Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

New BBC Step-Dad makes you his sissy!#caption #captions #sissycaptions #BBCcaptions #BBC #sissy #feminization #pounding #anal #bussy #beta #sissycaption #stepdad

CaptionsPlus's profile picture

CaptionsPlus

63,453 subscribers

108,451 次观看 • 7 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#caption#captions#sissycaptions#BBCcaptions#BBC#sissy#feminization#pounding#anal#bussy#beta#sissycaption#stepdad
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

🇬🇧🇷🇺Robert Maxwell: War hero? Nah, he was a black market boss in post-war Berlin. The man was double-dipping as a KGB agent and an MI6 asset to build his shady empire. Loyalties? Only to his wallet. Ghislaine's dad set the scandal bar high, which makes you wonder: What if Ghislaine was the brain behind the "Epstein" scandal? What if he was just an asset, a useful idiot? Source: BBC News
2:40

🇬🇧🇷🇺Robert Maxwell: War hero? Nah, he was a black market boss in post-war Berlin. The man was double-dipping as a KGB agent and an MI6 asset to build his shady empire. Loyalties? Only to his wallet. Ghislaine's dad set the scandal bar high, which makes you wonder: What if Ghislaine was the brain behind the "Epstein" scandal? What if he was just an asset, a useful idiot? Source: BBC News

Mario Nawfal

26,075 次观看 • 7 个月前

👨‍👩‍👦‍👦 This stepdad shares what he did when he saw the child support numbers that would bankrupt the biological father of his wife’s kids. In 2006 he married a woman with two children. When the court-ordered child support and alimony payments came through (over $3,000 a month total), he went back to court and got them reduced to about $400 a month because he refused to “enjoy a boat that another guy pays for.” He took full financial responsibility himself. Years later he even fought to wipe out back support so the dad wouldn’t be ruined. This was this man's choice to make and he wanted to step up and support his new family... I truly applaud him for it. Do you think he made a wise decision?
4:35

👨‍👩‍👦‍👦 This stepdad shares what he did when he saw the child support numbers that would bankrupt the biological father of his wife’s kids. In 2006 he married a woman with two children. When the court-ordered child support and alimony payments came through (over $3,000 a month total), he went back to court and got them reduced to about $400 a month because he refused to “enjoy a boat that another guy pays for.” He took full financial responsibility himself. Years later he even fought to wipe out back support so the dad wouldn’t be ruined. This was this man's choice to make and he wanted to step up and support his new family... I truly applaud him for it. Do you think he made a wise decision?

End3of6Days9 (Helen) 🇺🇸

884,564 次观看 • 5 个月前

Mz.Dani revealed she wants her first an*l scene to be with Dredd and his BBC She shared a story about a man from Milwaukee who initially connected with her through a free tattoo, and their relationship later became more personal. She clarified that the tattoo wasn’t exchanged for anything—it simply developed naturally over time. She also explained that she’s been preparing herself for a future scene with a performer she finds very attractive(Dredd) and has been taking things step by step. “let’s try this again because I’m really trying to train my b#tthole because I want to anal with someone in the industry who’s like huge,you have to start with a smaller d1ck though…yeah he’s got a huge d1ck”
2:32

Sensitive content

Mz.Dani revealed she wants her first an*l scene to be with Dredd and his BBC She shared a story about a man from Milwaukee who initially connected with her through a free tattoo, and their relationship later became more personal. She clarified that the tattoo wasn’t exchanged for anything—it simply developed naturally over time. She also explained that she’s been preparing herself for a future scene with a performer she finds very attractive(Dredd) and has been taking things step by step. “let’s try this again because I’m really trying to train my b#tthole because I want to anal with someone in the industry who’s like huge,you have to start with a smaller d1ck though…yeah he’s got a huge d1ck”

Fazzy

238,516 次观看 • 3 个月前

Can I borrow your attention for two minutes ? Wrote this out 200 times and it still feels wrong but here goes. As a lot of you know my Dad passed on a while back. It massively derailed the recording and release of this forthcoming album (it’s now coming out in May) But it also really derailed me. My Dad was a complex fella. Full of good and bad traits (aren’t we all). Anyway I wanted to do something that sums up the grief process. How it feels when a particular person enters your head. It isn’t a linear thing is it? It comes and goes. The album isn’t remotely doomy and im not even sure the original concept was about my Dad, but because I recorded it during his final weeks, it shall, in my mind at least always be about him. I’ve been told that I should release a different song to this because it’s a bit depressing to be on BBC Radio 2 and whilst I love being on the radio, some things are about being true to yourself aren’t they? When we toured recently loadsa people cried when we played this one and so that gave me the confidence to put it out. Also my dad would have loved the attention 🤣. He was the bands biggest fan. Always letting me know if we’d had a spin on the radio or where the albums had got to in the chart and giving me his feedback on my demos. I miss him terribly and if you too are struggling with grief there is a helpline you can ring on 08088081677 where the folks at Cruse can advise and assist you. Without trying to commercialise something tragic l, we do have a limited number of McClure family front covers of the new album which, my dad would be buzzing about. He predicted I’ll have a no1 day, which is sentimental bollocks but we can but try. 🤣 I appreciate you reading and hopefully you’ll watch the full thing on YouTube Big love Jon
1:21

Can I borrow your attention for two minutes ? Wrote this out 200 times and it still feels wrong but here goes. As a lot of you know my Dad passed on a while back. It massively derailed the recording and release of this forthcoming album (it’s now coming out in May) But it also really derailed me. My Dad was a complex fella. Full of good and bad traits (aren’t we all). Anyway I wanted to do something that sums up the grief process. How it feels when a particular person enters your head. It isn’t a linear thing is it? It comes and goes. The album isn’t remotely doomy and im not even sure the original concept was about my Dad, but because I recorded it during his final weeks, it shall, in my mind at least always be about him. I’ve been told that I should release a different song to this because it’s a bit depressing to be on BBC Radio 2 and whilst I love being on the radio, some things are about being true to yourself aren’t they? When we toured recently loadsa people cried when we played this one and so that gave me the confidence to put it out. Also my dad would have loved the attention 🤣. He was the bands biggest fan. Always letting me know if we’d had a spin on the radio or where the albums had got to in the chart and giving me his feedback on my demos. I miss him terribly and if you too are struggling with grief there is a helpline you can ring on 08088081677 where the folks at Cruse can advise and assist you. Without trying to commercialise something tragic l, we do have a limited number of McClure family front covers of the new album which, my dad would be buzzing about. He predicted I’ll have a no1 day, which is sentimental bollocks but we can but try. 🤣 I appreciate you reading and hopefully you’ll watch the full thing on YouTube Big love Jon

Reverend&TheMakers

46,593 次观看 • 7 个月前

NEW: David Sacks blasts USAID for using American taxpayers to fund left-wing organizations and policies around the world. "We're in debt almost $40 trillion, and anytime anyone tries to cut anything in Washington, the whole city screams bloody murder. The question is, why? Well, now we know. The money is all going to them." "New York Times, getting paid. Politico, getting paid. Bill Kristol, perennial warmonger, getting paid. Ukraine, like 11 out of 12 publications, getting paid. Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, was saying his political opposition is funded by USAID." "In Poland, the left-wing political opposition is funded by USAID. BBC in the U.K. Every left-wing organization in the world seems to be getting paid by this slush fund at USAID, which distributes $50 billion a year. That's a billion dollars a week. That's a lot of money." "It makes you wonder. The left, in general, tries to portray itself as a movement of the people. That it's grassroots, this is the exact opposite. This is astroturf. This money is coming from the top down out of Washington to fund all these groups all over the world. So it makes you wonder, what is the real level of local support for these left-wing policies all over the world?"
1:57

NEW: David Sacks blasts USAID for using American taxpayers to fund left-wing organizations and policies around the world. "We're in debt almost $40 trillion, and anytime anyone tries to cut anything in Washington, the whole city screams bloody murder. The question is, why? Well, now we know. The money is all going to them." "New York Times, getting paid. Politico, getting paid. Bill Kristol, perennial warmonger, getting paid. Ukraine, like 11 out of 12 publications, getting paid. Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, was saying his political opposition is funded by USAID." "In Poland, the left-wing political opposition is funded by USAID. BBC in the U.K. Every left-wing organization in the world seems to be getting paid by this slush fund at USAID, which distributes $50 billion a year. That's a billion dollars a week. That's a lot of money." "It makes you wonder. The left, in general, tries to portray itself as a movement of the people. That it's grassroots, this is the exact opposite. This is astroturf. This money is coming from the top down out of Washington to fund all these groups all over the world. So it makes you wonder, what is the real level of local support for these left-wing policies all over the world?"

KanekoaTheGreat

5,918,464 次观看 • 1 年前

>be John Davidson >born 1971 >Galashiels, Scotland >working class family in the Scottish Borders >football-mad kid >just wants to be a goalkeeper 1983: >you're 12 >a scout is coming to watch you play >this is your shot >then something happens >your body starts doing things you can't control >tics >involuntary vocalisations >noises you didn't choose >head teacher's response: whip your hands with a belt >you perform badly >dad leaves shortly after >you walk into a river >you're 12 school: >no diagnosis >no framework >just a kid who "can't behave" >mocked daily >leave at 16 >no qualifications >the world has decided what you are 1989: >BBC comes to Galashiels >films your life >"John's Not Mad" >airs nationally >some people feel compassion >most kids use it as ammunition >your face becomes shorthand for mockery in playgrounds across the country >you know this >you keep going the wilderness years: >no diagnosis until you're 25 >25 years old before anyone gives it a name >you've been living it for over a decade without language for it >you get a job >caretaker at Langlee Community Centre >you stay there your whole working life the turn: >a family is referred to you >their daughter has Tourette's >she's struggling >you start hosting workshops >schools >police stations >you explain what it means to live in a body people don't understand >unpaid >for years >because nobody did it for you 2019: >Holyrood Palace >the Queen is about to give you an MBE >you shout "Fuck the Queen" >directly at her >she reacts with complete calm and kindness >the kid the belt hit >gets a medal 2025: >a film about your life premieres at Toronto International Film Festival >"I Swear" >six BAFTA nominations February 2026: >you're in the auditorium >watching a film about your life >your Tourette's doesn't stop for the occasion >it never has >mid-ceremony your tics ring out across the room >and on the live broadcast >as Black actors take the stage >you shout a racial slur >involuntarily >uncontrollably >you leave early >you know you're causing distress >you've known that feeling your whole life >Jamie Foxx goes on Instagram >"Nah he meant that s**t" >"Out of all the words you could've said Tourette's makes you say that" >the internet piles on >thousands outraged at a man who cannot control what comes out of his mouth >the film that explains exactly this wins three BAFTAs that same night >including Best Actor >the room got it >the internet did not >because the internet didn't watch the film see -- Every founder, artist, activist, author, coach or ANYONE who wants to change the world should take note: Stop apologising for who you are. Be the change you want to see.
0:42

>be John Davidson >born 1971 >Galashiels, Scotland >working class family in the Scottish Borders >football-mad kid >just wants to be a goalkeeper 1983: >you're 12 >a scout is coming to watch you play >this is your shot >then something happens >your body starts doing things you can't control >tics >involuntary vocalisations >noises you didn't choose >head teacher's response: whip your hands with a belt >you perform badly >dad leaves shortly after >you walk into a river >you're 12 school: >no diagnosis >no framework >just a kid who "can't behave" >mocked daily >leave at 16 >no qualifications >the world has decided what you are 1989: >BBC comes to Galashiels >films your life >"John's Not Mad" >airs nationally >some people feel compassion >most kids use it as ammunition >your face becomes shorthand for mockery in playgrounds across the country >you know this >you keep going the wilderness years: >no diagnosis until you're 25 >25 years old before anyone gives it a name >you've been living it for over a decade without language for it >you get a job >caretaker at Langlee Community Centre >you stay there your whole working life the turn: >a family is referred to you >their daughter has Tourette's >she's struggling >you start hosting workshops >schools >police stations >you explain what it means to live in a body people don't understand >unpaid >for years >because nobody did it for you 2019: >Holyrood Palace >the Queen is about to give you an MBE >you shout "Fuck the Queen" >directly at her >she reacts with complete calm and kindness >the kid the belt hit >gets a medal 2025: >a film about your life premieres at Toronto International Film Festival >"I Swear" >six BAFTA nominations February 2026: >you're in the auditorium >watching a film about your life >your Tourette's doesn't stop for the occasion >it never has >mid-ceremony your tics ring out across the room >and on the live broadcast >as Black actors take the stage >you shout a racial slur >involuntarily >uncontrollably >you leave early >you know you're causing distress >you've known that feeling your whole life >Jamie Foxx goes on Instagram >"Nah he meant that s**t" >"Out of all the words you could've said Tourette's makes you say that" >the internet piles on >thousands outraged at a man who cannot control what comes out of his mouth >the film that explains exactly this wins three BAFTAs that same night >including Best Actor >the room got it >the internet did not >because the internet didn't watch the film see -- Every founder, artist, activist, author, coach or ANYONE who wants to change the world should take note: Stop apologising for who you are. Be the change you want to see.

Lewis 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

287,552 次观看 • 7 个月前

In 1983 the BBC put a reporter in front of a man who spent his lunch breaks in a pub he did not drink in. He went for the arcade machine. He beat each new game within 2 or 3 days, and the pub only changed them once a month, so he went home and worked at the keyboard 20 to 40 hours a week, frequently straight through the night. The programme called these people addicts. Watching it now, the label is the least interesting thing in it, because 1 of the 3 people interviewed accidentally explains the entire mechanism. His name is Graham Hawker, and he is asked a simple question. What is the actual thrill of playing against a computer. His answer is the only real piece of psychology in the film. The machine is perfect. It never makes an error. Therefore anything that goes wrong is unambiguously yours, and you are not playing a game at all, you are trying to prove you are as flawless as the thing opposite you. That is a textbook description of a variable schedule of reinforcement married to a system that never gives you an excuse. Skinner showed decades earlier that unpredictable rewards produce far more persistent behaviour than reliable ones. What Hawker adds is the part Skinner's pigeons could not: an opponent so consistent that blame has nowhere to go except inward. There is no bad referee, no unfair bounce, no bad day. Every loss is evidence about you. The first man is asked whether he will ever use the program he is spending 6 months of his life writing. His answer starts with 2 words that make the reporter laugh. Asked why he is doing it then, he replies in 6 words, and it is a question, not an answer, and it is the oldest defence there is for doing something useless extremely well. His wife is sitting there for all of this. She describes lying half awake at 5 in the morning and hearing a sound from the spare room. She reproduces the sound out loud. Then she says a sentence about a room of his own that is far heavier than anything the reporter manages in 8 minutes. The third person is a woman running a sweet shop, and she produces the turn that makes the film worth the time. The computer collapsed 4 or 5 hours of nightly paperwork into seconds. What she did with the recovered hours is not what anybody expects, and she lays the evidence out on the shop counter for the camera. By the end of 1982 there were roughly 700 thousand of these machines in British homes, and salesmen were selling them on the grounds that they would help children with schoolwork. The reporter closes on the thing the salesmen were leaving out. 42 years later it is the only prediction in the film that landed.
8:00

In 1983 the BBC put a reporter in front of a man who spent his lunch breaks in a pub he did not drink in. He went for the arcade machine. He beat each new game within 2 or 3 days, and the pub only changed them once a month, so he went home and worked at the keyboard 20 to 40 hours a week, frequently straight through the night. The programme called these people addicts. Watching it now, the label is the least interesting thing in it, because 1 of the 3 people interviewed accidentally explains the entire mechanism. His name is Graham Hawker, and he is asked a simple question. What is the actual thrill of playing against a computer. His answer is the only real piece of psychology in the film. The machine is perfect. It never makes an error. Therefore anything that goes wrong is unambiguously yours, and you are not playing a game at all, you are trying to prove you are as flawless as the thing opposite you. That is a textbook description of a variable schedule of reinforcement married to a system that never gives you an excuse. Skinner showed decades earlier that unpredictable rewards produce far more persistent behaviour than reliable ones. What Hawker adds is the part Skinner's pigeons could not: an opponent so consistent that blame has nowhere to go except inward. There is no bad referee, no unfair bounce, no bad day. Every loss is evidence about you. The first man is asked whether he will ever use the program he is spending 6 months of his life writing. His answer starts with 2 words that make the reporter laugh. Asked why he is doing it then, he replies in 6 words, and it is a question, not an answer, and it is the oldest defence there is for doing something useless extremely well. His wife is sitting there for all of this. She describes lying half awake at 5 in the morning and hearing a sound from the spare room. She reproduces the sound out loud. Then she says a sentence about a room of his own that is far heavier than anything the reporter manages in 8 minutes. The third person is a woman running a sweet shop, and she produces the turn that makes the film worth the time. The computer collapsed 4 or 5 hours of nightly paperwork into seconds. What she did with the recovered hours is not what anybody expects, and she lays the evidence out on the shop counter for the camera. By the end of 1982 there were roughly 700 thousand of these machines in British homes, and salesmen were selling them on the grounds that they would help children with schoolwork. The reporter closes on the thing the salesmen were leaving out. 42 years later it is the only prediction in the film that landed.

Stefan.

487,095 次观看 • 20 天前

Nigel Farage and his Speculative Security Things we know: 1) a few weeks ago, the Guardian dropped a smouldering grenade into the Farage campsite with their revelation that he had 'forgotten' to declare the paltry sum of £5M, given to him by Chakrit Sakunkrit [Christopher Harborne] — Thai businessman and crypto magnate. 2) Farage regularly 'forgets' to declare income from his myriad jobs outside Parliament. In the last reporting period he 'forgot' 17 outside jobs totalling around £385,000. His excuse. “I don't do computers”. 3) there are already donations and gifts missing from his last register update — see The Finance Guy for more on that. Things we've been told: a) the £5M was an unconditional gift. b) the £5M was a reward for Brexit. c) the £5M was to pay for his security — for life. Let's focus on the security aspect because, I believe, Farage is trying to construct a counterfactual and has been caught lying. Again. In October of 2025, Zia Yusuf, Satan's Head Boy, was sent cross all media outlets — and I do mean all of them — to talk about the government's removal of some of Nigel's security costs; up to 75% if you believe Yusuf. What has never been made clear about this claim are, one, if it actually happened, and two, if it did, what sums of cash were being forfeited? There are two videos below. One in which Zia Yusuf took to 𝕏 on October 1st 2025, in a very earnest fashion to make claims about his best friend's safety where he stated at one point, that if Farage was killed, he would blame Keir Starmer. Yikes! He talks about donors stepping up at that point to cover the security costs for Farage. The second video is the one which contradicts Yusuf. From BBC Newsnight earlier this month when Farage states that he was given the £5M back in 2024 as: “an unconditional, non-political, personal gift. And it will ensure I can be safe for the rest of my life.” So. Two things are clearly jumping out at me from these statements. Firstly, lies are being told by Yusuf and/or Farage. Secondly, in the BBC video, he makes the claim that the 'gift' is non-political but to protect him … as a politician. To me, this is definitive proof that he's lying about the donation. If he received this money in 2024 for a lifetime of private security, then why the need for 'donors to step up' and pay for it again in Oct. 2025? Which is it? Neither, I'd suggest. I think the entire thing is a shonky counterfactual, hastily cobbled together to cover up the fact that he's been caught out pocketing millions in undeclared donations. Thanks to Jim Nauseum 2.0 and Chris S for the video and nudge, respectively. I have supplied a new branch of questions that our broadcasters can put to Reform UK MPs. I hope that they do. Have a lovely sunny Friday. ☺️
0:26

Nigel Farage and his Speculative Security Things we know: 1) a few weeks ago, the Guardian dropped a smouldering grenade into the Farage campsite with their revelation that he had 'forgotten' to declare the paltry sum of £5M, given to him by Chakrit Sakunkrit [Christopher Harborne] — Thai businessman and crypto magnate. 2) Farage regularly 'forgets' to declare income from his myriad jobs outside Parliament. In the last reporting period he 'forgot' 17 outside jobs totalling around £385,000. His excuse. “I don't do computers”. 3) there are already donations and gifts missing from his last register update — see The Finance Guy for more on that. Things we've been told: a) the £5M was an unconditional gift. b) the £5M was a reward for Brexit. c) the £5M was to pay for his security — for life. Let's focus on the security aspect because, I believe, Farage is trying to construct a counterfactual and has been caught lying. Again. In October of 2025, Zia Yusuf, Satan's Head Boy, was sent cross all media outlets — and I do mean all of them — to talk about the government's removal of some of Nigel's security costs; up to 75% if you believe Yusuf. What has never been made clear about this claim are, one, if it actually happened, and two, if it did, what sums of cash were being forfeited? There are two videos below. One in which Zia Yusuf took to 𝕏 on October 1st 2025, in a very earnest fashion to make claims about his best friend's safety where he stated at one point, that if Farage was killed, he would blame Keir Starmer. Yikes! He talks about donors stepping up at that point to cover the security costs for Farage. The second video is the one which contradicts Yusuf. From BBC Newsnight earlier this month when Farage states that he was given the £5M back in 2024 as: “an unconditional, non-political, personal gift. And it will ensure I can be safe for the rest of my life.” So. Two things are clearly jumping out at me from these statements. Firstly, lies are being told by Yusuf and/or Farage. Secondly, in the BBC video, he makes the claim that the 'gift' is non-political but to protect him … as a politician. To me, this is definitive proof that he's lying about the donation. If he received this money in 2024 for a lifetime of private security, then why the need for 'donors to step up' and pay for it again in Oct. 2025? Which is it? Neither, I'd suggest. I think the entire thing is a shonky counterfactual, hastily cobbled together to cover up the fact that he's been caught out pocketing millions in undeclared donations. Thanks to Jim Nauseum 2.0 and Chris S for the video and nudge, respectively. I have supplied a new branch of questions that our broadcasters can put to Reform UK MPs. I hope that they do. Have a lovely sunny Friday. ☺️

Don McGowan

13,986 次观看 • 4 个月前

Incriminated in the cover-up of working-class White girls being groomed, gang-raped, and trafficked by Pakistani men is The Labour Party minister Jim McMahon OBE MP. As leader of Oldham Council, Jim McMahon was EXPOSED for hiding the truth - even conspiring with BBC News (UK) to use Lee Rigby’s funeral as a smokescreen to bury the story. When we forced Andy Burnham to release the evidence, even his whitewashed "review" had to admit these shisha bars were hunting grounds where children were lured and raped for years. McMahon knew. Instead of warning parents, he covered it up - sacrificing children to protect his career. Ask yourself, how many children could have been saved from torture and gang rape had McMahon issued a statement and warned the town the moment he found out? And when the truth finally broke? McMahon wasn’t outraged by the crimes. He attacked those exposing them. He called us “racists,” “far-right,” and, backed by The Labour Party, tried to silence me with legal threats. I told them I’d see them in the High Court. I’m still waiting. My name is Raja Miah MBE. For six years, I’ve exposed how Labour politicians protected Pakistani Rape Gangs - work the UK media won’t touch. No paywalls. No restrictions. We’re up against a powerful machine: politicians, police, and media working to bury the truth. To fight back, we need numbers. My goal? 10 new newsletter subscribers a day. I document evidence, investigations, and the fight for justice - 100% free. You only pay if you choose to. Join here: Want to support this work? A one-off contribution makes a difference: As you can see, the mainstream media has moved on to the next story. We will not secure a National Inquiry without fighting for one. We will not make McMahon and all his The Labour Party associates pay any other way. It is up to us to hold them accountable. Raja 🙏
2:20

Incriminated in the cover-up of working-class White girls being groomed, gang-raped, and trafficked by Pakistani men is The Labour Party minister Jim McMahon OBE MP. As leader of Oldham Council, Jim McMahon was EXPOSED for hiding the truth - even conspiring with BBC News (UK) to use Lee Rigby’s funeral as a smokescreen to bury the story. When we forced Andy Burnham to release the evidence, even his whitewashed "review" had to admit these shisha bars were hunting grounds where children were lured and raped for years. McMahon knew. Instead of warning parents, he covered it up - sacrificing children to protect his career. Ask yourself, how many children could have been saved from torture and gang rape had McMahon issued a statement and warned the town the moment he found out? And when the truth finally broke? McMahon wasn’t outraged by the crimes. He attacked those exposing them. He called us “racists,” “far-right,” and, backed by The Labour Party, tried to silence me with legal threats. I told them I’d see them in the High Court. I’m still waiting. My name is Raja Miah MBE. For six years, I’ve exposed how Labour politicians protected Pakistani Rape Gangs - work the UK media won’t touch. No paywalls. No restrictions. We’re up against a powerful machine: politicians, police, and media working to bury the truth. To fight back, we need numbers. My goal? 10 new newsletter subscribers a day. I document evidence, investigations, and the fight for justice - 100% free. You only pay if you choose to. Join here: Want to support this work? A one-off contribution makes a difference: As you can see, the mainstream media has moved on to the next story. We will not secure a National Inquiry without fighting for one. We will not make McMahon and all his The Labour Party associates pay any other way. It is up to us to hold them accountable. Raja 🙏

Raja Miah

133,369 次观看 • 1 年前

Made $530,000 with Ai Bot that started with $313. Didn't know how to code. Now this bots run 24/7 printing money while sleeping. I've made the exact step-by-step guide to build this Claude Code Polymarket trading bot. Prompts. Code. Risk settings. Paper trading checklist. Everything from zero to running bot. It's free. For 24 hours. After that I'm charging $499 for it. To grab it right now: 1. Comment "Claude Bot" 2. Like and Retweet this post 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar ( I can't send DMs to non-followers ) I'm DMing everyone who Complete the 3 steps. I spent hundreds of thousands hiring developers because he was too scared to learn. Then learned Claude Code. Built algorithmic trading systems. $313 → $530,000. You have the same tools available right now. And you're using them to ask ChatGPT for Instagram captions. This attached video is a goldmine. Full live walkthrough. Claude Code building actual Polymarket trading bots. From zero. Every line of code. Every decision explained. Now let me break down why everything you're doing in trading is wrong and exactly how to fix it. Save this post. You'll hate yourself if you lose it. ↓ Let's start with why you keep losing money. You already know the answer. You just won't admit it. You overtrade. Every. Single. Day. You see a candle move. You feel something. You enter. No plan. No edge. No reason. Just feelings. Then it goes against you. You feel something else. Panic. Anger. Denial. You move your stop loss. Or you didn't set one at all. "It'll come back." It doesn't come back. So you take another trade. A revenge trade. Bigger size this time. Because you need to "make it back." That one fails too. Now you're emotional. Now you're tilted. Now you're using leverage you have no business touching. 40x. 50x. 100x. On a trade you entered because a candle looked "bullish" and some guy on Twitter said "send it." You get liquidated. Close the laptop. Punch something. Tell yourself you'll be "more disciplined" tomorrow. Tomorrow comes. Same cycle. Same result. Same liquidation. You've been doing this for months. Maybe years. And you still think the problem is your strategy. The problem isn't your strategy. The problem is you. Save this post right now. What I'm about to show you is the only way to remove yourself from the equation. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss any of this. ↓ Here's what's actually killing your account. It's not the market. The market doesn't care about you. It's not your indicators. RSI works fine. MACD works fine. They all "work." It's not your timeframe. It's not your broker. It's not the "manipulation." It's four things: 1. Emotions. You hold losers because hope feels better than loss. You cut winners because fear feels stronger than greed. You size up when angry. You skip trades when scared. Your emotional state determines your position size. That's insane. And you know it's insane. But you keep doing it. 2. Overtrading. You take 15 trades a day. Maybe 5 of them had actual setups. The other 10 were boredom. Boredom trades are the most expensive hobby in human history. 3. Leverage. You use 20x-50x on trades where you're not even sure about the direction. That's not trading. That's a casino with a nicer interface. 4. Fees. You're smashing market orders. Paying spread. Paying commission. On 15 trades a day. Your broker makes more money from your account than you do. Think about that. Your broker is profitable on your account. You're not. You're the product. Not the trader. These four things are why 90% of traders lose. Not bad luck. Not the market. You. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar because the solution is coming next. ↓ The solution is painfully obvious. Remove yourself from the equation. Not partially. Not "I'll be more disciplined." Not "I'll journal my trades." Not "I'll meditate before trading." Completely remove yourself. Build a bot. Let the bot trade. You go live your life. The bot doesn't feel emotions. The bot doesn't overtrade. The bot doesn't use reckless leverage. The bot doesn't smash market orders and bleed fees. The bot follows the rules. Every single time. Without exception. Without "just this once." Without "I have a feeling about this one." Rules in. Execution out. No human in the middle to mess everything up. That's algorithmic trading. And before your ego jumps in with "but I'm different, I have discipline" — No you don't. Your account balance proves you don't. If you had discipline, your account would be green. It's not. So you don't. Accept it. Automate it. Move on. This is the hardest truth in trading. Your discipline will always fail. A bot's won't. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the exact bot setup that removes your emotions permanently. ↓ "But I don't know how to code." Neither did he. The guy in this video didn't know how to code for most of his life. Got held back in 7th grade. People counted him out early. Spent years building apps and SaaS businesses without writing a single line of code. Hired developers on Upwork instead. Spent hundreds of thousands of dollars paying other people to build what he could have built himself. Because he was scared to learn. That fear cost him years. And hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sound familiar? You're doing the same thing right now. Not with developers. But with your time. You're spending thousands of hours trading manually because you're scared to learn the thing that would make trading automatic. The fear of learning to code is costing you more than any bad trade ever did. Because every month you trade manually is a month of emotional decisions, overleveraged entries, and unnecessary losses that a bot would never make. And here's the thing that should really frustrate you: AI does the hard parts now. You don't need a computer science degree. You don't need to work at a hedge fund. You don't need to be "good at math." Claude Code writes the code for you. You just need to think clearly about trading ideas. That's it. If you can describe a strategy in English, Claude can build it in Python. "I don't know how to code" stopped being a valid excuse in 2024. It's 2026. You're 2 years late on that excuse. Find a new one. Or stop making excuses entirely. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how people with zero coding experience are building profitable bots. ↓ The process that actually makes money. Three letters. R. B. I. Research. Backtest. Implement. That's it. That's the entire process. Every single day. Research: Find an idea. A pattern. A market inefficiency. Don't trade it yet. Don't even think about trading it yet. Just research it. Backtest: Test the idea against historical data. Does it work? Not "does it look good on one chart." Does it work across thousands of trades? Across different market conditions? Across in-sample AND out-of-sample data? If no, kill it. Find another idea. If yes, move to step 3. Implement: Build the bot. Deploy it. Paper trade first. Then live with small size. Scale only on evidence. Research. Backtest. Implement. Every day. No exceptions. You know what your current process is? Feel. Enter. Pray. F. E. P. Feel bullish. Enter a trade. Pray it works. That's not a process. That's gambling with a TradingView subscription. RBI is the only process that works. Save this post. Tattoo it on your forearm. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily RBI breakdowns. ↓ What Claude Code actually does that your manual process can't. You can maybe test 3-5 strategy ideas per week. Manually adjusting parameters. Manually checking results. Manually writing code (badly). Claude Code tests 50-100 ideas per week. With parallel agents running simultaneously. Multiple strategies being built, tested, and validated at the same time. While you sleep. The guy in this video spends 4-8 hours a day building systems with Claude Code. Not trading. Building. Research. Backtest. Implement. Then iterate. Improve. Optimize. Every day the systems get better. Every day the edge compounds. Every day the bots get smarter. While you? You spend 4-8 hours a day staring at charts making the same mistakes you made last month. Same indicators. Same patterns. Same entries. Same losses. He's iterating forward. You're running in circles. Same 8 hours per day. Completely different outcomes. Because he's building systems. And you're feeding a casino. Stop feeding the casino. Start building the machine. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar for the Claude Code workflow that iterates strategies while you sleep. ↓ Jim Simons. That's the benchmark. You probably don't know who Jim Simons is. And that tells me everything about how seriously you take trading. Jim Simons. Mathematician. Founded Renaissance Technologies. Built a net worth of $31 billion. 100% from algorithmic trading. Not one single manual trade. Not one "gut feeling" entry. Not one RSI divergence. Not one "smart money concept." Algorithms. Bots. Systems. Data. $31 billion. His fund averaged 66% annual returns for over 30 years. While you're excited about making $200 on a trade that you'll give back tomorrow. The best trader in human history never placed a manual trade in his life. And you think your edge is staring at a 5-minute chart with bloodshot eyes at 2 AM? Your edge is building the system. Not being inside it. Jim Simons is the benchmark. Everything else is noise. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm building toward the same goal and showing every step publicly. ↓ What you need to understand about patience. This is not get-rich-overnight. The guy in this video says it directly: "This channel is not for people looking to get rich overnight. It's not plug and play. There are no shortcuts. If you're impatient, this probably isn't for you." And that's exactly why most people will fail at this. Because you want results now. Today. This trade. You don't want to spend a week building a bot. You don't want to paper trade for 2 weeks. You don't want to test 50 ideas to find 1 that works. You want to copy someone's bot, run it live with your rent money, and be rich by Friday. That's why you'll be broke by Friday. The guy making $2.3M spent months iterating. Testing. Failing. Rebuilding. Testing again. He was patient when you would have quit. He was calm when you would have panicked. He was consistent when you would have given up. Patience isn't just a virtue in trading. It's the only virtue. Without it, everything else fails. Impatience is the most expensive personality trait in trading. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar and learn to build systems with the patience that actually pays. ↓ The live streams where the real learning happens. The YouTube video is the trailer. The live streams are the movie. Real-time bot building. Real-time questions answered. Real code shown. Real mistakes made and fixed. Not polished highlight reels where everything works perfectly. Actual development. Where things break. Where strategies fail. Where code doesn't compile. Where the fix takes 2 hours. Because that's what real development looks like. And seeing the messy parts is more valuable than any polished tutorial. Because when your bot breaks at 3 AM, you need to know how to fix it. Not just how to celebrate when it works. The streams mix beginner and advanced. Start with how to automate trading. How to use AI for code generation. Then dive into the daily work. Claude Code. Parallel agents. Constant iteration. Live debugging. 4-8 hours of real algorithmic trading development. Live. Uncut. No filter. Most "trading education" shows you the wins. This shows you the work. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the stream schedules and breakdowns. ↓ The belief that changes everything. Code is the greatest equalizer. Not money. Not connections. Not a degree. Not where you grew up. Not what school you went to. Code. Once you can build systems, you can build anything. For the rest of your life. A trading bot today. A SaaS product tomorrow. An automation business next month. A completely different life next year. The skill isn't "algorithmic trading." The skill is building systems. And that skill transfers to everything. The guy who can build a trading bot can also build a lead gen tool. Can also build a content pipeline. Can also build a SaaS product. Can also build literally anything that runs on logic and code. One skill. Infinite applications. And AI makes learning it 100x easier than it was 5 years ago. You don't need to be smart. You don't need talent. You need Claude Code and the willingness to sit down and build something instead of consuming content about building something. Building is the skill. Everything else is entertainment disguised as education. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how to build, not just how to watch. ↓ If any of this applies to you, pay attention. If you've lost money from overtrading. If you've been liquidated. If you know trading is the vehicle but manual execution keeps crashing you. If you've tried "being more disciplined" and it never lasted more than a week. If you keep saying "next month I'll start automating." If you've spent more money on courses than you've made from trading. There is a better way. It's not a magic indicator. It's not a signal group. It's not a $997 mentorship from a guy who makes money teaching, not trading. It's building your own system. A system that trades without emotion. A system that follows rules without exception. A system that runs while you sleep. A system that compounds while you live your life. That's the answer. It's always been the answer. You've just been too scared to accept that the solution requires building something instead of buying something. ↓ What the next 30 days look like if you actually commit. Week 1: Watch the video. Learn Claude Code basics. Build your first simple strategy. Run your first backtest. Week 2: Iterate. Let Claude improve the strategy. Run Monte Carlo validation. Paper trade. Week 3: Go live with $50-100. Tiny positions. Watch every trade. Compare to paper results. Week 4: Scale based on evidence. Not based on excitement. Not based on one good day. Based on data. 30 days from now you either have a running bot that trades without your emotions destroying every position. Or you're exactly where you are right now. Reading another post. Making another promise. Breaking it by Tuesday. Same 30 days either way. Different actions. Different results. Different life. ↓ Full video tutorial attached. Live bot building with Claude Code. From zero to running Polymarket trading bot. Every line of code. Every decision explained. The video is free. Claude Code is available now. The market is open 24/7. The only thing standing between you and a profitable trading bot is the same thing that's been standing there for months. You. Get out of your own way. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily AI trading bot breakdowns, live build sessions, and the full RBI process. Save this post. Watch the video. Build the bot. Or keep trading manually and keep losing. The choice has never been easier. And you've never been more stubborn about making the wrong one.
18:53

Made $530,000 with Ai Bot that started with $313. Didn't know how to code. Now this bots run 24/7 printing money while sleeping. I've made the exact step-by-step guide to build this Claude Code Polymarket trading bot. Prompts. Code. Risk settings. Paper trading checklist. Everything from zero to running bot. It's free. For 24 hours. After that I'm charging $499 for it. To grab it right now: 1. Comment "Claude Bot" 2. Like and Retweet this post 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar ( I can't send DMs to non-followers ) I'm DMing everyone who Complete the 3 steps. I spent hundreds of thousands hiring developers because he was too scared to learn. Then learned Claude Code. Built algorithmic trading systems. $313 → $530,000. You have the same tools available right now. And you're using them to ask ChatGPT for Instagram captions. This attached video is a goldmine. Full live walkthrough. Claude Code building actual Polymarket trading bots. From zero. Every line of code. Every decision explained. Now let me break down why everything you're doing in trading is wrong and exactly how to fix it. Save this post. You'll hate yourself if you lose it. ↓ Let's start with why you keep losing money. You already know the answer. You just won't admit it. You overtrade. Every. Single. Day. You see a candle move. You feel something. You enter. No plan. No edge. No reason. Just feelings. Then it goes against you. You feel something else. Panic. Anger. Denial. You move your stop loss. Or you didn't set one at all. "It'll come back." It doesn't come back. So you take another trade. A revenge trade. Bigger size this time. Because you need to "make it back." That one fails too. Now you're emotional. Now you're tilted. Now you're using leverage you have no business touching. 40x. 50x. 100x. On a trade you entered because a candle looked "bullish" and some guy on Twitter said "send it." You get liquidated. Close the laptop. Punch something. Tell yourself you'll be "more disciplined" tomorrow. Tomorrow comes. Same cycle. Same result. Same liquidation. You've been doing this for months. Maybe years. And you still think the problem is your strategy. The problem isn't your strategy. The problem is you. Save this post right now. What I'm about to show you is the only way to remove yourself from the equation. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss any of this. ↓ Here's what's actually killing your account. It's not the market. The market doesn't care about you. It's not your indicators. RSI works fine. MACD works fine. They all "work." It's not your timeframe. It's not your broker. It's not the "manipulation." It's four things: 1. Emotions. You hold losers because hope feels better than loss. You cut winners because fear feels stronger than greed. You size up when angry. You skip trades when scared. Your emotional state determines your position size. That's insane. And you know it's insane. But you keep doing it. 2. Overtrading. You take 15 trades a day. Maybe 5 of them had actual setups. The other 10 were boredom. Boredom trades are the most expensive hobby in human history. 3. Leverage. You use 20x-50x on trades where you're not even sure about the direction. That's not trading. That's a casino with a nicer interface. 4. Fees. You're smashing market orders. Paying spread. Paying commission. On 15 trades a day. Your broker makes more money from your account than you do. Think about that. Your broker is profitable on your account. You're not. You're the product. Not the trader. These four things are why 90% of traders lose. Not bad luck. Not the market. You. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar because the solution is coming next. ↓ The solution is painfully obvious. Remove yourself from the equation. Not partially. Not "I'll be more disciplined." Not "I'll journal my trades." Not "I'll meditate before trading." Completely remove yourself. Build a bot. Let the bot trade. You go live your life. The bot doesn't feel emotions. The bot doesn't overtrade. The bot doesn't use reckless leverage. The bot doesn't smash market orders and bleed fees. The bot follows the rules. Every single time. Without exception. Without "just this once." Without "I have a feeling about this one." Rules in. Execution out. No human in the middle to mess everything up. That's algorithmic trading. And before your ego jumps in with "but I'm different, I have discipline" — No you don't. Your account balance proves you don't. If you had discipline, your account would be green. It's not. So you don't. Accept it. Automate it. Move on. This is the hardest truth in trading. Your discipline will always fail. A bot's won't. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the exact bot setup that removes your emotions permanently. ↓ "But I don't know how to code." Neither did he. The guy in this video didn't know how to code for most of his life. Got held back in 7th grade. People counted him out early. Spent years building apps and SaaS businesses without writing a single line of code. Hired developers on Upwork instead. Spent hundreds of thousands of dollars paying other people to build what he could have built himself. Because he was scared to learn. That fear cost him years. And hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sound familiar? You're doing the same thing right now. Not with developers. But with your time. You're spending thousands of hours trading manually because you're scared to learn the thing that would make trading automatic. The fear of learning to code is costing you more than any bad trade ever did. Because every month you trade manually is a month of emotional decisions, overleveraged entries, and unnecessary losses that a bot would never make. And here's the thing that should really frustrate you: AI does the hard parts now. You don't need a computer science degree. You don't need to work at a hedge fund. You don't need to be "good at math." Claude Code writes the code for you. You just need to think clearly about trading ideas. That's it. If you can describe a strategy in English, Claude can build it in Python. "I don't know how to code" stopped being a valid excuse in 2024. It's 2026. You're 2 years late on that excuse. Find a new one. Or stop making excuses entirely. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how people with zero coding experience are building profitable bots. ↓ The process that actually makes money. Three letters. R. B. I. Research. Backtest. Implement. That's it. That's the entire process. Every single day. Research: Find an idea. A pattern. A market inefficiency. Don't trade it yet. Don't even think about trading it yet. Just research it. Backtest: Test the idea against historical data. Does it work? Not "does it look good on one chart." Does it work across thousands of trades? Across different market conditions? Across in-sample AND out-of-sample data? If no, kill it. Find another idea. If yes, move to step 3. Implement: Build the bot. Deploy it. Paper trade first. Then live with small size. Scale only on evidence. Research. Backtest. Implement. Every day. No exceptions. You know what your current process is? Feel. Enter. Pray. F. E. P. Feel bullish. Enter a trade. Pray it works. That's not a process. That's gambling with a TradingView subscription. RBI is the only process that works. Save this post. Tattoo it on your forearm. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily RBI breakdowns. ↓ What Claude Code actually does that your manual process can't. You can maybe test 3-5 strategy ideas per week. Manually adjusting parameters. Manually checking results. Manually writing code (badly). Claude Code tests 50-100 ideas per week. With parallel agents running simultaneously. Multiple strategies being built, tested, and validated at the same time. While you sleep. The guy in this video spends 4-8 hours a day building systems with Claude Code. Not trading. Building. Research. Backtest. Implement. Then iterate. Improve. Optimize. Every day the systems get better. Every day the edge compounds. Every day the bots get smarter. While you? You spend 4-8 hours a day staring at charts making the same mistakes you made last month. Same indicators. Same patterns. Same entries. Same losses. He's iterating forward. You're running in circles. Same 8 hours per day. Completely different outcomes. Because he's building systems. And you're feeding a casino. Stop feeding the casino. Start building the machine. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar for the Claude Code workflow that iterates strategies while you sleep. ↓ Jim Simons. That's the benchmark. You probably don't know who Jim Simons is. And that tells me everything about how seriously you take trading. Jim Simons. Mathematician. Founded Renaissance Technologies. Built a net worth of $31 billion. 100% from algorithmic trading. Not one single manual trade. Not one "gut feeling" entry. Not one RSI divergence. Not one "smart money concept." Algorithms. Bots. Systems. Data. $31 billion. His fund averaged 66% annual returns for over 30 years. While you're excited about making $200 on a trade that you'll give back tomorrow. The best trader in human history never placed a manual trade in his life. And you think your edge is staring at a 5-minute chart with bloodshot eyes at 2 AM? Your edge is building the system. Not being inside it. Jim Simons is the benchmark. Everything else is noise. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm building toward the same goal and showing every step publicly. ↓ What you need to understand about patience. This is not get-rich-overnight. The guy in this video says it directly: "This channel is not for people looking to get rich overnight. It's not plug and play. There are no shortcuts. If you're impatient, this probably isn't for you." And that's exactly why most people will fail at this. Because you want results now. Today. This trade. You don't want to spend a week building a bot. You don't want to paper trade for 2 weeks. You don't want to test 50 ideas to find 1 that works. You want to copy someone's bot, run it live with your rent money, and be rich by Friday. That's why you'll be broke by Friday. The guy making $2.3M spent months iterating. Testing. Failing. Rebuilding. Testing again. He was patient when you would have quit. He was calm when you would have panicked. He was consistent when you would have given up. Patience isn't just a virtue in trading. It's the only virtue. Without it, everything else fails. Impatience is the most expensive personality trait in trading. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar and learn to build systems with the patience that actually pays. ↓ The live streams where the real learning happens. The YouTube video is the trailer. The live streams are the movie. Real-time bot building. Real-time questions answered. Real code shown. Real mistakes made and fixed. Not polished highlight reels where everything works perfectly. Actual development. Where things break. Where strategies fail. Where code doesn't compile. Where the fix takes 2 hours. Because that's what real development looks like. And seeing the messy parts is more valuable than any polished tutorial. Because when your bot breaks at 3 AM, you need to know how to fix it. Not just how to celebrate when it works. The streams mix beginner and advanced. Start with how to automate trading. How to use AI for code generation. Then dive into the daily work. Claude Code. Parallel agents. Constant iteration. Live debugging. 4-8 hours of real algorithmic trading development. Live. Uncut. No filter. Most "trading education" shows you the wins. This shows you the work. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the stream schedules and breakdowns. ↓ The belief that changes everything. Code is the greatest equalizer. Not money. Not connections. Not a degree. Not where you grew up. Not what school you went to. Code. Once you can build systems, you can build anything. For the rest of your life. A trading bot today. A SaaS product tomorrow. An automation business next month. A completely different life next year. The skill isn't "algorithmic trading." The skill is building systems. And that skill transfers to everything. The guy who can build a trading bot can also build a lead gen tool. Can also build a content pipeline. Can also build a SaaS product. Can also build literally anything that runs on logic and code. One skill. Infinite applications. And AI makes learning it 100x easier than it was 5 years ago. You don't need to be smart. You don't need talent. You need Claude Code and the willingness to sit down and build something instead of consuming content about building something. Building is the skill. Everything else is entertainment disguised as education. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how to build, not just how to watch. ↓ If any of this applies to you, pay attention. If you've lost money from overtrading. If you've been liquidated. If you know trading is the vehicle but manual execution keeps crashing you. If you've tried "being more disciplined" and it never lasted more than a week. If you keep saying "next month I'll start automating." If you've spent more money on courses than you've made from trading. There is a better way. It's not a magic indicator. It's not a signal group. It's not a $997 mentorship from a guy who makes money teaching, not trading. It's building your own system. A system that trades without emotion. A system that follows rules without exception. A system that runs while you sleep. A system that compounds while you live your life. That's the answer. It's always been the answer. You've just been too scared to accept that the solution requires building something instead of buying something. ↓ What the next 30 days look like if you actually commit. Week 1: Watch the video. Learn Claude Code basics. Build your first simple strategy. Run your first backtest. Week 2: Iterate. Let Claude improve the strategy. Run Monte Carlo validation. Paper trade. Week 3: Go live with $50-100. Tiny positions. Watch every trade. Compare to paper results. Week 4: Scale based on evidence. Not based on excitement. Not based on one good day. Based on data. 30 days from now you either have a running bot that trades without your emotions destroying every position. Or you're exactly where you are right now. Reading another post. Making another promise. Breaking it by Tuesday. Same 30 days either way. Different actions. Different results. Different life. ↓ Full video tutorial attached. Live bot building with Claude Code. From zero to running Polymarket trading bot. Every line of code. Every decision explained. The video is free. Claude Code is available now. The market is open 24/7. The only thing standing between you and a profitable trading bot is the same thing that's been standing there for months. You. Get out of your own way. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily AI trading bot breakdowns, live build sessions, and the full RBI process. Save this post. Watch the video. Build the bot. Or keep trading manually and keep losing. The choice has never been easier. And you've never been more stubborn about making the wrong one.

Himanshu Kumar

38,153 次观看 • 5 个月前

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 • 4 个月前

RUSSELL T. DAVIES IS HOIST BY HIS OWN PERTARDIS IN CASUAL COMMENT ON KIDS “As if people care remotely for the lives of children, in any shape or form…” Davies believes false concern for child safety is being used to beat LGBTQ+ around the ideological grooming and transing of children. Leading to “Hate”, Davies predicts, “that will lead to a hanging” — as he depicts in Tip Toe. Davies’ conceit with Tip Toe is to persuade the audience to sympathise with Leo, who is drawn into conflict with his straight neighbour and family, including the teenage son. His immaturity attracts him to 16-year-old George, and to lust after men decades younger than himself throughout the series. (Davies, incidentally, is 63 and dating a 27-year-old who’s a dead ringer for 15-year-old schoolboy Nathan in Queer as Folk…) In this excerpt from a video posted to YouTube on 4 June, Davies is bemused that anyone could be remotely concerned for children’s lives. To him, anyone who suggests puberty blockers are dangerous, that kids are too young to consent to medical procedures, or are being ideologically groomed by LGBTQ+ activists at school and on TV must, therefore, be politically motivated. Not unlike the contemptuous response of politicians towards those who speak up for rape gang victims, or the attempted beheading of a man in Belfast, reported as a “minor incident” by the BBC. Their response is always to blame Nigel Farage, or to attack Elon Musk and anyone who wants to talk about it. Similarly, Davies’ response to those who call out the ideological grooming and transing of children is to… attack Elon Musk and call for X to be shut down. Davies runs an account on Instagram which he is able to control, word for word, yet rages against the one platform he can’t: “X is a hate platform owned by a megalomaniac who is pushing ill on many of us!” he fumed recently. Yet it was X that exposed the UK rape gangs scandal globally and the horrific murder of Harry Nowak, and pushed for the bodycam footage to be released — without which Harry would likely have been forever remembered as a racist rather than a victim of the worst example of DEI; the new religion of the left which Davies, the BBC and the left bow down to. Davies’ visceral hatred of X was no doubt amplified when the US ‘WPATH – The World Professional Association for Transgender Health – Files’ and UK’s own Cass Report into NHS England gender identity services for children and young people were published in March and April 2024 respectively — a month before the global premiere of Ncuti Gatwa’s first globally streamed season of Doctor Who on Disney+. It was revealed in November 2025 that LGBTQ+ activists within the BBC and other international news organisations like CNN censored coverage of the WPATH Files entirely, despite its information being used by institutions globally, including the NHS. So for millions, X was the only platform they could turn to for truth when the story broke; namely, that the WPATH’s internal messaging boards leaked by a whistleblower exposed its members doubting their own guidance that was demonstrably ruining many lives, not least children fast-tracked at a furious pace for puberty blockers and surgery. Davies is himself an outspoken advocate for dispensing puberty blockers for children. Having been a champion for LGB rights for many years, he became one of the trans movement’s most outspoken activists some 15 years ago when he aligned to the LGBTQ+ acronym. “To cut out the T is to kill!” he said in 2021. The backlash against the damning disclosures — proving conclusively that gender-confused children were being medically, emotionally and physically harmed by the zeal of the trans lobby to place them on a pathway of irreversible medical procedures — came at a critical juncture for Davies; a point when the LGBTQ+ movement appeared to be nearing an irreversible level of dominance throughout western society. They helped to derail the LGBTQ+ globalist utopia Davies was actively participating in working toward and his rainbow makeover of Doctor Who was a monumental flop globally, spectacularly failing to entice the new child audience Davies so craved through his “open door” of diversity replete with trans teens, drag queens — even the Doctor himself cruising for gay sex. During promotion for the 60th anniversary specials and Gatwa’s first season Davies is on record saying: “This is my world… Why wouldn’t I want to write about it?” “What you call diversity I call an open door.” “The messaging’s for the kids… We’ve got to get them while they’re young!” Only someone lacking the ability to marvel at a child’s innocence — who casually states they can’t comprehend how anyone could “care remotely for the lives of children in any way, shape or form” — would ask for sympathy for a character like Leo, who lived life on the edge, fucked around with abandon, and whose immature lust for youth clearly, like Stuart in Queer as Folk, had no fixed demarcation point. “16 is the legal age of consent," Davies makes a point of slipping into his Tip Toe script. Off camera: Yes, but if he looks 16 and is really 15, 14…” My Tip Toe review below ⬇️
0:50

RUSSELL T. DAVIES IS HOIST BY HIS OWN PERTARDIS IN CASUAL COMMENT ON KIDS “As if people care remotely for the lives of children, in any shape or form…” Davies believes false concern for child safety is being used to beat LGBTQ+ around the ideological grooming and transing of children. Leading to “Hate”, Davies predicts, “that will lead to a hanging” — as he depicts in Tip Toe. Davies’ conceit with Tip Toe is to persuade the audience to sympathise with Leo, who is drawn into conflict with his straight neighbour and family, including the teenage son. His immaturity attracts him to 16-year-old George, and to lust after men decades younger than himself throughout the series. (Davies, incidentally, is 63 and dating a 27-year-old who’s a dead ringer for 15-year-old schoolboy Nathan in Queer as Folk…) In this excerpt from a video posted to YouTube on 4 June, Davies is bemused that anyone could be remotely concerned for children’s lives. To him, anyone who suggests puberty blockers are dangerous, that kids are too young to consent to medical procedures, or are being ideologically groomed by LGBTQ+ activists at school and on TV must, therefore, be politically motivated. Not unlike the contemptuous response of politicians towards those who speak up for rape gang victims, or the attempted beheading of a man in Belfast, reported as a “minor incident” by the BBC. Their response is always to blame Nigel Farage, or to attack Elon Musk and anyone who wants to talk about it. Similarly, Davies’ response to those who call out the ideological grooming and transing of children is to… attack Elon Musk and call for X to be shut down. Davies runs an account on Instagram which he is able to control, word for word, yet rages against the one platform he can’t: “X is a hate platform owned by a megalomaniac who is pushing ill on many of us!” he fumed recently. Yet it was X that exposed the UK rape gangs scandal globally and the horrific murder of Harry Nowak, and pushed for the bodycam footage to be released — without which Harry would likely have been forever remembered as a racist rather than a victim of the worst example of DEI; the new religion of the left which Davies, the BBC and the left bow down to. Davies’ visceral hatred of X was no doubt amplified when the US ‘WPATH – The World Professional Association for Transgender Health – Files’ and UK’s own Cass Report into NHS England gender identity services for children and young people were published in March and April 2024 respectively — a month before the global premiere of Ncuti Gatwa’s first globally streamed season of Doctor Who on Disney+. It was revealed in November 2025 that LGBTQ+ activists within the BBC and other international news organisations like CNN censored coverage of the WPATH Files entirely, despite its information being used by institutions globally, including the NHS. So for millions, X was the only platform they could turn to for truth when the story broke; namely, that the WPATH’s internal messaging boards leaked by a whistleblower exposed its members doubting their own guidance that was demonstrably ruining many lives, not least children fast-tracked at a furious pace for puberty blockers and surgery. Davies is himself an outspoken advocate for dispensing puberty blockers for children. Having been a champion for LGB rights for many years, he became one of the trans movement’s most outspoken activists some 15 years ago when he aligned to the LGBTQ+ acronym. “To cut out the T is to kill!” he said in 2021. The backlash against the damning disclosures — proving conclusively that gender-confused children were being medically, emotionally and physically harmed by the zeal of the trans lobby to place them on a pathway of irreversible medical procedures — came at a critical juncture for Davies; a point when the LGBTQ+ movement appeared to be nearing an irreversible level of dominance throughout western society. They helped to derail the LGBTQ+ globalist utopia Davies was actively participating in working toward and his rainbow makeover of Doctor Who was a monumental flop globally, spectacularly failing to entice the new child audience Davies so craved through his “open door” of diversity replete with trans teens, drag queens — even the Doctor himself cruising for gay sex. During promotion for the 60th anniversary specials and Gatwa’s first season Davies is on record saying: “This is my world… Why wouldn’t I want to write about it?” “What you call diversity I call an open door.” “The messaging’s for the kids… We’ve got to get them while they’re young!” Only someone lacking the ability to marvel at a child’s innocence — who casually states they can’t comprehend how anyone could “care remotely for the lives of children in any way, shape or form” — would ask for sympathy for a character like Leo, who lived life on the edge, fucked around with abandon, and whose immature lust for youth clearly, like Stuart in Queer as Folk, had no fixed demarcation point. “16 is the legal age of consent," Davies makes a point of slipping into his Tip Toe script. Off camera: Yes, but if he looks 16 and is really 15, 14…” My Tip Toe review below ⬇️

Paul Clifton

60,733 次观看 • 3 个月前

2 months after Rocky I was released in 1976, Sylvester Stallone did an interview with the BBC. But it wasn't the Italian Stallion throwing punches. It was the host––who at one point said: "It was fairly presumptuous of you wasn't it? To expect to be able to star in it, because your career up to then had been small parts." Stallone's reply is a perfect mix of humility and determination: "I was mostly what is known as 'atmosphere.' I was in the background or the guy that was being the drunk that was stepped over in the gutter or other lame roles. But I felt like geez, if I was going to go down into professional obscurity, I wanted to at least have the opportunity to say to myself––'Well you tried.' You put your best foot forward, and you didn't make it. I just knew that I had to do it one time." Thought #1 Whether you love the Rocky movies or hate them, you've gotta respect the hustle. Stallone believed he was the man for the job and it was 'his time.' Too often we're content to take a back seat, let others lead the way, and generally keep our mouths shut. For reasons known only to ourselves, we're not good enough, not smart enough, and not cut out for the leading role. We're fine with being the 'supporting cast, the extras.' We sit in the back, keep quiet in the meeting, and cower in the face of opportunity. But we shouldn't. As my friend Sahil Bloom says, If you want something—and you’ve done the work to deserve it—ask for it. Closed mouths don't get fed." That's exactly what Stallone did. Later on, when asked how he ultimately sold himself to the high-profile producers, he explained it like this: "Knocking on windows, pestering them, pressing my face in the door, honking the horn in the driveway, in other words––making a real pain in the neck out of myself." No closed mouth for Sly. Thought #2 Producers loved the script, they just didn't want Stallone. At one point, they even offered him $265K to "just go away." Stallone refused, stating: "I knew if I sold out, even for $500K, I'd have become very bitter. I wanted to at least fail on my own terms." Damn right. About two years ago when I started writing on Twitter I had no connections, no real experience, no idea what I was doing. In fact, to this day, everything I've shared online has been from a makeshift office I set up in my garage. I'm not Stallone, but my mindset was similar. I wanted to fail (or make it) on my own terms. I'd spent 20 years traveling the traditional path: go to school, get a job, work hard, and wait for success to come. By some measures, I guess it had. But for me, I wasn't living the life I had always envisioned. So I took action. Could I return to a normal job, get a salary, and be paid to "just go away"––sure. But I couldn't live with the idea that I'd never given striking out on my own a real shot. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have support from others to help make the transition easier, I did. But taking that first step was up to me, and in your life, it's up to you. The Stoic philosopher Seneca once said: “Putting things off is the biggest waste of life: it snatches away each day as it comes, and denies us the present by promising the future. The greatest obstacle to living is expectancy, which hangs upon tomorrow and loses today. You are arranging what lies in Fortune's control, and abandoning what lies in yours. What are you looking at? To what goal are you straining? The whole future lies in uncertainty: live immediately.” Closing: The point of all this is quite simple, I'm not sharing any new information or breaking new ground. You've got one life to live––go out and get what you deserve. Across 10 movies in total, the Rocky franchise has grossed in excess of $1.7B dollars. Average that out over the 47 years since the first edition was released and it equates to ~ $36M/YR... Not too shabby for the guy who was just "atmosphere."
0:45

2 months after Rocky I was released in 1976, Sylvester Stallone did an interview with the BBC. But it wasn't the Italian Stallion throwing punches. It was the host––who at one point said: "It was fairly presumptuous of you wasn't it? To expect to be able to star in it, because your career up to then had been small parts." Stallone's reply is a perfect mix of humility and determination: "I was mostly what is known as 'atmosphere.' I was in the background or the guy that was being the drunk that was stepped over in the gutter or other lame roles. But I felt like geez, if I was going to go down into professional obscurity, I wanted to at least have the opportunity to say to myself––'Well you tried.' You put your best foot forward, and you didn't make it. I just knew that I had to do it one time." Thought #1 Whether you love the Rocky movies or hate them, you've gotta respect the hustle. Stallone believed he was the man for the job and it was 'his time.' Too often we're content to take a back seat, let others lead the way, and generally keep our mouths shut. For reasons known only to ourselves, we're not good enough, not smart enough, and not cut out for the leading role. We're fine with being the 'supporting cast, the extras.' We sit in the back, keep quiet in the meeting, and cower in the face of opportunity. But we shouldn't. As my friend Sahil Bloom says, If you want something—and you’ve done the work to deserve it—ask for it. Closed mouths don't get fed." That's exactly what Stallone did. Later on, when asked how he ultimately sold himself to the high-profile producers, he explained it like this: "Knocking on windows, pestering them, pressing my face in the door, honking the horn in the driveway, in other words––making a real pain in the neck out of myself." No closed mouth for Sly. Thought #2 Producers loved the script, they just didn't want Stallone. At one point, they even offered him $265K to "just go away." Stallone refused, stating: "I knew if I sold out, even for $500K, I'd have become very bitter. I wanted to at least fail on my own terms." Damn right. About two years ago when I started writing on Twitter I had no connections, no real experience, no idea what I was doing. In fact, to this day, everything I've shared online has been from a makeshift office I set up in my garage. I'm not Stallone, but my mindset was similar. I wanted to fail (or make it) on my own terms. I'd spent 20 years traveling the traditional path: go to school, get a job, work hard, and wait for success to come. By some measures, I guess it had. But for me, I wasn't living the life I had always envisioned. So I took action. Could I return to a normal job, get a salary, and be paid to "just go away"––sure. But I couldn't live with the idea that I'd never given striking out on my own a real shot. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have support from others to help make the transition easier, I did. But taking that first step was up to me, and in your life, it's up to you. The Stoic philosopher Seneca once said: “Putting things off is the biggest waste of life: it snatches away each day as it comes, and denies us the present by promising the future. The greatest obstacle to living is expectancy, which hangs upon tomorrow and loses today. You are arranging what lies in Fortune's control, and abandoning what lies in yours. What are you looking at? To what goal are you straining? The whole future lies in uncertainty: live immediately.” Closing: The point of all this is quite simple, I'm not sharing any new information or breaking new ground. You've got one life to live––go out and get what you deserve. Across 10 movies in total, the Rocky franchise has grossed in excess of $1.7B dollars. Average that out over the 47 years since the first edition was released and it equates to ~ $36M/YR... Not too shabby for the guy who was just "atmosphere."

Blake Burge

703,444 次观看 • 3 年前

He didn't run. That's the detail nobody expects. Every instinct in a wild, broken animal screams "run" the second a human gets close. Flight is the oldest survival code there is. And yet — he didn't run. Watch the video and you'll understand why that single fact should terrify you more than comfort you. Because an animal that doesn't run from you anymore has already given up on the idea that running matters. He has already decided, somewhere in that starving, exhausted brain, that whatever comes next can't possibly be worse than what came before. Sit with that for a second. What does it take to break that instinct? What does it take to make a living creature so depleted, so past the point of hope, that self-preservation itself shuts off? We're not talking about a dog that was "a little scared." We're talking about a dog who had already made peace with dying alone in the grass, hidden from a world that had already decided he didn't matter. And then someone showed up anyway. This is the part of the internet nobody warns you about. Not the cute part. Not the "aww" part. The part where you realize how close "almost too late" actually is — and how many of these moments are happening right now, in ditches and fields and abandoned lots, with nobody filming, nobody coming, nobody ever finding out. This one was found. I'm not going to walk you through what happens in the footage. I'm not going to spoil the moment his body language shifts, or the second you can physically see the exact heartbeat where "prey" turns into "please." Words can't carry that anyway. You have to watch it happen in real time, frame by frame, to feel what it actually is: the most fragile, most honest negotiation on earth — a terrified animal deciding, right in front of a camera, whether trust is worth the risk one more time. Here's what almost nobody talks about when it comes to strays like this. Dogs abandoned long enough don't behave like pets. They behave like wild animals, because that's exactly what they've had to become. The friendliness gets stripped away first — that's a luxury, and luxuries are the first thing survival deletes. What's left underneath is raw calculation: threat or not a threat, food or not food, safe or not safe. Every second spent deciding wrong could be the last second they get. So when you see an animal in that state hold still — when you see it let a stranger's hand get closer than four legs and thirty years of abandonment should ever allow — you're not looking at "cute." You're looking at the single bravest decision an animal without language, without hope, without any promise of a good outcome, is capable of making. That's what's buried in this video. That's the part that will actually get you. And here's the twist that makes this whole thing so much heavier once you know it: this isn't rare. This is happening at a scale most people never let themselves think about. Estimates on free-roaming and abandoned dogs worldwide run into the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions of versions of this exact moment — animals lying in grass, behind dumpsters, under bridges, past the point of hoping anyone comes — and only a fraction of them ever get a camera pointed at them, let alone a hand extended. Every viral rescue video you've ever scrolled past is a survivor's story. For every one of these, there are dozens that never get told, because nobody showed up in time to tell them. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to explain why this specific video hits different the second you actually watch it instead of skimming past it. You're not watching content. You're watching one of the rare good outcomes in a numbers game that is brutally stacked against good outcomes. Now — about the moment itself. There's a very specific window in every rescue like this. Rescuers call it different things, but it comes down to the same handful of seconds: the animal has to choose, right then, whether the human in front of it is a predator or a possibility. There's no in-between. No negotiation period. No "let me think about it." It happens in the space of a breath, and everything after depends on which way it breaks. You can see it happen in this footage. You can actually watch the exact moment where the decision gets made — where you'd swear the animal's whole nervous system recalibrates in real time. If you've never seen that moment up close, you don't actually know what "trust" looks like at its most primal. Most of us only ever encounter trust after it's already established, already comfortable, already taken for granted. This is trust being built from absolute zero, live, on camera, with everything on the line. I've watched hundreds of these rescue videos over the years — the genuinely real ones, not the staged reels that flood every feed now with fake "before" shots and suspiciously perfect lighting. The real ones all share this same fingerprint: a pause. A held breath. A moment where absolutely nothing happens except two creatures deciding, silently, whether the next few seconds are going to be safe. This video has that pause. And it's the reason you need to actually watch it instead of just reading about it. Because here's the thing text can never replicate: body language. The tension in a spine before it releases. The exact angle of an ear that tells you, before anything else does, whether fear is winning or losing. None of that survives translation into words. You either watch it happen, or you miss it completely. Let's talk about what "broken" actually costs an animal, physically, because most people underestimate it wildly. Extended abandonment doesn't just mean hunger. It means the body starts making impossible trade-offs. Muscle gets sacrificed for basic organ function. Coat and skin — usually the first thing to show damage — become secondary priorities compared to keeping a heart beating and lungs working. By the time visible damage shows up on the outside, the inside has usually already been compromising for weeks, sometimes months. Vets who specialize in stray and feral rescue will tell you the same thing over and over: what you see on the surface is never the full story. The surface is the last thing the body protects. If the outside already looks that rough, you almost don't want to know what's happening underneath. That's the stakes this video is actually operating at, even if the softness of the moment makes it easy to forget. This isn't a feel-good clip about a slightly dirty dog getting a bath. This is triage. This is the line between "made it" and "didn't," captured completely by accident, because someone happened to have a phone out at exactly the right moment. And that's maybe the most unsettling part of all of this, if you actually think about it for more than five seconds: how much of survival — for an animal with zero ability to ask for help — comes down to pure, dumb chance. Right place. Right time. Right person, willing to stop instead of walk past. How many times has "walking past" been the actual ending to a story like this one? We'll never know, because those endings don't get filmed. They don't get posted. They don't get millions of views and thousands of comments. They just... end, quietly, in a field somewhere, with nobody ever finding out there was a story there at all. This time, someone stopped. I want to be straight with you about something else, because it's the part that actually separates a real rescue from a manufactured one, and it matters more than people think. You can tell — almost instantly — when a rescue video is authentic versus when it's been engineered for engagement. Authentic ones are messy. Uncomfortable. Slow in places where a scripted video would cut. The animal doesn't hit its emotional beats on cue. There's confusion, hesitation, sometimes a step backward before the step forward. Real fear doesn't resolve on a content creator's timeline. It resolves on the animal's timeline, whenever that ends up being — thirty seconds, three minutes, sometimes far longer than anyone filming has patience for. This one has that texture. That's what makes it worth your two minutes instead of just another manufactured "rescue" clip built for a fake reaction. There's a reason rescue footage — the real kind — keeps outperforming almost everything else on this platform, and it's not because people are shallow or looking for cheap emotion. It's because this content taps into something most of us don't get nearly enough exposure to anymore: raw, unscripted stakes. Something is genuinely at risk. Something genuinely uncertain is happening. In a feed built almost entirely out of performance, irony, and content calculated down to the frame, a moment like this lands like a gut punch precisely because nobody could have staged the way it actually plays out. You can't fake that pause. You can't script that flinch, or the moment right after it, when the flinch stops. That's why you need to watch this instead of scrolling past the description of it. Because I can tell you it happened. I can't make you feel it happening. That gap — between knowing about something and actually witnessing it — is the entire reason video exists as a medium in the first place. Let's talk for a second about what happens after a moment like this, because most people watch these videos and never think past the ending card. Rescue is not resolution. It's the very first data point in a much longer, much harder process that almost nobody films because it isn't visually dramatic enough to go viral. Quarantine periods. Vet visits. Bloodwork. The slow, exhausting process of convincing a nervous system that's been running on high alert for months that it's actually allowed to relax now. Some animals take days to decompress. Some take literal years. Trust, once it's been broken at the level this video hints at, doesn't rebuild on anyone's convenient schedule. That's the part that never gets the same reach. The three-months-later update, the "he finally slept through the night" post, the "he let a stranger pet him for the first time" milestone that would look like nothing to anyone who didn't know the whole story. Those posts get a fraction of the views the rescue moment gets, even though they're arguably the more important part of the story. The internet loves a beginning. It's much worse at sticking around for the middle. So if this video moves you — and it will, if you actually watch it instead of skimming past — do something with that feeling beyond just scrolling to the next post. Rescues like this don't happen because of luck alone. They happen because someone, somewhere, decided that stopping mattered more than being on time to wherever they were headed. They happen because someone funded a vet bill, fostered an animal mid-recovery, drove two hours to pick up a dog that wasn't even theirs yet. None of that is glamorous. None of it goes viral on its own. But all of it is the actual machinery behind every single one of these videos you've ever watched and felt something about. If there's one thing I'd want you to take from this before you hit play, it's this: pay attention to the exact moment things shift. Don't just watch for the "aww." Watch for the decision. Watch for the specific second an animal that has every biological reason to run instead chooses to stay. That's the whole story, compressed into a handful of frames. Everything else — the outcome, the relief, the ending — is just what happens after that decision gets made. Most people will watch this video for the ending. Watch it for the middle instead. That's where the real thing is happening. And once you've seen it — once you've actually watched that shift happen in real time instead of reading about it secondhand — you'll understand why videos like this stop people mid-scroll every single time, no matter how many of them they've already seen. Because no matter how many of these you watch, that exact moment never gets less powerful. It just reminds you, over and over, of how much is riding on someone simply choosing to stop. Let's go back to the beginning for a second, because there's a question almost nobody asks about videos like this, and it's the one that actually matters most. How long was he out there before anyone found him? Nobody in the video knows the answer. Nobody watching it will ever know the answer. That's the part that sits with you long after the clip ends — not the moment of rescue itself, but the enormous, silent, unfilmed stretch of time that came before it. Days? Weeks? However long it was, it was long enough to erase every part of him except the will to keep breathing. Long enough that hiding in overgrown grass, invisible to a world that had stopped looking for him, had become the only strategy left. That's the actual horror hiding underneath a video that, on the surface, looks gentle. Everything soft about the footage is only possible because of everything brutal that happened just outside the frame, in the hours and days the camera never captured. This is why I keep telling you not to treat this as passive scrolling material. There is an entire invisible story sitting behind every second of visible footage, and your brain fills in almost none of it unless you slow down and actually let the video play out in full, without skipping ahead, without half-watching while doing five other things. Now, let's talk about why content like this spreads the way it does — because understanding the mechanics actually makes the moment hit harder, not softer. Platforms reward exactly one thing above everything else: retention. Not likes. Not shares. Not comments. Time spent actually watching, second by second, without looking away. And there is almost nothing on this entire platform that earns retention like genuine, unscripted animal footage where the outcome isn't obvious from frame one. Think about why that is. A cooking video, you already know the dish is going to come out fine. A prank video, you already know it's a joke. A dance video, a fashion video, a "get ready with me" video — the outcome was never in question to begin with. But a video like this one? The outcome is not guaranteed. For the first several seconds, you genuinely do not know which way it's going to go. That uncertainty is exactly what makes your eyes stay locked on the screen instead of your thumb flicking to the next post. That's not manipulation. That's not a trick. That's just what happens when something real, with real stakes, ends up on a feed built almost entirely out of things that were never actually uncertain in the first place. Here's something worth sitting with: most people, if you stopped them and asked directly, would say they care about animal welfare. Genuinely, sincerely, most people mean it when they say that. And yet the actual scale of the stray and abandoned animal crisis worldwide remains something most of the same people have almost no real information about. Not because they don't care — because nobody ever hands them the numbers in a way that actually lands. So here they are, stated plainly, without softening them: hundreds of millions of dogs live as strays globally, a significant share of them in conditions of chronic hunger, untreated injury, and disease. Shelters in country after country report the same pattern every single year — intake numbers that outpace adoption numbers, resources that fall short of need, and volunteers stretched thin trying to hold together a system that was never built to handle the actual scale of the problem. None of that is abstract when you're watching one specific dog in one specific patch of grass. It becomes very real, very fast, once you understand that what you're looking at isn't an isolated incident. It's one visible thread pulled out of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern. That's part of why this particular video deserves more than a passive scroll-past. It's not just "a nice moment." It's a small, rare, filmed exception to something that is happening constantly, relentlessly, without cameras, without rescuers, without any kind of happy resolution at all. Let's talk about the rescuer for a second, because they never get enough credit in videos like this, and it's worth correcting that. Whoever is behind that camera — whoever made the decision to stop, to approach slowly, to read an animal's body language carefully enough to know when to move closer and when to hold back — did something that looks simple on video and is genuinely difficult in real life. Approaching a frightened, possibly injured, possibly defensive stray animal correctly is a skill. Get it wrong, and you can panic the animal into fleeing somewhere far worse, or hurting itself trying to escape, or in rare cases, defending itself the only way it knows how. The people who do this well, over and over, in situation after situation, are operating on a mix of instinct and hard-earned experience that most of us will never develop, because most of us will never need to. That instinct is exactly why this rescue plays out the way it does instead of ending in a chase, a panic, or worse. Give that person their due before you close this tab. What you're watching is competence dressed up as tenderness. It looks soft. It is not easy. Now — a quick myth-versus-reality breakdown, because misconceptions about rescue moments like this one are everywhere, and they change how people watch this kind of footage. Myth: a starving, frightened stray will always be aggressive toward humans. Reality: fear responses vary enormously animal to animal. Some go defensive. Many, especially those who were once someone's pet before being abandoned, retain a flicker of learned trust toward people, buried under the fear, waiting for a reason to resurface. Myth: rescue is basically instant — approach, comfort, done. Reality: what you see in a two-minute clip is often the result of a much slower, more careful approach happening just before the camera starts rolling, sometimes minutes, sometimes far longer. Myth: once rescued, an animal is "fine." Reality: rescue is step one of dozens. Medical evaluation, parasite treatment, nutritional rehabilitation, and behavioral decompression all come after, often over a period of weeks or months, invisible to anyone who only ever saw the viral clip. Keep those in mind while you watch. They completely change what you're actually looking at. One more thing before you go press play, because it's the detail that changes how the whole video reads. Location matters more than people think. An animal hidden deep in overgrown grass, off any visible path, away from foot traffic, isn't there by accident. Animals in that condition instinctively seek concealment — it's one of the last functioning defense mechanisms left once running is no longer a realistic option. Being found at all, in a spot chosen specifically to not be found, is already a low-probability event before a single second of footage even starts. That's the invisible math sitting underneath this entire video. The odds of this exact outcome happening were never good. And yet here we are. If you've read this far without watching the video yet, that's honestly a little bit funny, because everything above was building toward one single, simple, unavoidable conclusion: None of this — the psychology, the statistics, the survival instinct, the odds stacked against him — means anything close to what it means once you actually see it unfold in real time, on his face, in his body, in the exact second everything changes. Reading about a moment like this is the trailer. Watching it is the movie. Let me leave you with one last thing, because it's the part people usually forget by the time they close the app and move on with their day. Every single one of us has scrolled past a moment like this before. Not this exact video — but this exact shape of moment. The thumbnail that looked heavy. The caption that hinted at something hard. The three seconds of hesitation before deciding whether today was a day you had the emotional bandwidth to watch an animal suffer before things got better. Most days, most people, scroll past. That's not a character flaw. That's just what an endless feed trains you to do — protect your attention, protect your mood, keep moving. But here's the thing about this specific kind of video that makes stopping worth it, every single time: the discomfort at the start is never the point. It's the toll you pay to get to the part that actually matters — the shift, the decision, the moment fear loses. Skip the discomfort, and you skip the entire reason the video exists in the first place. You end up with secondhand information about a moment that was never designed to be understood secondhand. Think about the last time a video actually changed your mood for the rest of the day. Not entertained you — changed something. Made you call someone. Made you donate somewhere you'd never donated before. Made you look at your own dog curled up on the couch and feel something different for a second. Those moments are rare precisely because most content isn't built to carry that kind of weight. Most content is built to be forgotten by the next scroll. This isn't most content. There's a reason rescue footage keeps circulating years after it's first posted, resurfacing on different accounts, different platforms, different captions, over and over, long after the original context is gone. It's because moments like this don't expire. A joke gets old. A trend dies in a week. But the exact second an abandoned, broken animal decides to trust a stranger anyway — that doesn't age. It hits the same way in five years that it hits today, because the thing it's tapping into isn't a trend. It's something much older than any platform, any algorithm, any feed. It's the oldest story there is, really, just told without words: something was broken, someone showed up anyway, and against every reasonable expectation, that was enough. We don't get many unscripted, unforced examples of that anymore. Almost everything in front of us now is curated, edited, angled for a reaction. This isn't. This is just what actually happened, captured because a phone happened to be there, no different than it would have looked if no camera existed at all. That's rare. That's worth two minutes of your undivided attention instead of a half-watched scroll-by. So here's the actual ask, plain and simple: don't just watch this one and move on like it's any other post in your feed today. Watch it properly. Let it play all the way through without skipping ahead to see how it ends. Notice the exact second his body changes. Notice what happens right after that. And then, if it moves you even a fraction as much as it should, do one small thing with that feeling before it fades — share it with someone, support a rescue near you, or just remember, the next time you see a stray on the side of a road, that stopping is always an option. It's always been an option. Somebody just has to choose to take it. That choice is the entire video. Everything else is just what happens after it gets made. One last thought, and then I'll let you go watch it instead of reading about it any longer. Somewhere out there, right now, there's another version of this exact scene playing out with no camera anywhere near it. No rescuer. No hand reaching out slowly through tall grass. No moment where fear loses. Just an animal, alone, running out of time in silence. We can't fix that with a video. Nobody's pretending we can. But we can make sure the ones that do get found, the ones that do get a camera and a rescuer and a happy ending, actually get seen — properly seen, not scrolled past in half a second on the way to something louder and easier. This is one of the good ones. One of the rare stories where showing up actually happened in time. Don't waste that by treating it like background noise. He didn't run. Now go find out why.
2:07

He didn't run. That's the detail nobody expects. Every instinct in a wild, broken animal screams "run" the second a human gets close. Flight is the oldest survival code there is. And yet — he didn't run. Watch the video and you'll understand why that single fact should terrify you more than comfort you. Because an animal that doesn't run from you anymore has already given up on the idea that running matters. He has already decided, somewhere in that starving, exhausted brain, that whatever comes next can't possibly be worse than what came before. Sit with that for a second. What does it take to break that instinct? What does it take to make a living creature so depleted, so past the point of hope, that self-preservation itself shuts off? We're not talking about a dog that was "a little scared." We're talking about a dog who had already made peace with dying alone in the grass, hidden from a world that had already decided he didn't matter. And then someone showed up anyway. This is the part of the internet nobody warns you about. Not the cute part. Not the "aww" part. The part where you realize how close "almost too late" actually is — and how many of these moments are happening right now, in ditches and fields and abandoned lots, with nobody filming, nobody coming, nobody ever finding out. This one was found. I'm not going to walk you through what happens in the footage. I'm not going to spoil the moment his body language shifts, or the second you can physically see the exact heartbeat where "prey" turns into "please." Words can't carry that anyway. You have to watch it happen in real time, frame by frame, to feel what it actually is: the most fragile, most honest negotiation on earth — a terrified animal deciding, right in front of a camera, whether trust is worth the risk one more time. Here's what almost nobody talks about when it comes to strays like this. Dogs abandoned long enough don't behave like pets. They behave like wild animals, because that's exactly what they've had to become. The friendliness gets stripped away first — that's a luxury, and luxuries are the first thing survival deletes. What's left underneath is raw calculation: threat or not a threat, food or not food, safe or not safe. Every second spent deciding wrong could be the last second they get. So when you see an animal in that state hold still — when you see it let a stranger's hand get closer than four legs and thirty years of abandonment should ever allow — you're not looking at "cute." You're looking at the single bravest decision an animal without language, without hope, without any promise of a good outcome, is capable of making. That's what's buried in this video. That's the part that will actually get you. And here's the twist that makes this whole thing so much heavier once you know it: this isn't rare. This is happening at a scale most people never let themselves think about. Estimates on free-roaming and abandoned dogs worldwide run into the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions of versions of this exact moment — animals lying in grass, behind dumpsters, under bridges, past the point of hoping anyone comes — and only a fraction of them ever get a camera pointed at them, let alone a hand extended. Every viral rescue video you've ever scrolled past is a survivor's story. For every one of these, there are dozens that never get told, because nobody showed up in time to tell them. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to explain why this specific video hits different the second you actually watch it instead of skimming past it. You're not watching content. You're watching one of the rare good outcomes in a numbers game that is brutally stacked against good outcomes. Now — about the moment itself. There's a very specific window in every rescue like this. Rescuers call it different things, but it comes down to the same handful of seconds: the animal has to choose, right then, whether the human in front of it is a predator or a possibility. There's no in-between. No negotiation period. No "let me think about it." It happens in the space of a breath, and everything after depends on which way it breaks. You can see it happen in this footage. You can actually watch the exact moment where the decision gets made — where you'd swear the animal's whole nervous system recalibrates in real time. If you've never seen that moment up close, you don't actually know what "trust" looks like at its most primal. Most of us only ever encounter trust after it's already established, already comfortable, already taken for granted. This is trust being built from absolute zero, live, on camera, with everything on the line. I've watched hundreds of these rescue videos over the years — the genuinely real ones, not the staged reels that flood every feed now with fake "before" shots and suspiciously perfect lighting. The real ones all share this same fingerprint: a pause. A held breath. A moment where absolutely nothing happens except two creatures deciding, silently, whether the next few seconds are going to be safe. This video has that pause. And it's the reason you need to actually watch it instead of just reading about it. Because here's the thing text can never replicate: body language. The tension in a spine before it releases. The exact angle of an ear that tells you, before anything else does, whether fear is winning or losing. None of that survives translation into words. You either watch it happen, or you miss it completely. Let's talk about what "broken" actually costs an animal, physically, because most people underestimate it wildly. Extended abandonment doesn't just mean hunger. It means the body starts making impossible trade-offs. Muscle gets sacrificed for basic organ function. Coat and skin — usually the first thing to show damage — become secondary priorities compared to keeping a heart beating and lungs working. By the time visible damage shows up on the outside, the inside has usually already been compromising for weeks, sometimes months. Vets who specialize in stray and feral rescue will tell you the same thing over and over: what you see on the surface is never the full story. The surface is the last thing the body protects. If the outside already looks that rough, you almost don't want to know what's happening underneath. That's the stakes this video is actually operating at, even if the softness of the moment makes it easy to forget. This isn't a feel-good clip about a slightly dirty dog getting a bath. This is triage. This is the line between "made it" and "didn't," captured completely by accident, because someone happened to have a phone out at exactly the right moment. And that's maybe the most unsettling part of all of this, if you actually think about it for more than five seconds: how much of survival — for an animal with zero ability to ask for help — comes down to pure, dumb chance. Right place. Right time. Right person, willing to stop instead of walk past. How many times has "walking past" been the actual ending to a story like this one? We'll never know, because those endings don't get filmed. They don't get posted. They don't get millions of views and thousands of comments. They just... end, quietly, in a field somewhere, with nobody ever finding out there was a story there at all. This time, someone stopped. I want to be straight with you about something else, because it's the part that actually separates a real rescue from a manufactured one, and it matters more than people think. You can tell — almost instantly — when a rescue video is authentic versus when it's been engineered for engagement. Authentic ones are messy. Uncomfortable. Slow in places where a scripted video would cut. The animal doesn't hit its emotional beats on cue. There's confusion, hesitation, sometimes a step backward before the step forward. Real fear doesn't resolve on a content creator's timeline. It resolves on the animal's timeline, whenever that ends up being — thirty seconds, three minutes, sometimes far longer than anyone filming has patience for. This one has that texture. That's what makes it worth your two minutes instead of just another manufactured "rescue" clip built for a fake reaction. There's a reason rescue footage — the real kind — keeps outperforming almost everything else on this platform, and it's not because people are shallow or looking for cheap emotion. It's because this content taps into something most of us don't get nearly enough exposure to anymore: raw, unscripted stakes. Something is genuinely at risk. Something genuinely uncertain is happening. In a feed built almost entirely out of performance, irony, and content calculated down to the frame, a moment like this lands like a gut punch precisely because nobody could have staged the way it actually plays out. You can't fake that pause. You can't script that flinch, or the moment right after it, when the flinch stops. That's why you need to watch this instead of scrolling past the description of it. Because I can tell you it happened. I can't make you feel it happening. That gap — between knowing about something and actually witnessing it — is the entire reason video exists as a medium in the first place. Let's talk for a second about what happens after a moment like this, because most people watch these videos and never think past the ending card. Rescue is not resolution. It's the very first data point in a much longer, much harder process that almost nobody films because it isn't visually dramatic enough to go viral. Quarantine periods. Vet visits. Bloodwork. The slow, exhausting process of convincing a nervous system that's been running on high alert for months that it's actually allowed to relax now. Some animals take days to decompress. Some take literal years. Trust, once it's been broken at the level this video hints at, doesn't rebuild on anyone's convenient schedule. That's the part that never gets the same reach. The three-months-later update, the "he finally slept through the night" post, the "he let a stranger pet him for the first time" milestone that would look like nothing to anyone who didn't know the whole story. Those posts get a fraction of the views the rescue moment gets, even though they're arguably the more important part of the story. The internet loves a beginning. It's much worse at sticking around for the middle. So if this video moves you — and it will, if you actually watch it instead of skimming past — do something with that feeling beyond just scrolling to the next post. Rescues like this don't happen because of luck alone. They happen because someone, somewhere, decided that stopping mattered more than being on time to wherever they were headed. They happen because someone funded a vet bill, fostered an animal mid-recovery, drove two hours to pick up a dog that wasn't even theirs yet. None of that is glamorous. None of it goes viral on its own. But all of it is the actual machinery behind every single one of these videos you've ever watched and felt something about. If there's one thing I'd want you to take from this before you hit play, it's this: pay attention to the exact moment things shift. Don't just watch for the "aww." Watch for the decision. Watch for the specific second an animal that has every biological reason to run instead chooses to stay. That's the whole story, compressed into a handful of frames. Everything else — the outcome, the relief, the ending — is just what happens after that decision gets made. Most people will watch this video for the ending. Watch it for the middle instead. That's where the real thing is happening. And once you've seen it — once you've actually watched that shift happen in real time instead of reading about it secondhand — you'll understand why videos like this stop people mid-scroll every single time, no matter how many of them they've already seen. Because no matter how many of these you watch, that exact moment never gets less powerful. It just reminds you, over and over, of how much is riding on someone simply choosing to stop. Let's go back to the beginning for a second, because there's a question almost nobody asks about videos like this, and it's the one that actually matters most. How long was he out there before anyone found him? Nobody in the video knows the answer. Nobody watching it will ever know the answer. That's the part that sits with you long after the clip ends — not the moment of rescue itself, but the enormous, silent, unfilmed stretch of time that came before it. Days? Weeks? However long it was, it was long enough to erase every part of him except the will to keep breathing. Long enough that hiding in overgrown grass, invisible to a world that had stopped looking for him, had become the only strategy left. That's the actual horror hiding underneath a video that, on the surface, looks gentle. Everything soft about the footage is only possible because of everything brutal that happened just outside the frame, in the hours and days the camera never captured. This is why I keep telling you not to treat this as passive scrolling material. There is an entire invisible story sitting behind every second of visible footage, and your brain fills in almost none of it unless you slow down and actually let the video play out in full, without skipping ahead, without half-watching while doing five other things. Now, let's talk about why content like this spreads the way it does — because understanding the mechanics actually makes the moment hit harder, not softer. Platforms reward exactly one thing above everything else: retention. Not likes. Not shares. Not comments. Time spent actually watching, second by second, without looking away. And there is almost nothing on this entire platform that earns retention like genuine, unscripted animal footage where the outcome isn't obvious from frame one. Think about why that is. A cooking video, you already know the dish is going to come out fine. A prank video, you already know it's a joke. A dance video, a fashion video, a "get ready with me" video — the outcome was never in question to begin with. But a video like this one? The outcome is not guaranteed. For the first several seconds, you genuinely do not know which way it's going to go. That uncertainty is exactly what makes your eyes stay locked on the screen instead of your thumb flicking to the next post. That's not manipulation. That's not a trick. That's just what happens when something real, with real stakes, ends up on a feed built almost entirely out of things that were never actually uncertain in the first place. Here's something worth sitting with: most people, if you stopped them and asked directly, would say they care about animal welfare. Genuinely, sincerely, most people mean it when they say that. And yet the actual scale of the stray and abandoned animal crisis worldwide remains something most of the same people have almost no real information about. Not because they don't care — because nobody ever hands them the numbers in a way that actually lands. So here they are, stated plainly, without softening them: hundreds of millions of dogs live as strays globally, a significant share of them in conditions of chronic hunger, untreated injury, and disease. Shelters in country after country report the same pattern every single year — intake numbers that outpace adoption numbers, resources that fall short of need, and volunteers stretched thin trying to hold together a system that was never built to handle the actual scale of the problem. None of that is abstract when you're watching one specific dog in one specific patch of grass. It becomes very real, very fast, once you understand that what you're looking at isn't an isolated incident. It's one visible thread pulled out of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern. That's part of why this particular video deserves more than a passive scroll-past. It's not just "a nice moment." It's a small, rare, filmed exception to something that is happening constantly, relentlessly, without cameras, without rescuers, without any kind of happy resolution at all. Let's talk about the rescuer for a second, because they never get enough credit in videos like this, and it's worth correcting that. Whoever is behind that camera — whoever made the decision to stop, to approach slowly, to read an animal's body language carefully enough to know when to move closer and when to hold back — did something that looks simple on video and is genuinely difficult in real life. Approaching a frightened, possibly injured, possibly defensive stray animal correctly is a skill. Get it wrong, and you can panic the animal into fleeing somewhere far worse, or hurting itself trying to escape, or in rare cases, defending itself the only way it knows how. The people who do this well, over and over, in situation after situation, are operating on a mix of instinct and hard-earned experience that most of us will never develop, because most of us will never need to. That instinct is exactly why this rescue plays out the way it does instead of ending in a chase, a panic, or worse. Give that person their due before you close this tab. What you're watching is competence dressed up as tenderness. It looks soft. It is not easy. Now — a quick myth-versus-reality breakdown, because misconceptions about rescue moments like this one are everywhere, and they change how people watch this kind of footage. Myth: a starving, frightened stray will always be aggressive toward humans. Reality: fear responses vary enormously animal to animal. Some go defensive. Many, especially those who were once someone's pet before being abandoned, retain a flicker of learned trust toward people, buried under the fear, waiting for a reason to resurface. Myth: rescue is basically instant — approach, comfort, done. Reality: what you see in a two-minute clip is often the result of a much slower, more careful approach happening just before the camera starts rolling, sometimes minutes, sometimes far longer. Myth: once rescued, an animal is "fine." Reality: rescue is step one of dozens. Medical evaluation, parasite treatment, nutritional rehabilitation, and behavioral decompression all come after, often over a period of weeks or months, invisible to anyone who only ever saw the viral clip. Keep those in mind while you watch. They completely change what you're actually looking at. One more thing before you go press play, because it's the detail that changes how the whole video reads. Location matters more than people think. An animal hidden deep in overgrown grass, off any visible path, away from foot traffic, isn't there by accident. Animals in that condition instinctively seek concealment — it's one of the last functioning defense mechanisms left once running is no longer a realistic option. Being found at all, in a spot chosen specifically to not be found, is already a low-probability event before a single second of footage even starts. That's the invisible math sitting underneath this entire video. The odds of this exact outcome happening were never good. And yet here we are. If you've read this far without watching the video yet, that's honestly a little bit funny, because everything above was building toward one single, simple, unavoidable conclusion: None of this — the psychology, the statistics, the survival instinct, the odds stacked against him — means anything close to what it means once you actually see it unfold in real time, on his face, in his body, in the exact second everything changes. Reading about a moment like this is the trailer. Watching it is the movie. Let me leave you with one last thing, because it's the part people usually forget by the time they close the app and move on with their day. Every single one of us has scrolled past a moment like this before. Not this exact video — but this exact shape of moment. The thumbnail that looked heavy. The caption that hinted at something hard. The three seconds of hesitation before deciding whether today was a day you had the emotional bandwidth to watch an animal suffer before things got better. Most days, most people, scroll past. That's not a character flaw. That's just what an endless feed trains you to do — protect your attention, protect your mood, keep moving. But here's the thing about this specific kind of video that makes stopping worth it, every single time: the discomfort at the start is never the point. It's the toll you pay to get to the part that actually matters — the shift, the decision, the moment fear loses. Skip the discomfort, and you skip the entire reason the video exists in the first place. You end up with secondhand information about a moment that was never designed to be understood secondhand. Think about the last time a video actually changed your mood for the rest of the day. Not entertained you — changed something. Made you call someone. Made you donate somewhere you'd never donated before. Made you look at your own dog curled up on the couch and feel something different for a second. Those moments are rare precisely because most content isn't built to carry that kind of weight. Most content is built to be forgotten by the next scroll. This isn't most content. There's a reason rescue footage keeps circulating years after it's first posted, resurfacing on different accounts, different platforms, different captions, over and over, long after the original context is gone. It's because moments like this don't expire. A joke gets old. A trend dies in a week. But the exact second an abandoned, broken animal decides to trust a stranger anyway — that doesn't age. It hits the same way in five years that it hits today, because the thing it's tapping into isn't a trend. It's something much older than any platform, any algorithm, any feed. It's the oldest story there is, really, just told without words: something was broken, someone showed up anyway, and against every reasonable expectation, that was enough. We don't get many unscripted, unforced examples of that anymore. Almost everything in front of us now is curated, edited, angled for a reaction. This isn't. This is just what actually happened, captured because a phone happened to be there, no different than it would have looked if no camera existed at all. That's rare. That's worth two minutes of your undivided attention instead of a half-watched scroll-by. So here's the actual ask, plain and simple: don't just watch this one and move on like it's any other post in your feed today. Watch it properly. Let it play all the way through without skipping ahead to see how it ends. Notice the exact second his body changes. Notice what happens right after that. And then, if it moves you even a fraction as much as it should, do one small thing with that feeling before it fades — share it with someone, support a rescue near you, or just remember, the next time you see a stray on the side of a road, that stopping is always an option. It's always been an option. Somebody just has to choose to take it. That choice is the entire video. Everything else is just what happens after it gets made. One last thought, and then I'll let you go watch it instead of reading about it any longer. Somewhere out there, right now, there's another version of this exact scene playing out with no camera anywhere near it. No rescuer. No hand reaching out slowly through tall grass. No moment where fear loses. Just an animal, alone, running out of time in silence. We can't fix that with a video. Nobody's pretending we can. But we can make sure the ones that do get found, the ones that do get a camera and a rescuer and a happy ending, actually get seen — properly seen, not scrolled past in half a second on the way to something louder and easier. This is one of the good ones. One of the rare stories where showing up actually happened in time. Don't waste that by treating it like background noise. He didn't run. Now go find out why.

Earth Unveiled

198,929 次观看 • 11 天前

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.
2:58

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Earth Unveiled

89,812 次观看 • 6 天前

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."
16:47

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."

Farrukh

167,874 次观看 • 4 个月前

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮
29:17

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

aussie17

799,172 次观看 • 2 年前