was, but not as much. And then she came back around for Aidan and said she was working on his team or something. Now, Olivia—I don't think Olivia Lamb's necessarily a bad person. I think whoever she is, and whatever she's doing, is very intelligent. But if you kind of look into that family, her mom is named Christina Lamb, and her mom does boutique consulting for law firms. I think her mom might be a lawyer, but she doesn't really—I think the way that she does consulting is more like tactically how lawyers should think about how a case is presented in the public, et cetera, stuff like that. And you have to tie this into this Elizabeth Dombrowski person out of New York that runs this Good Counsel Legal Services that proclaimed that Jen Altman and whoever else were paralegals for Aidan. You see what I'm saying? And what I think Olivia's role is—I think she just does PR. She does some paralegal work clearly, but I think she's mostly like a PR specialist. But I think why there's so much obfuscation—and I'm giving you all this background, because the conversation you're about to hear makes no sense if you don't know all this background. The context there, I think, is that—I think Olivia is a person. Like, I think she is real. But I think the reason why there's so many smoke and mirrors is that she's a conduit for implausible deniability. In the world of public relations—especially this kind of public relations—is incredibly important. So I think she's like a conduit for more entrenched public relations interests, which—okay, fine. I don't see that as per se evil. I'm a critical theorist. So I study propaganda. So like, if you are doing anything that emerged from Edward Bernays's systemic weaponization of his uncle Sigmund Freud's study of the mass psychology of the mind—if you do any of that—you're inevitably gonna catch my attention. Not because I necessarily per se think it's evil, but because that's my wheelhouse. Like, I reconstruct public relations and then I figure out what's driving that. Okay. So she—Olivia—got on my radar because of that, not necessarily because she's evil. Same, because I never really saw it. Now maybe some of the witnesses in the trial would think differently, but that's not my role here. I am like—I'm an objective observer. And um, Olivia was never really cruel. Like she just does PR. So I wouldn't necessarily say like everything she did was like right. But if you look at her style, it's not polemical. It's not—it's mostly analytical. Okay. So that's not an aphoristic or manipulative or evil person really. That's a PR specialist. And this guy, Nick—very similar, Joe Flipperhead. Okay. If you look at his posts—like, I wouldn't exactly say he's a cruel human being, you know, like he memes and stuff. Okay. He's kind of like Dave Cullinane a little bit, but he's just like a human. And you can hear it in this conversation. Like Joe is the one who's really holding Aidan accountable. Joe Flipperhead—whose name is Nick—he's from Philly. And um, I noticed 'cause I watched the stream of them one time—I don't know—he seems all right. I don't have anything against him or Olivia. In fact, I think they did a damn good job, at least Joe. Because what you'll also see here is there's another subtext. What this conversation is about is an allegation that Aidan Kearney sent a recorded conversation to Karen Read—a conversation with her—and then someone—nobody knows who—sent the recording to Karen's lawyers, David Yannetti and Alan Jackson. Now, what's weird about this is that there's also—and I don't like, whatever, I guess it is what it is—but the host, one of the hosts, Chris, this Australian guy—he might be a New Zealander, I don't know. But anyway, he starts saying directly to Aidan, "Listen Aidan, you went to lunch with Meredith—this Turtle Boy's former girlfriend—but her name is Meredith O'Neill (Meredith O). She's a person; she has an existence outside of Aidan Kearney and whether—a lot of people, I think, rightfully so, will take issue with some of the things Meredith has posted. But that's for her soul to deal with. She has to reckon with it, reflect on it, whatever the fuck, okay? That's separate from; she exists outside of the fact that she used to date Aidan Kearney." And I just wanna make that as a blanket point that like Aidan Kearney does not own someone's soul because they had some connection to him at any point in time. These people are independent people who have their own lives. So Meredith O'Neill is her name. And Meredith—like, clearly something happened between Aidan and Meredith because over the past few weeks—like, first of all, there's some more subtext to this, which is Aidan's paralegal team before Olivia Lamb came on was Courtney Healy and this woman named Tina Murray. Tina Murray —I didn't even know THE NAME until two weeks ago—but I had seen her before because she had silver hair when she was in court one time. I had no idea who it was, but she was sitting next to Courtney Healy. Now, way back when Aidan Kearney was incarcerated in late 2023, early 2024—apparently these two women, Courtney Healy and Tina Murray, were very close to Aidan Kearney. Someone had his logins, allegedly. They were helping like post for him while he was in jail, et cetera. Now, there's time back to that as well. Jen Altman is a key figure in all of this. And the reason why is that Jen Altman was the reason that Aidan Kearney and Karen Read got hooked up initially through Natalie Wiweke-Bershneider or whatever her name is. Jen Altman was also among this weird group of people. It was Tina Murray, Courtney Healy, Jen Altman, I think, and maybe just them three, who had access to Aidan in jail on a paralegal list. And at one point, Tim Bradl, Aidan's lawyer, wrote down that Jen Altman was a lawyer. She got so mad that she messaged Bradl, and then those messages got leaked. So there's all this discontent brewing within Aidan Kearney's kind of like organization, if you wanna call it. I'd call it more like a—yeah, it's like a hierarchy. And like he's at the—it's like a politician almost, but he's not a politician. You have like a top person at the top, and then you have all these staffers, and you have to manage the staffers. That's what he's dealing with. And he's gotta keep everybody like in line because like at one person breaks—especially a key—all right, two things. One, there's a reason you compartmentalize information, and you're not gonna be able to get in these type of operations because nobody needs to know everything. If you did that, then everyone would be a weak link. The problem is though, in order to compartmentalize in a bureaucracy or a schema like this, you have to have some people who actually know what's going on. Those people are liabilities. They're weak links. If you have someone who is too close and they know how you compartmentalized information, they'll see the full picture. They're the weak link. That's Courtney Healy, Tina Murray, Jen Altman, Meredith, Lindsey a little bit. These people are the weak links for Aidan because they see the full picture, whether they are aligned with him, don't like him, etc. etc. It's just they're the biggest weaknesses for him because they see the full picture. That's why he tries to either control them—in my opinion—or destroy them. But Aidan's in a real tough spot here because you can't run that playbook on Karen Read. Clearly, these people are incredibly loyal to her. Flipperhead, Olivia, etc. They may have been helping Aidan, but they're incredibly loyal to Karen. Now, what I've always suspected is that the whole point of charging Aidan Kearney was—one, he did bad things to the witnesses in the retrial, Lindsey Gaetani. He did bad things allegedly. Okay, the grand jury indicted him. But I think Brian Tully and the MSP unit that investigated Aidan—they were more interested in two different goals. Okay, they had parallel objectives beyond just the criminal proceeding. One: get information about who the target of the federal probe was after August of 2023. And it was Tully's unit and Matthew Farwell related to the Sandra Birchmore murder coverup. Number two: I think Tully wanted—and Kate Peter and Marty Keach wanted—Aidan Kearney and Michael Morrissey wanted Aidan Kearney to flip on Karen Read. It was a pressure tactic. It was always just a pressure tactic. That's what I fully believe. Now, I'm not saying he didn't do bad things. I just believe in the mind of the DA—these people were using pressure tactics to get Aidan Kearney in a tactical position where he would flip. Why do I think this? Well, a few things. One: in the fall of 2023, between like August and November, Aidan Kearney didn't need an intermediary with Karen Read. Natalie was out of the picture, although I'm suspect, because there's this new text from Natalie from August saying that like she was still loyal to Karen Read—although ostensibly they had a falling out in June of 2023 because Natalie called Karen late at night and she was upset about it. I always thought that was BS. Now I know why it was BS because there's also a March 24 message about like Joe Warren and Natalie wanting to go to court. I just have this suspicion that Natalie was never really like against Karen. What Natalie was doing was using Turtle Boy as leverage with Karen's permission—using it's called a limited hangout. Limited information about Turtle Boy's culpability for witness intimidation to the MSP so that the MSP would trust Natalie—so that Natalie could relay information back to Karen about the ongoing investigation of Karen and Aidan for conspiracy under 2747 and witness intimidation under 26813B. Now they did try to eventually indict Karen on that in March of 2024 at No True Bill, but they can do it again. They got more evidence—the state in May of 2024 about Aidan saying in Facebook messages that one Karen told him not to go to Lindsey Gaetani's apartment on December 23rd, 2023, and then some other stuff—basically where Aidan was implying that someone told him to run Jen McCabe's license plates. Who would that be? Karen Read. He didn't say it but he implied it to Jenna Rocco and Amy D'Angelis and whoever else was in that internal chat that got leaked. So I really believe that the reason why Aidan Kearney was such a liability to Karen Read—and why she was saying it out loud—is that Karen Read always saw Aidan Kearney as vulnerable to flip. Why? Because Brian Tully did his homework—whatever his motives were—and he found a few things. And I think that him and Kate Peter profiled Aidan Kearney. That's why Kate Peter had some role in this—because they thought Kate Peter should really like Aidan in a lot of ways because he used to be colleagues. Two: I think the state police thought she saw his psyche—Aidan's psyche—and could help them profile him. Three: I think Kate Peter is very hard into the world, and Tully and those other people in the unit could say like, "Yeah, we're worried about Birchmore; we got to do damage control here. Nothing's really wrong with the O'Keefe death investigation," and just—they're going to find out about Birchmore—and Kate would go along with it. That's my opinion. But Tully gets this video of Aidan that he had sent to Lindsey—and it's out there on the internet. I don't want to play the content; it's sad. But this is why I think this is what was in the prosecutor's mind when they were going—and the MSP's mind—when they were going after Kearney. Yes, he did bad things—especially to people that knew the DA and Tully like McCabe, Jen McCabe, etc. But also Aidan was an Achilles heel for Karen. Think about MSP, right? And the way we're analyzing Aidan's weaknesses via weak links in the compartmentalization chain. Okay, flip it around and think about MSP thinking about Karen. What's a weak link in her compartmentalization chain? Aidan Kearney. Now, in that regard, Aidan Kearney—if he flips on Karen Read—guarantees a conviction for Karen Read for the state, even if they can't get her on John's death. It was a backup plan. Second to that, I think though—it's a dynamic situation—and that something must have fucking happened recently. Okay, and I've long thought—and we'll read Lindsey's post on this later because she was talking about it on Twitter overnight, and I was reading it this morning, and it made me think about this—I've long suspected that Kate Peter made a deal with Aidan Kearney in the past like 6-8 months. And the deal was involving the Norfolk DA and the people prosecuting Kearney, and the goal was to get Kearney to flip. And I also think Kate wants Kearney in the Netflix documentary that she's working on with Gretchen and Sandpaper—which, they don't really understand. Like, bro, you think you're getting my footage and me if you're going to enable Kate Peter and try to portray her as the Charlotte of the internet? What planet are you on? No. No, the answer is no. But anyway, I really believe that this deal was made because why else—and I think Karen found out about it—because why else would Karen—[we're going to—the conversation is going to clarify all this]—why else would Karen on Friday authorize Joe Flipperhead to release information that confirms that Aidan recorded Karen. Now, why Karen is not going to do this if she didn't hear the fucking recording? She's not a moron. She's a tactical genius. I'm telling you—I don't necessarily agree with all the things she's done. I personally think she's responsible for John's death, but like—she's a fucking tactical genius. And you have to understand in some sense—like she wouldn't do this unless it's real. Like someone sent her that recording, and I don't believe Aidan Kearney sent it to intermediaries because if Meredith is the closest person to him—or was—in the world, and he's going to lunch with her and will only play it for her allegedly—okay, there's no way in hell that he would just send it to people. I believe—whether through a fake account or otherwise—Aidan Kearney sent that to Karen's lawyers. That's just my opinion. I think there's strong reason for him to do it. It's a message. Okay. As a result, I think Karen Read doing this had to sense that this was the moment—like this was the moment where the decision was going to be made about whether or not he cooperated. And now is Aidan's kind of like signal flare that I'm thinking—from Karen Read's perspective—Aidan sending that recording to Jackson and Yannetti is a signal flare that if she doesn't act now, he's making the choice to flip on her. Okay, well, what did she just do? She in essence just put him in the worst position possible because he had to be able to—him and Kate Peter—had to sell the narrative in public that—and this is why I was on Lindsey's profile earlier. Let me see if I can bring that up—him and Kate Peter had to sell the narrative in public that Karen was worse than Aidan Kearney. All right, so let's take a look at Lindsey Gaetani's post here. Let's read this first and then let's look at the post from Kate Peter. So Kate Peter post last night: "Karen Read has killed a man before and to my knowledge, Aidan Kearney has yet to do anything like that. Take that as you will. Regardless, they're both giant DBAGs, but you can decide who is worse. My vote is Karen Read." That's Kate Peter—one of the closest people in the world right now to Brian Tully, Michael Morrissey, and the decision makers who were initially prosecuting Kearney—telling you in plain sight what's going on. So let's read Lindsey's post: "Yes, we already know a deal was made a long time ago. How cute of Kate trying to win over the turtle riders after she pretended she was still trying to put him in jail the past several months. Does anyone of the turtle riders know who Christine Gagne is? I have no idea who that is. Does anyone know who that is? That's the woman Kate Peter blamed for wiretapping charges with TB and the person she blamed when I asked her where her deleted Google Drive went with the state's evidence. Why would Kate blame this woman for deleting evidence when this woman's name was never mentioned during the grand jury or in a single email or police report? Interesting." Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. So we know Kate Peter was providing evidence to the grand jury. We know that from the recently released court documents and discovery in the Kearney criminal case. Why was—why is Kate Peter blaming someone? Who is Christine Gagne, who—why is Kate blaming her when Kate was the one who was—there's evidence that Kate was directly providing this material to Tully, who was taking it to the grand jury. And by the way, I want people to understand: my anger here is not because Aidan Kearney was prosecuted. I think he should be held accountable. My anger here is because the people prosecuting him had ulterior motives. Lindsey Gaetani didn't have an ulterior motive. She was victimized. She was an unwitting pawn in this proxy war between Karen and the DOJ—Karen and the DOJ and Aidan on one side, and the Norfolk DA and the MSP unit on the other. But instead of trying to prosecute Aidan, it was all tactical. And nobody was told—that's the worst part. And that's why I'm so upset about all of this, because it was a disgrace. It was a disgrace to the process. If you're going to hold someone accountable, do it. You don't use it as leverage to get someone else. And if you're going to do that, be open with the people who are victimized. Otherwise, you are going to build resentment. Why would you ever want to be in a situation where you have to handle a victim? Because if they were made aware of what was actually going on, they would be upset. That is a very prime example—on its face example—that something is very wrong. Not because Aidan Kearney is absolved of liability or because I think he did nothing wrong. Absolutely not. No. Other way around. But because that kind of behavior—given impunity basically, because there's a larger fish—it's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, not because the prosecution exists. In my opinion, a grand jury indicted him; he should be prosecuted. That's what happens when indictments get handed up. But because the aim of the prosecution was not to seek justice—it was to get—it was to pressure Kearney to flip on Karen Read. [Transition to the conversation] Now, to bring this all back—because we got to go—I want to look at this conversation here. I want to actually listen to this chat a minute. I'm going to explicate; I'm going to try to tell you what happens. "Hi, Bunny Towel. Hi, Christina. No haircut. But guess if you want to send donations—today's a good day for that. We got to get Towel to the end of the month. Towel's not going to be able to move very much for the next few days. So I could use some food if you want to send me some gift cards. I just need some help. All right. I'm a little towel. I got a lot going on. And anyway, so I'll—I'm sitting in my chair. That's as much as I can do right now. I can talk; my brain works. I can sit in my chair. I'm not doing anything else, but I should eat at some point. Anyway, so we're going to listen to this conversation because you have to think of all that background when you're analyzing. Why right now? Okay, why would Karen Read tactically right now burn Aidan Kearney? Aidan Kearney supporters are very loyal, but a lot of Aidan Kearney's base are becoming alienated because either they care more about Karen Read than Aidan Kearney or because Aidan Kearney's been on this weird tear recently where he like been attacking middle-aged women who are most of his fans. All right. Most of his fans are middle-aged women. And he goes after people's looks like whatever. So there's already this alienation happening. I believe the only reason Karen Read does this right now is because what it did—and what it's doing to Aidan Kearney—is it's decimating his support. Okay. Well, why are you decimating his support? Why are you forcing people to pick sides? Why would you do that right now? Either [he] cooperated or he's about to. All right. Now Karen Read—if she was—here's my read of this—if Karen Read was just going to cooperate, she wouldn't have done this this way. Okay. I'm sorry. It would have been completely different. I don't believe that she would have done it this way. I believe she would have done it a completely different way. And the reason why I believe that—we're going to read the text from Karen before we start listening to this. By the way, you can see I have the video here for you. What happened? By the way, just to give you a little more context. So this X Spaces that we're going to listen to—I have the full 37-minute X Space. This X Space, okay—it was before the text messages from Karen to Joe Flipperhead got released. So what you have to realize is these texts you're seeing on the screen got released because of this conversation. You're going to hear Joe Flipperhead say it.
46:38

If you want to understand the Joe FlipperHead, Olivia Lamb, Karen Read and Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney chaos; FlipperHead (a guy named Nick from Philly) got confirmation Aidan recorded Karen Read. Then the recordings leaked. Basically, Olivia works for Aidan as a paralegal, now, but Olivia used to be close to Karen in the past (and Olivia and FlipperHead used to be close, as well, on a personal level). FlipperHead, for his part, is loyal to Olivia and Karen but FlipperHead doesn't like Aidan (much like other people close to Karen). Aidan, in turn, seems to be using Olivia to discredit Flipperhead (potentially without Olivia's permission). VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: [Opening remarks on social media and focus] Grant: [Lindsey Gaetani's] been talking about on social media, but let's get to that second. What I wanna start with—let me find the tab—I wanna start with the developments related to Aidan Kearney and Karen Read, okay? So we're gonna jump right into that, and what I have here is the actual discussion. Now, if you go on my X, you will be able to see the entire transcript. I'm gonna try to scroll with you as the video plays. It's a lot, okay? And then we're gonna do part two as well. So eventually, we're gonna hit part two of the transcript. I'm gonna pause, and we're gonna go to the second video. Now, this discussion—the reason why I wanna go over this—is I was listening to it, and I was like, "Wait a minute, I speak this language that they're all talking. I understand sort of the subtext of all of this, but they weren't really talking on the surface." It's a conversation between somebody named Chris, who Aidan Kearney calls a "koala," somebody named Joe Flipperhead—who's actually named Nick from Philadelphia, who was apparently close to a woman named Olivia Lamb, who is gonna come up in this as well. Now, Olivia Lamb did a lot of social media posts about the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial on her profile on Twitter under Olivia. Now, then Olivia started—in a public announcement—saying that she started working for Aidan Kearney. And what you're gonna hear in this conversation is there's also a woman named—who else? There's a woman who's Australian that Aidan also knows named Lily. She introduces herself in the beginning, and then she's kind of the moderator-mediator. And then there's another woman that pops up in the middle named Erika Walsh. She only speaks two or three times. She's one of Turtle Boy's moderators. She interjects at two random times: one, when someone starts talking about Meredith; and two, when Aidan starts saying how bad the content of the conversation in question—that was allegedly recorded and sent to Karen Read, between Aidan and Karen—is for Karen. And then there's a third unknown voice that pops up at the end, who sounds like—it's a female, she's American. I don't know her voice, but it sounds like she's very close to Joe Flipperhead, this guy Nick. And she uses this phrase about Nick "leaving Olivia's ass" in a way that makes me think maybe this girl is close to Nick, and like, she got close to him after Olivia and Nick separated. Now you might say to yourself, "Oh dear God, why—first of all, Grant, why do you know all this?" These people post a lot; I don't know. Tracking this thing is something I've been doing for a while. So it's not like I went into it because I wanted to know who the hell Joe Flipperhead was, or Olivia Lamb was. They entered into a world that I knew a lot about because they were trying to cover this case. And so inevitably, I just had them on my radar, and when things pop up like this, I just connect the dots. [Background on Olivia Lamb] In terms of Olivia though—so she, I don't know. There was this weird situation, I think, at the end of trial one for Karen Read. So somewhere in—I don't know—late 2024, summer 2024 or so. Weird situation where Olivia kind of then, for a few months, wasn't around as much, or she was, but not as much. And then she came back around for Aidan and said she was working on his team or something. Now, Olivia—I don't think Olivia Lamb's necessarily a bad person. I think whoever she is, and whatever she's doing, is very intelligent. But if you kind of look into that family, her mom is named Christina Lamb, and her mom does boutique consulting for law firms. I think her mom might be a lawyer, but she doesn't really—I think the way that she does consulting is more like tactically how lawyers should think about how a case is presented in the public, et cetera, stuff like that. And you have to tie this into this Elizabeth Dombrowski person out of New York that runs this Good Counsel Legal Services that proclaimed that Jen Altman and whoever else were paralegals for Aidan. You see what I'm saying? And what I think Olivia's role is—I think she just does PR. She does some paralegal work clearly, but I think she's mostly like a PR specialist. But I think why there's so much obfuscation—and I'm giving you all this background, because the conversation you're about to hear makes no sense if you don't know all this background. The context there, I think, is that—I think Olivia is a person. Like, I think she is real. But I think the reason why there's so many smoke and mirrors is that she's a conduit for implausible deniability. In the world of public relations—especially this kind of public relations—is incredibly important. So I think she's like a conduit for more entrenched public relations interests, which—okay, fine. I don't see that as per se evil. I'm a critical theorist. So I study propaganda. So like, if you are doing anything that emerged from Edward Bernays's systemic weaponization of his uncle Sigmund Freud's study of the mass psychology of the mind—if you do any of that—you're inevitably gonna catch my attention. Not because I necessarily per se think it's evil, but because that's my wheelhouse. Like, I reconstruct public relations and then I figure out what's driving that. Okay. So she—Olivia—got on my radar because of that, not necessarily because she's evil. Same, because I never really saw it. Now maybe some of the witnesses in the trial would think differently, but that's not my role here. I am like—I'm an objective observer. And um, Olivia was never really cruel. Like she just does PR. So I wouldn't necessarily say like everything she did was like right. But if you look at her style, it's not polemical. It's not—it's mostly analytical. Okay. So that's not an aphoristic or manipulative or evil person really. That's a PR specialist. And this guy, Nick—very similar, Joe Flipperhead. Okay. If you look at his posts—like, I wouldn't exactly say he's a cruel human being, you know, like he memes and stuff. Okay. He's kind of like Dave Cullinane a little bit, but he's just like a human. And you can hear it in this conversation. Like Joe is the one who's really holding Aidan accountable. Joe Flipperhead—whose name is Nick—he's from Philly. And um, I noticed 'cause I watched the stream of them one time—I don't know—he seems all right. I don't have anything against him or Olivia. In fact, I think they did a damn good job, at least Joe. Because what you'll also see here is there's another subtext. What this conversation is about is an allegation that Aidan Kearney sent a recorded conversation to Karen Read—a conversation with her—and then someone—nobody knows who—sent the recording to Karen's lawyers, David Yannetti and Alan Jackson. Now, what's weird about this is that there's also—and I don't like, whatever, I guess it is what it is—but the host, one of the hosts, Chris, this Australian guy—he might be a New Zealander, I don't know. But anyway, he starts saying directly to Aidan, "Listen Aidan, you went to lunch with Meredith—this Turtle Boy's former girlfriend—but her name is Meredith O'Neill (Meredith O). She's a person; she has an existence outside of Aidan Kearney and whether—a lot of people, I think, rightfully so, will take issue with some of the things Meredith has posted. But that's for her soul to deal with. She has to reckon with it, reflect on it, whatever the fuck, okay? That's separate from; she exists outside of the fact that she used to date Aidan Kearney." And I just wanna make that as a blanket point that like Aidan Kearney does not own someone's soul because they had some connection to him at any point in time. These people are independent people who have their own lives. So Meredith O'Neill is her name. And Meredith—like, clearly something happened between Aidan and Meredith because over the past few weeks—like, first of all, there's some more subtext to this, which is Aidan's paralegal team before Olivia Lamb came on was Courtney Healy and this woman named Tina Murray. Tina Murray —I didn't even know THE NAME until two weeks ago—but I had seen her before because she had silver hair when she was in court one time. I had no idea who it was, but she was sitting next to Courtney Healy. Now, way back when Aidan Kearney was incarcerated in late 2023, early 2024—apparently these two women, Courtney Healy and Tina Murray, were very close to Aidan Kearney. Someone had his logins, allegedly. They were helping like post for him while he was in jail, et cetera. Now, there's time back to that as well. Jen Altman is a key figure in all of this. And the reason why is that Jen Altman was the reason that Aidan Kearney and Karen Read got hooked up initially through Natalie Wiweke-Bershneider or whatever her name is. Jen Altman was also among this weird group of people. It was Tina Murray, Courtney Healy, Jen Altman, I think, and maybe just them three, who had access to Aidan in jail on a paralegal list. And at one point, Tim Bradl, Aidan's lawyer, wrote down that Jen Altman was a lawyer. She got so mad that she messaged Bradl, and then those messages got leaked. So there's all this discontent brewing within Aidan Kearney's kind of like organization, if you wanna call it. I'd call it more like a—yeah, it's like a hierarchy. And like he's at the—it's like a politician almost, but he's not a politician. You have like a top person at the top, and then you have all these staffers, and you have to manage the staffers. That's what he's dealing with. And he's gotta keep everybody like in line because like at one person breaks—especially a key—all right, two things. One, there's a reason you compartmentalize information, and you're not gonna be able to get in these type of operations because nobody needs to know everything. If you did that, then everyone would be a weak link. The problem is though, in order to compartmentalize in a bureaucracy or a schema like this, you have to have some people who actually know what's going on. Those people are liabilities. They're weak links. If you have someone who is too close and they know how you compartmentalized information, they'll see the full picture. They're the weak link. That's Courtney Healy, Tina Murray, Jen Altman, Meredith, Lindsey a little bit. These people are the weak links for Aidan because they see the full picture, whether they are aligned with him, don't like him, etc. etc. It's just they're the biggest weaknesses for him because they see the full picture. That's why he tries to either control them—in my opinion—or destroy them. But Aidan's in a real tough spot here because you can't run that playbook on Karen Read. Clearly, these people are incredibly loyal to her. Flipperhead, Olivia, etc. They may have been helping Aidan, but they're incredibly loyal to Karen. Now, what I've always suspected is that the whole point of charging Aidan Kearney was—one, he did bad things to the witnesses in the retrial, Lindsey Gaetani. He did bad things allegedly. Okay, the grand jury indicted him. But I think Brian Tully and the MSP unit that investigated Aidan—they were more interested in two different goals. Okay, they had parallel objectives beyond just the criminal proceeding. One: get information about who the target of the federal probe was after August of 2023. And it was Tully's unit and Matthew Farwell related to the Sandra Birchmore murder coverup. Number two: I think Tully wanted—and Kate Peter and Marty Keach wanted—Aidan Kearney and Michael Morrissey wanted Aidan Kearney to flip on Karen Read. It was a pressure tactic. It was always just a pressure tactic. That's what I fully believe. Now, I'm not saying he didn't do bad things. I just believe in the mind of the DA—these people were using pressure tactics to get Aidan Kearney in a tactical position where he would flip. Why do I think this? Well, a few things. One: in the fall of 2023, between like August and November, Aidan Kearney didn't need an intermediary with Karen Read. Natalie was out of the picture, although I'm suspect, because there's this new text from Natalie from August saying that like she was still loyal to Karen Read—although ostensibly they had a falling out in June of 2023 because Natalie called Karen late at night and she was upset about it. I always thought that was BS. Now I know why it was BS because there's also a March 24 message about like Joe Warren and Natalie wanting to go to court. I just have this suspicion that Natalie was never really like against Karen. What Natalie was doing was using Turtle Boy as leverage with Karen's permission—using it's called a limited hangout. Limited information about Turtle Boy's culpability for witness intimidation to the MSP so that the MSP would trust Natalie—so that Natalie could relay information back to Karen about the ongoing investigation of Karen and Aidan for conspiracy under 2747 and witness intimidation under 26813B. Now they did try to eventually indict Karen on that in March of 2024 at No True Bill, but they can do it again. They got more evidence—the state in May of 2024 about Aidan saying in Facebook messages that one Karen told him not to go to Lindsey Gaetani's apartment on December 23rd, 2023, and then some other stuff—basically where Aidan was implying that someone told him to run Jen McCabe's license plates. Who would that be? Karen Read. He didn't say it but he implied it to Jenna Rocco and Amy D'Angelis and whoever else was in that internal chat that got leaked. So I really believe that the reason why Aidan Kearney was such a liability to Karen Read—and why she was saying it out loud—is that Karen Read always saw Aidan Kearney as vulnerable to flip. Why? Because Brian Tully did his homework—whatever his motives were—and he found a few things. And I think that him and Kate Peter profiled Aidan Kearney. That's why Kate Peter had some role in this—because they thought Kate Peter should really like Aidan in a lot of ways because he used to be colleagues. Two: I think the state police thought she saw his psyche—Aidan's psyche—and could help them profile him. Three: I think Kate Peter is very hard into the world, and Tully and those other people in the unit could say like, "Yeah, we're worried about Birchmore; we got to do damage control here. Nothing's really wrong with the O'Keefe death investigation," and just—they're going to find out about Birchmore—and Kate would go along with it. That's my opinion. But Tully gets this video of Aidan that he had sent to Lindsey—and it's out there on the internet. I don't want to play the content; it's sad. But this is why I think this is what was in the prosecutor's mind when they were going—and the MSP's mind—when they were going after Kearney. Yes, he did bad things—especially to people that knew the DA and Tully like McCabe, Jen McCabe, etc. But also Aidan was an Achilles heel for Karen. Think about MSP, right? And the way we're analyzing Aidan's weaknesses via weak links in the compartmentalization chain. Okay, flip it around and think about MSP thinking about Karen. What's a weak link in her compartmentalization chain? Aidan Kearney. Now, in that regard, Aidan Kearney—if he flips on Karen Read—guarantees a conviction for Karen Read for the state, even if they can't get her on John's death. It was a backup plan. Second to that, I think though—it's a dynamic situation—and that something must have fucking happened recently. Okay, and I've long thought—and we'll read Lindsey's post on this later because she was talking about it on Twitter overnight, and I was reading it this morning, and it made me think about this—I've long suspected that Kate Peter made a deal with Aidan Kearney in the past like 6-8 months. And the deal was involving the Norfolk DA and the people prosecuting Kearney, and the goal was to get Kearney to flip. And I also think Kate wants Kearney in the Netflix documentary that she's working on with Gretchen and Sandpaper—which, they don't really understand. Like, bro, you think you're getting my footage and me if you're going to enable Kate Peter and try to portray her as the Charlotte of the internet? What planet are you on? No. No, the answer is no. But anyway, I really believe that this deal was made because why else—and I think Karen found out about it—because why else would Karen—[we're going to—the conversation is going to clarify all this]—why else would Karen on Friday authorize Joe Flipperhead to release information that confirms that Aidan recorded Karen. Now, why Karen is not going to do this if she didn't hear the fucking recording? She's not a moron. She's a tactical genius. I'm telling you—I don't necessarily agree with all the things she's done. I personally think she's responsible for John's death, but like—she's a fucking tactical genius. And you have to understand in some sense—like she wouldn't do this unless it's real. Like someone sent her that recording, and I don't believe Aidan Kearney sent it to intermediaries because if Meredith is the closest person to him—or was—in the world, and he's going to lunch with her and will only play it for her allegedly—okay, there's no way in hell that he would just send it to people. I believe—whether through a fake account or otherwise—Aidan Kearney sent that to Karen's lawyers. That's just my opinion. I think there's strong reason for him to do it. It's a message. Okay. As a result, I think Karen Read doing this had to sense that this was the moment—like this was the moment where the decision was going to be made about whether or not he cooperated. And now is Aidan's kind of like signal flare that I'm thinking—from Karen Read's perspective—Aidan sending that recording to Jackson and Yannetti is a signal flare that if she doesn't act now, he's making the choice to flip on her. Okay, well, what did she just do? She in essence just put him in the worst position possible because he had to be able to—him and Kate Peter—had to sell the narrative in public that—and this is why I was on Lindsey's profile earlier. Let me see if I can bring that up—him and Kate Peter had to sell the narrative in public that Karen was worse than Aidan Kearney. All right, so let's take a look at Lindsey Gaetani's post here. Let's read this first and then let's look at the post from Kate Peter. So Kate Peter post last night: "Karen Read has killed a man before and to my knowledge, Aidan Kearney has yet to do anything like that. Take that as you will. Regardless, they're both giant DBAGs, but you can decide who is worse. My vote is Karen Read." That's Kate Peter—one of the closest people in the world right now to Brian Tully, Michael Morrissey, and the decision makers who were initially prosecuting Kearney—telling you in plain sight what's going on. So let's read Lindsey's post: "Yes, we already know a deal was made a long time ago. How cute of Kate trying to win over the turtle riders after she pretended she was still trying to put him in jail the past several months. Does anyone of the turtle riders know who Christine Gagne is? I have no idea who that is. Does anyone know who that is? That's the woman Kate Peter blamed for wiretapping charges with TB and the person she blamed when I asked her where her deleted Google Drive went with the state's evidence. Why would Kate blame this woman for deleting evidence when this woman's name was never mentioned during the grand jury or in a single email or police report? Interesting." Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. So we know Kate Peter was providing evidence to the grand jury. We know that from the recently released court documents and discovery in the Kearney criminal case. Why was—why is Kate Peter blaming someone? Who is Christine Gagne, who—why is Kate blaming her when Kate was the one who was—there's evidence that Kate was directly providing this material to Tully, who was taking it to the grand jury. And by the way, I want people to understand: my anger here is not because Aidan Kearney was prosecuted. I think he should be held accountable. My anger here is because the people prosecuting him had ulterior motives. Lindsey Gaetani didn't have an ulterior motive. She was victimized. She was an unwitting pawn in this proxy war between Karen and the DOJ—Karen and the DOJ and Aidan on one side, and the Norfolk DA and the MSP unit on the other. But instead of trying to prosecute Aidan, it was all tactical. And nobody was told—that's the worst part. And that's why I'm so upset about all of this, because it was a disgrace. It was a disgrace to the process. If you're going to hold someone accountable, do it. You don't use it as leverage to get someone else. And if you're going to do that, be open with the people who are victimized. Otherwise, you are going to build resentment. Why would you ever want to be in a situation where you have to handle a victim? Because if they were made aware of what was actually going on, they would be upset. That is a very prime example—on its face example—that something is very wrong. Not because Aidan Kearney is absolved of liability or because I think he did nothing wrong. Absolutely not. No. Other way around. But because that kind of behavior—given impunity basically, because there's a larger fish—it's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, not because the prosecution exists. In my opinion, a grand jury indicted him; he should be prosecuted. That's what happens when indictments get handed up. But because the aim of the prosecution was not to seek justice—it was to get—it was to pressure Kearney to flip on Karen Read. [Transition to the conversation] Now, to bring this all back—because we got to go—I want to look at this conversation here. I want to actually listen to this chat a minute. I'm going to explicate; I'm going to try to tell you what happens. "Hi, Bunny Towel. Hi, Christina. No haircut. But guess if you want to send donations—today's a good day for that. We got to get Towel to the end of the month. Towel's not going to be able to move very much for the next few days. So I could use some food if you want to send me some gift cards. I just need some help. All right. I'm a little towel. I got a lot going on. And anyway, so I'll—I'm sitting in my chair. That's as much as I can do right now. I can talk; my brain works. I can sit in my chair. I'm not doing anything else, but I should eat at some point. Anyway, so we're going to listen to this conversation because you have to think of all that background when you're analyzing. Why right now? Okay, why would Karen Read tactically right now burn Aidan Kearney? Aidan Kearney supporters are very loyal, but a lot of Aidan Kearney's base are becoming alienated because either they care more about Karen Read than Aidan Kearney or because Aidan Kearney's been on this weird tear recently where he like been attacking middle-aged women who are most of his fans. All right. Most of his fans are middle-aged women. And he goes after people's looks like whatever. So there's already this alienation happening. I believe the only reason Karen Read does this right now is because what it did—and what it's doing to Aidan Kearney—is it's decimating his support. Okay. Well, why are you decimating his support? Why are you forcing people to pick sides? Why would you do that right now? Either [he] cooperated or he's about to. All right. Now Karen Read—if she was—here's my read of this—if Karen Read was just going to cooperate, she wouldn't have done this this way. Okay. I'm sorry. It would have been completely different. I don't believe that she would have done it this way. I believe she would have done it a completely different way. And the reason why I believe that—we're going to read the text from Karen before we start listening to this. By the way, you can see I have the video here for you. What happened? By the way, just to give you a little more context. So this X Spaces that we're going to listen to—I have the full 37-minute X Space. This X Space, okay—it was before the text messages from Karen to Joe Flipperhead got released. So what you have to realize is these texts you're seeing on the screen got released because of this conversation. You're going to hear Joe Flipperhead say it.

Grant Smith Ellis

36,588 次观看 • 10 个月前

Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.
31:07

Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.

Farrukh

24,528 次观看 • 1 年前

Oh My God!!! 😱 Corbell Threatened to Release Hundreds of UFO Files, Which Were Also Given to Hundreds of Journalists! And Then He Backed Down! One Problem: It Never Happened I found the Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell clip I wanted to show you. But First: The claims... "Jeremy Corbell threatened to release hundreds of UFO files." ~Red Panda Koala And... "Jeremy Corbell says hundreds of journalists have been given the secret UFO files that will be released, if..." ~Red Panda Koala Full (inaccurate, IMO) claims, and the actual transcripts, are here: ⬇️⬇️⬇️ The following interview was uploaded several days after Corbell made those early-June comments that are now going viral, and for which he's getting a lot of hate over. This is a more complete explanation of the situation. Andy, forgive me for uploading such a long clip. I know this won't answer every question but it should educate folks on what was said. Or what was meant. And I'm sure it will calm the haters. 🥴 ~ Andy (That UFO Podcast): In 'Sleeping Dog,' you get your laptop out towards the end of the documentary. You know, dramatic, you dig some sh*t up. You've got a pen drive, you open it, and you see these files. And I'm sure, like many folks, I'm pausing frantically, reading all these names of files. I can just see the bottom of and the top. And I'm looking around your laptop screen. "And we begin to see clips of those videos. Now, those came out within the second release from the war dot gov, UFOs. Can you, first of all, clear up for me...we heard you had 46 videos that you were going to release." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "No, who said that?" Andy: "So, generally, online, there was 46 videos were coming out. I think 52 came out. This is what I want cleared up, though. You know about those 52 videos that came out. How many came from you? Because the feeling online - and this even was for me - was, Jeremy's got his documentary, he showed what's going to come, and then within a couple of weeks we had the second drop, and bang, here's all these videos. Can you just clear up how many videos that were dropped, came from your end, and what's the story there?" Corbell: "Zero came from my end. Zero. Those are government-filmed UAP. They were provoked to release them by a variety of ways. George Knapp and I gave a multitude of lists of UAP filmed by our military, to Congress. They validated, they vetted, they found out where they were. We told them where they are, we had eyes on them, making sure they're not going to be deleted. "This is something we've acquired over decades, George and myself. You know, the newer ones are kind of the the best, I would say. You know, better hardware than, let's say, 15 years ago. But...so none of them came from us. That...it is government-filmed footage. "We identified the file names and file structures and location of holdings, gave that to Congress, and it's not just the 46. It actually surprised me when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna put out, and it was a gangster move. Rep. Luna put out a public letter to Pete Hegseth saying, 'Here are 46 files that we want.' "They didn't mention...it's actually 14 Air Force files that we've identified - even to the Department of Justice - that there's a bottleneck in UAP reporting within our own government. Remember 'Immaculate Constellation,' the idea of like, siphoning off the best footage. Well, George and I were able to identify that in Central Command, that there was a nexus point where there was a bottleneck, and the best UAP footage and evidence was being siphoned off even before it got to AARO. "Even our, you know, who were kind of enemies at a time, we informed AARO that there's this bottleneck, and if you want to find out where the good sh*t's going, we told them where. So, when you say 46 videos, 52 videos. Bro, there are probably hundreds of thousands. Very little ever get to reporters like George and myself, and it takes years for us to vet and verify. "And then, you know, anybody that leaks videos to journalists - if you consider them sources- they're at risk, you know, when journalists publish them. So, I have always been fighting. And then people yell at me, and they're like, 'It's not good enough, and the frame rates aren't right.' And all this weird sh*t. They're just baiting to try to like, dig in and try to investigate sources. It's all a charade. Everything with that online is a charade. They're just trying to entrap people. "So what we do, is we take the heat and we just keep doing the reporting. We gave Congress way more than 46 file structures, file names with locations, with evidence they exist. But we don't possess anything. We can't, legally. We can obtain and release. I'm familiar with, have access from time-to-time, too. "You know, you have to be really smart as a journalist on what your rights are. That's why I have a federal lawyer, which you learned in the movie is Chuck McCullough. Kind of one of the best federal lawyers you could have, now that I've admitted it, right?" (McCullough was the first Intelligence Community Inspector General, represented David Grusch, and is HIGHLY respected. The fact that he's representing Corbell is something that's lost on the Corbell haters.) Corbell: "So, basically, those are the protocols. Our government has hundreds of thousands, in full-motion video, which is like a layered, sensor system from satellite platforms, as an example, which you've never seen, no one's ever seen. With incredible fidelity, showing all-domain UAP coming from space-to-air-to-sea and back out, from sea-to-air-to space. That's fact. I know that for a fact. I have been witness to a lot of that information. "But I did not give anything to Congress except file names, and they verified, vetted, and put out a public letter for 46. They kept the other ones private, which I think was smart. Because sometimes even just the the file names themselves, you know, could be an issue for 100 reasons. Does that clarify what you're asking?" Andy: "100% And even in the Discord, when that drop happened, everyone's Discords and stuff were going crazy. People were asking, 'Are these the videos that Corbell and Knapp have provided?' So there has been this idea, from some, that you guys gave them the videos. But what you've given was the locations, how to get them, where they were." Corbell: "The exact file names and locations, with verifiable proof that they do exist, that they did exist upon delivery, of those titles. You know. I'm not gonna just... You know, and also, what we get, when they ask for them, from Pete Hegseth and Department of War, is when they do release them, which they were provoked to do. That's the thing. "And they're not all out. The 46, just read the file names that were in that list, and then look at what was released. They are not all out. So think about that. They give you the underhanded pitch, the bottom of the barrel. And George Knapp and I, as I have said, we're gonna continue our reporting. "But it's kind of like a warning shot. You're like, here's what is in the hands of over 100 journalists, including podcasters now. Meaning they they can get access if they need. That's a whole process. But, essentially, we're telling them what journalists have. So what you can do is get in front of it and release the full, original files. And then nobody argues about frame rates, nobody goes after sources. "That's the way it should work because the onus is on the United States government because they themselves have said that we are going to be transparent about this, we're gonna be putting out all this information. Good, good. "So you've started, and it was total happenstance that the first release was on the premiere of 'Sleeping Dog' date, In in the sense that, I had no idea they were going to do that. It's kind of hilarious. But, you know, we did inform them before about the movie and that we're gonna, you know, do our journalism. So, you do the math." Andy: "Yeah, no, that's useful. And can we just confirm, I am not one of the podcasters who has those files before I am raided, or the CIA get in touch." Corbell: "Nobody has the files. You know, George and I have been sure to back up our work and provide an ability, if anything goes sideways, that, you know, the American public gets what they need. You know, it's very simple, dude. It's not like cloak and dagger. "You have to make sure that when you're reporting on things of national-security concern, that you don't damage national security, A number one. I'm an American, I live here, I love my country. Like, straight up. But also, you put things in place so that you're not the only one who's been able to see or have access, at time. And that's what we did. "We did that to protect sources, whistleblowers, and the information itself getting out to people. I don't possess anything, Andy. Of course, you don't. You're a foreign journalist to me. I'm sorry, but that that's another aspect to it. Is that, even though we have Five-Eyes Alliance, we've never hung out and had a beer, dude." Andy: "Not yet." Corbell: "[Laughs] I hope to." Andy: "Next year's Contact [in the Desert], maybe. So those 100 journalists... Because so many folks got in touch with me to ask..." Corbell: "100-plus." Andy: "100-plus, journalists and podcasters. It's not like you've sent out a special-edition pen drive and went, 'Here's all the files, if something happens.' But there are ways and means that if something did happen to yourself and/or George (Corbell: "Oh yeah"), these folks can access this material?" Corbell: "Yeah. I said it in Episode 60 of Weaponized, right? So we have, as journalists, we have covered and made sure the American public will never be, you know, the American public will never stay in the dark about what we've reported on or what we have to report on. But, you know, we have to go slow, we have to vet everything. It's just an insurance thing that that people would have instantaneous access. "I don't want that, either. Like, I don't want...you can't tell your friends, somebody, without telling your enemies. You know, and I don't...I would rather that we just continue doing our journalism under First Amendment, in America, without any interruption, in any way, that is illegal. And that's what's been happening. You know, the influence campaigns and the threats and that kind of thing. "So, yeah, man, I don't know how far we wanna go into that, but just base-level, we have made sure to protect the information that George Knapp and I have obtained over the decades. We don't hold in possession of anything, but at the same time, we've democratized the way that information will get out if we're stopped in any way, and that's just how it is." Andy: "And you guys are in full control of that, that no one can go rogue that has the information, or, you know, 'Ah, f**k Jeremy and George. I can access this. I'm gonna go off and find.' No, you guys are in complete control of that?" Corbell: "No, because that's a national-security issue because the nature of any information that comes to us in this realm. But additionally, that's not the right way to go about... I don't wanna go too deep into this, but that's not the right way that journalists operate, right? Is, you don't just haphazardly... So, no. Is that okay? Just end with no?" Andy: "You can end with 'no' on that one. It might come back round in one of these other answers to a different question." Corbell: "Okay, yeah."
10:20

Oh My God!!! 😱 Corbell Threatened to Release Hundreds of UFO Files, Which Were Also Given to Hundreds of Journalists! And Then He Backed Down! One Problem: It Never Happened I found the Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell clip I wanted to show you. But First: The claims... "Jeremy Corbell threatened to release hundreds of UFO files." ~Red Panda Koala And... "Jeremy Corbell says hundreds of journalists have been given the secret UFO files that will be released, if..." ~Red Panda Koala Full (inaccurate, IMO) claims, and the actual transcripts, are here: ⬇️⬇️⬇️ The following interview was uploaded several days after Corbell made those early-June comments that are now going viral, and for which he's getting a lot of hate over. This is a more complete explanation of the situation. Andy, forgive me for uploading such a long clip. I know this won't answer every question but it should educate folks on what was said. Or what was meant. And I'm sure it will calm the haters. 🥴 ~ Andy (That UFO Podcast): In 'Sleeping Dog,' you get your laptop out towards the end of the documentary. You know, dramatic, you dig some sh*t up. You've got a pen drive, you open it, and you see these files. And I'm sure, like many folks, I'm pausing frantically, reading all these names of files. I can just see the bottom of and the top. And I'm looking around your laptop screen. "And we begin to see clips of those videos. Now, those came out within the second release from the war dot gov, UFOs. Can you, first of all, clear up for me...we heard you had 46 videos that you were going to release." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "No, who said that?" Andy: "So, generally, online, there was 46 videos were coming out. I think 52 came out. This is what I want cleared up, though. You know about those 52 videos that came out. How many came from you? Because the feeling online - and this even was for me - was, Jeremy's got his documentary, he showed what's going to come, and then within a couple of weeks we had the second drop, and bang, here's all these videos. Can you just clear up how many videos that were dropped, came from your end, and what's the story there?" Corbell: "Zero came from my end. Zero. Those are government-filmed UAP. They were provoked to release them by a variety of ways. George Knapp and I gave a multitude of lists of UAP filmed by our military, to Congress. They validated, they vetted, they found out where they were. We told them where they are, we had eyes on them, making sure they're not going to be deleted. "This is something we've acquired over decades, George and myself. You know, the newer ones are kind of the the best, I would say. You know, better hardware than, let's say, 15 years ago. But...so none of them came from us. That...it is government-filmed footage. "We identified the file names and file structures and location of holdings, gave that to Congress, and it's not just the 46. It actually surprised me when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna put out, and it was a gangster move. Rep. Luna put out a public letter to Pete Hegseth saying, 'Here are 46 files that we want.' "They didn't mention...it's actually 14 Air Force files that we've identified - even to the Department of Justice - that there's a bottleneck in UAP reporting within our own government. Remember 'Immaculate Constellation,' the idea of like, siphoning off the best footage. Well, George and I were able to identify that in Central Command, that there was a nexus point where there was a bottleneck, and the best UAP footage and evidence was being siphoned off even before it got to AARO. "Even our, you know, who were kind of enemies at a time, we informed AARO that there's this bottleneck, and if you want to find out where the good sh*t's going, we told them where. So, when you say 46 videos, 52 videos. Bro, there are probably hundreds of thousands. Very little ever get to reporters like George and myself, and it takes years for us to vet and verify. "And then, you know, anybody that leaks videos to journalists - if you consider them sources- they're at risk, you know, when journalists publish them. So, I have always been fighting. And then people yell at me, and they're like, 'It's not good enough, and the frame rates aren't right.' And all this weird sh*t. They're just baiting to try to like, dig in and try to investigate sources. It's all a charade. Everything with that online is a charade. They're just trying to entrap people. "So what we do, is we take the heat and we just keep doing the reporting. We gave Congress way more than 46 file structures, file names with locations, with evidence they exist. But we don't possess anything. We can't, legally. We can obtain and release. I'm familiar with, have access from time-to-time, too. "You know, you have to be really smart as a journalist on what your rights are. That's why I have a federal lawyer, which you learned in the movie is Chuck McCullough. Kind of one of the best federal lawyers you could have, now that I've admitted it, right?" (McCullough was the first Intelligence Community Inspector General, represented David Grusch, and is HIGHLY respected. The fact that he's representing Corbell is something that's lost on the Corbell haters.) Corbell: "So, basically, those are the protocols. Our government has hundreds of thousands, in full-motion video, which is like a layered, sensor system from satellite platforms, as an example, which you've never seen, no one's ever seen. With incredible fidelity, showing all-domain UAP coming from space-to-air-to-sea and back out, from sea-to-air-to space. That's fact. I know that for a fact. I have been witness to a lot of that information. "But I did not give anything to Congress except file names, and they verified, vetted, and put out a public letter for 46. They kept the other ones private, which I think was smart. Because sometimes even just the the file names themselves, you know, could be an issue for 100 reasons. Does that clarify what you're asking?" Andy: "100% And even in the Discord, when that drop happened, everyone's Discords and stuff were going crazy. People were asking, 'Are these the videos that Corbell and Knapp have provided?' So there has been this idea, from some, that you guys gave them the videos. But what you've given was the locations, how to get them, where they were." Corbell: "The exact file names and locations, with verifiable proof that they do exist, that they did exist upon delivery, of those titles. You know. I'm not gonna just... You know, and also, what we get, when they ask for them, from Pete Hegseth and Department of War, is when they do release them, which they were provoked to do. That's the thing. "And they're not all out. The 46, just read the file names that were in that list, and then look at what was released. They are not all out. So think about that. They give you the underhanded pitch, the bottom of the barrel. And George Knapp and I, as I have said, we're gonna continue our reporting. "But it's kind of like a warning shot. You're like, here's what is in the hands of over 100 journalists, including podcasters now. Meaning they they can get access if they need. That's a whole process. But, essentially, we're telling them what journalists have. So what you can do is get in front of it and release the full, original files. And then nobody argues about frame rates, nobody goes after sources. "That's the way it should work because the onus is on the United States government because they themselves have said that we are going to be transparent about this, we're gonna be putting out all this information. Good, good. "So you've started, and it was total happenstance that the first release was on the premiere of 'Sleeping Dog' date, In in the sense that, I had no idea they were going to do that. It's kind of hilarious. But, you know, we did inform them before about the movie and that we're gonna, you know, do our journalism. So, you do the math." Andy: "Yeah, no, that's useful. And can we just confirm, I am not one of the podcasters who has those files before I am raided, or the CIA get in touch." Corbell: "Nobody has the files. You know, George and I have been sure to back up our work and provide an ability, if anything goes sideways, that, you know, the American public gets what they need. You know, it's very simple, dude. It's not like cloak and dagger. "You have to make sure that when you're reporting on things of national-security concern, that you don't damage national security, A number one. I'm an American, I live here, I love my country. Like, straight up. But also, you put things in place so that you're not the only one who's been able to see or have access, at time. And that's what we did. "We did that to protect sources, whistleblowers, and the information itself getting out to people. I don't possess anything, Andy. Of course, you don't. You're a foreign journalist to me. I'm sorry, but that that's another aspect to it. Is that, even though we have Five-Eyes Alliance, we've never hung out and had a beer, dude." Andy: "Not yet." Corbell: "[Laughs] I hope to." Andy: "Next year's Contact [in the Desert], maybe. So those 100 journalists... Because so many folks got in touch with me to ask..." Corbell: "100-plus." Andy: "100-plus, journalists and podcasters. It's not like you've sent out a special-edition pen drive and went, 'Here's all the files, if something happens.' But there are ways and means that if something did happen to yourself and/or George (Corbell: "Oh yeah"), these folks can access this material?" Corbell: "Yeah. I said it in Episode 60 of Weaponized, right? So we have, as journalists, we have covered and made sure the American public will never be, you know, the American public will never stay in the dark about what we've reported on or what we have to report on. But, you know, we have to go slow, we have to vet everything. It's just an insurance thing that that people would have instantaneous access. "I don't want that, either. Like, I don't want...you can't tell your friends, somebody, without telling your enemies. You know, and I don't...I would rather that we just continue doing our journalism under First Amendment, in America, without any interruption, in any way, that is illegal. And that's what's been happening. You know, the influence campaigns and the threats and that kind of thing. "So, yeah, man, I don't know how far we wanna go into that, but just base-level, we have made sure to protect the information that George Knapp and I have obtained over the decades. We don't hold in possession of anything, but at the same time, we've democratized the way that information will get out if we're stopped in any way, and that's just how it is." Andy: "And you guys are in full control of that, that no one can go rogue that has the information, or, you know, 'Ah, f**k Jeremy and George. I can access this. I'm gonna go off and find.' No, you guys are in complete control of that?" Corbell: "No, because that's a national-security issue because the nature of any information that comes to us in this realm. But additionally, that's not the right way to go about... I don't wanna go too deep into this, but that's not the right way that journalists operate, right? Is, you don't just haphazardly... So, no. Is that okay? Just end with no?" Andy: "You can end with 'no' on that one. It might come back round in one of these other answers to a different question." Corbell: "Okay, yeah."

Joe Murgia

62,409 次观看 • 6 天前

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."
59:26

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

"We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her." ~Tim Gallaudet This is way too long but I hope you enjoy it. As far as Steven Greenstreet 🐷's posts about the Gallaudets, hauntings and psychics? First off, Tim Gallaudet's wife, "was also a Naval Academy graduate and a master’s recipient from Scripps, having earned her degree in 2001." Source: We know the resume of retired Rear Admiral and oceanographer, Tim Gallaudet, but what about his wife, Caren? She's a big part of this story, so any journalist covering it would want you to know a little something about her. But not Greenstreet, who is, as I said, not a journalist. He leaves out any detail that doesn't fit his debunker, mocking narrative. And he just blocked me. Good. Trash. More... “(My wife Caren) is an inspiration to me, first because she was a Navy diver, and you don’t need to say more. And second, she was a Navy diver as a female during a time when it was not easy. In the late 1980s/early 1990s there was a lot of sexual harassment in the Navy.” ~RDML Tim Gallaudet ~~~ This episode of "The Dead Files," S6E8 ("You Will Be Mine") aired May 20th, 2016. Caren: "People think I'm crazy but it's hard to do battle with an enemy you don't understand. There are things moving around the house. We're hearing voices. We've all had nightmares. We've seen full apparitions. Now things are getting physical." (I would liked to have heard more about full apparitions and exactly who saw them. Having multiple witnesses to alleged phenomena is important. And yes, people will think you're crazy but screw 'em. People have been experiencing this type of phenomena all over the world. At the time this was shot (2015 or 2016), their oldest of three daughters, Laurel, was 14, Aspen was 8, and the youngest, Cedar, was 6.) Caren: "My husband works for the Department of Defense and he travels a lot, so he's rarely here." (They bought the property in 2007 but the odd activity in the house didn't start until Cedar turned 3.) Caren: "Cedar has drawn pictures. This is the man with the brown arms. He lives in her room in her closet. This one she saw in my bathroom, it was a man covered with blood. And I have a book with over 40 drawings. She has become anxious and depressed." (Why didn't the family bring her to a psychiatrist or psychologist first before immediately seeking out a medium? What? They did? Why didn't hack Greenstreet tell us that? Because his goal is to make anybody connected to UFO disclosure look bad.) Caren: "We've seen psychiatrists, psychologists. They all say she's a normal little girl. But she says things that 5 and 6 year old children should not be saying. I love her with all my heart but, at times, I don't know who she is." How is Caren handling it? Caren: "Not very well. When I'm alone, I do a lot of crying. I feel isolated, I feel exhausted." (The kids fight and the older sisters blame Cedar for what's going on. That fighting may be related to the phenomena. Watch the video clip I included below for context. ~~~ Caren: "We're wiling to do whatever it takes. We're ready." (My take: It's obvious they were desperate for help in a situation where nobody else was offering up anything to fix the problem. So they turned to an alleged medium, Amy Allan, and former NYPD homicide investigator, Steve DiSchiavi, who were part of a TV show, "The Dead Files." I am NOT a fan of those types of shows and I would tell people to avoid them if they had a problem like what the Gallaudet's described. But I wasn't in their shoes so who knows what I might have done to get help for the people I love? Luckily, I've never had to deal with a situation like that.) Caren: "I was in the kitchen, and I opened the cupboard. And before doing anything, all the dishes and the bowls fell on top of me." (Sounds like poltergeist activity. And when I say poltergeist, I don't necessarily mean a ghost, spirit, etc. If you read Dr. Barry Taff's book, "Aliens Above, Ghosts Below," he talks about something called Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis, or RSPK. The term was coined by parapsychologist, the late Dr. William Roll. The theory is that the paranormal activity taking place is originating from one of the people in the house. Usually, a young, adolescent boy or girl. "After receiving a report of poltergeist-like activities, two investigators from the Rhine visited a site and observed disturbances that were classified as Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis or RSPK. RSPK is the modern interpretation of what was previously called poltergeist activity. It occurs when an individual – in this case an adolescent boy – is present in every case where a poltergeist-like effect is observed. The activity is interpreted as the result of unconscious psychokinesis activities coming from the individual who is called the PK-Agent." Source: ~ Here's a transcription of the video clip I included below: Parapsychologist Dr. Barry Taff: "The original belief, regarding poltergeist, was that they were, basically, mischievous, prank-playing ghosts. That's what the German word means. The modern theorist in parapsychology consider a quite different type of belief system is operating here, or phenomena is operating. They believe that there are young children present, pubescent, adolescent children, and the research tends to support this belief. These young children are present with a lot of emotional animosities, belligerence, a lot of very intense interactions. And this emotional interaction will produce an emission of unconscious energy from these children, which will affect matter, objects around them. Make them move, affect electrical appliances, make them turn on and off. Make things speed up and slow down, affect televisions, affect radios. Dishes may explode, furniture may move across the room, cameras may go off by themselves, light bulbs may explode suddenly." ~ "A person-focused poltergeist tends to (but not always) involve a female adolescent who is suffering from emotional turmoil when the activity begins. That said however, not all so called 'focal agents' are teenagers. Indeed, William G. Roll, a pioneer in poltergeist research, found the age of people reporting experiences of poltergeist activity ranged from eight to 78 years." Source: ~~~ (That may explain what went on in the Gallaudet home but it's still not accepted by mainstream science as a valid theory. Unfortunately, Allan (the alleged medium) didn't offer up any alternative explanations for the paranormal activity in the home and focused solely on the alleged spirts of dead people as the answer. She thought Cedar was a physical medium who could cause that type of activity to occur, but again, 100% related it to the spirits of dead people, without offering any other explanation. IMO, it's possible one of the girls (or Caren) is a PK-Agent and this had nothing to do with spirits. Then again, maybe it IS connected to non-physical entities? Spirits of the dead? Keel's ultraterrestrials, who he believed impersonated the dead? A mix? Something different? Impossible to prove, either way. So, I don't know. But I DO believe SOMETHING anomalous was going on. If you want an example of how an alleged haunting, ghost or poltergeist case should be investigated, watch this. The clip I attached at the end is from this video. If these folks were still doing investigations, I'd refer anybody who was dealing with this type of situation to them.) "We don't consider our pictures proof of anything, we consider them part of the struggle to gather evidence to try to understand this phenomena." ~Kerry Gaynor Watch it... 👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼 ~~~ Caren: Also, "my daughter, Laurel, and I were right here having a conversation. And all of a sudden she screamed. She said, 'Someone just touched me on my back.' And there was no one else in the room." The bedroom... Caren: "I was woken by a noise. Immediately, I looked to the door and saw a giant, black shadow coming at me from the door. It came over the bed and came straight over top of me. I was scared to death. I've never been that scared in my life." (This is very similar to what happened to people who visited Skinwalker Ranch (and other locations) and reported taking "something" home with them. Also known as the hitchhiker effect. ) Caren: "I was asleep and I felt a hand grab my hair and yank me up. It was a very aggressive pull. I screamed, and I did not go back to sleep after that. There was no one around. Tim wasn't here. It was not a nightmare. I don't sleep most nights, but I'm glad that I had the experience because I understand what Cedar's going through. If I saw that every night, I think I'd act like her, too." Caren's mother, Jan: "Something's going on with Cedar. She's changed dramatically in the last year, year and a half. To do this to my grandchildren makes me angry. My husband and I were babysitting here and we heard Cedar cry out, yelling and screaming, 'Stop it, stop it. Leave me alone!' So I rubbed her back and she went back into her sleep. And then I heard a low voice (that sounded male) say, 'It's gonna be alright. It's alright.'" (From the investigation, Jan wants, "peace among the girls. They don't tend to get along. It's more than just sibling rivalry. It's something else." She thinks the girls are in physical danger. As Taff noted, intense interactions among people in the house could be the cause of all of this. Why did it take a few years for the activity in the house to start? Did anything change in the family dynamic? Cedar is interviewed and she tells the investigator what she's experienced, which includes a scary dream with blood on the floor and dead people. She says she sees the man with brown arms and brown skin who yells at her, "Get out of here, this is not your room. This is my room." Later on, the medium says that this man was there to protect Cedar. Based on what he allegedly said, that makes zero sense. I'm not a fan of this medium (Allan), to put it mildly. Aspen, eight years old, says she sees a shadow man in her room who sits near her dresser. She also saw a little girl who was wet. "I felt a thumb press on my neck really hard." During the nighttime walkthrough of the house, the medium says that one of the spirits looks wet. Is this confirmation or was the medium fed information about what the children experienced? Impossible to know as it's an edited TV show.) Caren says Cedar has seen over a hundred spirits. "It's every night." Medium Allan says this one spirit is tormenting the kids because she's jealous of them and wants Caren to be her mother.) Amy Allan: "The only way (this spirit) could be with you is if you were to kill yourself, then you guys would spend entirety together, and you would forever be her mother, alone." (I'm sorry but without any evidence to back that up, it's an irresponsible thing to say and, IMO, a bunch of sensational bs.) You can watch the entire episode if you log in with your cable subscription. Or watch it at Greensteet's post... ~~~ Tim Gallaudet was on with “Jay Anderson” a few years ago and spoke about the phenomenon and what his family has experienced. Tim Gallaudet (TG): "You see a sort of grouping of UAP and paranormal and how does it intersect. And the answer is: I don't know." TG: "We were all grown up in traditional, kind of, religion. But at some point in our lives, my youngest daughter had real serious behavior issues. And to sum it all up, she is like many of these mediums that you see. She could see spirits, she saw them all the time. A lot of listeners might just think this is just a joke or made up." (I definitely don't think it's a joke, but if she still has these abilities when she gets older, try to take her to get tested at Windbridge Research. Some people (who call themselves mediums) claim they can acquire information via something other than their five senses and have shown the ability to do so under controlled conditions. Are they speaking to the dead or is it something else? I don't know. And FYI, a medium claims they can speak to the dead and also provides alleged psychic readings to people about their lives and sometimes the future. Nine times out of ten, a psychic does not claim to speak with the dead.) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it. It was real and...real to us." (They're allegedly able to see the spirits of the dead and can acquire information they have no way of knowing via their five senses. To me, the part about them acquiring information they have no way of knowing through means other than their five senses has been proven. Maybe there's some storehouse of information that they're accessing, like an Akashic Records type of thing? Or, maybe they're really communicating with the dead or some other entities? Again, I don't know where the information is coming from. As TG said, there are lots of ways to explain it.) TG: "She had real experiences, it was affecting her. And through a lot of therapy, we were able to basically have her - now she's thirteen - she became adjusted and has kind of dealt with that. She's sort of suppressed it, actually, which is okay. I mean, she's only thirteen. We can take a pause and help her develop as a person and human before coming to groups with that incredible ability." (TG and his wife did everything they could to help their daughter. When traditional methods failed, they sought help in other ways. Why anybody would have a problem with that is beyond me.) TG: "My wife and I, through this experience, to just be able to help her, we came to meet several mediums who are incredibly gifted." One of them was the Long Island medium, Theresa Caputo. (I like to see Caputo tested in a lab. If you'd like to see what that looks like, watch this HBO documentary on Life After Death and mediums. You'll have to search for the other parts. Part 1 of Life Afterlife ) ~~~ TG said he and his wife had a camera in Cedar's room when this activity was taking place and, "there was orbs flying all around this video. It was so active." (I'd like to see this video and see if those were orbs or particles of dust.) TG: "We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her. And so, through just meeting people, doing a lot of reading about people, these experiences, it became real to us and it opened our minds. I don't have all the answers but I know what we experienced, I know what she saw. We contacted [the show] because we thought she could help her and she ultimately did help my daughter." (That's really all that matters! TG says he has some family history with this type of thing but doesn't have any details as people were less willing to talk about it back then.) TG "She was not the Devil, she was seeing real things (laughs), and that's it. We were not gonna brand her or blame her. And I ultimately know, it was that love that we shared - my wife and I - for her, that opened our minds and create the right outcome. For being well-adjusted, having that in our history, and not being afraid of it or ashamed of it. And being aware and open now to a lot of other things that happen in life and maybe seeing their meaning." (Well said. After learning about this, my respect for Tim and his family has only increased.) ~~~ Last and definitely least...Greenstreet's comments. SG: "In an interview with TheProjectUnity, former Navy Admiral Tim Gallaudet claims his young daughter is a 'medium' who sees spirits and can communicate with them." (He said that but also added this...) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it." SG: "Gallaudet's wife claims their house is haunted by violent poltergeists." (His wife explained what the family was experiencing. I don't recall anyone involved mentioning poltergeists or that the house was haunted. This are buzzwords SG uses to disparage people. Just like his "monsters" garbage. ) SG: "Their youngest daughter, 6, thinks ghost monsters are hiding in her room and both the TV show stars and her parents validate her fantasies as real." (His wife and daughters were having experiences they couldn't explain. They took the youngest to a psychiatrist and psychologist and they couldn't help. So they sought out the show. You left out the part about them seeking professional help first. Why? Because you're a piece of trash who will do anything to disparage anybody involved in this. I think YOU should seek help.) SG: "Gallaudet says he's taken his young daughter to multiple psychics to try to 'help her.'" (Nope. Mediums. For a so-called journalist, you should know the difference. And again, this was AFTER they sought out traditional help.) SG: "It should be noted that Gallaudet is "close friends" with Jay Stratton, another retired Navy official who claims his house was/is also haunted by violent poltergeists who attacked his children." (Talk to Stratton and you'll see he doesn't define what happened to his family. Oh, that's right, he won't talk to you because you're an azzhole. And it makes sense that those two would bond since their families experienced similar things. I hope Tim shares more details about what's currently going on with his family and what he experienced himself.)
0:53

"We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her." ~Tim Gallaudet This is way too long but I hope you enjoy it. As far as Steven Greenstreet 🐷's posts about the Gallaudets, hauntings and psychics? First off, Tim Gallaudet's wife, "was also a Naval Academy graduate and a master’s recipient from Scripps, having earned her degree in 2001." Source: We know the resume of retired Rear Admiral and oceanographer, Tim Gallaudet, but what about his wife, Caren? She's a big part of this story, so any journalist covering it would want you to know a little something about her. But not Greenstreet, who is, as I said, not a journalist. He leaves out any detail that doesn't fit his debunker, mocking narrative. And he just blocked me. Good. Trash. More... “(My wife Caren) is an inspiration to me, first because she was a Navy diver, and you don’t need to say more. And second, she was a Navy diver as a female during a time when it was not easy. In the late 1980s/early 1990s there was a lot of sexual harassment in the Navy.” ~RDML Tim Gallaudet ~~~ This episode of "The Dead Files," S6E8 ("You Will Be Mine") aired May 20th, 2016. Caren: "People think I'm crazy but it's hard to do battle with an enemy you don't understand. There are things moving around the house. We're hearing voices. We've all had nightmares. We've seen full apparitions. Now things are getting physical." (I would liked to have heard more about full apparitions and exactly who saw them. Having multiple witnesses to alleged phenomena is important. And yes, people will think you're crazy but screw 'em. People have been experiencing this type of phenomena all over the world. At the time this was shot (2015 or 2016), their oldest of three daughters, Laurel, was 14, Aspen was 8, and the youngest, Cedar, was 6.) Caren: "My husband works for the Department of Defense and he travels a lot, so he's rarely here." (They bought the property in 2007 but the odd activity in the house didn't start until Cedar turned 3.) Caren: "Cedar has drawn pictures. This is the man with the brown arms. He lives in her room in her closet. This one she saw in my bathroom, it was a man covered with blood. And I have a book with over 40 drawings. She has become anxious and depressed." (Why didn't the family bring her to a psychiatrist or psychologist first before immediately seeking out a medium? What? They did? Why didn't hack Greenstreet tell us that? Because his goal is to make anybody connected to UFO disclosure look bad.) Caren: "We've seen psychiatrists, psychologists. They all say she's a normal little girl. But she says things that 5 and 6 year old children should not be saying. I love her with all my heart but, at times, I don't know who she is." How is Caren handling it? Caren: "Not very well. When I'm alone, I do a lot of crying. I feel isolated, I feel exhausted." (The kids fight and the older sisters blame Cedar for what's going on. That fighting may be related to the phenomena. Watch the video clip I included below for context. ~~~ Caren: "We're wiling to do whatever it takes. We're ready." (My take: It's obvious they were desperate for help in a situation where nobody else was offering up anything to fix the problem. So they turned to an alleged medium, Amy Allan, and former NYPD homicide investigator, Steve DiSchiavi, who were part of a TV show, "The Dead Files." I am NOT a fan of those types of shows and I would tell people to avoid them if they had a problem like what the Gallaudet's described. But I wasn't in their shoes so who knows what I might have done to get help for the people I love? Luckily, I've never had to deal with a situation like that.) Caren: "I was in the kitchen, and I opened the cupboard. And before doing anything, all the dishes and the bowls fell on top of me." (Sounds like poltergeist activity. And when I say poltergeist, I don't necessarily mean a ghost, spirit, etc. If you read Dr. Barry Taff's book, "Aliens Above, Ghosts Below," he talks about something called Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis, or RSPK. The term was coined by parapsychologist, the late Dr. William Roll. The theory is that the paranormal activity taking place is originating from one of the people in the house. Usually, a young, adolescent boy or girl. "After receiving a report of poltergeist-like activities, two investigators from the Rhine visited a site and observed disturbances that were classified as Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis or RSPK. RSPK is the modern interpretation of what was previously called poltergeist activity. It occurs when an individual – in this case an adolescent boy – is present in every case where a poltergeist-like effect is observed. The activity is interpreted as the result of unconscious psychokinesis activities coming from the individual who is called the PK-Agent." Source: ~ Here's a transcription of the video clip I included below: Parapsychologist Dr. Barry Taff: "The original belief, regarding poltergeist, was that they were, basically, mischievous, prank-playing ghosts. That's what the German word means. The modern theorist in parapsychology consider a quite different type of belief system is operating here, or phenomena is operating. They believe that there are young children present, pubescent, adolescent children, and the research tends to support this belief. These young children are present with a lot of emotional animosities, belligerence, a lot of very intense interactions. And this emotional interaction will produce an emission of unconscious energy from these children, which will affect matter, objects around them. Make them move, affect electrical appliances, make them turn on and off. Make things speed up and slow down, affect televisions, affect radios. Dishes may explode, furniture may move across the room, cameras may go off by themselves, light bulbs may explode suddenly." ~ "A person-focused poltergeist tends to (but not always) involve a female adolescent who is suffering from emotional turmoil when the activity begins. That said however, not all so called 'focal agents' are teenagers. Indeed, William G. Roll, a pioneer in poltergeist research, found the age of people reporting experiences of poltergeist activity ranged from eight to 78 years." Source: ~~~ (That may explain what went on in the Gallaudet home but it's still not accepted by mainstream science as a valid theory. Unfortunately, Allan (the alleged medium) didn't offer up any alternative explanations for the paranormal activity in the home and focused solely on the alleged spirts of dead people as the answer. She thought Cedar was a physical medium who could cause that type of activity to occur, but again, 100% related it to the spirits of dead people, without offering any other explanation. IMO, it's possible one of the girls (or Caren) is a PK-Agent and this had nothing to do with spirits. Then again, maybe it IS connected to non-physical entities? Spirits of the dead? Keel's ultraterrestrials, who he believed impersonated the dead? A mix? Something different? Impossible to prove, either way. So, I don't know. But I DO believe SOMETHING anomalous was going on. If you want an example of how an alleged haunting, ghost or poltergeist case should be investigated, watch this. The clip I attached at the end is from this video. If these folks were still doing investigations, I'd refer anybody who was dealing with this type of situation to them.) "We don't consider our pictures proof of anything, we consider them part of the struggle to gather evidence to try to understand this phenomena." ~Kerry Gaynor Watch it... 👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼 ~~~ Caren: Also, "my daughter, Laurel, and I were right here having a conversation. And all of a sudden she screamed. She said, 'Someone just touched me on my back.' And there was no one else in the room." The bedroom... Caren: "I was woken by a noise. Immediately, I looked to the door and saw a giant, black shadow coming at me from the door. It came over the bed and came straight over top of me. I was scared to death. I've never been that scared in my life." (This is very similar to what happened to people who visited Skinwalker Ranch (and other locations) and reported taking "something" home with them. Also known as the hitchhiker effect. ) Caren: "I was asleep and I felt a hand grab my hair and yank me up. It was a very aggressive pull. I screamed, and I did not go back to sleep after that. There was no one around. Tim wasn't here. It was not a nightmare. I don't sleep most nights, but I'm glad that I had the experience because I understand what Cedar's going through. If I saw that every night, I think I'd act like her, too." Caren's mother, Jan: "Something's going on with Cedar. She's changed dramatically in the last year, year and a half. To do this to my grandchildren makes me angry. My husband and I were babysitting here and we heard Cedar cry out, yelling and screaming, 'Stop it, stop it. Leave me alone!' So I rubbed her back and she went back into her sleep. And then I heard a low voice (that sounded male) say, 'It's gonna be alright. It's alright.'" (From the investigation, Jan wants, "peace among the girls. They don't tend to get along. It's more than just sibling rivalry. It's something else." She thinks the girls are in physical danger. As Taff noted, intense interactions among people in the house could be the cause of all of this. Why did it take a few years for the activity in the house to start? Did anything change in the family dynamic? Cedar is interviewed and she tells the investigator what she's experienced, which includes a scary dream with blood on the floor and dead people. She says she sees the man with brown arms and brown skin who yells at her, "Get out of here, this is not your room. This is my room." Later on, the medium says that this man was there to protect Cedar. Based on what he allegedly said, that makes zero sense. I'm not a fan of this medium (Allan), to put it mildly. Aspen, eight years old, says she sees a shadow man in her room who sits near her dresser. She also saw a little girl who was wet. "I felt a thumb press on my neck really hard." During the nighttime walkthrough of the house, the medium says that one of the spirits looks wet. Is this confirmation or was the medium fed information about what the children experienced? Impossible to know as it's an edited TV show.) Caren says Cedar has seen over a hundred spirits. "It's every night." Medium Allan says this one spirit is tormenting the kids because she's jealous of them and wants Caren to be her mother.) Amy Allan: "The only way (this spirit) could be with you is if you were to kill yourself, then you guys would spend entirety together, and you would forever be her mother, alone." (I'm sorry but without any evidence to back that up, it's an irresponsible thing to say and, IMO, a bunch of sensational bs.) You can watch the entire episode if you log in with your cable subscription. Or watch it at Greensteet's post... ~~~ Tim Gallaudet was on with “Jay Anderson” a few years ago and spoke about the phenomenon and what his family has experienced. Tim Gallaudet (TG): "You see a sort of grouping of UAP and paranormal and how does it intersect. And the answer is: I don't know." TG: "We were all grown up in traditional, kind of, religion. But at some point in our lives, my youngest daughter had real serious behavior issues. And to sum it all up, she is like many of these mediums that you see. She could see spirits, she saw them all the time. A lot of listeners might just think this is just a joke or made up." (I definitely don't think it's a joke, but if she still has these abilities when she gets older, try to take her to get tested at Windbridge Research. Some people (who call themselves mediums) claim they can acquire information via something other than their five senses and have shown the ability to do so under controlled conditions. Are they speaking to the dead or is it something else? I don't know. And FYI, a medium claims they can speak to the dead and also provides alleged psychic readings to people about their lives and sometimes the future. Nine times out of ten, a psychic does not claim to speak with the dead.) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it. It was real and...real to us." (They're allegedly able to see the spirits of the dead and can acquire information they have no way of knowing via their five senses. To me, the part about them acquiring information they have no way of knowing through means other than their five senses has been proven. Maybe there's some storehouse of information that they're accessing, like an Akashic Records type of thing? Or, maybe they're really communicating with the dead or some other entities? Again, I don't know where the information is coming from. As TG said, there are lots of ways to explain it.) TG: "She had real experiences, it was affecting her. And through a lot of therapy, we were able to basically have her - now she's thirteen - she became adjusted and has kind of dealt with that. She's sort of suppressed it, actually, which is okay. I mean, she's only thirteen. We can take a pause and help her develop as a person and human before coming to groups with that incredible ability." (TG and his wife did everything they could to help their daughter. When traditional methods failed, they sought help in other ways. Why anybody would have a problem with that is beyond me.) TG: "My wife and I, through this experience, to just be able to help her, we came to meet several mediums who are incredibly gifted." One of them was the Long Island medium, Theresa Caputo. (I like to see Caputo tested in a lab. If you'd like to see what that looks like, watch this HBO documentary on Life After Death and mediums. You'll have to search for the other parts. Part 1 of Life Afterlife ) ~~~ TG said he and his wife had a camera in Cedar's room when this activity was taking place and, "there was orbs flying all around this video. It was so active." (I'd like to see this video and see if those were orbs or particles of dust.) TG: "We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her. And so, through just meeting people, doing a lot of reading about people, these experiences, it became real to us and it opened our minds. I don't have all the answers but I know what we experienced, I know what she saw. We contacted [the show] because we thought she could help her and she ultimately did help my daughter." (That's really all that matters! TG says he has some family history with this type of thing but doesn't have any details as people were less willing to talk about it back then.) TG "She was not the Devil, she was seeing real things (laughs), and that's it. We were not gonna brand her or blame her. And I ultimately know, it was that love that we shared - my wife and I - for her, that opened our minds and create the right outcome. For being well-adjusted, having that in our history, and not being afraid of it or ashamed of it. And being aware and open now to a lot of other things that happen in life and maybe seeing their meaning." (Well said. After learning about this, my respect for Tim and his family has only increased.) ~~~ Last and definitely least...Greenstreet's comments. SG: "In an interview with TheProjectUnity, former Navy Admiral Tim Gallaudet claims his young daughter is a 'medium' who sees spirits and can communicate with them." (He said that but also added this...) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it." SG: "Gallaudet's wife claims their house is haunted by violent poltergeists." (His wife explained what the family was experiencing. I don't recall anyone involved mentioning poltergeists or that the house was haunted. This are buzzwords SG uses to disparage people. Just like his "monsters" garbage. ) SG: "Their youngest daughter, 6, thinks ghost monsters are hiding in her room and both the TV show stars and her parents validate her fantasies as real." (His wife and daughters were having experiences they couldn't explain. They took the youngest to a psychiatrist and psychologist and they couldn't help. So they sought out the show. You left out the part about them seeking professional help first. Why? Because you're a piece of trash who will do anything to disparage anybody involved in this. I think YOU should seek help.) SG: "Gallaudet says he's taken his young daughter to multiple psychics to try to 'help her.'" (Nope. Mediums. For a so-called journalist, you should know the difference. And again, this was AFTER they sought out traditional help.) SG: "It should be noted that Gallaudet is "close friends" with Jay Stratton, another retired Navy official who claims his house was/is also haunted by violent poltergeists who attacked his children." (Talk to Stratton and you'll see he doesn't define what happened to his family. Oh, that's right, he won't talk to you because you're an azzhole. And it makes sense that those two would bond since their families experienced similar things. I hope Tim shares more details about what's currently going on with his family and what he experienced himself.)

Joe Murgia

88,583 次观看 • 2 年前

"If [Ross] had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard." ~Murgia Lockheed, Landing Drones, Stupor, and Trump Did think this would be another LAP (Long-Ass Post), but here it is. Ross Coulthart: "It's been a very interesting week with the public response to the comments that I've made on the show that I do with my friend and colleague,Bryce Zabel, "Need to Know," where we discussed what I've been told by my sources, multiple sources, by the way, that Lockheed Martin was indeed behind the Tic Tac encounter of 2004 with the USS Nimitz battle carrier group." Let's rewind: This is what Ross and Bryce said on the @Coulthart_Zabel episode uploaded on July 6th. My comments in ( ). Ross: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." Bryce: "Ooookay." Ross: "The Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Why are we being lied to? This is the issue. Why is the United States government now participating - at White-House, executive level, in collusion with the national-security state - to keep secret the fact that they've made these advances? I suspect it's because they've realized that they're being overtaken by their foreign adversaries, and they don't want you to know that." Bryce: "Okay, the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin. Well, in some respects, given how insane the Tic Tac behaved during the Nimitz, where it went from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than a second, then I would say, well there's one for the U.S. team. Obviously, we have some good stuff out there, if that's the case, right?" Ross: "How much of that is being shared with the actual Defense Department that's responsible for the defense of the United States? This is the kind of questions that Congress should be asking." Bryce: "So you're saying Lockheed Martin might - or anybody, but Lockheed Martin in this particular case - has a Tic Tac that they are testing, and have been testing, and have access to." (One can argue that when Bryce said LM has a Tic Tac that they've been testing, that could include the possibility that it's an NHI craft they somehow acquired and not something they built. That would go against my "Ross is flip flopping" allegation.) Bryce: "But they might not have shared it with the Defense Department of the United States? Which probably paid for it in their trillion-dollar budgets. That's kind of mind-blowing in itself." Ross: "Those are the questions I think Congress should be asking. I mean, what I'm saying, basically, is..." Bryce: "Why are you saying this, by the way? Where did you? Where is this from? How do we know this? What's going on?" Ross: "I'm...I'm sorry, Bryce, I can't go there." ~ Bryce: "Frankly, the only major row that you and I have ever had, which was over eminent domain, and who can... Is it not possible that that legislation has eminent domain in it as an issue that the government would be able to go seize potential things from private enterprise, if the government, in fact, thought that Lockheed Martin had a Tic Tac? Wouldn't we want to go seize it?" Ross: "Bloody hell we would. Exactly. But that hasn't happened. And, you know, I can tell you, David Grusch has told them exactly where to look. Jake Barber has told them exactly where to look. This is why I just found it, in many ways, I find it absurd that we're still debating the issue whether the NHI technology recovery is real. Of course it's real!" (I think/suspect it's real. But if I'm gonna play journalist, I need to see proof before I say, "Of course it's real!" Or, "I know it's real." Walk me into the building and show me. I don't think this has happened with Ross so a debate is still warranted, IMO.) Bryce: "This thing you just said about Lockheed Martin. Is this the first time you've said that in public, or have you said that before?" Ross: "Look, there's been speculation for a while that it's Lockheed Martin, but I'm now very, very sure that it was Lockheed Martin. And I think the Tic Tac is part of two, at least two different platforms that Lockheed's been working on. Different platforms that they've been working on. And it's technology that, until very recently, most of Congress was completely unaware of." (To me, that sounds like Ross is saying, that whatever LM is working on, they built it.) Bryce: "Well, I just hope, if there's a war with China or a war with NHI, I just hope Lockheed Martin remembers who helped pay for it, and they're on our side. That's what I would say." Ross: "Well, I hope they are. I don't think we can have any expectation, though, unless the public demands answers, that we're going to get the truth." Full post here: ~And more from yesterday's "Reality Check"~ @MeaganOurada reads a question: "You recently mentioned the Tic Tac was a produced/manufactured by Lockheed Martin, but you never mentioned if it was under autonomous flight or piloted." (This shows that others took Ross's original comments as LM manufacturing a Tic Tac and not figuring out how to fly an NHI Tic Tac that they somehow had acquired.) Ross: "That's a good question, and I'll be honest with you, I don't know for sure." (Here was a chance for Ross to say, "I didn't mean to suggest it was 100% produced/manufactured by Lockheed, just that it was one possibility. The other is they operated a NHI Tic Tac that they had acquired.) Ross: "I have been told previously that when Tic Tacs... You see, one of the other things I want to clarify here as well is, there are NHI Tic Tacs." (We don't know that for sure, and later on, Ross adds that they are "suspected" to be NHI.) Ross: "A lot of people seem to be thinking that I'm suggesting that all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. That's not the case at all." (A few people who follow me thought that but I think the overwhelming majority realize that Ross didn't say that.) Ross: "What I was told, and I'm reasonably sure that this is the case, is that Tic Tac was being operated by Lockheed Martin, and it's conceivable that that was being operated neuro-meditatively, psionically, by a human psionic, which is what I understand, is the way that these retrieved, non-human craft are being operated." ("Reasonably sure" and "operated," is different than what he said on N2K: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." I think most people took that as: "I now now, categorically, that Lockheed built a Tic Tac and that's what Fravor chased in 2004." That's why you saw such a pushback from people on social media.) Ross: "It's not clear to me, though, whether this is a craft that was built by Lockheed Martin, or whether it is Lockheed Martin testing the use of neuro-meditative signaling, as our friends at Skywatcher called it, to operate one of these craft. I just can't answer that question, specifically." (If Ross would have said this in the N2K episode and didn't use the word, "categorically," I think the reaction would have been, "Oh, that's interesting." I'm still skeptical that Lockheed has ANY role in the 2004 Tic Tac incident but I'll keep my mind open.) Ross: "All I can do is tell you what I've been told by my multiple sources, which is that the operation of the Tic Tac was being controlled, on the day, by Lockheed Martin." (Again, if he had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard. I hope humans have developed the ability to control a Tic Tac and make it perform like what was reported on November 14th, 2004. But, again, I'm skeptical. The SPY-1 radar on the USS Princeton tracked objects for a week or so, leading up to the encounter Fravor and the others had with the Tic Tac. Were all of those objects LM-controlled craft? Seems unlikely. In 2019, at UFO MegaCon, Kevin Day said that on around November 10th, he started witnessing these strange tracks on his radar scope. He wasn’t really concerned with them because there was a lot of air traffic off the coast of California and they were a significant ways from the strike group. So they just monitored them and reporting them to 'higher authorities' and maintained track of them. They stood out and were anomalous because they were at 28,000 feet and going at 100 knots. Day said that was, 'extremely bizarre.' His entire job was to identify stuff and he had no idea what these were. None. Radar was shut down so they could do an extensive diagnostics to make sure it was working and these were real contacts. They were. ~ Just going through all the possibilities I can think of.... Did LM "hijack" or summon one of those craft, psychically, and "make it" have an encounter with Fravor and Friends? Or, maybe none of the above? Maybe it was a NHI craft and had nothing to do with LM? Remember, Fravor said it looked like it might be docking with a submerged object, so maybe that's why it was in that specific area? To me, that suggests NHI.) Ross: "Now I want to say here, let's be really clear about this: There is always the possibility that sources that talk to a journalist like me may be maligned. They may indeed be running some kind of psyop." (I know he has said that kind of thing in the past but I wish Ross had reiterated that point in the N2K segment. I have heard from a few people who think that's exactly what's happening here. And also, if his sources are so sure LM was involved and "operating" a Tic Tac, to me, it would make sense that they would also know whether it was a Tic Tac LM acquired or...a Tic Tac LM manufactured, based on reverse engineering the real thing.) Ross: "And of course I've taken that (disinformation/psyop) into consideration in asking the question. The difficulty is, I can't go into the detail, for very obvious reasons, about who these sources are and why I think so strongly that those sources are telling me the truth. And I can tell you, there are a lot of people who are assuring me that I'm flat wrong. And that's fine. But let's have a discussion about this." (Well now that "categorically" seems be to off the table, we can discuss it. BTW, back in 2019 on my blog, Dave Beaty 🇺🇦 and I discussed the possibility that the Tic Tac was human tech. I know others have discussed that, too, so it's not a new idea.) ~Ross then switches gears to the drones~ Ross: "And also, let's talk about what I think was actually another of the major points that I was trying to make in the course of that conversation I had with Bryce. Which is that there is an obvious contradiction between what the White House has said - that these were FAA-authorized drones operating [in] the continental United States in November, December, January - and what the U.S. Air Force has said. Which is two senior generals, one former, one serving commander of NORTHCOM, NORAD, responsible for the defense of the United States northern aerospace, stated categorically, on the record, that they have no idea who is responsible for those drone craft that were hovering over the continent of the United States. That's an obvious, logical contradiction." (In the March 16th episode of 60 Minutes with Bill Whitaker., we learned... Retired four-star general, Mark Kelly, went up to the roof and saw drones over Langley, from the size of a quadcopter up to the size of a small car. General Glen VanHerck (now retired) is the former commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes" that we can't track the drones over Langley or see where they originated. "It's a capability gap. Certainly, they can come and go from any direction. The FBI is looking at potential options but they don't have an answer right now." General Gregory Guillot is the current commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes," that, "the threat got ahead of our ability to detect and track the threat." Could we detect drones flying into Langley today? "At low altitude, probably not, with your standard FAA or surveillance radars. I don't think we know entirely what happened. It is alarming." And, as I've (Joe) been saying forever, a big problem was/is the rules of engagement that detail when and how you can shoot down drones. VanHerk: "It's been one year since Langley had their drone incursion and we don't have the policies and laws in place to deal with this? That's not a sense or urgency.") ~ Ross: "And if the president, think about this... If the president...it's actually a good point that actually supports the possibility that I might, in fact, be right, and that my sources are in fact telling me the truth. If the president is telling the American public they don't need to worry about these drones - drones which we know are operating anomalously, with anomalous characteristics - then what the hell is going on? It implies he's been briefed. (Okay, what Ross is saying here: If you combine the president telling us not to worry about the drones, along with these drones making anomalous maneuvers, it bolsters his claim that LM (and others) has advanced tech that can also be used in drone tech. And that the president has been briefed about this advanced tech. But the problem with that line of thinking is, when you look at what eyewitnesses have said about the drones (or whatever they were), in 99% of the cases, the only anomalous behavior was their ability avoid detection and go stealth. That's the low observability part of the UAP five observables that Lue Elizondo popularized. But no 90-degree turns or anything like that. I don't think anything the generals or Trump said bolsters the idea that Lockheed was involved with the Tic Tac in 2004.) Ross: "Just to add more smoke to the fire, earlier on today, I had a message from a guy in New Jersey who has seen one of these drones land in a New Jersey backyard. He was illegally pointing a laser beam at one of these drones, which you should not do. Naughty. Even if they are NHI or whatever they are." (I wish Ross had said, "a guy in New Jersey who CLAIMS he has seen one of these drones land." Ross was in Barcelona when recording this episode of Reality Check so there was no time for him to vet this story. It's such an outlier from everything else we have heard about the drones that I think we should remain skeptical about if it actually happened. Does this person have photos or videos? Are there any other eyewitnesses?) Ross: "This is what he told me: "I was beaming [the drones] one night around midnight, and the one flew straight over my backyard, stopped slightly above, and to my left, and seemed to sink down into the trees along the little street on the side of my house. The next thing I see is this rectangle-looking, box-like thing floating just above the street, about the size of an old Ford station wagon. It was the most incredible, starkly-lit thing I've ever seen. I've never seen colors so radiant, so intensely liquid-like in my life. Several shades of blues with oranges and yellows like intense neon lights. "'It scared the hell out of me, and I moved away from the window so it couldn't see me. I slowly poked my head around the window, and it followed every move I made. It knew I was watching it. I would pull back and it came up the street. I would move into the window and it moved back down the street. It was like we were synchronized, and I was completely freaked out to the point that I quickly ran into my kitchen and considered hiding under my sink, of all things. I found myself in some sort of stupor, like I was being drugged, confused and slowed down. So I went to my bedroom and got my point two five, and just laid back in bed. I awoke the next morning, still holding the pistol.' ~End Alleged Eyewitness Account in NJ~ Ross: "Something really anomalous that has no visible means of propulsion is landing in New Jersey, and your president is telling you he's not concerned about it. Yet, two generals responsible for the defense of the United States aerospace are telling you they're concerned about it, and they don't know what these objects are. Why is the president not concerned? And why are two U.S. Air Force generals, presumably, not briefed into what the president is briefed into? Think about that." (Allegedly landed in NJ. I don't think Trump knows more than the generals, and I don't think he was briefed into a program that they were left out in the cold on.) ~~~ @MeaganOurada reads another question: "Even if Ross seems confident that Tic Tac is U.S. tech, does he think it's a reverse engineering tech from NHI, or a tech 100% created by humans?" Ross: "As I've mentioned earlier, we're not saying all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. And it's quite clear that some Tic Tacs are indeed non-human intelligence, or suspected to be non-human intelligence. But what we're talking about are objects that are showing the five observables, doing maneuvers and operating in ways that don't conform to terrestrial craft. "I can't answer the question, definitively, whether they are constructed by Lockheed Martin, or whether it's Lockheed Martin operating a recovered, retrieved craft." (Again, if he had said that in the N2K segment, there may have been less pushback. Did his sources not explain that aspect of the claim? Pretty important detail.) Ross: "Because what I've been told, and what jakebarber told me in the interview that you've all watched, hopefully, on NewsNation, is that there have been retrievals of craft, including Tic Tacs. So, why is it a surprise to people that a contractor, that I'm alleging is directly involved in the Legacy program, is involved in operating these craft." (Because when Ross spoke about this the first time, he made no mention of LM OPERATING the Tic Tac in the 2004 incident . If he didn't mean that Lockheed had BUILT or MANUFACTURED it, he should have made that clear. He must understand this.) Ross: "And moreover, why would we necessarily expect that people, even those flying in the carrier battle group, would actually know about this or be briefed into this?" (We didn't, and don't, expect that, and have been discussing it for the last 6 or so years.) Ross: "It would have been a really good idea if they were going to test this technology against the carrier battle group, to have let the people know." (Which people? How many? Fravor said they had around 6000 people on the Nimitz and Princeton, combined. If it was SAP-level, classified technology, they would've had to read all those people into the program before the test. Not realistic, IMO.) Ross: "And I think people need to be reminded that my good friend, Kevin Day, who I know disputes the possibility that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin... In my book, Kevin Day told me - and he said this in many, many interviews - that when, I think it was the admiral in charge of the carrier battle group, was told about the Tic Tac, he didn't seem very alarmed. Why not? Why aren't people asking these questions? Why was the commander of a carrier battle fleet - that was suffering incursions by anomalous objects doing the five observables during a hugely important and sensitive naval exercise - why wasn't he concerned about those craft? Think about it." (When I met Keven in 2019, he left the door slightly open to the possibility that it was our tech. And I can't find anything about an admiral onboard the Princeton in Ross's book, "In Plain Sight." The only thing that resembles that claim is this excerpt about the captain. I also wrote about the captain in my blog in 2019.) From In Plain Sight... Kevin Day recalls asking his captain on the Princeton afterwards what he thought the object was. 'He told me, “I think the objects were spontaneously forming ice falling from space”.’ Day laughs at the absurdity of such a conclusion. His captain left him with the clear impression he knew a lot more than he was letting on about the phenomenon." From My Blog in 2019... "November 14th, they’re doing air defense exercises, also known as ADEX. Day pulls Captain Smith aside and tells him about the contacts that he and the others had been tracking and that he’s worried about 'safety of flight' because they could have a mishap with one of these craft as they conduct their exercises. Day highly recommended that they go check them out. Smith agreed and told him to take the Fast Eagle flight and 'go get ‘em.' Day said, “in the back of my mind, I was like, hell yeah! We’re going to intercept these things!” (audience laughs) It turned out to be his very last intercept in the Navy." (So, apparently, the captain WAS concerned leading up to the encounter. More from my 2019 blog...) "Voorhis shared that his captain had started a rumor that the objects were spontaneously forming ice in the atmosphere. He said he and his buddies would all sit there, smoke and say, 'Yeah, right.'" (For me, none of that is enough to suggest that the captain knew LM or some other humans/military/USG were behind the Tic Tac events. Maybe the captain thought it was something alien but didn't want the sailors to lose focus for their upcoming role in Iraqi Freedom? Or, maybe he was scared of the possibility of a non-human intelligence among us? I don't know. I'm not positive, but I think Ryan Graves mentioned one of his superiors giving a muted reaction to some of the UAP events they were facing on the East Coast.) ~ "Commander David Fravor responded to me: the Tic Tac 'was not Lockheed Martin', according to him. He seemed very confident and matter-of-fact." ~Jesse Michels Ross: "Let me first say I have nothing but admiration for David Fravor. He's given service to his country, he's a patriot, and he deserves respect and recognition for that. I'm not getting involved in a stash with a person who's done so much, honorably, for his country. It's not, though, outside the realm of possibilities. In fact, I think it would be extremely unlikely that, if there is, as I know there is, a compartmented, secret program where Lockheed Martin is one of the primary contractors operating retrieved, non-human technology and attempting to reverse engineer that technology, there is absolutely no way that David would be briefed into that, unless it was absolutely necessary for the doing of his job." (I've been saying this for several years and I agree 100%.) Ross: "As we all know, when the government wants to protect a secret, it compartmentalizes it. Even if you have a Top-Secret classification - which I'm sure David probably had - it's also compartmentalized. And that's how the U.S. keeps its secrets. And I've spoken to people, literally in institutions in the United States, one of whom knows about the program, and the other of whom is in an adjoining office and has absolutely no idea. "I've had a situation where I've spoken to the head of a government agency that ought properly to have known about the Legacy program. That head of a government agency was not informed about the fact that we are recovering non-human craft and attempting to reverse engineer that technology." (Journalistically speaking, I would say, "The head of a government agency was not informed about the CLAIM that we are recovering non-human craft." No way for Ross to know that's a fact unless he's been read in to the program to see for himself. Belief? Yes. Knowing? No. I harp on this all the time and it's a pet peeve of mine because I think it's important.) Ross: "A person two rungs down was the person that the Legacy program was using to gate keep inside that institution. It's really interesting how they compartmentalize all of this. And so, absolutely no disrespect to David Fravor or my good friend, Kevin Day, but they're good men. The simple fact is, compartmentalization works." (Again, I agree 100%. If Admiral Wilson, the vice director of intelligence, and deputy director of the DIA, was denied access, then there's a very good chance David Fravor was, too.)
7:14

"If [Ross] had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard." ~Murgia Lockheed, Landing Drones, Stupor, and Trump Did think this would be another LAP (Long-Ass Post), but here it is. Ross Coulthart: "It's been a very interesting week with the public response to the comments that I've made on the show that I do with my friend and colleague,Bryce Zabel, "Need to Know," where we discussed what I've been told by my sources, multiple sources, by the way, that Lockheed Martin was indeed behind the Tic Tac encounter of 2004 with the USS Nimitz battle carrier group." Let's rewind: This is what Ross and Bryce said on the @Coulthart_Zabel episode uploaded on July 6th. My comments in ( ). Ross: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." Bryce: "Ooookay." Ross: "The Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Why are we being lied to? This is the issue. Why is the United States government now participating - at White-House, executive level, in collusion with the national-security state - to keep secret the fact that they've made these advances? I suspect it's because they've realized that they're being overtaken by their foreign adversaries, and they don't want you to know that." Bryce: "Okay, the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin. Well, in some respects, given how insane the Tic Tac behaved during the Nimitz, where it went from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than a second, then I would say, well there's one for the U.S. team. Obviously, we have some good stuff out there, if that's the case, right?" Ross: "How much of that is being shared with the actual Defense Department that's responsible for the defense of the United States? This is the kind of questions that Congress should be asking." Bryce: "So you're saying Lockheed Martin might - or anybody, but Lockheed Martin in this particular case - has a Tic Tac that they are testing, and have been testing, and have access to." (One can argue that when Bryce said LM has a Tic Tac that they've been testing, that could include the possibility that it's an NHI craft they somehow acquired and not something they built. That would go against my "Ross is flip flopping" allegation.) Bryce: "But they might not have shared it with the Defense Department of the United States? Which probably paid for it in their trillion-dollar budgets. That's kind of mind-blowing in itself." Ross: "Those are the questions I think Congress should be asking. I mean, what I'm saying, basically, is..." Bryce: "Why are you saying this, by the way? Where did you? Where is this from? How do we know this? What's going on?" Ross: "I'm...I'm sorry, Bryce, I can't go there." ~ Bryce: "Frankly, the only major row that you and I have ever had, which was over eminent domain, and who can... Is it not possible that that legislation has eminent domain in it as an issue that the government would be able to go seize potential things from private enterprise, if the government, in fact, thought that Lockheed Martin had a Tic Tac? Wouldn't we want to go seize it?" Ross: "Bloody hell we would. Exactly. But that hasn't happened. And, you know, I can tell you, David Grusch has told them exactly where to look. Jake Barber has told them exactly where to look. This is why I just found it, in many ways, I find it absurd that we're still debating the issue whether the NHI technology recovery is real. Of course it's real!" (I think/suspect it's real. But if I'm gonna play journalist, I need to see proof before I say, "Of course it's real!" Or, "I know it's real." Walk me into the building and show me. I don't think this has happened with Ross so a debate is still warranted, IMO.) Bryce: "This thing you just said about Lockheed Martin. Is this the first time you've said that in public, or have you said that before?" Ross: "Look, there's been speculation for a while that it's Lockheed Martin, but I'm now very, very sure that it was Lockheed Martin. And I think the Tic Tac is part of two, at least two different platforms that Lockheed's been working on. Different platforms that they've been working on. And it's technology that, until very recently, most of Congress was completely unaware of." (To me, that sounds like Ross is saying, that whatever LM is working on, they built it.) Bryce: "Well, I just hope, if there's a war with China or a war with NHI, I just hope Lockheed Martin remembers who helped pay for it, and they're on our side. That's what I would say." Ross: "Well, I hope they are. I don't think we can have any expectation, though, unless the public demands answers, that we're going to get the truth." Full post here: ~And more from yesterday's "Reality Check"~ @MeaganOurada reads a question: "You recently mentioned the Tic Tac was a produced/manufactured by Lockheed Martin, but you never mentioned if it was under autonomous flight or piloted." (This shows that others took Ross's original comments as LM manufacturing a Tic Tac and not figuring out how to fly an NHI Tic Tac that they somehow had acquired.) Ross: "That's a good question, and I'll be honest with you, I don't know for sure." (Here was a chance for Ross to say, "I didn't mean to suggest it was 100% produced/manufactured by Lockheed, just that it was one possibility. The other is they operated a NHI Tic Tac that they had acquired.) Ross: "I have been told previously that when Tic Tacs... You see, one of the other things I want to clarify here as well is, there are NHI Tic Tacs." (We don't know that for sure, and later on, Ross adds that they are "suspected" to be NHI.) Ross: "A lot of people seem to be thinking that I'm suggesting that all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. That's not the case at all." (A few people who follow me thought that but I think the overwhelming majority realize that Ross didn't say that.) Ross: "What I was told, and I'm reasonably sure that this is the case, is that Tic Tac was being operated by Lockheed Martin, and it's conceivable that that was being operated neuro-meditatively, psionically, by a human psionic, which is what I understand, is the way that these retrieved, non-human craft are being operated." ("Reasonably sure" and "operated," is different than what he said on N2K: "I now know, categorically, that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." I think most people took that as: "I now now, categorically, that Lockheed built a Tic Tac and that's what Fravor chased in 2004." That's why you saw such a pushback from people on social media.) Ross: "It's not clear to me, though, whether this is a craft that was built by Lockheed Martin, or whether it is Lockheed Martin testing the use of neuro-meditative signaling, as our friends at Skywatcher called it, to operate one of these craft. I just can't answer that question, specifically." (If Ross would have said this in the N2K episode and didn't use the word, "categorically," I think the reaction would have been, "Oh, that's interesting." I'm still skeptical that Lockheed has ANY role in the 2004 Tic Tac incident but I'll keep my mind open.) Ross: "All I can do is tell you what I've been told by my multiple sources, which is that the operation of the Tic Tac was being controlled, on the day, by Lockheed Martin." (Again, if he had phrased it like that in the N2K segment, I think most people wouldn't have pushed back so hard. I hope humans have developed the ability to control a Tic Tac and make it perform like what was reported on November 14th, 2004. But, again, I'm skeptical. The SPY-1 radar on the USS Princeton tracked objects for a week or so, leading up to the encounter Fravor and the others had with the Tic Tac. Were all of those objects LM-controlled craft? Seems unlikely. In 2019, at UFO MegaCon, Kevin Day said that on around November 10th, he started witnessing these strange tracks on his radar scope. He wasn’t really concerned with them because there was a lot of air traffic off the coast of California and they were a significant ways from the strike group. So they just monitored them and reporting them to 'higher authorities' and maintained track of them. They stood out and were anomalous because they were at 28,000 feet and going at 100 knots. Day said that was, 'extremely bizarre.' His entire job was to identify stuff and he had no idea what these were. None. Radar was shut down so they could do an extensive diagnostics to make sure it was working and these were real contacts. They were. ~ Just going through all the possibilities I can think of.... Did LM "hijack" or summon one of those craft, psychically, and "make it" have an encounter with Fravor and Friends? Or, maybe none of the above? Maybe it was a NHI craft and had nothing to do with LM? Remember, Fravor said it looked like it might be docking with a submerged object, so maybe that's why it was in that specific area? To me, that suggests NHI.) Ross: "Now I want to say here, let's be really clear about this: There is always the possibility that sources that talk to a journalist like me may be maligned. They may indeed be running some kind of psyop." (I know he has said that kind of thing in the past but I wish Ross had reiterated that point in the N2K segment. I have heard from a few people who think that's exactly what's happening here. And also, if his sources are so sure LM was involved and "operating" a Tic Tac, to me, it would make sense that they would also know whether it was a Tic Tac LM acquired or...a Tic Tac LM manufactured, based on reverse engineering the real thing.) Ross: "And of course I've taken that (disinformation/psyop) into consideration in asking the question. The difficulty is, I can't go into the detail, for very obvious reasons, about who these sources are and why I think so strongly that those sources are telling me the truth. And I can tell you, there are a lot of people who are assuring me that I'm flat wrong. And that's fine. But let's have a discussion about this." (Well now that "categorically" seems be to off the table, we can discuss it. BTW, back in 2019 on my blog, Dave Beaty 🇺🇦 and I discussed the possibility that the Tic Tac was human tech. I know others have discussed that, too, so it's not a new idea.) ~Ross then switches gears to the drones~ Ross: "And also, let's talk about what I think was actually another of the major points that I was trying to make in the course of that conversation I had with Bryce. Which is that there is an obvious contradiction between what the White House has said - that these were FAA-authorized drones operating [in] the continental United States in November, December, January - and what the U.S. Air Force has said. Which is two senior generals, one former, one serving commander of NORTHCOM, NORAD, responsible for the defense of the United States northern aerospace, stated categorically, on the record, that they have no idea who is responsible for those drone craft that were hovering over the continent of the United States. That's an obvious, logical contradiction." (In the March 16th episode of 60 Minutes with Bill Whitaker., we learned... Retired four-star general, Mark Kelly, went up to the roof and saw drones over Langley, from the size of a quadcopter up to the size of a small car. General Glen VanHerck (now retired) is the former commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes" that we can't track the drones over Langley or see where they originated. "It's a capability gap. Certainly, they can come and go from any direction. The FBI is looking at potential options but they don't have an answer right now." General Gregory Guillot is the current commander of NORAD and NORTHCOM and told "60 Minutes," that, "the threat got ahead of our ability to detect and track the threat." Could we detect drones flying into Langley today? "At low altitude, probably not, with your standard FAA or surveillance radars. I don't think we know entirely what happened. It is alarming." And, as I've (Joe) been saying forever, a big problem was/is the rules of engagement that detail when and how you can shoot down drones. VanHerk: "It's been one year since Langley had their drone incursion and we don't have the policies and laws in place to deal with this? That's not a sense or urgency.") ~ Ross: "And if the president, think about this... If the president...it's actually a good point that actually supports the possibility that I might, in fact, be right, and that my sources are in fact telling me the truth. If the president is telling the American public they don't need to worry about these drones - drones which we know are operating anomalously, with anomalous characteristics - then what the hell is going on? It implies he's been briefed. (Okay, what Ross is saying here: If you combine the president telling us not to worry about the drones, along with these drones making anomalous maneuvers, it bolsters his claim that LM (and others) has advanced tech that can also be used in drone tech. And that the president has been briefed about this advanced tech. But the problem with that line of thinking is, when you look at what eyewitnesses have said about the drones (or whatever they were), in 99% of the cases, the only anomalous behavior was their ability avoid detection and go stealth. That's the low observability part of the UAP five observables that Lue Elizondo popularized. But no 90-degree turns or anything like that. I don't think anything the generals or Trump said bolsters the idea that Lockheed was involved with the Tic Tac in 2004.) Ross: "Just to add more smoke to the fire, earlier on today, I had a message from a guy in New Jersey who has seen one of these drones land in a New Jersey backyard. He was illegally pointing a laser beam at one of these drones, which you should not do. Naughty. Even if they are NHI or whatever they are." (I wish Ross had said, "a guy in New Jersey who CLAIMS he has seen one of these drones land." Ross was in Barcelona when recording this episode of Reality Check so there was no time for him to vet this story. It's such an outlier from everything else we have heard about the drones that I think we should remain skeptical about if it actually happened. Does this person have photos or videos? Are there any other eyewitnesses?) Ross: "This is what he told me: "I was beaming [the drones] one night around midnight, and the one flew straight over my backyard, stopped slightly above, and to my left, and seemed to sink down into the trees along the little street on the side of my house. The next thing I see is this rectangle-looking, box-like thing floating just above the street, about the size of an old Ford station wagon. It was the most incredible, starkly-lit thing I've ever seen. I've never seen colors so radiant, so intensely liquid-like in my life. Several shades of blues with oranges and yellows like intense neon lights. "'It scared the hell out of me, and I moved away from the window so it couldn't see me. I slowly poked my head around the window, and it followed every move I made. It knew I was watching it. I would pull back and it came up the street. I would move into the window and it moved back down the street. It was like we were synchronized, and I was completely freaked out to the point that I quickly ran into my kitchen and considered hiding under my sink, of all things. I found myself in some sort of stupor, like I was being drugged, confused and slowed down. So I went to my bedroom and got my point two five, and just laid back in bed. I awoke the next morning, still holding the pistol.' ~End Alleged Eyewitness Account in NJ~ Ross: "Something really anomalous that has no visible means of propulsion is landing in New Jersey, and your president is telling you he's not concerned about it. Yet, two generals responsible for the defense of the United States aerospace are telling you they're concerned about it, and they don't know what these objects are. Why is the president not concerned? And why are two U.S. Air Force generals, presumably, not briefed into what the president is briefed into? Think about that." (Allegedly landed in NJ. I don't think Trump knows more than the generals, and I don't think he was briefed into a program that they were left out in the cold on.) ~~~ @MeaganOurada reads another question: "Even if Ross seems confident that Tic Tac is U.S. tech, does he think it's a reverse engineering tech from NHI, or a tech 100% created by humans?" Ross: "As I've mentioned earlier, we're not saying all Tic Tacs are Lockheed Martin. And it's quite clear that some Tic Tacs are indeed non-human intelligence, or suspected to be non-human intelligence. But what we're talking about are objects that are showing the five observables, doing maneuvers and operating in ways that don't conform to terrestrial craft. "I can't answer the question, definitively, whether they are constructed by Lockheed Martin, or whether it's Lockheed Martin operating a recovered, retrieved craft." (Again, if he had said that in the N2K segment, there may have been less pushback. Did his sources not explain that aspect of the claim? Pretty important detail.) Ross: "Because what I've been told, and what jakebarber told me in the interview that you've all watched, hopefully, on NewsNation, is that there have been retrievals of craft, including Tic Tacs. So, why is it a surprise to people that a contractor, that I'm alleging is directly involved in the Legacy program, is involved in operating these craft." (Because when Ross spoke about this the first time, he made no mention of LM OPERATING the Tic Tac in the 2004 incident . If he didn't mean that Lockheed had BUILT or MANUFACTURED it, he should have made that clear. He must understand this.) Ross: "And moreover, why would we necessarily expect that people, even those flying in the carrier battle group, would actually know about this or be briefed into this?" (We didn't, and don't, expect that, and have been discussing it for the last 6 or so years.) Ross: "It would have been a really good idea if they were going to test this technology against the carrier battle group, to have let the people know." (Which people? How many? Fravor said they had around 6000 people on the Nimitz and Princeton, combined. If it was SAP-level, classified technology, they would've had to read all those people into the program before the test. Not realistic, IMO.) Ross: "And I think people need to be reminded that my good friend, Kevin Day, who I know disputes the possibility that the Tic Tac is Lockheed Martin... In my book, Kevin Day told me - and he said this in many, many interviews - that when, I think it was the admiral in charge of the carrier battle group, was told about the Tic Tac, he didn't seem very alarmed. Why not? Why aren't people asking these questions? Why was the commander of a carrier battle fleet - that was suffering incursions by anomalous objects doing the five observables during a hugely important and sensitive naval exercise - why wasn't he concerned about those craft? Think about it." (When I met Keven in 2019, he left the door slightly open to the possibility that it was our tech. And I can't find anything about an admiral onboard the Princeton in Ross's book, "In Plain Sight." The only thing that resembles that claim is this excerpt about the captain. I also wrote about the captain in my blog in 2019.) From In Plain Sight... Kevin Day recalls asking his captain on the Princeton afterwards what he thought the object was. 'He told me, “I think the objects were spontaneously forming ice falling from space”.’ Day laughs at the absurdity of such a conclusion. His captain left him with the clear impression he knew a lot more than he was letting on about the phenomenon." From My Blog in 2019... "November 14th, they’re doing air defense exercises, also known as ADEX. Day pulls Captain Smith aside and tells him about the contacts that he and the others had been tracking and that he’s worried about 'safety of flight' because they could have a mishap with one of these craft as they conduct their exercises. Day highly recommended that they go check them out. Smith agreed and told him to take the Fast Eagle flight and 'go get ‘em.' Day said, “in the back of my mind, I was like, hell yeah! We’re going to intercept these things!” (audience laughs) It turned out to be his very last intercept in the Navy." (So, apparently, the captain WAS concerned leading up to the encounter. More from my 2019 blog...) "Voorhis shared that his captain had started a rumor that the objects were spontaneously forming ice in the atmosphere. He said he and his buddies would all sit there, smoke and say, 'Yeah, right.'" (For me, none of that is enough to suggest that the captain knew LM or some other humans/military/USG were behind the Tic Tac events. Maybe the captain thought it was something alien but didn't want the sailors to lose focus for their upcoming role in Iraqi Freedom? Or, maybe he was scared of the possibility of a non-human intelligence among us? I don't know. I'm not positive, but I think Ryan Graves mentioned one of his superiors giving a muted reaction to some of the UAP events they were facing on the East Coast.) ~ "Commander David Fravor responded to me: the Tic Tac 'was not Lockheed Martin', according to him. He seemed very confident and matter-of-fact." ~Jesse Michels Ross: "Let me first say I have nothing but admiration for David Fravor. He's given service to his country, he's a patriot, and he deserves respect and recognition for that. I'm not getting involved in a stash with a person who's done so much, honorably, for his country. It's not, though, outside the realm of possibilities. In fact, I think it would be extremely unlikely that, if there is, as I know there is, a compartmented, secret program where Lockheed Martin is one of the primary contractors operating retrieved, non-human technology and attempting to reverse engineer that technology, there is absolutely no way that David would be briefed into that, unless it was absolutely necessary for the doing of his job." (I've been saying this for several years and I agree 100%.) Ross: "As we all know, when the government wants to protect a secret, it compartmentalizes it. Even if you have a Top-Secret classification - which I'm sure David probably had - it's also compartmentalized. And that's how the U.S. keeps its secrets. And I've spoken to people, literally in institutions in the United States, one of whom knows about the program, and the other of whom is in an adjoining office and has absolutely no idea. "I've had a situation where I've spoken to the head of a government agency that ought properly to have known about the Legacy program. That head of a government agency was not informed about the fact that we are recovering non-human craft and attempting to reverse engineer that technology." (Journalistically speaking, I would say, "The head of a government agency was not informed about the CLAIM that we are recovering non-human craft." No way for Ross to know that's a fact unless he's been read in to the program to see for himself. Belief? Yes. Knowing? No. I harp on this all the time and it's a pet peeve of mine because I think it's important.) Ross: "A person two rungs down was the person that the Legacy program was using to gate keep inside that institution. It's really interesting how they compartmentalize all of this. And so, absolutely no disrespect to David Fravor or my good friend, Kevin Day, but they're good men. The simple fact is, compartmentalization works." (Again, I agree 100%. If Admiral Wilson, the vice director of intelligence, and deputy director of the DIA, was denied access, then there's a very good chance David Fravor was, too.)

Joe Murgia

22,656 次观看 • 1 年前

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"
14:08

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 次观看 • 2 个月前

Continuing in my series of showing you the Woke Right's meltdown about talking with Jordan Peterson about Woke, thus them, I bring you some clips from Blaze Media propagandist "Auron MacIntyre." These require more analysis because unlike Carl Benjamin, Auron MacIntyre is a relatively skilled propagandist. So in this clip Auron begins by mocking Peterson and me for allegedly not understanding the slang term "based" (which is demonstrably false, btw -- I've detailed its history and uses elsewhere -- a typical sort of lie a propagandist tells). He mocks us as being out-of-touch old people ("old man shakes fist at sky") for believing "based" should refer to being "based in reality," which it should, so a digression to reveal the malicious technique. The origin of the term "based" used by the Woke Right was from a rap song about freebasing cocaine, and it became slang for being bold and edgy and saying socially taboo things. In 2021, the conservative movement at large started picking it up, understanding it to mean "based in reality and principle and willing to say uncomfortable truths as such." The "willing to say uncomfortable [things]" in both cases is where the confusion lies because it can be done two ways: responsibly (truths) or irresponsibly (edgy transgression). This is basically my point with bringing it up with Peterson. Setting aside the digression of whether we want a term associated with being the opposite of Woke to mean "based in reality and principle" or "high on ideological cocaine," Auron is particularly keen within the first few moments of speaking (~1 min) to drive the old versus young wedge that the Woke Right is so keen on pushing. Just like the Bernie Bros of 10 years ago, they want to invest their movement with "Ok Boomer" energy and cause a generational split. Historically, this is Red Guard behavior, which is cultural Maoism, which is... where Woke comes from in the specific sense we're familiar with and hate. So, he's being Woke in a particularly damaging and dangerous way. So using the classic Jon Stewart (Woke) trick of opening with mockery to create an atmosphere of humor that discredits his targets (Peterson and me) particularly with a target audience (young radicalizing right-wing) that he signals alignment of, he steps into his "analysis" by accusing me of a "pivot." Spoiler: I have not and never pivoted, and that's why they're pissed off at me. I didn't go along with THEIR pivot, which has been unfolding for a couple of years (particularly at the Blaze, since Glenn Beck retired and they hired a bunch of "Schmittians," including Auron) and went on steroids last fall in the lead-up to the election. His specific accusation that he's accusing me of is claiming that I said "the Left wanted to get rid of all racism, so these guys [Woke Right] want to bring back all the racism." This isn't my claim, but it will happen to some degree and is happening. Auron is creating plausible deniability around that here, but what was my actual claim? My claim was that Woke on both sides is characterized by the transgression of mainstream norms using the opposite side's radicals as the justification. The Woke Left transgressed against the term "racism" and successful and majority races with CRT by expanding the definition and reversing the classic racism "directions" under roughly Ibram Kendi's "antiracist" program of ending discrimination by discriminating. They did this in the name of "stopping racism," which they associated with the "far right" and claimed was endemic through all of society. It was society's norm of identifying actual racism correctly and not being racist in any direction they were actually targeting. The Woke Right transgresses against this same norm the other direction ("same energy, opposite direction") by leaning into racism in "based" defiance of the Left and CRT norms. They're violating a lot of taboos the mainstream depends on in the process, like not being racist, on justifications like "if every other group gets to be racist/tribal, we have to too for self-defense," which they're actually arguing pretty widely. The point is that both Woke groups are transgressing against norms against racism in different ways. Same energy, opposite direction. Auron directs his audience away from this point and builds a strawman that he can press into the train of mockery he already started. But what he actually does is shifts to make out that my real point is that "the most important issue we have to care about in society is racism," trying to place me in the CRT/Leftist camp, which I'm literally actually opposing in the clip he's commenting on (and that I've done more to oppose than anyone in the world, without any doubt to anyone familiar with my work for the last seven or eight years). He uses this straw man to lump together "center left, classical liberals, IDW" and to say we're "revealing ourselves" effectively as crypto-Leftists, which the portion of the clip of me that he played (aside from all my previous work) directly refutes. "Their religion," Auron opines, "is still antiracism." [So does he mean like being not-racist, like we actually are (not religiously), or like Kendi means it? Has he accepted Kendi's framing that there's only "racist" and "antiracist" and then tried to project that onto people who want to be not racist? Sure looks like it.] "James Lindsay, as much as he's against it, as much as he's written against it, as much as he's claimed to want to expose it, ultimately, he doesn't disagree with 'antiracism' as the core religion of the United States." That's a pretty astonishing sentence in its calculated falseness, and we have every reason to believe it was made deliberately and maliciously (Auron has a very long track record of precisely this behavior). The effect is to flatten all "center left" and "classical liberals," along with me and my work specifically, into a kind of crypto-CRT "religious" belief in an effort to discredit us and name us part of the problem (the "dialectical flattening"/psychopathic splitting I also discussed with Peterson comes to mind here, for those who saw the whole show). He aims to treat different things as though they're the same thing (Woke context and language blurring) in order to cast us as secretly in alignment with Kendi and the rest of CRT. "He, he, he thinks that that ['antiracism'] should be the 'civic religion' of the United States." No, I don't. This is called lying. It's also mind reading through secret (Gnostic) interpretation of hidden clues in my language and work that reveal that I mean the exact opposite of what I'm consistently saying. "He just doesn't like the extreme version of it." Still lying, but trying to make it sound more plausible. "He's like a moderate jihadist. Ok, he wants moderate jihad. M-m-moderate Sharia. That's what James Lindsay demands." So beyond being ridiculous and defamatory that's a really weird association to make, but it should be obvious why he's making it. The game is to discredit me through mockery and association with things his audience already doesn't like. Also, the Iron Law of Woke Projection never misses.... The Woke Right holds to a "No Enemies to the Right" policy of extremism, and I do not. Mockingly pretending his speaking my voice: "Ok, I still want Sharia Law. I still want a woman beaten if she's walking outside alone. I- You, you know, u-use a small rod instead of, like, you know, a large stick. That's kinda James Lindsay's stance on this, right?" No, "Auron," not right. "So, so he still wants racism to be, like, the central concern of the United States; it just needs to have a more reasonable definition. Stop looking at the [Woke examples] of racism; just go back to the good old 'antiracism' that we used to have." It's called being not racist, which reveals what "Auron" is really arguing for, as with his take on "based" at the start of the clip (he wants transgressive ideological high on cocaine, not based in reality and principle and courageous enough to stand for them). He has completed his straw man, erected him, and is showing the audience Straw James for mockery and rejection. "The problem for James is that the entire reason you [sic] got there is that there's a gradient to the logic [so it's all 'antiracism' on a slippery slope -- dialectical splitting again]." "Auron" is explaining here yet again that "liberalism," which he is deliberately unclear about, is just another manifestation of Communism, a quieter, more moderate crypto-Communism (or, specifically Race Marxism, here). This bit of propagandizing depends on the fact that his audience uses the word "liberal" inaccurately and blends together many things including classical liberalism, traditional liberalism, European social and economic liberalism, neoliberalism, progressivism, socialism, Marxism, and Communism for a lot of bad reasons that are too much to cover here. The point is that as a propagandist, he's not just relying upon this lack of clarity and exploiting it, he's also deliberately sowing more confusion in the name of clarity (...disguised as an angel of light, since his stream is all about Lucifer anyway), deliberately and maliciously. "Again, you'll notice that he wants those 'liberal' norms [not being racist] back, but what James never admits, what James never makes clear, is that the 'liberal' norms got him Wokeness." If I thought this was true, I would have said it. I'm not hiding anything. I just think it's completely false and have dedicated an insane amount of effort into making it clear for people around the world. Maybe "Auron" should listen to any of the hundreds of talks, lectures, or podcasts in which I quoted directly from the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction where the authors (Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic) explicitly state that one of the reasons Critical Race Theory exists is to attack "Enlightenment liberalism" (just like the Woke Right does!). Much of the writing in Critical Race Theory is explicitly, and at length, a criticism and rejection of liberalism and liberal norms in favor of completely different radical ones. If "Auron" did that, though, he'd risk exposing that Woke Right shares this in common with CRT while liberals do not. "The liberal obsession with equality, the liberal obsession with racism, is what brought you to Wokeness." This is a few misarticuated truths married to a lot of lies (that is, propaganda). It's a lot to unpack. Liberalism means equality before the law, not everyone is literally equal. CRT attacks liberalism exactly the same way, consider Robin DiAngelo's book titled Is Everyone Really Equal? As documented, say by Shelby Steele in White Guilt, it is true that the values of American equality and the circumstances of the Civil Rights Movement were hijacked by Race Marxists to open the door to the CRT racial dialectic, but that's not liberalism being obsessed with race or bringing us Woke. That's Communists exploiting people with certain sensibilities. That is, this is propaganda. This is already extremely long, and the rest devolves into him talking about ethnic hatred instead of "racism." I guess he needs more politically correct terms for it, "as a Christian," he says. The only reason to mention it is how he ends it. "However, James wants a much, much broader definition of 'racism.' He wants a political definition of racism. He doesn't care about how you treat people one-to-one [remember, I'm the individualist here...], he cares about using that definition to cancel you, right? And that's the plan. That's the plan." It's really more of the same thing, but it bears mentioning because it's the completion of his malicious straw man. It's not only completely false but obviously false except outside of the Woke Right narrative that he also pushes that I only created the term "Woke Right" (again, I didn't create it at all) to cancel people, which is the narrative he needs to get people to believe. That's underscored by his repetition of "that's the plan." My objectives with naming the Woke Right were abundantly simple: name a dangerous phenomenon in the hopes that it can be identified and stopped. I would not like to see people cancelled, but I won't tolerate this bad behavior either, not for any rewards they might dangle or withdraw. I hope every one of them realizes they are acting "Woke" and backs off from it. We need all the help we can get in stopping the huge global effort to subvert us and steal our liberty. My verdict here? This is among the rankest of rank propaganda. The Blaze, if (and only if) it wants to be considered a serious outlet in any regard, should be ashamed to be associated with this guy and what he's doing. I can't really even say this, though, because in light of the straw man built about me throughout, they'll say this is a Woke accusation on my part too, and an attempt to cancel him, but it's just a simple, plain fact. Rank propaganda isn't reporting or even really commentary, and there's nothing respectable about it. For years I've made the point that there's a key difference between "cancellation" and "taking responsibility." Anyone can find ample evidence of this. Why did I do that? Because the Woke Left claimed that anything that identified their bad behavior in our institutions was an attempt to "cancel" them too. It's a Woke (and psychopathic) technique called DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Deny that you're doing anything wrong, attack the person who called you out, and make yourself out to be the victim of their "cancellation" attempt. Of course, adding this here will guarantee they'll howl with laughter as they yet again insist that's what I'm doing to them with this.
4:01

Continuing in my series of showing you the Woke Right's meltdown about talking with Jordan Peterson about Woke, thus them, I bring you some clips from Blaze Media propagandist "Auron MacIntyre." These require more analysis because unlike Carl Benjamin, Auron MacIntyre is a relatively skilled propagandist. So in this clip Auron begins by mocking Peterson and me for allegedly not understanding the slang term "based" (which is demonstrably false, btw -- I've detailed its history and uses elsewhere -- a typical sort of lie a propagandist tells). He mocks us as being out-of-touch old people ("old man shakes fist at sky") for believing "based" should refer to being "based in reality," which it should, so a digression to reveal the malicious technique. The origin of the term "based" used by the Woke Right was from a rap song about freebasing cocaine, and it became slang for being bold and edgy and saying socially taboo things. In 2021, the conservative movement at large started picking it up, understanding it to mean "based in reality and principle and willing to say uncomfortable truths as such." The "willing to say uncomfortable [things]" in both cases is where the confusion lies because it can be done two ways: responsibly (truths) or irresponsibly (edgy transgression). This is basically my point with bringing it up with Peterson. Setting aside the digression of whether we want a term associated with being the opposite of Woke to mean "based in reality and principle" or "high on ideological cocaine," Auron is particularly keen within the first few moments of speaking (~1 min) to drive the old versus young wedge that the Woke Right is so keen on pushing. Just like the Bernie Bros of 10 years ago, they want to invest their movement with "Ok Boomer" energy and cause a generational split. Historically, this is Red Guard behavior, which is cultural Maoism, which is... where Woke comes from in the specific sense we're familiar with and hate. So, he's being Woke in a particularly damaging and dangerous way. So using the classic Jon Stewart (Woke) trick of opening with mockery to create an atmosphere of humor that discredits his targets (Peterson and me) particularly with a target audience (young radicalizing right-wing) that he signals alignment of, he steps into his "analysis" by accusing me of a "pivot." Spoiler: I have not and never pivoted, and that's why they're pissed off at me. I didn't go along with THEIR pivot, which has been unfolding for a couple of years (particularly at the Blaze, since Glenn Beck retired and they hired a bunch of "Schmittians," including Auron) and went on steroids last fall in the lead-up to the election. His specific accusation that he's accusing me of is claiming that I said "the Left wanted to get rid of all racism, so these guys [Woke Right] want to bring back all the racism." This isn't my claim, but it will happen to some degree and is happening. Auron is creating plausible deniability around that here, but what was my actual claim? My claim was that Woke on both sides is characterized by the transgression of mainstream norms using the opposite side's radicals as the justification. The Woke Left transgressed against the term "racism" and successful and majority races with CRT by expanding the definition and reversing the classic racism "directions" under roughly Ibram Kendi's "antiracist" program of ending discrimination by discriminating. They did this in the name of "stopping racism," which they associated with the "far right" and claimed was endemic through all of society. It was society's norm of identifying actual racism correctly and not being racist in any direction they were actually targeting. The Woke Right transgresses against this same norm the other direction ("same energy, opposite direction") by leaning into racism in "based" defiance of the Left and CRT norms. They're violating a lot of taboos the mainstream depends on in the process, like not being racist, on justifications like "if every other group gets to be racist/tribal, we have to too for self-defense," which they're actually arguing pretty widely. The point is that both Woke groups are transgressing against norms against racism in different ways. Same energy, opposite direction. Auron directs his audience away from this point and builds a strawman that he can press into the train of mockery he already started. But what he actually does is shifts to make out that my real point is that "the most important issue we have to care about in society is racism," trying to place me in the CRT/Leftist camp, which I'm literally actually opposing in the clip he's commenting on (and that I've done more to oppose than anyone in the world, without any doubt to anyone familiar with my work for the last seven or eight years). He uses this straw man to lump together "center left, classical liberals, IDW" and to say we're "revealing ourselves" effectively as crypto-Leftists, which the portion of the clip of me that he played (aside from all my previous work) directly refutes. "Their religion," Auron opines, "is still antiracism." [So does he mean like being not-racist, like we actually are (not religiously), or like Kendi means it? Has he accepted Kendi's framing that there's only "racist" and "antiracist" and then tried to project that onto people who want to be not racist? Sure looks like it.] "James Lindsay, as much as he's against it, as much as he's written against it, as much as he's claimed to want to expose it, ultimately, he doesn't disagree with 'antiracism' as the core religion of the United States." That's a pretty astonishing sentence in its calculated falseness, and we have every reason to believe it was made deliberately and maliciously (Auron has a very long track record of precisely this behavior). The effect is to flatten all "center left" and "classical liberals," along with me and my work specifically, into a kind of crypto-CRT "religious" belief in an effort to discredit us and name us part of the problem (the "dialectical flattening"/psychopathic splitting I also discussed with Peterson comes to mind here, for those who saw the whole show). He aims to treat different things as though they're the same thing (Woke context and language blurring) in order to cast us as secretly in alignment with Kendi and the rest of CRT. "He, he, he thinks that that ['antiracism'] should be the 'civic religion' of the United States." No, I don't. This is called lying. It's also mind reading through secret (Gnostic) interpretation of hidden clues in my language and work that reveal that I mean the exact opposite of what I'm consistently saying. "He just doesn't like the extreme version of it." Still lying, but trying to make it sound more plausible. "He's like a moderate jihadist. Ok, he wants moderate jihad. M-m-moderate Sharia. That's what James Lindsay demands." So beyond being ridiculous and defamatory that's a really weird association to make, but it should be obvious why he's making it. The game is to discredit me through mockery and association with things his audience already doesn't like. Also, the Iron Law of Woke Projection never misses.... The Woke Right holds to a "No Enemies to the Right" policy of extremism, and I do not. Mockingly pretending his speaking my voice: "Ok, I still want Sharia Law. I still want a woman beaten if she's walking outside alone. I- You, you know, u-use a small rod instead of, like, you know, a large stick. That's kinda James Lindsay's stance on this, right?" No, "Auron," not right. "So, so he still wants racism to be, like, the central concern of the United States; it just needs to have a more reasonable definition. Stop looking at the [Woke examples] of racism; just go back to the good old 'antiracism' that we used to have." It's called being not racist, which reveals what "Auron" is really arguing for, as with his take on "based" at the start of the clip (he wants transgressive ideological high on cocaine, not based in reality and principle and courageous enough to stand for them). He has completed his straw man, erected him, and is showing the audience Straw James for mockery and rejection. "The problem for James is that the entire reason you [sic] got there is that there's a gradient to the logic [so it's all 'antiracism' on a slippery slope -- dialectical splitting again]." "Auron" is explaining here yet again that "liberalism," which he is deliberately unclear about, is just another manifestation of Communism, a quieter, more moderate crypto-Communism (or, specifically Race Marxism, here). This bit of propagandizing depends on the fact that his audience uses the word "liberal" inaccurately and blends together many things including classical liberalism, traditional liberalism, European social and economic liberalism, neoliberalism, progressivism, socialism, Marxism, and Communism for a lot of bad reasons that are too much to cover here. The point is that as a propagandist, he's not just relying upon this lack of clarity and exploiting it, he's also deliberately sowing more confusion in the name of clarity (...disguised as an angel of light, since his stream is all about Lucifer anyway), deliberately and maliciously. "Again, you'll notice that he wants those 'liberal' norms [not being racist] back, but what James never admits, what James never makes clear, is that the 'liberal' norms got him Wokeness." If I thought this was true, I would have said it. I'm not hiding anything. I just think it's completely false and have dedicated an insane amount of effort into making it clear for people around the world. Maybe "Auron" should listen to any of the hundreds of talks, lectures, or podcasts in which I quoted directly from the book Critical Race Theory: An Introduction where the authors (Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic) explicitly state that one of the reasons Critical Race Theory exists is to attack "Enlightenment liberalism" (just like the Woke Right does!). Much of the writing in Critical Race Theory is explicitly, and at length, a criticism and rejection of liberalism and liberal norms in favor of completely different radical ones. If "Auron" did that, though, he'd risk exposing that Woke Right shares this in common with CRT while liberals do not. "The liberal obsession with equality, the liberal obsession with racism, is what brought you to Wokeness." This is a few misarticuated truths married to a lot of lies (that is, propaganda). It's a lot to unpack. Liberalism means equality before the law, not everyone is literally equal. CRT attacks liberalism exactly the same way, consider Robin DiAngelo's book titled Is Everyone Really Equal? As documented, say by Shelby Steele in White Guilt, it is true that the values of American equality and the circumstances of the Civil Rights Movement were hijacked by Race Marxists to open the door to the CRT racial dialectic, but that's not liberalism being obsessed with race or bringing us Woke. That's Communists exploiting people with certain sensibilities. That is, this is propaganda. This is already extremely long, and the rest devolves into him talking about ethnic hatred instead of "racism." I guess he needs more politically correct terms for it, "as a Christian," he says. The only reason to mention it is how he ends it. "However, James wants a much, much broader definition of 'racism.' He wants a political definition of racism. He doesn't care about how you treat people one-to-one [remember, I'm the individualist here...], he cares about using that definition to cancel you, right? And that's the plan. That's the plan." It's really more of the same thing, but it bears mentioning because it's the completion of his malicious straw man. It's not only completely false but obviously false except outside of the Woke Right narrative that he also pushes that I only created the term "Woke Right" (again, I didn't create it at all) to cancel people, which is the narrative he needs to get people to believe. That's underscored by his repetition of "that's the plan." My objectives with naming the Woke Right were abundantly simple: name a dangerous phenomenon in the hopes that it can be identified and stopped. I would not like to see people cancelled, but I won't tolerate this bad behavior either, not for any rewards they might dangle or withdraw. I hope every one of them realizes they are acting "Woke" and backs off from it. We need all the help we can get in stopping the huge global effort to subvert us and steal our liberty. My verdict here? This is among the rankest of rank propaganda. The Blaze, if (and only if) it wants to be considered a serious outlet in any regard, should be ashamed to be associated with this guy and what he's doing. I can't really even say this, though, because in light of the straw man built about me throughout, they'll say this is a Woke accusation on my part too, and an attempt to cancel him, but it's just a simple, plain fact. Rank propaganda isn't reporting or even really commentary, and there's nothing respectable about it. For years I've made the point that there's a key difference between "cancellation" and "taking responsibility." Anyone can find ample evidence of this. Why did I do that? Because the Woke Left claimed that anything that identified their bad behavior in our institutions was an attempt to "cancel" them too. It's a Woke (and psychopathic) technique called DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Deny that you're doing anything wrong, attack the person who called you out, and make yourself out to be the victim of their "cancellation" attempt. Of course, adding this here will guarantee they'll howl with laughter as they yet again insist that's what I'm doing to them with this.

James Lindsay, anti-Communist

53,212 次观看 • 1 年前

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

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

Dwarkesh Patel

547,094 次观看 • 4 个月前

TRUMP THE ANTIKRYST? PT 2 Trump awarded Elvis, his cousin, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018. The highest civilian award of the United States. Freedom? Why would Elvis need this? Then he just dropped video of Elvis & himself on stage. He also just dropped another video of how he and Elvis look alike. In the video below by Abraham Ojeda Abraham Ojeda, Elon randomly changes the subject to interject into the interview out of literally nowhere, "Memphis, the capital of ancient Egypt. Perhaps that's where our new god will come from." while strangely, and maniacally, laughing at something that's simply not funny. Memphis. Really? As Abraham Ojeda explains in the video, the man who walked on water warned people about the rise of an antichrist, showing the text: "And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved: but for the elect's sake [the Human Elohim Krystos] those days will be shortened." [True, the mRNA shots have been shown to self-replicate and easily transmissible from vaxxed-to-unvaxxed. So it is only a matter of time before all people will become infected with this deadly pathogen that ultimately destroys the body over 3-5 years. Remember, 'all the animals died'.] "For false christs [krysts, see explanation below] and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." [Again, the Human Elohim Krystos below.] "See, I have told you beforehand." "Therefore if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the desert!' or 'Look, he is in the inner rooms!, do not believe it." Ojeda goes on to explain the original Memphis is located right next to the Great Pyramid of Giza that is in the desert and has hidden rooms inside. Not to mention the extremely obfuscated and hidden Sphere of Amenti, a 'Turnstile Stargate', located directly below the Sphinx right in front of the Great Pyramid, that Jesheua Sananda Melchizedek, the true 'Kryst' of the fully restored 12-strand DNA pure bloodline of the Human Elohim avatar project used to transport people who had already reached 4th dimensional or higher vibration, to secretly move up to the next level of this time matrix during his short time of witnessing to the world. Jesheua Sananda was working directly with Jeshewua Ahumbra Melchizedek, the fully restored 9-strand DNA 'pure' bloodline of the Hyksos Anunnaki Human Hybrids developed in E-Den, that was the 'king of the J3ws' at this time who was assisting Sananda in these mechanical ascension sacred rituals while the two were both under the Co-Evolution BioRegenesis Treaty of Palaidor that provided an ascension mechanism for the J3ws to actually move up through all 15 levels of the Gaia time matrix. Without this Treaty, the children of Adam & Eve would have no possible way of ever moving out of this matrix, as their development project was not an officially authorized program, but actually an illegal invasion of Tara earth perpetrated by various groups of ETs over the previous 560m years. You must have a 12 strand genetic DNA sequence in order to ascend this matrix & the Treaty process gives them access to that. [For more on the bioforming invasion of Tara earth's hosted Human Elohim Project by your captors, see my article: 👉THE HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA] Soon after the two 'Krysts' worked together for a few years helping people ascend through the Sphere of Amenti below the Sphinx, who had been unfairly held back from moving forward for hundreds of millions of years, and spreading the word about how people were eternal spirit essences and not just random creatures in bipedal hominid bodies evolved out of pond scum; teaching them not to embrace this prison world and all its traps and pitfalls, Jeshewua Ahumbra ✡️ abandoned the ascension Treaty for whatever reason, and has since either directly or indirectly stolen the real Kryst's identity, which is now saturated throughout the fake King James 'bible'. [For more on these two figures, see my article: 👉THE TWO CHRISTS] [For more on the King James fake bible, the complex hypnotizing spell it casts and who is the real god of the Catholic Church (and all other religions of the world), see my article: 👉HARD. RED. PILL.] As an aside, the reason Jesheua and Jeshewua's names are so nearly identical is because the invader races always set out to mimic and rob the identity of all things authentic about the real Human Elohim Project. The 'king of the J3ws' was born a few years after Jeshua Sananda was, & was meant to usurp his miraculous works even before he was born. Identity theft was invented by your invaders, and is key to why the J3ws have been kicked out of over 110 countries over the last 12,000 years after infiltrating every group in the world, claiming to adopt their religions and cultures, only to secretly remain utterly devoted to the Talmud, and the practices of the Babylonian Mystery Religion (see more below). So the fake 'Christ' ('Jesus') has a significant history in Memphis and is set to return to the world's stage during Armageddon, which you are currently in the middle of at the time of this writing of 12/5/24. He is referred to as the 'antichrist', deceiving the nations, because the invader's agenda is to eliminate all actual Humans that carry the sacred eternal-life genetics of the Elohim bloodline known as the Krystos 'pale silver cord' that connects to the eternal sound and light fields of the deity planes that provides them with both eternal life as well as unlimited power without the need to eat or sleep. So 'anti-Humans' was also referred to 'Anti-Krystos', being transliterated today as Antichrist. So, even though the term 'antichrist' denotes evil and wickedness, it will not be delivered to you in that way, but it will appear almost identical to what Jesheua Sananda recommended as life-principals that lead to a greater experience in life. But while milk and honey will be coming out of this being's mouth, his ultimate intent all along will be to continue your eternal enslavement and capture by appealing to your Krystic predispositions, while at the same time other arms of his fake teachings, such as the Church of Satan, will appeal to the billions of Hyksos Anunnaki Hybrids who are genetically predisposed to pagan debauchery and self-destructive tendencies as celebrated in the Babylonian Mystery Religion (also explained below). Remember, most of the Anunnaki Hybrids around you are literally wolves, bears, snakes & many other animals that are now suddenly inside bipedal bodies with opposable thumbs that can walk and talk. They didn't earn those avatars like Humans did, they simply fell into them with no idea how to maintain that very powerful and higher level of body. Their instincts are feral, not civilized as the Human avatar template was encoded with. You may be hesitant to believe that J3ws (and their Crypto J3wish associates as explained in my article 👉THE HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA) are from other planes ('planets'), such as Sirius A, Alcyone Pleiades, Antiparticle Gaia, Nibiru and others, but you can hear R@bbi L@itman tell his students in his own words in video that they are: ‘UNDERCOVER ALIENS FROM ANOTHER PLANET’. That's pretty clear and not open to interpretation. [Watch R@bbi L@itman in my article: 👉 THE GREAT WHORE OF BABYLON PT1] If anyone here hasn't yet been informed, Trump was officially crowned the Messiah, 'King of the J3ws' by Orthodox T@lmudic J3wish R@bbis on behalf of the Zi0nist Organization of America & the Isr@el Heritage Foundation. While you may think that Zi0nists and T@mudic J3ws are at direct odds with each other, the bottom line is all J3wish factions in the world come together with the one shared goal of 'inheriting the earth' from the Krystos (Human Elohim), so they can have these 'promised lands' for themselves, regardless if they interpret the teachings of their forefathers slightly differently, or not. They are, in every faction, still the 'chosen ones'. In case you are unaware, the Babylonian Talmud is the teachings of sexual magic & blood ritual sacrif1ce referred to as ‘Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Whore of Babylon’ religion that was founded in Sumer-Ur 12,000 years ago by ‘those who from heaven came’ (the Anunnaki), where the wheel, the plow, indoor plumbing, production, writing, hydraulics, fabric, brick production, metallurgy, mathematics, philosophy, sailboats, chariots, numerals, taxes, calendars, codes-of-law, contract law, board games, beer, stringed instruments, maps, schools, farmer's almanac, jobs, congress, J3wdicial systems, corporations, paved roads, banks and formal municipal services suddenly fell right out of the clear blue sky to earth while the rest of the world were still living in caves and trying to invent fire. All with no archeological evidence of development for any of them. 👉 Trumps' coronation took place on July 10th, 2023, after J3ws had awaited the return of their 'Mashiach, Anointed One', for thousands of years. 👉 Tesla's new 4 million square ft AI data center is located in Memphis Tennessee, just 11 miles away from Elvis Presley's Graceland Estate. Those are some strong coincidences given the repeated Elvis comms Trump has been dropping, featuring Elvis songs at his rallies and gatherings along with dropping very deliberate multiple videos. So what about Memphis then? Why is Tesla there, why is Musk going off-topic in his interview about subjects totally unassociated with anything Egypt, Memphis, antichrists or 'gods' returning? Because it is time to lay the foundations of the return of the savior. And of course, that savior will be 'of the J3ws', not 'of the humans'. For those who have taken the time to read my article: 👉THE HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA, you will understand by now that I've seen ancient false 'gods' in person over many years already. I've seen their multiple bodies of the same being, some identical, some very different. But they are all the same exact person inside (the same spirit essence). Somehow they have figured out how to do this. So there is never a time they are just in one body here on earth. But in thousands of bodies, many in stasis as 'vehicles' they can wear in all countries of the world through instant 'translocation', hidden away in stasis chambers, and many walking around awake and aware and at the ready to step in for the current leading position at a moment's notice, as covered in my article: 👉SOPHIA as well. Anyone paying attention has now seen many different Donald Trumps. Some are short, 5' 11", some are taller at 6' 3", some heavier, some slimmer, and even older. But what you likely didn't know is that in one of his eras, he was also King Antiochus of Babylon that conquered Memphis Egypt. So while you and I would see Donald Trump as 'cousins' with Elvis, the way it really works with the 'gods', is that's the same person in both bodies, and not just both bodies, but thousands of bodies worldwide. That's why the gods never die, not because they are in eternal-life bodies, but because they have replacements of differing ages at all times so their awareness never leaves, even if one or a dozen of their avatars is killed, as Donald Trump passed in 1989, but no one ever noticed, since he showed up on-time the following day without missing a beat. For a long time I have wondered who 'Mel' was that never showed up in Elvis' group photo collages, now I'm wondering if he wasn't strikingly similar to Donald Trump. Bear in mind, birthdates have nothing to do with the 'gods', as they are here in all different ages at all times, while they also have others here extremely close to the exact same age for reasons of being able to step in for each other for all sorts of reasons. Maybe now you understand how it was Trump managed to do hundreds of rallies leading up to the election that no living person could possibly pull off looking fit and fresh at each one, sometimes 3 in one day. Or why he was rumored to have "been awake for 72 hours before he gave his acceptance speech" on Nov 6th after the election and still looked great. You and I would have been half, if not fully, ded, by that time. Even at 21 yrs old I hit a wall at 24 hours that nearly felt like I was going to pass away if I didn't sleep. That’s impossible at 78 no matter who you are without body backups. Not that this is a religious note, because it isn't, but Jesheua Sananda is also scheduled to make a return during this same time to possibly use his legend to help as many humans and hybrids who are truly seeking to move on from this level make the shift. But what he's never going to do is command you to do anything. He won't be boasting about his accomplishments as being the best, yuge, or 'proud' of what he is able to do. He's only here to set an example for you of how to reach higher, outside of material, worldly matters. This is the sifting, where the wheat will be separated from the chaff for harvest. I came here as a 'gatherer', which means I'm here to help show the way out for those who make that cut. [For more see my article: 👉THE SEPARATION] Don't fall for all that glitters and glows in the future painted for you by the antichrist. What you have waiting for you is a million x more precious than being able to fly in a vertical take-off vehicle to a job you will still hate. Where you're going, you won't need a vehicle to fly, and you won't be traveling to work a job you don't like, since working will be voluntary, as you will not need money. For more on this subject, please see my article: 👉TRUMP, THE ANTICHRIST? (Part 1). This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time. See off-site link below for my other 100+ recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, assembled thanks to Justin
3:37

TRUMP THE ANTIKRYST? PT 2 Trump awarded Elvis, his cousin, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018. The highest civilian award of the United States. Freedom? Why would Elvis need this? Then he just dropped video of Elvis & himself on stage. He also just dropped another video of how he and Elvis look alike. In the video below by Abraham Ojeda Abraham Ojeda, Elon randomly changes the subject to interject into the interview out of literally nowhere, "Memphis, the capital of ancient Egypt. Perhaps that's where our new god will come from." while strangely, and maniacally, laughing at something that's simply not funny. Memphis. Really? As Abraham Ojeda explains in the video, the man who walked on water warned people about the rise of an antichrist, showing the text: "And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved: but for the elect's sake [the Human Elohim Krystos] those days will be shortened." [True, the mRNA shots have been shown to self-replicate and easily transmissible from vaxxed-to-unvaxxed. So it is only a matter of time before all people will become infected with this deadly pathogen that ultimately destroys the body over 3-5 years. Remember, 'all the animals died'.] "For false christs [krysts, see explanation below] and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." [Again, the Human Elohim Krystos below.] "See, I have told you beforehand." "Therefore if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the desert!' or 'Look, he is in the inner rooms!, do not believe it." Ojeda goes on to explain the original Memphis is located right next to the Great Pyramid of Giza that is in the desert and has hidden rooms inside. Not to mention the extremely obfuscated and hidden Sphere of Amenti, a 'Turnstile Stargate', located directly below the Sphinx right in front of the Great Pyramid, that Jesheua Sananda Melchizedek, the true 'Kryst' of the fully restored 12-strand DNA pure bloodline of the Human Elohim avatar project used to transport people who had already reached 4th dimensional or higher vibration, to secretly move up to the next level of this time matrix during his short time of witnessing to the world. Jesheua Sananda was working directly with Jeshewua Ahumbra Melchizedek, the fully restored 9-strand DNA 'pure' bloodline of the Hyksos Anunnaki Human Hybrids developed in E-Den, that was the 'king of the J3ws' at this time who was assisting Sananda in these mechanical ascension sacred rituals while the two were both under the Co-Evolution BioRegenesis Treaty of Palaidor that provided an ascension mechanism for the J3ws to actually move up through all 15 levels of the Gaia time matrix. Without this Treaty, the children of Adam & Eve would have no possible way of ever moving out of this matrix, as their development project was not an officially authorized program, but actually an illegal invasion of Tara earth perpetrated by various groups of ETs over the previous 560m years. You must have a 12 strand genetic DNA sequence in order to ascend this matrix & the Treaty process gives them access to that. [For more on the bioforming invasion of Tara earth's hosted Human Elohim Project by your captors, see my article: 👉THE HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA] Soon after the two 'Krysts' worked together for a few years helping people ascend through the Sphere of Amenti below the Sphinx, who had been unfairly held back from moving forward for hundreds of millions of years, and spreading the word about how people were eternal spirit essences and not just random creatures in bipedal hominid bodies evolved out of pond scum; teaching them not to embrace this prison world and all its traps and pitfalls, Jeshewua Ahumbra ✡️ abandoned the ascension Treaty for whatever reason, and has since either directly or indirectly stolen the real Kryst's identity, which is now saturated throughout the fake King James 'bible'. [For more on these two figures, see my article: 👉THE TWO CHRISTS] [For more on the King James fake bible, the complex hypnotizing spell it casts and who is the real god of the Catholic Church (and all other religions of the world), see my article: 👉HARD. RED. PILL.] As an aside, the reason Jesheua and Jeshewua's names are so nearly identical is because the invader races always set out to mimic and rob the identity of all things authentic about the real Human Elohim Project. The 'king of the J3ws' was born a few years after Jeshua Sananda was, & was meant to usurp his miraculous works even before he was born. Identity theft was invented by your invaders, and is key to why the J3ws have been kicked out of over 110 countries over the last 12,000 years after infiltrating every group in the world, claiming to adopt their religions and cultures, only to secretly remain utterly devoted to the Talmud, and the practices of the Babylonian Mystery Religion (see more below). So the fake 'Christ' ('Jesus') has a significant history in Memphis and is set to return to the world's stage during Armageddon, which you are currently in the middle of at the time of this writing of 12/5/24. He is referred to as the 'antichrist', deceiving the nations, because the invader's agenda is to eliminate all actual Humans that carry the sacred eternal-life genetics of the Elohim bloodline known as the Krystos 'pale silver cord' that connects to the eternal sound and light fields of the deity planes that provides them with both eternal life as well as unlimited power without the need to eat or sleep. So 'anti-Humans' was also referred to 'Anti-Krystos', being transliterated today as Antichrist. So, even though the term 'antichrist' denotes evil and wickedness, it will not be delivered to you in that way, but it will appear almost identical to what Jesheua Sananda recommended as life-principals that lead to a greater experience in life. But while milk and honey will be coming out of this being's mouth, his ultimate intent all along will be to continue your eternal enslavement and capture by appealing to your Krystic predispositions, while at the same time other arms of his fake teachings, such as the Church of Satan, will appeal to the billions of Hyksos Anunnaki Hybrids who are genetically predisposed to pagan debauchery and self-destructive tendencies as celebrated in the Babylonian Mystery Religion (also explained below). Remember, most of the Anunnaki Hybrids around you are literally wolves, bears, snakes & many other animals that are now suddenly inside bipedal bodies with opposable thumbs that can walk and talk. They didn't earn those avatars like Humans did, they simply fell into them with no idea how to maintain that very powerful and higher level of body. Their instincts are feral, not civilized as the Human avatar template was encoded with. You may be hesitant to believe that J3ws (and their Crypto J3wish associates as explained in my article 👉THE HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA) are from other planes ('planets'), such as Sirius A, Alcyone Pleiades, Antiparticle Gaia, Nibiru and others, but you can hear R@bbi L@itman tell his students in his own words in video that they are: ‘UNDERCOVER ALIENS FROM ANOTHER PLANET’. That's pretty clear and not open to interpretation. [Watch R@bbi L@itman in my article: 👉 THE GREAT WHORE OF BABYLON PT1] If anyone here hasn't yet been informed, Trump was officially crowned the Messiah, 'King of the J3ws' by Orthodox T@lmudic J3wish R@bbis on behalf of the Zi0nist Organization of America & the Isr@el Heritage Foundation. While you may think that Zi0nists and T@mudic J3ws are at direct odds with each other, the bottom line is all J3wish factions in the world come together with the one shared goal of 'inheriting the earth' from the Krystos (Human Elohim), so they can have these 'promised lands' for themselves, regardless if they interpret the teachings of their forefathers slightly differently, or not. They are, in every faction, still the 'chosen ones'. In case you are unaware, the Babylonian Talmud is the teachings of sexual magic & blood ritual sacrif1ce referred to as ‘Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Whore of Babylon’ religion that was founded in Sumer-Ur 12,000 years ago by ‘those who from heaven came’ (the Anunnaki), where the wheel, the plow, indoor plumbing, production, writing, hydraulics, fabric, brick production, metallurgy, mathematics, philosophy, sailboats, chariots, numerals, taxes, calendars, codes-of-law, contract law, board games, beer, stringed instruments, maps, schools, farmer's almanac, jobs, congress, J3wdicial systems, corporations, paved roads, banks and formal municipal services suddenly fell right out of the clear blue sky to earth while the rest of the world were still living in caves and trying to invent fire. All with no archeological evidence of development for any of them. 👉 Trumps' coronation took place on July 10th, 2023, after J3ws had awaited the return of their 'Mashiach, Anointed One', for thousands of years. 👉 Tesla's new 4 million square ft AI data center is located in Memphis Tennessee, just 11 miles away from Elvis Presley's Graceland Estate. Those are some strong coincidences given the repeated Elvis comms Trump has been dropping, featuring Elvis songs at his rallies and gatherings along with dropping very deliberate multiple videos. So what about Memphis then? Why is Tesla there, why is Musk going off-topic in his interview about subjects totally unassociated with anything Egypt, Memphis, antichrists or 'gods' returning? Because it is time to lay the foundations of the return of the savior. And of course, that savior will be 'of the J3ws', not 'of the humans'. For those who have taken the time to read my article: 👉THE HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA, you will understand by now that I've seen ancient false 'gods' in person over many years already. I've seen their multiple bodies of the same being, some identical, some very different. But they are all the same exact person inside (the same spirit essence). Somehow they have figured out how to do this. So there is never a time they are just in one body here on earth. But in thousands of bodies, many in stasis as 'vehicles' they can wear in all countries of the world through instant 'translocation', hidden away in stasis chambers, and many walking around awake and aware and at the ready to step in for the current leading position at a moment's notice, as covered in my article: 👉SOPHIA as well. Anyone paying attention has now seen many different Donald Trumps. Some are short, 5' 11", some are taller at 6' 3", some heavier, some slimmer, and even older. But what you likely didn't know is that in one of his eras, he was also King Antiochus of Babylon that conquered Memphis Egypt. So while you and I would see Donald Trump as 'cousins' with Elvis, the way it really works with the 'gods', is that's the same person in both bodies, and not just both bodies, but thousands of bodies worldwide. That's why the gods never die, not because they are in eternal-life bodies, but because they have replacements of differing ages at all times so their awareness never leaves, even if one or a dozen of their avatars is killed, as Donald Trump passed in 1989, but no one ever noticed, since he showed up on-time the following day without missing a beat. For a long time I have wondered who 'Mel' was that never showed up in Elvis' group photo collages, now I'm wondering if he wasn't strikingly similar to Donald Trump. Bear in mind, birthdates have nothing to do with the 'gods', as they are here in all different ages at all times, while they also have others here extremely close to the exact same age for reasons of being able to step in for each other for all sorts of reasons. Maybe now you understand how it was Trump managed to do hundreds of rallies leading up to the election that no living person could possibly pull off looking fit and fresh at each one, sometimes 3 in one day. Or why he was rumored to have "been awake for 72 hours before he gave his acceptance speech" on Nov 6th after the election and still looked great. You and I would have been half, if not fully, ded, by that time. Even at 21 yrs old I hit a wall at 24 hours that nearly felt like I was going to pass away if I didn't sleep. That’s impossible at 78 no matter who you are without body backups. Not that this is a religious note, because it isn't, but Jesheua Sananda is also scheduled to make a return during this same time to possibly use his legend to help as many humans and hybrids who are truly seeking to move on from this level make the shift. But what he's never going to do is command you to do anything. He won't be boasting about his accomplishments as being the best, yuge, or 'proud' of what he is able to do. He's only here to set an example for you of how to reach higher, outside of material, worldly matters. This is the sifting, where the wheat will be separated from the chaff for harvest. I came here as a 'gatherer', which means I'm here to help show the way out for those who make that cut. [For more see my article: 👉THE SEPARATION] Don't fall for all that glitters and glows in the future painted for you by the antichrist. What you have waiting for you is a million x more precious than being able to fly in a vertical take-off vehicle to a job you will still hate. Where you're going, you won't need a vehicle to fly, and you won't be traveling to work a job you don't like, since working will be voluntary, as you will not need money. For more on this subject, please see my article: 👉TRUMP, THE ANTICHRIST? (Part 1). This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time. See off-site link below for my other 100+ recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, assembled thanks to Justin

W.R. Schock, QBD

30,618 次观看 • 1 年前

"Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public." ~Proctor's Response to Coulthart (Why am I spending more time on this? American Alchemy's video on the mummies has 904,000 views. @incredhistory's video has 5,500 views. The original, sensationalistic claims always do MUCH better than any evidence that is presented later that throws cold water on said claims. That's always been an issue. That could change if Jesse makes a short video on his YT channel right now, linked to the @incredhistory video, and implores his viewers to watch it with an open mind. And/or if he pins a tweet linking his X followers to the "Incredible History" analysis.) "At one point in time, I was truly wondering if these [mummies] were a new species." ~Accused Debunker, Will Brown 🙂 "It's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects." ~Ross Coulthart (After watching the new video by "Incredible History" and the interview done on "Weaponized," it's not too early for me (and MANY other people) to say I believe they're fake. Others felt they were fake right from the start but I wanted to wait for more evidence. We have that now. From yesterday's "Reality Check" with Coulthart and Meagan Medick.) Coulthart: "I think (the new @incredhistory video) is important. It raises... I've actually been in touch with the gentleman who made it, Will (Brown), and I'm hoping to some stage, talk to him. And I'd like to include what he says in any analysis that we do on NewsNation about the tridactals." (Who are the experts featured in the new "Incredible History" video segments that I clipped below? Dr. Daniel Proctor (Galaxopithecus), "has a PhD in bio-anthropology. Specifically, his area of focus is the hands and the feet. He has published papers on the evolution of the hands and the feet, including focusing of the ability to grasp." Dr. Joseph A.P. Wilson (Joseph A P Wilson), "earned his doctorate in anthropology from the University of Florida. he's current lecturer in archeology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and part time lecturer in anthropology at Fairfield University. And more importantly., before academia, he worked as a molecular genetic technologist at Greenwood Genetic Center in South Carolina." Michele - Mrs Anthrope (Radiographer) - Mrs. Anthrope The descriptions of their credentials is from the "Incredible History" video which I clipped a few segments from and included below.) ~More from Reality Check~ Coulthart: "We've filmed in Peru, and we've spoken directly with the doctors there. As I said in social media commentary that was posted before I left Peru, it's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects. I'm very careful not to even say, beings." (Again, after the seeing the "Incredible History" video, it shouldn't be too early to offer up a new opinion.) Coulthart: "I certainly got the impression from the CT tomography scans that they seemed like intact beings of some kind. But frankly, I'm not an anatomist. I'm not an anthropologist or anyone with any kind of experience in a scientific analysis of these beings. And I think we'll have to go with what good science says. And all the way through in this, what the scientists in Peru have told me, and what the scientists in America and indeed in Mexico have told me, is they want independent review. They want independent assessment. "And I guess what I'm a little worried about is the partisan way, the way that on UFO, UAP, Twitter, social media, people take their positions and adopt in a definitive position once and for all. This is a hoax, or this is real. Frankly, I just don't think we know enough right now. I don't think you can base a final conclusion on an analysis of a couple of bones in one alleged being's scans. I've heard arguments two and for." (With the new information, it's NOT "partisan" and I am NOT saying "once and for all." But I think the arguments for fraud put forth by "Incredible History" are pretty damning and are enough to show anybody with an open mind that there are massive problems with the hypothesis that these are non-human beings or...hybrids of humans and non-humans. It appears to be a done deal: aka Fake.) Coulthart: "What I think will be definitive, and I'm aware that there is a DNA analysis underway at the moment. I don't know the name of the institution in the United States that's doing it, but there is some kind of DNA analysis underway, which will hopefully provide us with more answers as to the genetic origins of whatever these objects are. And that should be coming out sometime this year, hopefully fairly early up. "Until then, yes, I do think that we should acknowledge that there's been some great work done to raise, I think, serious questions about the legitimacy or the authenticity of the beings or the objects, but let's keep an open mind and let's reward and applaud good science where it's done. "This isn't like some kind of wrestling bout. You know, there's not a winner or a loser." (The credibility of the non-human subject is in danger of being set back because so many people in this community want to believe so hard and will ignore anything that goes against those beliefs. If these, apparent, hoaxes are not called out and done so, forcefully, we're all going to lose.) Coulthart: "Science is an iterative process where people basically do an analysis and make an assessment. Let's make those assessments, do the independent work, make sure that independent scientists with rigor get peer reviewed and checked and assessed, and then we can come up with a judgment. "I think the real tragedy would be if these are, potentially, if they are significantly important objects that have, basically, been procured as part of Peru's natural, cultural, significant history, it would be really tragic if, because of a sweeping assertion that these are a hoax, that the entire thing is not taken seriously. I'm not so sure I can dismiss it out of hand just because of this latest debunk, but I'm very, very happy to let independent, rigorous science do the do the guesswork and do the analysis." ~ (Will Brown (@incredhistory) responded to Coulthart's take via a reply to Meagan Medick's post.) Will Brown: "Curious why you all didn’t give the same reaction to Jesse Michel's (Jesse Michels) bold proclamations in a video that received 200x the views mine did on YouTube? "Similar question for Jay Anderson’s (Jay Anderson) 'scientific proof' video which has 10X the views? "Perhaps it’s because those videos don’t throw a wrench in whatever it is you are working on? "…any and all documentaries and books moving forward should include Steve Mera's testimony about what’s actually going on in Palpa." ~ Will Brown: "Hey Ross Coulthart, I’m hoping you’ll correct yourself here. In this video you stated we only looked at scans for one of the 'beings.' That is false. The video covers Maria and Monseratt. The Podcast with Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp adds Paloma in addition to Maria and Monseratt... All of which have multiple signs of manipulation on hands and feet. "You told me you watched my video…you even said you thought it was excellent and that it brought up legitimate concerns. "Did you actually watch the video? "Your statements today make me believe that you didn’t watch at all." ~ (And here's Dr. Daniel Proctor's (Galaxopithecus) response to Coulthart, and others, who are holding out hope for new DNA analysis.) Proctor: "I want to respond to Ross Coulthart’s recent caution that we should be careful calling the Nazca mummies a 'hoax' because they might represent cultural heritage, and to his claim that DNA should be more definitive than anatomy. "Respectfully, this framing gets the issue backwards. "First, there is nothing new here. 'Maria' was introduced nearly a decade ago. She did not appear last year, or this year, or as some sudden scientific revelation. She has been circulating since roughly 2015–2016, and in that entire span she has never been properly documented in reputable osteological, archaeological, or forensic journals. There is no provenience, as they allegedly come from a cave from an undisclosed location. No controlled excavation, no chain of custody, no standard reports of any nature, and anonymous discoverer. "What we are actually seeing is a slow drip of bodies, which are always sensational, always just beyond proper access, always promoted as revolutionary, and always somehow unable to withstand normal scientific scrutiny. That pattern is not accidental. "Second, anatomy is not secondary evidence. "The idea that DNA should be privileged over gross anatomy in evaluating human remains is baffling. Anatomy is primary data. Bones do not lie about how they articulate. Hand bones do not mysteriously relocate into feet. Developmental biology places hard constraints on what a viable organism can look like. "DNA can tell you what tissue something came from, within the strict parameters for which the tests have been designed. No mainstream lab has tests for some hypothetical 'alien' DNA. "Anatomy tells you whether the body ever existed as a coherent organism. In this case, the anatomy alone demonstrates fabrication. That is not speculative. It is observable. "Third, the cultural-heritage argument is deeply ironic. "The Nazca mummy trade, because that is what this is, destroys real cultural heritage. Looting graves, ghoulishly disarticulating bodies, recombining bones, and fabricating specimens for sale and spectacle is the opposite of preservation. Calling attention to that destruction is not disrespectful, on the contrary, it is necessary. "We have seen this playbook before. The commercialization of mummies, the alienization of cranial modification, and the recycling of colonial myths about 'non-human' ancient peoples. 'None of this is new. 'What is new is the social-media amplification. "Which brings me to Ross’s discomfort with debunking (or defending) these claims on social media rather than in scientific venues. "Here’s the problem: this hoax does not live in scientific venues. "It never has. "It lives on YouTube, on X, on press conferences, in podcasts, and in staged congressional spectacles. It is an argument of persuasion, not evidence. Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public. "Finally, caution cuts both ways. Being 'diplomatic' toward a hoax that incentivizes grave robbery, fuels pseudoscience, and misrepresents Indigenous pasts does not protect heritage. It only enables its continued destruction."
8:29

"Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public." ~Proctor's Response to Coulthart (Why am I spending more time on this? American Alchemy's video on the mummies has 904,000 views. @incredhistory's video has 5,500 views. The original, sensationalistic claims always do MUCH better than any evidence that is presented later that throws cold water on said claims. That's always been an issue. That could change if Jesse makes a short video on his YT channel right now, linked to the @incredhistory video, and implores his viewers to watch it with an open mind. And/or if he pins a tweet linking his X followers to the "Incredible History" analysis.) "At one point in time, I was truly wondering if these [mummies] were a new species." ~Accused Debunker, Will Brown 🙂 "It's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects." ~Ross Coulthart (After watching the new video by "Incredible History" and the interview done on "Weaponized," it's not too early for me (and MANY other people) to say I believe they're fake. Others felt they were fake right from the start but I wanted to wait for more evidence. We have that now. From yesterday's "Reality Check" with Coulthart and Meagan Medick.) Coulthart: "I think (the new @incredhistory video) is important. It raises... I've actually been in touch with the gentleman who made it, Will (Brown), and I'm hoping to some stage, talk to him. And I'd like to include what he says in any analysis that we do on NewsNation about the tridactals." (Who are the experts featured in the new "Incredible History" video segments that I clipped below? Dr. Daniel Proctor (Galaxopithecus), "has a PhD in bio-anthropology. Specifically, his area of focus is the hands and the feet. He has published papers on the evolution of the hands and the feet, including focusing of the ability to grasp." Dr. Joseph A.P. Wilson (Joseph A P Wilson), "earned his doctorate in anthropology from the University of Florida. he's current lecturer in archeology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and part time lecturer in anthropology at Fairfield University. And more importantly., before academia, he worked as a molecular genetic technologist at Greenwood Genetic Center in South Carolina." Michele - Mrs Anthrope (Radiographer) - Mrs. Anthrope The descriptions of their credentials is from the "Incredible History" video which I clipped a few segments from and included below.) ~More from Reality Check~ Coulthart: "We've filmed in Peru, and we've spoken directly with the doctors there. As I said in social media commentary that was posted before I left Peru, it's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects. I'm very careful not to even say, beings." (Again, after the seeing the "Incredible History" video, it shouldn't be too early to offer up a new opinion.) Coulthart: "I certainly got the impression from the CT tomography scans that they seemed like intact beings of some kind. But frankly, I'm not an anatomist. I'm not an anthropologist or anyone with any kind of experience in a scientific analysis of these beings. And I think we'll have to go with what good science says. And all the way through in this, what the scientists in Peru have told me, and what the scientists in America and indeed in Mexico have told me, is they want independent review. They want independent assessment. "And I guess what I'm a little worried about is the partisan way, the way that on UFO, UAP, Twitter, social media, people take their positions and adopt in a definitive position once and for all. This is a hoax, or this is real. Frankly, I just don't think we know enough right now. I don't think you can base a final conclusion on an analysis of a couple of bones in one alleged being's scans. I've heard arguments two and for." (With the new information, it's NOT "partisan" and I am NOT saying "once and for all." But I think the arguments for fraud put forth by "Incredible History" are pretty damning and are enough to show anybody with an open mind that there are massive problems with the hypothesis that these are non-human beings or...hybrids of humans and non-humans. It appears to be a done deal: aka Fake.) Coulthart: "What I think will be definitive, and I'm aware that there is a DNA analysis underway at the moment. I don't know the name of the institution in the United States that's doing it, but there is some kind of DNA analysis underway, which will hopefully provide us with more answers as to the genetic origins of whatever these objects are. And that should be coming out sometime this year, hopefully fairly early up. "Until then, yes, I do think that we should acknowledge that there's been some great work done to raise, I think, serious questions about the legitimacy or the authenticity of the beings or the objects, but let's keep an open mind and let's reward and applaud good science where it's done. "This isn't like some kind of wrestling bout. You know, there's not a winner or a loser." (The credibility of the non-human subject is in danger of being set back because so many people in this community want to believe so hard and will ignore anything that goes against those beliefs. If these, apparent, hoaxes are not called out and done so, forcefully, we're all going to lose.) Coulthart: "Science is an iterative process where people basically do an analysis and make an assessment. Let's make those assessments, do the independent work, make sure that independent scientists with rigor get peer reviewed and checked and assessed, and then we can come up with a judgment. "I think the real tragedy would be if these are, potentially, if they are significantly important objects that have, basically, been procured as part of Peru's natural, cultural, significant history, it would be really tragic if, because of a sweeping assertion that these are a hoax, that the entire thing is not taken seriously. I'm not so sure I can dismiss it out of hand just because of this latest debunk, but I'm very, very happy to let independent, rigorous science do the do the guesswork and do the analysis." ~ (Will Brown (@incredhistory) responded to Coulthart's take via a reply to Meagan Medick's post.) Will Brown: "Curious why you all didn’t give the same reaction to Jesse Michel's (Jesse Michels) bold proclamations in a video that received 200x the views mine did on YouTube? "Similar question for Jay Anderson’s (Jay Anderson) 'scientific proof' video which has 10X the views? "Perhaps it’s because those videos don’t throw a wrench in whatever it is you are working on? "…any and all documentaries and books moving forward should include Steve Mera's testimony about what’s actually going on in Palpa." ~ Will Brown: "Hey Ross Coulthart, I’m hoping you’ll correct yourself here. In this video you stated we only looked at scans for one of the 'beings.' That is false. The video covers Maria and Monseratt. The Podcast with Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp adds Paloma in addition to Maria and Monseratt... All of which have multiple signs of manipulation on hands and feet. "You told me you watched my video…you even said you thought it was excellent and that it brought up legitimate concerns. "Did you actually watch the video? "Your statements today make me believe that you didn’t watch at all." ~ (And here's Dr. Daniel Proctor's (Galaxopithecus) response to Coulthart, and others, who are holding out hope for new DNA analysis.) Proctor: "I want to respond to Ross Coulthart’s recent caution that we should be careful calling the Nazca mummies a 'hoax' because they might represent cultural heritage, and to his claim that DNA should be more definitive than anatomy. "Respectfully, this framing gets the issue backwards. "First, there is nothing new here. 'Maria' was introduced nearly a decade ago. She did not appear last year, or this year, or as some sudden scientific revelation. She has been circulating since roughly 2015–2016, and in that entire span she has never been properly documented in reputable osteological, archaeological, or forensic journals. There is no provenience, as they allegedly come from a cave from an undisclosed location. No controlled excavation, no chain of custody, no standard reports of any nature, and anonymous discoverer. "What we are actually seeing is a slow drip of bodies, which are always sensational, always just beyond proper access, always promoted as revolutionary, and always somehow unable to withstand normal scientific scrutiny. That pattern is not accidental. "Second, anatomy is not secondary evidence. "The idea that DNA should be privileged over gross anatomy in evaluating human remains is baffling. Anatomy is primary data. Bones do not lie about how they articulate. Hand bones do not mysteriously relocate into feet. Developmental biology places hard constraints on what a viable organism can look like. "DNA can tell you what tissue something came from, within the strict parameters for which the tests have been designed. No mainstream lab has tests for some hypothetical 'alien' DNA. "Anatomy tells you whether the body ever existed as a coherent organism. In this case, the anatomy alone demonstrates fabrication. That is not speculative. It is observable. "Third, the cultural-heritage argument is deeply ironic. "The Nazca mummy trade, because that is what this is, destroys real cultural heritage. Looting graves, ghoulishly disarticulating bodies, recombining bones, and fabricating specimens for sale and spectacle is the opposite of preservation. Calling attention to that destruction is not disrespectful, on the contrary, it is necessary. "We have seen this playbook before. The commercialization of mummies, the alienization of cranial modification, and the recycling of colonial myths about 'non-human' ancient peoples. 'None of this is new. 'What is new is the social-media amplification. "Which brings me to Ross’s discomfort with debunking (or defending) these claims on social media rather than in scientific venues. "Here’s the problem: this hoax does not live in scientific venues. "It never has. "It lives on YouTube, on X, on press conferences, in podcasts, and in staged congressional spectacles. It is an argument of persuasion, not evidence. Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public. "Finally, caution cuts both ways. Being 'diplomatic' toward a hoax that incentivizes grave robbery, fuels pseudoscience, and misrepresents Indigenous pasts does not protect heritage. It only enables its continued destruction."

Joe Murgia

44,343 次观看 • 6 个月前

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.
1:17:36

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.

Grant Smith Ellis

36,552 次观看 • 10 个月前

Everything you've heard people like Marc Lamont Hill say Pac didn't do is false. The man has the deepest literary device bag ever and he employed each of them well. These breakdowns only show a glimpse of how deep his literary device bag was. Sidenote: Joe Budden isn't a true Pac fan. *We clock figures "If I had a bigger dick or a dime for every time Muthafuckas took a bit of the lines from in my rhymes, I'd be richer than a bitch with a trick with big pockets, (Simile, hyperbole) equipped with a dick that's so thick, it fits sockets". (Hyperbole, metaphor) 2Pac loved implied metaphors. Here, he metaphorically compared his phallus to something large enough to fit into a socket, such as a large impact socket, exaggerating size for comedic and rhetorical effect. "If I had a dime for every time", is an idiom (Used to indicate a very frequent occurrence of something happening. Usually used in conjunction with some expression that one would be rich as a result of receiving money for all such instances -Farlex Dictionary of Idioms) You can follow the idiom with a multitude of different things, and he chose to follow it up with the number of times others have took a bit of the lines from his rhymes. He is obviously referring to other emcees biting his rhymes here. He layered an additional hypothetical onto the idiom, creating two parallel, alternative hypotheticals. Each hypothetical leads to a different exaggerated outcome; one financial and one physical (penis growth). He pairs the idiom with a second, independent hyperbolic premise, stacking the hypotheticals and juxtaposing their exaggerations. This parallel hyperbolic scenario intensifies both the exaggeration and the comedic effect. It also makes the hypothetical scenario even more non-literal and impossible. This is why he made sure the following lines did not just include a hyperbolic simile about the amount of money he would receive from every instance. He made sure the lines also included a "vulgar" hyperbolic metaphor about how large his penis would grow from every instance as well. It's figurative and impossible. The hyperbolic simile and metaphor helped drive his point home. The lines are placed right next to each other for a reason. Great word selection and placement. "Please don't misinterpret what I say to be dirty." The lines before this one could easily be considered dirty," and he is sarcastically pleading for the listeners to not view the lines in that way. This is his way of letting listeners know the previous lines were figurative and were not meant to be taken literally. Basically, he is saying to think beyond the surface and do not have your mind completely in the gutter. It is also a disclaimer for the sexual innuendos that come next. "Muthafuckas want to jerk me, so they irk me how they work me". Multiple things he mentioned here could all have sexual meanings. The disclaimer is there to let listeners know to not interpret it as him saying that, "muthafuckas" want to literally jerk and work him in a sexual way. It is very clever and humorous wordplay. Listen to his adlib right after he says "work me". He chuckled because of the puns he used; specifically the one he had just finished using. Everything here is connected, and it was all by design. He set the scheme up at the very beginning of the verse and ended it after the work me line. The whole third verse is pretty much figurative. With Pac, you always have to pay attention to how he worded things and the placement of those words. He simultaneously sandwiched his rhymes in the lyrics included in my breakdown. He did this by rhyming internally and externally. He rhymed internally multiple times here, and even more so if you count the near and partial rhymes. He even added a multi in there (pockets, sockets). The assonance and consonance can't be ignored either. Pay close attention to what Makaveli said after: "My history so thoroughly involves destruction, niggaz left with their ass bleeding, lyrical fucking". "Open up first to bust, let me see your heart, turn the lights down, cause I might clown in the dark" Is a play off the lyrical fucking bar. Peep his choice of words. They're all sex related. He's speaking figuratively. He used puns. Hence, "open up, first to bust and "Turn the lights down, 'cause I might clown in the dark" are part of it as well. He's referring to sex in the dark but figuratively. It's all figurative, clever wordplay. Word Class Wreckin Cru also has a song called Turn Off the lights. Hence turn the lights down. Dre was apart of that group. He dissed Dre by name in this song. Also, peep his choice of words here. There's an obvious correlation between see, light, and dark. Makaveli juxtaposed those words, using 'light' and 'dark' specifically to create an antithesis. 'Makaveli rise, all you niggaz die when I come I do some fly shit and be done'. The words rise and fly are both related to flight. Very subtle. Lastly, he used internal and external rhymes, both with and without using multisyllabic rhymes. "Murdered my friends, built a new posse, we taking shots at paparazzi go and fly now, nigga like Rocky". "Murdered my friends, built a new posse", is not directed at Stretch. The friends he's referring to are the members in the Thug Life group. (Macadoshis, The Rated R). The Outlawz are the new posse he's referring to. He's also alluding to what his character Bishop did in Juice. Xzibit has a song called paparazzi. "We taking shots at paparazzi" was directed at him. Makaveli referred to him as paparazzi instead of his name. Although Makaveli didn't explicitly say his name, he sent a clear subliminal shot at Xzibit. Makaveli felt that Xzibit took subliminal shots at him in his song, 'Paparazzi'. "Forgive me, I'm a rider, still I'm just a simple man All I want is money, plus the fame, I'm a simple man. - Makaveli (Radio Edit of How Do U Want it) Here's what Xzibit said in his song Paparazzi. "I don’t believe the hype or buy wolf tickets Nigga, you make a gang of noise and never seen, like a cricket I guess that’s why we never kick it A lot of niggas is soft and get tossed, tryna fuck with the Likwit How many niggas do you know like this? Always claimin' that they ridin', but they really turned bitch It don’t make sense, either you’re a soldier from the start Or an actor with a record deal tryna play the part—like that! It’s a shame, niggas in the rap game Only for the money and the fame Edi dissed Xzibit in Bomb First (My Second Reply) but Makaveli dissed him himself this time. This is also directed at the actual paparazzi. 2Pac wasn't fond of them. The Paparazzi are freelance photographers who pursue celebrities to take photographs (shots) of them. Hence, taking shots at paparazzi. Get it? "Go and fly now, nigga like Rocky", is a reference to the "Gonna Fly Now" theme song (performed by DeEtta Little, Nelson Pigford, and Shelby Conti) from the movie Rocky. ""It’s like he’s standing up there jumping around; it's like he's gonna fly." - John Avildsen (Rocky Director) He was also referring to Rocky from the TV show, "Rocky and His Friends". This is why he said "Murdered my friends". Rocky was a flying squirrel in the TV show and this is why he said, "Go and fly now, nigga like Rocky". Makaveli was able to do all of this in just three lines. He got his point across without any wasted lyrics. The lyrics have purpose. He's lyrically efficient here. The way he set up the Rocky simile allowed him to kill two birds with one stone. The wording ('murdered my friends, go and fly now') provided listeners and readers with just enough hints to connect the dots between the lyrics and the TV show, Rocky and His Friends, while still referencing the theme song from the Rocky movie. "Baby .45 but she's still live, one shot make a nigga'z heartbeat stop.” He’s metaphorically talking about a .45 caliber gun being his girlfriend; this is obviously wordplay. That's just not the only layer to it. This is a part of the time motif he employed because anything that happens in real-time is “live.” He also juxtaposed “baby” and “.45” to create an oxymoron. An oxymoron is a combination of contradictory or incongruous words, and that’s exactly what “baby” and “.45” are here. A literal baby cannot be 45 years old. This isn’t just figurative because he’s metaphorically talking about a .45 caliber gun; it’s also figurative because of the oxymoron. He also juxtaposed “live” and “make a nigga'z heartbeat stop” to create an antithesis. The word “live” means to have life, while “make a nigga'z heartbeat stop” refers to death. He said “she’s still live” to also create a paradox. 45-year-old women aren’t generally associated with vitality, but despite her being 45, she’s still full of life. All of this is placed in a single line by design. “One shot, make a nigga'z heartbeat stop.” He’s not just talking about his .45 caliber gun (metaphorical girlfriend) being able to end someone’s life with one shot. He’s also saying she has the power to leave a man figuratively breathless. One opportunity or chance (“one shot”) with this woman could figuratively take a man’s breath away and leave him in shock. She has the power to make a man’s heart figuratively stop because of the “caliber” of woman she is. One shot with her can have this effect because she’s that mind-blowing and breathtaking, pun intended.
5:06

Everything you've heard people like Marc Lamont Hill say Pac didn't do is false. The man has the deepest literary device bag ever and he employed each of them well. These breakdowns only show a glimpse of how deep his literary device bag was. Sidenote: Joe Budden isn't a true Pac fan. *We clock figures "If I had a bigger dick or a dime for every time Muthafuckas took a bit of the lines from in my rhymes, I'd be richer than a bitch with a trick with big pockets, (Simile, hyperbole) equipped with a dick that's so thick, it fits sockets". (Hyperbole, metaphor) 2Pac loved implied metaphors. Here, he metaphorically compared his phallus to something large enough to fit into a socket, such as a large impact socket, exaggerating size for comedic and rhetorical effect. "If I had a dime for every time", is an idiom (Used to indicate a very frequent occurrence of something happening. Usually used in conjunction with some expression that one would be rich as a result of receiving money for all such instances -Farlex Dictionary of Idioms) You can follow the idiom with a multitude of different things, and he chose to follow it up with the number of times others have took a bit of the lines from his rhymes. He is obviously referring to other emcees biting his rhymes here. He layered an additional hypothetical onto the idiom, creating two parallel, alternative hypotheticals. Each hypothetical leads to a different exaggerated outcome; one financial and one physical (penis growth). He pairs the idiom with a second, independent hyperbolic premise, stacking the hypotheticals and juxtaposing their exaggerations. This parallel hyperbolic scenario intensifies both the exaggeration and the comedic effect. It also makes the hypothetical scenario even more non-literal and impossible. This is why he made sure the following lines did not just include a hyperbolic simile about the amount of money he would receive from every instance. He made sure the lines also included a "vulgar" hyperbolic metaphor about how large his penis would grow from every instance as well. It's figurative and impossible. The hyperbolic simile and metaphor helped drive his point home. The lines are placed right next to each other for a reason. Great word selection and placement. "Please don't misinterpret what I say to be dirty." The lines before this one could easily be considered dirty," and he is sarcastically pleading for the listeners to not view the lines in that way. This is his way of letting listeners know the previous lines were figurative and were not meant to be taken literally. Basically, he is saying to think beyond the surface and do not have your mind completely in the gutter. It is also a disclaimer for the sexual innuendos that come next. "Muthafuckas want to jerk me, so they irk me how they work me". Multiple things he mentioned here could all have sexual meanings. The disclaimer is there to let listeners know to not interpret it as him saying that, "muthafuckas" want to literally jerk and work him in a sexual way. It is very clever and humorous wordplay. Listen to his adlib right after he says "work me". He chuckled because of the puns he used; specifically the one he had just finished using. Everything here is connected, and it was all by design. He set the scheme up at the very beginning of the verse and ended it after the work me line. The whole third verse is pretty much figurative. With Pac, you always have to pay attention to how he worded things and the placement of those words. He simultaneously sandwiched his rhymes in the lyrics included in my breakdown. He did this by rhyming internally and externally. He rhymed internally multiple times here, and even more so if you count the near and partial rhymes. He even added a multi in there (pockets, sockets). The assonance and consonance can't be ignored either. Pay close attention to what Makaveli said after: "My history so thoroughly involves destruction, niggaz left with their ass bleeding, lyrical fucking". "Open up first to bust, let me see your heart, turn the lights down, cause I might clown in the dark" Is a play off the lyrical fucking bar. Peep his choice of words. They're all sex related. He's speaking figuratively. He used puns. Hence, "open up, first to bust and "Turn the lights down, 'cause I might clown in the dark" are part of it as well. He's referring to sex in the dark but figuratively. It's all figurative, clever wordplay. Word Class Wreckin Cru also has a song called Turn Off the lights. Hence turn the lights down. Dre was apart of that group. He dissed Dre by name in this song. Also, peep his choice of words here. There's an obvious correlation between see, light, and dark. Makaveli juxtaposed those words, using 'light' and 'dark' specifically to create an antithesis. 'Makaveli rise, all you niggaz die when I come I do some fly shit and be done'. The words rise and fly are both related to flight. Very subtle. Lastly, he used internal and external rhymes, both with and without using multisyllabic rhymes. "Murdered my friends, built a new posse, we taking shots at paparazzi go and fly now, nigga like Rocky". "Murdered my friends, built a new posse", is not directed at Stretch. The friends he's referring to are the members in the Thug Life group. (Macadoshis, The Rated R). The Outlawz are the new posse he's referring to. He's also alluding to what his character Bishop did in Juice. Xzibit has a song called paparazzi. "We taking shots at paparazzi" was directed at him. Makaveli referred to him as paparazzi instead of his name. Although Makaveli didn't explicitly say his name, he sent a clear subliminal shot at Xzibit. Makaveli felt that Xzibit took subliminal shots at him in his song, 'Paparazzi'. "Forgive me, I'm a rider, still I'm just a simple man All I want is money, plus the fame, I'm a simple man. - Makaveli (Radio Edit of How Do U Want it) Here's what Xzibit said in his song Paparazzi. "I don’t believe the hype or buy wolf tickets Nigga, you make a gang of noise and never seen, like a cricket I guess that’s why we never kick it A lot of niggas is soft and get tossed, tryna fuck with the Likwit How many niggas do you know like this? Always claimin' that they ridin', but they really turned bitch It don’t make sense, either you’re a soldier from the start Or an actor with a record deal tryna play the part—like that! It’s a shame, niggas in the rap game Only for the money and the fame Edi dissed Xzibit in Bomb First (My Second Reply) but Makaveli dissed him himself this time. This is also directed at the actual paparazzi. 2Pac wasn't fond of them. The Paparazzi are freelance photographers who pursue celebrities to take photographs (shots) of them. Hence, taking shots at paparazzi. Get it? "Go and fly now, nigga like Rocky", is a reference to the "Gonna Fly Now" theme song (performed by DeEtta Little, Nelson Pigford, and Shelby Conti) from the movie Rocky. ""It’s like he’s standing up there jumping around; it's like he's gonna fly." - John Avildsen (Rocky Director) He was also referring to Rocky from the TV show, "Rocky and His Friends". This is why he said "Murdered my friends". Rocky was a flying squirrel in the TV show and this is why he said, "Go and fly now, nigga like Rocky". Makaveli was able to do all of this in just three lines. He got his point across without any wasted lyrics. The lyrics have purpose. He's lyrically efficient here. The way he set up the Rocky simile allowed him to kill two birds with one stone. The wording ('murdered my friends, go and fly now') provided listeners and readers with just enough hints to connect the dots between the lyrics and the TV show, Rocky and His Friends, while still referencing the theme song from the Rocky movie. "Baby .45 but she's still live, one shot make a nigga'z heartbeat stop.” He’s metaphorically talking about a .45 caliber gun being his girlfriend; this is obviously wordplay. That's just not the only layer to it. This is a part of the time motif he employed because anything that happens in real-time is “live.” He also juxtaposed “baby” and “.45” to create an oxymoron. An oxymoron is a combination of contradictory or incongruous words, and that’s exactly what “baby” and “.45” are here. A literal baby cannot be 45 years old. This isn’t just figurative because he’s metaphorically talking about a .45 caliber gun; it’s also figurative because of the oxymoron. He also juxtaposed “live” and “make a nigga'z heartbeat stop” to create an antithesis. The word “live” means to have life, while “make a nigga'z heartbeat stop” refers to death. He said “she’s still live” to also create a paradox. 45-year-old women aren’t generally associated with vitality, but despite her being 45, she’s still full of life. All of this is placed in a single line by design. “One shot, make a nigga'z heartbeat stop.” He’s not just talking about his .45 caliber gun (metaphorical girlfriend) being able to end someone’s life with one shot. He’s also saying she has the power to leave a man figuratively breathless. One opportunity or chance (“one shot”) with this woman could figuratively take a man’s breath away and leave him in shock. She has the power to make a man’s heart figuratively stop because of the “caliber” of woman she is. One shot with her can have this effect because she’s that mind-blowing and breathtaking, pun intended.

9-FO Tha Negus

34,168 次观看 • 7 个月前