Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Napoleon studied Caesar. Caesar wept before a statue of Alexander. Alexander wanted to be Achilles. The greatest men the West ever produced were all trying to become the same Greek warrior... Alexander the Great kept a copy of the Iliad under his pillow. His tutor Aristotle had personally annotated... an edition for him. According to Plutarch, when Alexander arrived at the ruins of Troy in 334 BC, he sacrificed at the tomb of Achilles and ran naked around it. He told the priests offering to show him Paris's harp that he had no interest in seeing the harp of a coward. "I would far rather see the lyre of Achilles," he said, "which he used to sing the glories of brave men." Three centuries later, in 69 BC, Julius Caesar was serving as quaestor in Spain when he stood in front of a statue of Alexander in the temple of Hercules at Cadiz. He was thirty-two: the same age at which Alexander had died, having already conquered most of the known world. Caesar wept. When his friends asked why, he answered, according to Plutarch: "Do you not think it is matter for sorrow that while Alexander, at my age, was already king of so many peoples, I have as yet achieved no brilliant success?" Eighteen centuries after that, Napoleon Bonaparte sat for his coronation portrait wearing a golden laurel wreath, modelled on the wreath of Julius Caesar. He carried with him on campaign the works of Plutarch and Caesar's own commentaries. Each of these men was reaching back, through the centuries, to the figure who came first. And that figure was a half-mortal Greek warrior who, when offered the choice between a long, quiet life and a short, glorious one, chose glory. The Greek name Akhilleus is most plausibly derived from akhos, meaning grief, and laos, meaning people. The grief of the people. The greatest hero of the Western imagination is not named for victory or for strength. He is named for sorrow... But that is the bargain: to choose greatness in the Achilles tradition is to choose a particular kind of suffering. Alexander died at thirty-two. Caesar was murdered by his closest friends. Napoleon ended his life on an island in the South Atlantic, looking at the sea. Each of them got what Achilles got: a name that has outlasted empires, and a life that was paid for in full. What drove the men who built Western civilization was not happiness. It was something older, deeper, and harder to name. The Greeks called it kleos: the glory that survives death. Achilles got there first. Three thousand years later, men are still trying to follow him... -- -- -- If you enjoyed this, I write a weekly newsletter read by over 50,000 people who love rediscovering the beauty of the past. You can join us here: If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.show more

James Lucas

802,852 subscribers

405,453 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

Искусство Образование Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Beethoven could not hear the music he wrote. At the age of 28, he realized he was no longer able to listen to a flute being played in the distance, and he spent the rest of his life composing the most enduring music in Western history in almost complete silence... He had been a working musician since childhood. His ears were everything. In 1798, in the middle of a heated argument with a singer, he noticed for the first time that something was wrong. The sound was thinning at the edges. He could hear voices, but high frequencies were beginning to disappear. He told no one for years. By 1802, the truth was no longer deniable. On his doctor's advice he moved to Heiligenstadt, a quiet village outside Vienna, hoping the country air would help. It did not. There, alone and surrounded by farmland, he wrote a letter to his two brothers that he never sent. It was found among his papers after his death. We now call it the Heiligenstadt Testament, and it is one of the most devastating documents ever written by an artist about himself: "You men who think or say that I am malevolent, stubborn or misanthropic, how greatly do you wrong me. You do not know the cause of my seeming so... what a humiliation, when one stood beside me and heard a flute in the distance and I heard nothing, or someone heard the shepherd singing, and again I heard nothing." He wrote, in the same letter, that he had thought of ending his life. And then he wrote the line that explains everything that followed: "Only my art held me back. It seemed impossible to me to leave the world before I had produced everything I felt called upon to produce." He went back to Vienna. He went on composing. Over the next two decades his hearing continued to fade. Friends began writing their words down in small notebooks instead of speaking them aloud, and waiting while he read. Modern scholars call these the conversation books. Around four hundred of them survive. To compose, he developed his own methods. He bit one end of a wooden rod and pressed the other against the soundboard of his piano, letting the vibrations travel through his jaw to his inner ear. He had stumbled, through trial and error, onto the principle that modern science calls bone conduction. The cause of his deafness has never been settled. What we do know is this: he realized he was losing his hearing at twenty-eight, and he could have stopped. He wrote the letter, he held the thought of dying in his hand, and then he put down the pen and went back to work. Most of what he is remembered for was composed after that moment: The Fifth Symphony. The Seventh. The Ninth. The Missa Solemnis. The late quartets. All of it was made by a man who could no longer hear most of what he was writing. There are people who give the world what they receive, and there are people who give the world what they were never able to receive. The most enduring beauty in human history has almost always come from the second kind... -- -- -- If you enjoyed this, I write a weekly newsletter read by over 50,000 people who love rediscovering the beauty of the past. You can join us here: I write about beauty in all its forms. If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.

Beethoven could not hear the music he wrote. At the age of 28, he realized he was no longer able to listen to a flute being played in the distance, and he spent the rest of his life composing the most enduring music in Western history in almost complete silence... He had been a working musician since childhood. His ears were everything. In 1798, in the middle of a heated argument with a singer, he noticed for the first time that something was wrong. The sound was thinning at the edges. He could hear voices, but high frequencies were beginning to disappear. He told no one for years. By 1802, the truth was no longer deniable. On his doctor's advice he moved to Heiligenstadt, a quiet village outside Vienna, hoping the country air would help. It did not. There, alone and surrounded by farmland, he wrote a letter to his two brothers that he never sent. It was found among his papers after his death. We now call it the Heiligenstadt Testament, and it is one of the most devastating documents ever written by an artist about himself: "You men who think or say that I am malevolent, stubborn or misanthropic, how greatly do you wrong me. You do not know the cause of my seeming so... what a humiliation, when one stood beside me and heard a flute in the distance and I heard nothing, or someone heard the shepherd singing, and again I heard nothing." He wrote, in the same letter, that he had thought of ending his life. And then he wrote the line that explains everything that followed: "Only my art held me back. It seemed impossible to me to leave the world before I had produced everything I felt called upon to produce." He went back to Vienna. He went on composing. Over the next two decades his hearing continued to fade. Friends began writing their words down in small notebooks instead of speaking them aloud, and waiting while he read. Modern scholars call these the conversation books. Around four hundred of them survive. To compose, he developed his own methods. He bit one end of a wooden rod and pressed the other against the soundboard of his piano, letting the vibrations travel through his jaw to his inner ear. He had stumbled, through trial and error, onto the principle that modern science calls bone conduction. The cause of his deafness has never been settled. What we do know is this: he realized he was losing his hearing at twenty-eight, and he could have stopped. He wrote the letter, he held the thought of dying in his hand, and then he put down the pen and went back to work. Most of what he is remembered for was composed after that moment: The Fifth Symphony. The Seventh. The Ninth. The Missa Solemnis. The late quartets. All of it was made by a man who could no longer hear most of what he was writing. There are people who give the world what they receive, and there are people who give the world what they were never able to receive. The most enduring beauty in human history has almost always come from the second kind... -- -- -- If you enjoyed this, I write a weekly newsletter read by over 50,000 people who love rediscovering the beauty of the past. You can join us here: I write about beauty in all its forms. If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.

James Lucas

153,966 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Why was Caesar Rome's Greatest General? (new Cost of Glory video) I think the best illustration may be his Pharsalus campaign, where he faced Pompey and the combined grand army of his optimate antagonists, in the Civil War. It began with Caesar's humiliating strategic loss at Dyrrhachium. But one of Caesar's master strokes: In a campaign in which everyone else (including most historians today) thought Caesar had time working against him. He *kind of* did, since Pompey was vastly better provisioned with food, money, ships, etc. But Caesar realized an opportunity to turn the tables: When he retreated to the wide plains of Thessaly, great cavalry country, he was luring Pompey into a position where Pompey was obviously superior (Pompey had 7x the cavalry that Caesar did). Pompey kept refusing battle, knowing Caesar's great strength, while trying to make it look like Caesar was the one refusing battle (really Pompey was just offering it on insane terms, outside his fort, up on a hill). But Caesar was just waiting for the pressure to build on Pompey (much of the senate was literally watching, while camped out with Pompey, and getting impatient). Caesar at last called Pompey's bluff, and packed up to retreat. Now, if Pompey let Caesar go when he had him on easy territory, he'd be revealed as timid. Caesar knew that, to stay at the top of Rome's leadership, Pompey couldn't just wear Caesar down in a war of attrition. He had to challenge him man to man. The whole campaign came down not so much to military supremacy, as to a clash of egos, of politics, and Caesar exploited this fact to the maximum. To settle it then and there was militarily and strategically unnecessary, the military risk/reward calculation was bad. But Caesar offered a temptation too great to refuse for someone whose objective was not pure victory, but securing his reputation. Not unlike Alexander's approach to Darius III! Pompey marched out, fought, and lost. Battle details herein:

Why was Caesar Rome's Greatest General? (new Cost of Glory video) I think the best illustration may be his Pharsalus campaign, where he faced Pompey and the combined grand army of his optimate antagonists, in the Civil War. It began with Caesar's humiliating strategic loss at Dyrrhachium. But one of Caesar's master strokes: In a campaign in which everyone else (including most historians today) thought Caesar had time working against him. He kind of did, since Pompey was vastly better provisioned with food, money, ships, etc. But Caesar realized an opportunity to turn the tables: When he retreated to the wide plains of Thessaly, great cavalry country, he was luring Pompey into a position where Pompey was obviously superior (Pompey had 7x the cavalry that Caesar did). Pompey kept refusing battle, knowing Caesar's great strength, while trying to make it look like Caesar was the one refusing battle (really Pompey was just offering it on insane terms, outside his fort, up on a hill). But Caesar was just waiting for the pressure to build on Pompey (much of the senate was literally watching, while camped out with Pompey, and getting impatient). Caesar at last called Pompey's bluff, and packed up to retreat. Now, if Pompey let Caesar go when he had him on easy territory, he'd be revealed as timid. Caesar knew that, to stay at the top of Rome's leadership, Pompey couldn't just wear Caesar down in a war of attrition. He had to challenge him man to man. The whole campaign came down not so much to military supremacy, as to a clash of egos, of politics, and Caesar exploited this fact to the maximum. To settle it then and there was militarily and strategically unnecessary, the military risk/reward calculation was bad. But Caesar offered a temptation too great to refuse for someone whose objective was not pure victory, but securing his reputation. Not unlike Alexander's approach to Darius III! Pompey marched out, fought, and lost. Battle details herein:

Alex Petkas

55,726 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The man who invented modern fantasy didn't publish his first novel until he was forty-five. By that age, J.R.R. Tolkien had already built a respectable life. He was an Oxford professor, an expert in ancient languages, with a wife and four children and a settled academic career. He was exactly the kind of man who might reasonably have decided that the shape of his life was already fixed. The work he would be remembered for, he had not yet even begun... The story, which Tolkien told himself, is that one summer he was grading examination papers, when he turned a page and found that a student had left it blank. Without quite knowing why, he wrote a single sentence on it: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." He did not know what a hobbit was. He had spent years inventing languages and mythologies as a private passion, and telling stories to his own children, never imagining any of it would reach the world. But that one line began to grow. It became a story, and then a book, and in 1937, at the age of forty-five, Tolkien published The Hobbit. It was a success, and his publisher asked for a sequel. Tolkien warned them it might take some time. It took 17 years... He wrote it in the margins of a demanding full-time job, revising endlessly, doubting it often. When The Lord of the Rings was finally published, in 1954 and 1955, he was in his early sixties. That book, begun as a middle-aged professor's private side project, went on to sell well over a hundred million copies, to invent modern fantasy as we know it, and to reshape the imagination of the entire world. Tolkien already had a full and respectable life behind him. And still, the thing he is remembered for, the thing that outlived him and reached hundreds of millions of people, was something he began at forty-five, at an age when it would have been the easiest thing in the world to tell himself he had already missed his chance. He didn't. It's never as late as it feels.

The man who invented modern fantasy didn't publish his first novel until he was forty-five. By that age, J.R.R. Tolkien had already built a respectable life. He was an Oxford professor, an expert in ancient languages, with a wife and four children and a settled academic career. He was exactly the kind of man who might reasonably have decided that the shape of his life was already fixed. The work he would be remembered for, he had not yet even begun... The story, which Tolkien told himself, is that one summer he was grading examination papers, when he turned a page and found that a student had left it blank. Without quite knowing why, he wrote a single sentence on it: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." He did not know what a hobbit was. He had spent years inventing languages and mythologies as a private passion, and telling stories to his own children, never imagining any of it would reach the world. But that one line began to grow. It became a story, and then a book, and in 1937, at the age of forty-five, Tolkien published The Hobbit. It was a success, and his publisher asked for a sequel. Tolkien warned them it might take some time. It took 17 years... He wrote it in the margins of a demanding full-time job, revising endlessly, doubting it often. When The Lord of the Rings was finally published, in 1954 and 1955, he was in his early sixties. That book, begun as a middle-aged professor's private side project, went on to sell well over a hundred million copies, to invent modern fantasy as we know it, and to reshape the imagination of the entire world. Tolkien already had a full and respectable life behind him. And still, the thing he is remembered for, the thing that outlived him and reached hundreds of millions of people, was something he began at forty-five, at an age when it would have been the easiest thing in the world to tell himself he had already missed his chance. He didn't. It's never as late as it feels.

James Lucas

85,706 просмотров • 3 дней назад

Achilles’ lament for his friend Patroclus is described by Homer in a unique way. Of course, the movie didn’t show it. So here is what actually happened: Patroclus' body was burned on a great pyre, and his ashes were placed in an urn that was given to Achilles to keep in his tent. Achilles even requested that when he himself died, Patroclus' ashes be mixed with his own remains so that the two friends would be buried together for eternity. The ceremonies ended with funeral games in honor of the dead. In these, Achilles offered many and valuable prizes as the organizer. In the end, he even declared Agamemnon the winner in the spear fight. Briseis, in her lament over Patroclus' body, weeps as she remembers him and mentions that he was so kind while alive that he told her he would make her the lawful wife of Achilles and bring her to Phthia. In the Iliad, Book 19 (T), lines 295-300 we read: "You alone would not let me weep, and you used to say that you would make me the lawful wife of Achilles, and bring me to Phthia to celebrate the wedding among the Myrmidons who dwell there; for this kindness of yours I weep for you so bitterly." Achilles mourns and says that he hoped he alone would be killed in Troy and that Patroclus would return to Phthia and bring his son Neoptolemus to Phthia to show him the servants and the palace. Clearly, therefore, Achilles intended Patroclus to be the guardian of his child. In the Iliad, Book 19 (T), lines 315-330 we read: "Once, hapless one, you too, dear friend of my heart, would quickly and properly prepare a meal here, when the Achaeans were eager to bring much-lamented Ares against the horse-taming Trojans; now you lie dead, and the longing for you does not let me eat or drink, for I could not suffer a worse evil even if I heard that my old father had died, who is wasting away in Phthia with tears, missing such a son, while I remain far away, fighting the Trojans in a foreign land because of hated Helen; or that child of mine who is being raised in Scyros, the godlike Neoptolemus, if he still lives. I had another hope deep in my soul, that I alone would perish far from horse-breeding Argos here in Troy, and that you would return to Phthia and bring the child from Scyros in the ship and lead him with you and show him everything, my possessions, my servants, and the high palace." Friendship in Greece was a sacred institution protected by "Zeus Philios" (Zeus of Friendship). These two heroes were companions, fellow warriors, dear friends, and relatives.

Achilles’ lament for his friend Patroclus is described by Homer in a unique way. Of course, the movie didn’t show it. So here is what actually happened: Patroclus' body was burned on a great pyre, and his ashes were placed in an urn that was given to Achilles to keep in his tent. Achilles even requested that when he himself died, Patroclus' ashes be mixed with his own remains so that the two friends would be buried together for eternity. The ceremonies ended with funeral games in honor of the dead. In these, Achilles offered many and valuable prizes as the organizer. In the end, he even declared Agamemnon the winner in the spear fight. Briseis, in her lament over Patroclus' body, weeps as she remembers him and mentions that he was so kind while alive that he told her he would make her the lawful wife of Achilles and bring her to Phthia. In the Iliad, Book 19 (T), lines 295-300 we read: "You alone would not let me weep, and you used to say that you would make me the lawful wife of Achilles, and bring me to Phthia to celebrate the wedding among the Myrmidons who dwell there; for this kindness of yours I weep for you so bitterly." Achilles mourns and says that he hoped he alone would be killed in Troy and that Patroclus would return to Phthia and bring his son Neoptolemus to Phthia to show him the servants and the palace. Clearly, therefore, Achilles intended Patroclus to be the guardian of his child. In the Iliad, Book 19 (T), lines 315-330 we read: "Once, hapless one, you too, dear friend of my heart, would quickly and properly prepare a meal here, when the Achaeans were eager to bring much-lamented Ares against the horse-taming Trojans; now you lie dead, and the longing for you does not let me eat or drink, for I could not suffer a worse evil even if I heard that my old father had died, who is wasting away in Phthia with tears, missing such a son, while I remain far away, fighting the Trojans in a foreign land because of hated Helen; or that child of mine who is being raised in Scyros, the godlike Neoptolemus, if he still lives. I had another hope deep in my soul, that I alone would perish far from horse-breeding Argos here in Troy, and that you would return to Phthia and bring the child from Scyros in the ship and lead him with you and show him everything, my possessions, my servants, and the high palace." Friendship in Greece was a sacred institution protected by "Zeus Philios" (Zeus of Friendship). These two heroes were companions, fellow warriors, dear friends, and relatives.

Homer Pavlos

43,504 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

CNN’s Kristen Holmes: “I just want to point out one thing before we get into the power and influential person that Charlie Kirk was..not just a political activist. He was also a father and a husband. And you have to remember something when you talk about Donald Trump's campaign and the team that got him elected, it was a very small, very tight knit group of people. It was loyalists, people who were gathered around Donald Trump working in and out every day. And Charlie Kirk was part of that movement. So, when you're talking to these White House advisers and staffers and friends of the President, it's not just them looking at the death of an icon and a movement leader, as we've heard, it's also them looking at the death of a very close friend and somebody they spent an enormous amount of time with...[T]hat's why you're seeing such a sadness and a disbelief from so many people close to the President. And when it comes to talking strictly about his influence and his power within Washington, I mean, one of the things to keep in mind here is that this is somebody who had a direct line to President Trump who could voice his objections to President Trump at times, he could voice what he thought was important and not being covered enough by the administration. He spoke to many, if not all, of the cabinet secretaries directly. He had a finger on the pulse of the MAGA movement, even more so than some people who are here in Washington who got government positions. If you look at the crowd that had gathered around Kirk, that was just one example of the kind of crowds that Kirk would draw. He was truly a movement leader, as we've heard. He would bring thousands and thousands of people together, and that was why he was so critical beyond just the personal to the campaign to President Trump...So, there are a lot of different levels of all of this. The influence, the power, the — the connection to the base, but also the family and the relationships that Charlie Kirk had built with all of the Trumps. We have seen the children responding each individually about their relationships with Charlie Kirk saying to pray for him and his family.”

CNN’s Kristen Holmes: “I just want to point out one thing before we get into the power and influential person that Charlie Kirk was..not just a political activist. He was also a father and a husband. And you have to remember something when you talk about Donald Trump's campaign and the team that got him elected, it was a very small, very tight knit group of people. It was loyalists, people who were gathered around Donald Trump working in and out every day. And Charlie Kirk was part of that movement. So, when you're talking to these White House advisers and staffers and friends of the President, it's not just them looking at the death of an icon and a movement leader, as we've heard, it's also them looking at the death of a very close friend and somebody they spent an enormous amount of time with...[T]hat's why you're seeing such a sadness and a disbelief from so many people close to the President. And when it comes to talking strictly about his influence and his power within Washington, I mean, one of the things to keep in mind here is that this is somebody who had a direct line to President Trump who could voice his objections to President Trump at times, he could voice what he thought was important and not being covered enough by the administration. He spoke to many, if not all, of the cabinet secretaries directly. He had a finger on the pulse of the MAGA movement, even more so than some people who are here in Washington who got government positions. If you look at the crowd that had gathered around Kirk, that was just one example of the kind of crowds that Kirk would draw. He was truly a movement leader, as we've heard. He would bring thousands and thousands of people together, and that was why he was so critical beyond just the personal to the campaign to President Trump...So, there are a lot of different levels of all of this. The influence, the power, the — the connection to the base, but also the family and the relationships that Charlie Kirk had built with all of the Trumps. We have seen the children responding each individually about their relationships with Charlie Kirk saying to pray for him and his family.”

Curtis Houck

1,160,867 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

When Michelangelo finished this statue, the story goes that he struck it across the knee with his hammer and shouted: "Why don't you speak?" Looking at it, you can see why he expected an answer. The figure is Moses, carved by Michelangelo between 1513 and 1515 for the tomb of Pope Julius II, and it stands today in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome. It is one of the most lifelike things ever cut from stone, and Michelangelo himself is said to have considered it his most living creation. According to the legend, when it was done, the silence of something so alive was more than he could bear. He hit its knee and demanded that it speak. Some say a faint mark on the knee is still there… Look first at the head, and you will see something strange: two horns rising from his hair. They are not a symbol of evil. They are one of the most famous translation errors in history. When the Hebrew scriptures were rendered into Latin, the word describing Moses coming down from Mount Sinai, karan, was read as "horned." But the same set of letters can also mean "radiant," "emitting rays of light." Moses' face was not growing horns. It was shining. By Michelangelo's time the mistranslation was centuries old and fixed in tradition, so he carved the horns, as nearly every artist before him had. Then look at the face. The head is turned to one side, the brows drawn down, the eyes fixed on something beyond the room. Many scholars believe Michelangelo caught Moses in a single specific instant: the moment he comes down from the mountain holding the commandments and sees his people worshipping a golden idol, the breath before his fury erupts. The whole body is tensed on the edge of motion, and yet it will never move. Michelangelo believed every block of marble held a living figure inside it, waiting to be set free. With Moses, he came closer than anyone ever had, and when he laid down his tools, only one thing was still beyond him: he had made a man who could do everything but speak... I started this newsletter because our past is extraordinary, and fewer and fewer people are showing us how to see it. Every week I try to. If that is something you would like to be part of, you can join at the link below, and if you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible: Thanks for reading.

When Michelangelo finished this statue, the story goes that he struck it across the knee with his hammer and shouted: "Why don't you speak?" Looking at it, you can see why he expected an answer. The figure is Moses, carved by Michelangelo between 1513 and 1515 for the tomb of Pope Julius II, and it stands today in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome. It is one of the most lifelike things ever cut from stone, and Michelangelo himself is said to have considered it his most living creation. According to the legend, when it was done, the silence of something so alive was more than he could bear. He hit its knee and demanded that it speak. Some say a faint mark on the knee is still there… Look first at the head, and you will see something strange: two horns rising from his hair. They are not a symbol of evil. They are one of the most famous translation errors in history. When the Hebrew scriptures were rendered into Latin, the word describing Moses coming down from Mount Sinai, karan, was read as "horned." But the same set of letters can also mean "radiant," "emitting rays of light." Moses' face was not growing horns. It was shining. By Michelangelo's time the mistranslation was centuries old and fixed in tradition, so he carved the horns, as nearly every artist before him had. Then look at the face. The head is turned to one side, the brows drawn down, the eyes fixed on something beyond the room. Many scholars believe Michelangelo caught Moses in a single specific instant: the moment he comes down from the mountain holding the commandments and sees his people worshipping a golden idol, the breath before his fury erupts. The whole body is tensed on the edge of motion, and yet it will never move. Michelangelo believed every block of marble held a living figure inside it, waiting to be set free. With Moses, he came closer than anyone ever had, and when he laid down his tools, only one thing was still beyond him: he had made a man who could do everything but speak... I started this newsletter because our past is extraordinary, and fewer and fewer people are showing us how to see it. Every week I try to. If that is something you would like to be part of, you can join at the link below, and if you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible: Thanks for reading.

James Lucas

106,995 просмотров • 21 дней назад

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

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

Hopewell Chin’ono

67,842 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

When this sculpture was unveiled in 1753, people refused to believe it was made of marble. They were convinced the artist had used alchemy... The veil draped over the body of Christ was rendered with such impossible precision that the only explanation was that some chemical process had been used to turn a real cloth into stone. The sculptor was a 33-year-old Neapolitan named Giuseppe Sanmartino. He had carved the entire figure, including the veil, from a single block of white marble. We know this because the original commission documents survive, preserved in the Historical Archive of the Bank of Naples. A receipt signed by the patron, Prince Raimondo di Sangro, dated 16 December 1752, refers to "the statue of Our Lord in death covered by a veil also of marble." The patron himself only deepened the mystery: Raimondo di Sangro, Prince of Sansevero, was a Grand Master of the Neapolitan Masonic Lodge and a practicing alchemist... He had commissioned the sculpture for the Cappella Sansevero, his family chapel in the heart of Naples, a space he had spent his life transforming into one of the strangest interiors in Europe, filled with allegorical statues and symbols of esoteric knowledge. The legend that he had laid a real cloth over the figure and "marbleized" it through a secret chemical process took root almost immediately. And it has never fully died. But the truth is stranger than the legend. Sanmartino did this with a hammer and a chisel... Antonio Canova himself tried to buy the sculpture. According to tradition, when he was unable to, he said he would gladly have given ten years of his life to have produced something of similar perfection. The Marquis de Sade, passing through Naples, paused to praise "the folds, the finesse of the veil… the beauty, and the regularity of the overall proportions." The Veiled Christ has not left the city in over 270 years. To see it, you have to go there. I have, and I can tell you that no photograph prepares you for the moment you stand in front of it. Sculpture, at its highest, really is a kind of alchemy. The transformation of cold stone into real flesh. As Alexander Pope wrote: "Then marble, soften'd into life, grew warm." I started this newsletter because human beings once made things that look impossible, and we have largely forgotten how. Every week, I share one of those stories. If that is something you would like to be part of, you can join 50,000 readers here: If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.

When this sculpture was unveiled in 1753, people refused to believe it was made of marble. They were convinced the artist had used alchemy... The veil draped over the body of Christ was rendered with such impossible precision that the only explanation was that some chemical process had been used to turn a real cloth into stone. The sculptor was a 33-year-old Neapolitan named Giuseppe Sanmartino. He had carved the entire figure, including the veil, from a single block of white marble. We know this because the original commission documents survive, preserved in the Historical Archive of the Bank of Naples. A receipt signed by the patron, Prince Raimondo di Sangro, dated 16 December 1752, refers to "the statue of Our Lord in death covered by a veil also of marble." The patron himself only deepened the mystery: Raimondo di Sangro, Prince of Sansevero, was a Grand Master of the Neapolitan Masonic Lodge and a practicing alchemist... He had commissioned the sculpture for the Cappella Sansevero, his family chapel in the heart of Naples, a space he had spent his life transforming into one of the strangest interiors in Europe, filled with allegorical statues and symbols of esoteric knowledge. The legend that he had laid a real cloth over the figure and "marbleized" it through a secret chemical process took root almost immediately. And it has never fully died. But the truth is stranger than the legend. Sanmartino did this with a hammer and a chisel... Antonio Canova himself tried to buy the sculpture. According to tradition, when he was unable to, he said he would gladly have given ten years of his life to have produced something of similar perfection. The Marquis de Sade, passing through Naples, paused to praise "the folds, the finesse of the veil… the beauty, and the regularity of the overall proportions." The Veiled Christ has not left the city in over 270 years. To see it, you have to go there. I have, and I can tell you that no photograph prepares you for the moment you stand in front of it. Sculpture, at its highest, really is a kind of alchemy. The transformation of cold stone into real flesh. As Alexander Pope wrote: "Then marble, soften'd into life, grew warm." I started this newsletter because human beings once made things that look impossible, and we have largely forgotten how. Every week, I share one of those stories. If that is something you would like to be part of, you can join 50,000 readers here: If you'd like to support my work, a paid subscription is what makes it possible.

James Lucas

329,298 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Who Do You Think The 3rd Person Is? Bill Gates? Klaus Schwab? Someone Else? “Nostradamus saw in his future three men that he called antichrists. One was Napoleon, the second one was Hitler, and the third one is the one that is to come, who is said to be the worst of all, because he will learn from the mistakes of the others. A very dangerous person. He didn't like the term antichrist. He said it was a Christian term, and it was not exactly what he meant. But he said, if you think of Christ as representing people, humanity, then antichrist is someone who does terrible things against humanity, against people. And it can be the type of personality like Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, the type that doesn't care anything about what it's doing, it only wants power. So this is what he meant by an Antichrist. But the third one, he gave us a great deal of information about him because he wanted us to do something to stop the man. He said in the Bible, in the book of Revelation and other books in the Old Testament, the people saw the same things that he saw their symbolism they could understand in their time, but they all saw the same thing. And the man he refers to as the Antichrist is the number 666 in the Book of Revelation, called the Beast. Of course he said 666 also refers to his connection to his computers. So there's a lot more to it. But he has been predicted as far back as Bible times. So he said he has a destiny to fulfill. He has to come, but after he comes, what happens after that is in the hands of mankind. Do we allow it to go through the worst case scenarios or can we lessen it? That's the point fulfill. We were given a lot of information about this man because he is so important. We have his horoscope. He was born on February the 4th, 1962 in Jerusalem, but he's not Jewish. And his parents were killed during the Israeli war and when he was about six or seven years old, and he was raised by his uncle. His uncle is a very evil man, and we have had many people see him, and we have in my work, and we had one woman who was able to put together a police composite picture of the uncle and of the antichrist. She was a psychic who had worked with police on many cases, so she knew how to do the police composite kits. But the uncle took the young boy him as his own. What the young boy doesn't know was that the uncle had his parents killed, so he could have him for himself. And he has gotten together a very powerful group of rich Arabs in the Middle East, and they've been taking care of this young boy and grooming him for the role he is to take. It's a very powerful group of people that control everything that happens in the Middle East. They're the puppet masters behind the scenes. Nusrat Dhamma said, by the time seven puppets arise in the Middle East, you will realize what is happening that they are not the real leaders of the countries, but they are the puppets being manipulated by the puppet masters behind the scenes. The young Antichrist went to college in Egypt, and we were working on this at the same time he was in college, so we were shown several scenes of him in college. We knew where he was living. We had all this information.”

Who Do You Think The 3rd Person Is? Bill Gates? Klaus Schwab? Someone Else? “Nostradamus saw in his future three men that he called antichrists. One was Napoleon, the second one was Hitler, and the third one is the one that is to come, who is said to be the worst of all, because he will learn from the mistakes of the others. A very dangerous person. He didn't like the term antichrist. He said it was a Christian term, and it was not exactly what he meant. But he said, if you think of Christ as representing people, humanity, then antichrist is someone who does terrible things against humanity, against people. And it can be the type of personality like Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, the type that doesn't care anything about what it's doing, it only wants power. So this is what he meant by an Antichrist. But the third one, he gave us a great deal of information about him because he wanted us to do something to stop the man. He said in the Bible, in the book of Revelation and other books in the Old Testament, the people saw the same things that he saw their symbolism they could understand in their time, but they all saw the same thing. And the man he refers to as the Antichrist is the number 666 in the Book of Revelation, called the Beast. Of course he said 666 also refers to his connection to his computers. So there's a lot more to it. But he has been predicted as far back as Bible times. So he said he has a destiny to fulfill. He has to come, but after he comes, what happens after that is in the hands of mankind. Do we allow it to go through the worst case scenarios or can we lessen it? That's the point fulfill. We were given a lot of information about this man because he is so important. We have his horoscope. He was born on February the 4th, 1962 in Jerusalem, but he's not Jewish. And his parents were killed during the Israeli war and when he was about six or seven years old, and he was raised by his uncle. His uncle is a very evil man, and we have had many people see him, and we have in my work, and we had one woman who was able to put together a police composite picture of the uncle and of the antichrist. She was a psychic who had worked with police on many cases, so she knew how to do the police composite kits. But the uncle took the young boy him as his own. What the young boy doesn't know was that the uncle had his parents killed, so he could have him for himself. And he has gotten together a very powerful group of rich Arabs in the Middle East, and they've been taking care of this young boy and grooming him for the role he is to take. It's a very powerful group of people that control everything that happens in the Middle East. They're the puppet masters behind the scenes. Nusrat Dhamma said, by the time seven puppets arise in the Middle East, you will realize what is happening that they are not the real leaders of the countries, but they are the puppets being manipulated by the puppet masters behind the scenes. The young Antichrist went to college in Egypt, and we were working on this at the same time he was in college, so we were shown several scenes of him in college. We knew where he was living. We had all this information.”

Wall Street Apes

1,338,694 просмотров • 2 лет назад

John Carpenter on how Howard Hawks's "Rio Bravo" (1959) inspired him to become a filmmaker: "As I got older I began to see that certain directors did certain things. One of the earliest examples of this was Roger Corman. I started going to see these exciting, fast, kind of cheesy but really fun monster movies, and there was one name that kept coming up on the screen: Roger Corman. 'It Conquered the World' (1956), 'Not of This Earth' (1957), 'Attack of the Crab Monsters' (1957), 'The Undead' (1957)... But | really understood for the first time what a director did when I saw 'Rio Bravo' in 1959. There was something about that movie that was like home and I can't really explain it. It was held over in Bowling Green for three or four weeks in a row because people kept coming to see it. I abandoned to see what was new in the other movie house in town to see this movie every weekend again and again because there was something in it that was different from the other westerns I had seen. I had certainly seen John Wayne before. He had become a part of my growing-up experience. He was the action guy, the cowboy. He was the guy in 'Flying Tigers' (1942) who was flying the airplanes. So what was so different about that movie? Then I became aware of this credit: “Howard Hawks’ Rio Bravo.” I looked at the poster and I said to myself, “Who is this guy? He didn't write the movie and he wasn't starring in it so why is his name up here? And why is he last in the credits?” All these things started to occur to me, but it was the emotional impact of the film that got me to start using my brain. Some way I figure out that this director made that movie." ("The Prince of Darkness: The Prince of Darkness", Gilles Boulenger, 2001) P.S: Remembering the great American filmmaker Howard Hawks on his 130th birthday.

John Carpenter on how Howard Hawks's "Rio Bravo" (1959) inspired him to become a filmmaker: "As I got older I began to see that certain directors did certain things. One of the earliest examples of this was Roger Corman. I started going to see these exciting, fast, kind of cheesy but really fun monster movies, and there was one name that kept coming up on the screen: Roger Corman. 'It Conquered the World' (1956), 'Not of This Earth' (1957), 'Attack of the Crab Monsters' (1957), 'The Undead' (1957)... But | really understood for the first time what a director did when I saw 'Rio Bravo' in 1959. There was something about that movie that was like home and I can't really explain it. It was held over in Bowling Green for three or four weeks in a row because people kept coming to see it. I abandoned to see what was new in the other movie house in town to see this movie every weekend again and again because there was something in it that was different from the other westerns I had seen. I had certainly seen John Wayne before. He had become a part of my growing-up experience. He was the action guy, the cowboy. He was the guy in 'Flying Tigers' (1942) who was flying the airplanes. So what was so different about that movie? Then I became aware of this credit: “Howard Hawks’ Rio Bravo.” I looked at the poster and I said to myself, “Who is this guy? He didn't write the movie and he wasn't starring in it so why is his name up here? And why is he last in the credits?” All these things started to occur to me, but it was the emotional impact of the film that got me to start using my brain. Some way I figure out that this director made that movie." ("The Prince of Darkness: The Prince of Darkness", Gilles Boulenger, 2001) P.S: Remembering the great American filmmaker Howard Hawks on his 130th birthday.

DepressedBergman

55,467 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Quentin Taratino said Lawrence Fishburne’s performance in King of New York was so incredible he thought - “he could be the greatest actor of his generation”. He explains: "As great as Christopher Walken is in this movie. To me, it's Larry Fishburne's movie - it was the rock that becomes a diamond aspect of the movie. It's why I could defend this movie against all comers, because to me, Fish's performance in this movie was comparable to a young Brando. It was the most exciting performance by an actor of his generation that I'd seen in a movie of that time. And I thought, well, that's it. There is a new Marlon Brando, and his name is Larry Fishburne - it was amazing, it was mesmerizing… He is the first hip hop gangster in movie history. That character had never been done before this. He invented that character. And he invented it as something to do. It wasn't in the original script. He came up with that himself… The three big Fishburne moments to me, is his opening sequence with…Tito. That's it, with Tito - black glove dude. And his reunion with Frank. And then it's the chicken scene (see below). Those are his three big arias. Not only that though - expressions that I would later hear for the rest of the decade, I actually heard for the first time in that scene. I'd never heard the expression; “I'll slap the black off you” before. That was the first time I heard it when Fish says it to Snipes. I've since heard it many times… And that was actually the first time I ever heard, “fuck you very much”. And I would proceed to hear that for the rest of the 90s. But those were the first times I'd ever heard those expressions… As terrific as he has been in other things - the level of excitement that I had over him when this movie was over, I have never had that excitement again. I thought, with this, he could be the greatest actor of his generation. That was an actual, real fucking thing. He could be the greatest actor of his generation after seeing this." Quote comes from The Rewatchables podcast

Quentin Taratino said Lawrence Fishburne’s performance in King of New York was so incredible he thought - “he could be the greatest actor of his generation”. He explains: "As great as Christopher Walken is in this movie. To me, it's Larry Fishburne's movie - it was the rock that becomes a diamond aspect of the movie. It's why I could defend this movie against all comers, because to me, Fish's performance in this movie was comparable to a young Brando. It was the most exciting performance by an actor of his generation that I'd seen in a movie of that time. And I thought, well, that's it. There is a new Marlon Brando, and his name is Larry Fishburne - it was amazing, it was mesmerizing… He is the first hip hop gangster in movie history. That character had never been done before this. He invented that character. And he invented it as something to do. It wasn't in the original script. He came up with that himself… The three big Fishburne moments to me, is his opening sequence with…Tito. That's it, with Tito - black glove dude. And his reunion with Frank. And then it's the chicken scene (see below). Those are his three big arias. Not only that though - expressions that I would later hear for the rest of the decade, I actually heard for the first time in that scene. I'd never heard the expression; “I'll slap the black off you” before. That was the first time I heard it when Fish says it to Snipes. I've since heard it many times… And that was actually the first time I ever heard, “fuck you very much”. And I would proceed to hear that for the rest of the 90s. But those were the first times I'd ever heard those expressions… As terrific as he has been in other things - the level of excitement that I had over him when this movie was over, I have never had that excitement again. I thought, with this, he could be the greatest actor of his generation. That was an actual, real fucking thing. He could be the greatest actor of his generation after seeing this." Quote comes from The Rewatchables podcast

Gangster Cinema Central

654,479 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

The last time I saw my grandfather before he died, we had a conversation that changed the course of my life. I was studying at Columbia in 2003 when my father called to tell me that I needed to travel back to Venezuela to see my grandfather for the last time. He was dying of cancer. Escaping the rising tide of Jew hatred that would soon consume all of Europe, my grandfather immigrated to Venezuela in the 1930s. Although he spoke no Spanish and knew no one in the country, he took a job as a bellhop at a hotel in Caracas, learned the language, and soon became the hotel's general manager. When I traveled back to Venezuela in 2003, the country was gripped by widespread protests against its dictator, Hugo Chávez, who—after packing the Supreme Court with loyalists—had convinced it to allow him to run for reelection as many times as he wanted, even though the constitution was clear that he could seek only one, five-year term. In response, over one million Venezuelans took the streets—in a massive show of democratic objection that happened to coincide with my final conversation with my grandfather. He was by then very weak, in a wheel chair, and weighed no more than 90 pounds. He asked me to wheel him out onto the balcony so that we could play chess together, as the crowds amassed in the streets below us. “What kind of lawyer do you want to be?” he asked me during our game. "Well, I don't know," I answered. "I'm still in college." He then raised his bony finger, pointed it at the crowd below, and said: "Always remember — this is what happens to a country when good people don't serve it." That was the last conversation I ever had with him. He died two or three weeks later. But it was because of that conversation, and my deep love for the United States—a country that welcomed my family and me with open arms and which has given us everything we have—that I decided to devote my life to the service of the greatest country the world has ever known.

The last time I saw my grandfather before he died, we had a conversation that changed the course of my life. I was studying at Columbia in 2003 when my father called to tell me that I needed to travel back to Venezuela to see my grandfather for the last time. He was dying of cancer. Escaping the rising tide of Jew hatred that would soon consume all of Europe, my grandfather immigrated to Venezuela in the 1930s. Although he spoke no Spanish and knew no one in the country, he took a job as a bellhop at a hotel in Caracas, learned the language, and soon became the hotel's general manager. When I traveled back to Venezuela in 2003, the country was gripped by widespread protests against its dictator, Hugo Chávez, who—after packing the Supreme Court with loyalists—had convinced it to allow him to run for reelection as many times as he wanted, even though the constitution was clear that he could seek only one, five-year term. In response, over one million Venezuelans took the streets—in a massive show of democratic objection that happened to coincide with my final conversation with my grandfather. He was by then very weak, in a wheel chair, and weighed no more than 90 pounds. He asked me to wheel him out onto the balcony so that we could play chess together, as the crowds amassed in the streets below us. “What kind of lawyer do you want to be?” he asked me during our game. "Well, I don't know," I answered. "I'm still in college." He then raised his bony finger, pointed it at the crowd below, and said: "Always remember — this is what happens to a country when good people don't serve it." That was the last conversation I ever had with him. He died two or three weeks later. But it was because of that conversation, and my deep love for the United States—a country that welcomed my family and me with open arms and which has given us everything we have—that I decided to devote my life to the service of the greatest country the world has ever known.

Roy K. Altman

26,208 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Why Elon didn't want to be CEO: "[Elon] is at core, an engineer and a product guy. He has this great line where he said: "I realized you couldn't be fully in control of the product unless you were also in control of the company." He says he made a moral error, early in Tesla, where he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to control the company without running the company. And that was the 2002 to 2008 era, where Tesla was just off to a really messy start. He was providing the funding. He was chairman of the board. But Martin Eberhard was CEO. Eventually, when Tesla was on the verge of death in 2008....Elon was pushed into the position of: "I have to be CEO. I don't want to be. It comes with a lot of chores. It comes with a lot of responsibilities. But if I want this company to be successful, I have to fully internalize and take responsibility for it." And that's what he did, even though he was also in the same position at SpaceX. The fact that these companies are improbable, iconic, and that he funded and led them both in parallel...it's like running a two minute mile twice at the same time. It is such a higher degree of difficulty than most people can conceive of, and the fact that it worked is still unbelievable."

Why Elon didn't want to be CEO: "[Elon] is at core, an engineer and a product guy. He has this great line where he said: "I realized you couldn't be fully in control of the product unless you were also in control of the company." He says he made a moral error, early in Tesla, where he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to control the company without running the company. And that was the 2002 to 2008 era, where Tesla was just off to a really messy start. He was providing the funding. He was chairman of the board. But Martin Eberhard was CEO. Eventually, when Tesla was on the verge of death in 2008....Elon was pushed into the position of: "I have to be CEO. I don't want to be. It comes with a lot of chores. It comes with a lot of responsibilities. But if I want this company to be successful, I have to fully internalize and take responsibility for it." And that's what he did, even though he was also in the same position at SpaceX. The fact that these companies are improbable, iconic, and that he funded and led them both in parallel...it's like running a two minute mile twice at the same time. It is such a higher degree of difficulty than most people can conceive of, and the fact that it worked is still unbelievable."

Ti Morse

47,497 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

I watched a film recently, based on a true story, about a man who spent fifty years consumed by what one person had done to him, then went looking for that very person. His name was Eric Lomax, a British army officer captured when Singapore fell to Japan in 1942. He was sent to work as a prisoner on the Burma Railway, a line the Japanese forced tens of thousands of POWs and local labourers to build through the jungle in horrific conditions. So many men died that it became known as the Death Railway. Lomax was a lifelong railway enthusiast, which is its own cruel irony. He and some others built a small radio from scrap to hear news of the war. When it was discovered, Lomax was singled out and interrogated for weeks, and what was done to him left wounds that never really closed. Through all of it there was one figure he could not forget, the interpreter who stood beside him and translated every question and answer. The man’s name was Takashi Nagase. Lomax went home to Scotland carrying that face for decades. The nightmares did not stop. He has said he spent years rehearsing what he would do if he ever found that interpreter again. Much later in life, he learned that Nagase was not only alive but had spent his postwar years as a campaigner for peace, building a temple of penance near the railway and helping reunite former prisoners with their captors. Nagase had been carrying the same fifty years of guilt that Lomax had been carrying as anger. They agreed to meet, on a hillside in Thailand near the river the prisoners had bridged. Nagase saw him, bowed, and began trembling and apologising over and over. Lomax, who had arrived without a shred of sympathy, took his hand instead. The two became real friends and stayed close for the rest of their lives. He first told all of this in his memoir, also a true account, called The Railway Man. It was later made into the film I watched.

I watched a film recently, based on a true story, about a man who spent fifty years consumed by what one person had done to him, then went looking for that very person. His name was Eric Lomax, a British army officer captured when Singapore fell to Japan in 1942. He was sent to work as a prisoner on the Burma Railway, a line the Japanese forced tens of thousands of POWs and local labourers to build through the jungle in horrific conditions. So many men died that it became known as the Death Railway. Lomax was a lifelong railway enthusiast, which is its own cruel irony. He and some others built a small radio from scrap to hear news of the war. When it was discovered, Lomax was singled out and interrogated for weeks, and what was done to him left wounds that never really closed. Through all of it there was one figure he could not forget, the interpreter who stood beside him and translated every question and answer. The man’s name was Takashi Nagase. Lomax went home to Scotland carrying that face for decades. The nightmares did not stop. He has said he spent years rehearsing what he would do if he ever found that interpreter again. Much later in life, he learned that Nagase was not only alive but had spent his postwar years as a campaigner for peace, building a temple of penance near the railway and helping reunite former prisoners with their captors. Nagase had been carrying the same fifty years of guilt that Lomax had been carrying as anger. They agreed to meet, on a hillside in Thailand near the river the prisoners had bridged. Nagase saw him, bowed, and began trembling and apologising over and over. Lomax, who had arrived without a shred of sympathy, took his hand instead. The two became real friends and stayed close for the rest of their lives. He first told all of this in his memoir, also a true account, called The Railway Man. It was later made into the film I watched.

Lemma the Optimist

591,464 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Amit Chaudhary was the only son of his parents and only brother of his three elder sisters. He was about to gt married in Jan 2024. On the evening of 14th Sep he called his uncle and told him that the wife of the colonel at whose house he is posted as a House Help under Buddy system of Army is going to murder him. After three days the family received a call from SM of the unit who informed them that they are sending the dead body of Amit to Jammu. The family received the Body on 19th Sep and even now no one from the Army bothered to inform them about the cause and reason of his death. Family is alleging that Wife of the Colonel was forcing Amit to do things with her which he was not comfortable with. And that leads to his murder. Its such a serious allegation and if this is true its a shame for the entire force.

Amit Chaudhary was the only son of his parents and only brother of his three elder sisters. He was about to gt married in Jan 2024. On the evening of 14th Sep he called his uncle and told him that the wife of the colonel at whose house he is posted as a House Help under Buddy system of Army is going to murder him. After three days the family received a call from SM of the unit who informed them that they are sending the dead body of Amit to Jammu. The family received the Body on 19th Sep and even now no one from the Army bothered to inform them about the cause and reason of his death. Family is alleging that Wife of the Colonel was forcing Amit to do things with her which he was not comfortable with. And that leads to his murder. Its such a serious allegation and if this is true its a shame for the entire force.

NCMIndia Council For Men Affairs

31,186 просмотров • 2 лет назад

During a previous appearance on the Full Send Podcast, Tucker Carlson asserted with absolute certainty that Epstein was murdered. Tucker said a friend of his was one of the last people to talk to Epstein before he was killed. The friend told Tucker that Epstein truly believed he was getting out of prison. “A friend of mine, one of the people who last talked to him on the phone the day he was killed, and he had an expectation of a bail hearing in two days.” “He thought he was getting out. He was not despondent at all. I talked to his lawyer, told me the same thing.” “They moved someone out of his cell. They put two people, one of whom was not even a full-time, prison guard on duty. None of the cameras trained on the cell work. They were all out of it that night.”

During a previous appearance on the Full Send Podcast, Tucker Carlson asserted with absolute certainty that Epstein was murdered. Tucker said a friend of his was one of the last people to talk to Epstein before he was killed. The friend told Tucker that Epstein truly believed he was getting out of prison. “A friend of mine, one of the people who last talked to him on the phone the day he was killed, and he had an expectation of a bail hearing in two days.” “He thought he was getting out. He was not despondent at all. I talked to his lawyer, told me the same thing.” “They moved someone out of his cell. They put two people, one of whom was not even a full-time, prison guard on duty. None of the cameras trained on the cell work. They were all out of it that night.”

Collin Rugg

780,780 просмотров • 2 лет назад

RFK Jr. on psychedelics and how his son’s ayahuasca experience opened his mind to legalization “My inclination would be to make them available, at least in therapeutic settings and maybe more generally, but in ways that would discourage the corporate control and exploitation of it. My wife in 2012 took her own life… and one of [my kids] was worrying to me because he never processed his mom’s death in a way that I could observe. About five years ago… he went to Patagonia to kayak a white water river that I kayaked for many, many years… The night my son arrived there, the guy [he stayed with] said to him ‘I’m doing an ayahuasca trip tonight’… so my kid ended up doing this. After he drank the ayahuasca… he felt himself sinking through all the geological strata of the Earth, and he told me… he had a total understanding of all of the processes that had laid them out through the eons. He ended up being propelled out the other side of the Earth and then floating through space for what he experienced as hundreds of years. He would focus on a distant planet and be transported there, and on each planet he would have an adventure and at the end there would be a lesson that he was supposed to remember. The last planet he visited, his mother was there. And she started passing through him, in and out of him again and again and every time she did that, he felt all these experiences of forgiveness, of love, of understanding, of comprehension, of empathy and compassion. When he came back from that trip, he was completely changed. He was very open about talking about his feelings, [but] the reason I really know that it changed him is he started taking out the garbage and doing the dishes. I have a friend who’s a Navy SEAL who had severe PTSD and he went to Costa Rica and had the same kind of experience. I have a couple of other friends who are in the NFL and they also had severe brain injuries and depression, and the same thing happened. So, my mind is open to the idea that there may be things that I don’t know about and that people ought to have the freedom and liberty to experiment with these things.”

RFK Jr. on psychedelics and how his son’s ayahuasca experience opened his mind to legalization “My inclination would be to make them available, at least in therapeutic settings and maybe more generally, but in ways that would discourage the corporate control and exploitation of it. My wife in 2012 took her own life… and one of [my kids] was worrying to me because he never processed his mom’s death in a way that I could observe. About five years ago… he went to Patagonia to kayak a white water river that I kayaked for many, many years… The night my son arrived there, the guy [he stayed with] said to him ‘I’m doing an ayahuasca trip tonight’… so my kid ended up doing this. After he drank the ayahuasca… he felt himself sinking through all the geological strata of the Earth, and he told me… he had a total understanding of all of the processes that had laid them out through the eons. He ended up being propelled out the other side of the Earth and then floating through space for what he experienced as hundreds of years. He would focus on a distant planet and be transported there, and on each planet he would have an adventure and at the end there would be a lesson that he was supposed to remember. The last planet he visited, his mother was there. And she started passing through him, in and out of him again and again and every time she did that, he felt all these experiences of forgiveness, of love, of understanding, of comprehension, of empathy and compassion. When he came back from that trip, he was completely changed. He was very open about talking about his feelings, [but] the reason I really know that it changed him is he started taking out the garbage and doing the dishes. I have a friend who’s a Navy SEAL who had severe PTSD and he went to Costa Rica and had the same kind of experience. I have a couple of other friends who are in the NFL and they also had severe brain injuries and depression, and the same thing happened. So, my mind is open to the idea that there may be things that I don’t know about and that people ought to have the freedom and liberty to experiment with these things.”

Holden Culotta

345,980 просмотров • 2 лет назад