Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

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

NEW: Tim Pool exposes how Facebook’s algorithm purposely fed an entire generation a false narrative about police brutality. And it started earlier than you think. “At the end of the 2000s on Facebook, the top content was police brutality.” Tim Pool said one of the top websites in the... world at the time did nothing but publish stories about police abuse—because that’s what Facebook rewarded. “And there was one website that was one of the top global websites that ONLY made articles about police brutality. Why? Hit all the other algorithmic points, shot content, justice, anger.” That constant stream of outrage didn’t just shape headlines, it shaped minds. “Imagine you're ten years old in 2010 and you go on to Facebook—What do you find? BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, mic[.]com, and they're blasting you with nothing but black man killed, black man killed, unarmed black man killed.” Pool explained that Facebook’s algorithm was engineered to feed that cycle. “Facebook found that after around 300 friends and or likes, the chronological feed becomes incomprehensible. And they wanted to make sure that people stayed on the page longer. So they created the algorithm.” “They created an algorithm that if it got shared more, it got promoted more. And so what happened was that these websites like Huffington Post found that an article that said something like ‘racist thing happens’ would get more shares. So they made more of it.” What does that mean for the kids who grew up scrolling through that world? “So these younger kids who are ten or whatever are inundated with nothing but this.” The result was a warped sense of reality. “What happens? There's a famous video where a guy goes to Venice Beach and he asks people, how many unarmed black men do you think were killed by police last year? And they say 1000, 10,000.” “It was 9.” “It's because the media, or I should say social media, was propping up select stories over and over and over again.”show more

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,785,224 subscribers

170,485 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Comments

The Vigilant Fox 🦊1 year ago

More stories: Ukraine Reportedly Tried to Attack Putin’s Helicopter Mid-Flight in Huge Conflict-Altering Incident

The Vigilant Fox 🦊1 year ago

Christian Rally in Seattle Park Attacked by Violent Woke Mob

Standing for Freedom Center2 years ago

Like the plot to a dystopian movie, New York will now monitor social media writings, collect data, and use law enforcement to crack down on any expression it deems to be hate speech.

I Love America News1 year ago

@Timcast Facebook must be held accountable.

OneStepCollective1 year ago

@Timcast They didn’t just manipulate the narrative they programmed outrage. While truth took a backseat, algorithms drove division, and the consequences are still tearing communities apart. Accountability for Big Tech is long overdue.

Klay Thompson1 year ago

@Timcast But Zuck said he's sorry so all good, right...🙄

J Smith1 year ago

@Timcast He's right, I remember and local news stations as well

Syb1 year ago

@Timcast ...and it is still happening.

TRUTH1 year ago

@Timcast Life would be better without algorithms and computers.

John Smith1 year ago

@Timcast I wish there was a jail for moral depravity because here is an example, selling a false narrative and all of what that engenders(hate, violence, even murder) in order to drum up business.

Joe Hammer1 year ago

@Timcast Those racist bastards. Go to @policelawnews and you'll see all races in police encounters. Not just BLACK folks

Related Videos

They killed our son Scott Adams “At some point, there'll be a healthy number of Democrats who realized that they were on the side of killing an innocent man, and then they're going to find out that he was nothing like they thought. And this will be one of the biggest mistakes of humanity. It's one thing to kill somebody because you're going to get something out of it. This was not that. This is killing somebody and getting the opposite of whatever it was you wanted, because you're gonna get a lot of that. You're gonna get a lot, and it's gonna be the opposite of whatever you thought you wanted, but it's because you killed the wrong guy.” King John the Exuberant - "Mornin' Merica!"

They killed our son Scott Adams “At some point, there'll be a healthy number of Democrats who realized that they were on the side of killing an innocent man, and then they're going to find out that he was nothing like they thought. And this will be one of the biggest mistakes of humanity. It's one thing to kill somebody because you're going to get something out of it. This was not that. This is killing somebody and getting the opposite of whatever it was you wanted, because you're gonna get a lot of that. You're gonna get a lot, and it's gonna be the opposite of whatever you thought you wanted, but it's because you killed the wrong guy.” King John the Exuberant - "Mornin' Merica!"

jay plemons

771,762 views • 10 months ago

Elon Musk: We will not accept an anointed class of journalists who tell us what to think. “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Interview with the BBC, April 12, 2023

Elon Musk: We will not accept an anointed class of journalists who tell us what to think. “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Interview with the BBC, April 12, 2023

ELON CLIPS

1,266,059 views • 1 year ago

ELON: WE WILL NOT ACCEPT AN ANOINTED CLASS OF JOURNALISTS WHO TELL US WHAT TO THINK “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023, Elon Musk

ELON: WE WILL NOT ACCEPT AN ANOINTED CLASS OF JOURNALISTS WHO TELL US WHAT TO THINK “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

115,251 views • 1 year ago

First, Rep. Burlison opened up about his recent trip to Mexico to investigate the Buga Sphere—a metallic UFO that was just recovered by civilians. “There’s this object that’s been flying around in Colombia, it’s like a beach ball-size metallic sphere … it’s called the Buga sphere.” “Then another one that’s like an identical sphere was also filmed about two months later in a region about 30 miles away.” “When it first came to the ground, it weighed about 2kg.” “By the time that I was able to look at it, it weighed a little over 10kg. So what they claim is that it started gaining mass over time.” “This sphere has got all these weird markings on it.” “When I was down there, there were three scientists that did work for NASA … that went on the same trip with me at the same time because they wanted to get samples of this sphere.” “The people that found this thing and have it, they don’t want it cut up. They think that’ll compromise its capabilities.” “So they cut off about one gram, I think, of the metal on the surface. And they’re going to test that to see if it was made on planet Earth or if it’s from another planet.” “The sphere has these little holes that go around what you would think is the equator.” “They cut this type of what they call the fiber optic. When you look in a magnifying glass, the inside of these holes … is filled with these intricate other holes.” “They were able to cut into that and pull that material out and they’re going to test it because they think that they can get carbon dating on that.” Eric Burlison Diligent Denizen 🇺🇸

First, Rep. Burlison opened up about his recent trip to Mexico to investigate the Buga Sphere—a metallic UFO that was just recovered by civilians. “There’s this object that’s been flying around in Colombia, it’s like a beach ball-size metallic sphere … it’s called the Buga sphere.” “Then another one that’s like an identical sphere was also filmed about two months later in a region about 30 miles away.” “When it first came to the ground, it weighed about 2kg.” “By the time that I was able to look at it, it weighed a little over 10kg. So what they claim is that it started gaining mass over time.” “This sphere has got all these weird markings on it.” “When I was down there, there were three scientists that did work for NASA … that went on the same trip with me at the same time because they wanted to get samples of this sphere.” “The people that found this thing and have it, they don’t want it cut up. They think that’ll compromise its capabilities.” “So they cut off about one gram, I think, of the metal on the surface. And they’re going to test that to see if it was made on planet Earth or if it’s from another planet.” “The sphere has these little holes that go around what you would think is the equator.” “They cut this type of what they call the fiber optic. When you look in a magnifying glass, the inside of these holes … is filled with these intricate other holes.” “They were able to cut into that and pull that material out and they’re going to test it because they think that they can get carbon dating on that.” Eric Burlison Diligent Denizen 🇺🇸

Holden Culotta

94,115 views • 1 year ago

Jason Calacanis: Social media companies should disclose their algorithms or lose Section 230 protections Why? “An algorithm is more powerful than an editor at the New York Times or an editor at HBO or Netflix...” From E243: “Algorithms must be disclosed and you must have the option, given to you upfront, to switch your algorithm.” “There should be BYOA, bring your own algorithm. There should be an algorithm store.” “If you could say, ‘I want one that just gives me a chronological feed. I want one that is from the highest quality sources.’” “And then you should be required to show what the default algorithm is doing.” “And if you don't do that, I think you should lose your Section 230 because an algorithm is more powerful than an editor at the New York Times or an editor at HBO or Netflix deciding what we see, deciding what goes on the homepage.” “The algorithm is a black box and who knows who's controlling it, and then what happens in society when young men are pushed towards more and more fringe content, more and more dark content?” “Why not just have all this be transparent?”

Jason Calacanis: Social media companies should disclose their algorithms or lose Section 230 protections Why? “An algorithm is more powerful than an editor at the New York Times or an editor at HBO or Netflix...” From E243: “Algorithms must be disclosed and you must have the option, given to you upfront, to switch your algorithm.” “There should be BYOA, bring your own algorithm. There should be an algorithm store.” “If you could say, ‘I want one that just gives me a chronological feed. I want one that is from the highest quality sources.’” “And then you should be required to show what the default algorithm is doing.” “And if you don't do that, I think you should lose your Section 230 because an algorithm is more powerful than an editor at the New York Times or an editor at HBO or Netflix deciding what we see, deciding what goes on the homepage.” “The algorithm is a black box and who knows who's controlling it, and then what happens in society when young men are pushed towards more and more fringe content, more and more dark content?” “Why not just have all this be transparent?”

The All-In Podcast

191,177 views • 9 months ago

WATCH: Very newsy exchange at the White House Tuesday afternoon between President Trump and CBS’s Ed O'Keefe about Iran, revealing the U.S. was gifted “a present” from whatever remains of the new/old Iranian regime that is “oil and gas related”.... President Trump: “Do you have another question? You haven’t been here in a while.” O’Keefe: “Well, on Iran, can you give us any more sense of who exactly in Iran it is, either Witkoff or Kushner you’re speaking with?” Trump: “Yeah. We had — I hate to say this in front of these young people — they’re not children. I spoke to most of them. They sound like adults to me. Even though they are sort of children, right? They’ll always be your children. But I hate to say it, but we killed all their leadership. And then they met to choose new leaders, and we killed all of them. And now, we have a new group and we can easily do that. But let’s see how they turn out. It’s — we have, really, regime change. You know, this is a change in the regime because the leaders are all very different than the ones that we started off with that created all those problems. So this was — I think we can say, Jason, this is regime change, right?” O’Keefe: “What makes you trust them?” Trump: “I don’t trust anybody. I don’t trust you. I mean, that’s only because I know you, but if I didn’t know you, I’d probably have more trust. But I don’t trust anyone.” O’Keefe: “Why bother talking to them?” Trump: “Why do you — why do you say that? Why do you say what makes you — do you think I trust them? I don’t trust them.” O’Keefe: “Then why bother talking to them?” Trump: “Because they’re going to make a deal. They’re going to make a deal. They did something yesterday that was amazing. Actually. They gave us a present. And the president arrived today and it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. And I’m not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant prize. And they gave it to us, and they said they were going to give it, so that meant one thing to me. We’re dealing with the right people —” O’Keefe: “Was it nuclear related.” Trump: “No, it wasn’t nuclear related. It was oil and gas related. And it was a very nice thing they did. But what it showed me is that we’re dealing with the right people because, you know, you don’t know because the leadership was killed, all gone. Khamenei, all gone. As the expression goes, the past Supreme Leader and then the new Supreme Leader was racked up at a minimum, racked up pretty good, and everyone else was gone. And then many of the people in the third tier are gone. But we’re dealing with a group of people that I think turn out and the — the present, the gift they made to us was very significant. And they said they were going to do it and it happened. And they’re the only ones that could have done it.”

WATCH: Very newsy exchange at the White House Tuesday afternoon between President Trump and CBS’s Ed O'Keefe about Iran, revealing the U.S. was gifted “a present” from whatever remains of the new/old Iranian regime that is “oil and gas related”.... President Trump: “Do you have another question? You haven’t been here in a while.” O’Keefe: “Well, on Iran, can you give us any more sense of who exactly in Iran it is, either Witkoff or Kushner you’re speaking with?” Trump: “Yeah. We had — I hate to say this in front of these young people — they’re not children. I spoke to most of them. They sound like adults to me. Even though they are sort of children, right? They’ll always be your children. But I hate to say it, but we killed all their leadership. And then they met to choose new leaders, and we killed all of them. And now, we have a new group and we can easily do that. But let’s see how they turn out. It’s — we have, really, regime change. You know, this is a change in the regime because the leaders are all very different than the ones that we started off with that created all those problems. So this was — I think we can say, Jason, this is regime change, right?” O’Keefe: “What makes you trust them?” Trump: “I don’t trust anybody. I don’t trust you. I mean, that’s only because I know you, but if I didn’t know you, I’d probably have more trust. But I don’t trust anyone.” O’Keefe: “Why bother talking to them?” Trump: “Why do you — why do you say that? Why do you say what makes you — do you think I trust them? I don’t trust them.” O’Keefe: “Then why bother talking to them?” Trump: “Because they’re going to make a deal. They’re going to make a deal. They did something yesterday that was amazing. Actually. They gave us a present. And the president arrived today and it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. And I’m not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant prize. And they gave it to us, and they said they were going to give it, so that meant one thing to me. We’re dealing with the right people —” O’Keefe: “Was it nuclear related.” Trump: “No, it wasn’t nuclear related. It was oil and gas related. And it was a very nice thing they did. But what it showed me is that we’re dealing with the right people because, you know, you don’t know because the leadership was killed, all gone. Khamenei, all gone. As the expression goes, the past Supreme Leader and then the new Supreme Leader was racked up at a minimum, racked up pretty good, and everyone else was gone. And then many of the people in the third tier are gone. But we’re dealing with a group of people that I think turn out and the — the present, the gift they made to us was very significant. And they said they were going to do it and it happened. And they’re the only ones that could have done it.”

Curtis Houck

108,556 views • 3 months ago

James Fox just revealed that real-life Men in Black covered up the most groundbreaking UFO footage ever. In 1997, a Vietnam vet got high-quality video of a massive black UFO in Phoenix, Arizona. A City Councilwoman asked him to see it. Then, two men showed up to his house in an unmarked government car and took the video. Fox: “I investigated the Phoenix Lights case … working with a councilwoman, Frances Emma Barwood.” “I was interviewing all the witnesses and there was one guy, a Vietnam vet.” “He contacted Frances Barwood—one of the few elected officials that was willing to [say], ‘let’s investigate what happened, what these people saw.’” “He said … ‘I was on my roof that night trying to get a video on a tripod of the Hale-Bopp comet … and I have a CB radio and I was listening to the truckers come up Interstate 10 from Tucson, and they were all describing this massive boomerang-shaped craft … and I filmed it going right over the top of my house.’” “She’s like, ‘I’d love to see it.’” “So they make arrangements where he was gonna drop it off at her office.” “I don’t know if it was later that day or the very next morning or that night, two men roll up in an unmarked government vehicle in suits.” “They’re like, ‘we’re from Frances Emma Barwood’s office. We’re here to pick up the video.’” “And he says the only question they asked is, did he make any copies? And he said no.” “They took the footage and left.” “A couple days go by, he doesn’t hear from Emma, so he calls her up.” “He goes, ‘what’d you think of the footage?’” “She goes, ‘what do you mean? … I didn’t get the footage.’” “He goes, ‘you had two men from your office show up.’” “She goes, ‘I didn’t send anybody.’” “That was like the first time that I really heard about these so-called men in black, and that was in the 90s.” James Fox Jesse Michels

James Fox just revealed that real-life Men in Black covered up the most groundbreaking UFO footage ever. In 1997, a Vietnam vet got high-quality video of a massive black UFO in Phoenix, Arizona. A City Councilwoman asked him to see it. Then, two men showed up to his house in an unmarked government car and took the video. Fox: “I investigated the Phoenix Lights case … working with a councilwoman, Frances Emma Barwood.” “I was interviewing all the witnesses and there was one guy, a Vietnam vet.” “He contacted Frances Barwood—one of the few elected officials that was willing to [say], ‘let’s investigate what happened, what these people saw.’” “He said … ‘I was on my roof that night trying to get a video on a tripod of the Hale-Bopp comet … and I have a CB radio and I was listening to the truckers come up Interstate 10 from Tucson, and they were all describing this massive boomerang-shaped craft … and I filmed it going right over the top of my house.’” “She’s like, ‘I’d love to see it.’” “So they make arrangements where he was gonna drop it off at her office.” “I don’t know if it was later that day or the very next morning or that night, two men roll up in an unmarked government vehicle in suits.” “They’re like, ‘we’re from Frances Emma Barwood’s office. We’re here to pick up the video.’” “And he says the only question they asked is, did he make any copies? And he said no.” “They took the footage and left.” “A couple days go by, he doesn’t hear from Emma, so he calls her up.” “He goes, ‘what’d you think of the footage?’” “She goes, ‘what do you mean? … I didn’t get the footage.’” “He goes, ‘you had two men from your office show up.’” “She goes, ‘I didn’t send anybody.’” “That was like the first time that I really heard about these so-called men in black, and that was in the 90s.” James Fox Jesse Michels

Holden Culotta

111,787 views • 6 months ago

Walter Hill on why the absence of big names made a huge difference to 'The Warriors' (1979): "One of the things that I was pleased about doing 'The Warriors' (1979) was that it didn’t lend itself to star casting. That at makes a big difference, especially when it comes to putting movies together timewise. We had free reign in casting the film. I told the studio that I wanted to do a movie with an all-black cast, but they would not go for that, and I think in the end they were right because the film becomes more universalized, more timeless, and a more magical world in that you have gangs who don’t look like what real gangs did. But at the same time there is a hint of social reality, so there’s a mix of social reality and fantasy. I think the interracial casting helped that. We were finding the movie." ('Walter Hill - The Cinema of Hollywood Maverick', Wayne Byrne, 2022) [P.S: On this day, 47 years ago, 'The Warriors' (1979) was released in Australia]

Walter Hill on why the absence of big names made a huge difference to 'The Warriors' (1979): "One of the things that I was pleased about doing 'The Warriors' (1979) was that it didn’t lend itself to star casting. That at makes a big difference, especially when it comes to putting movies together timewise. We had free reign in casting the film. I told the studio that I wanted to do a movie with an all-black cast, but they would not go for that, and I think in the end they were right because the film becomes more universalized, more timeless, and a more magical world in that you have gangs who don’t look like what real gangs did. But at the same time there is a hint of social reality, so there’s a mix of social reality and fantasy. I think the interracial casting helped that. We were finding the movie." ('Walter Hill - The Cinema of Hollywood Maverick', Wayne Byrne, 2022) [P.S: On this day, 47 years ago, 'The Warriors' (1979) was released in Australia]

DepressedBergman

80,178 views • 5 months ago

.Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese: “On Bagram, what goes into retaking Bagram? Does that require boots on the ground?” President Donald Trump: “We’ll see what happens with Bagram. We’re talking to Afghanistan. It should have never been given up. It was the most embarrassing day in the history of our country. There was no reason to give it up. I was leaving Afghanistan. I was leaving, I was the one that got it down to 5,000 soldiers. But we were going to we were going to keep Bagram, the air base. I said it yesterday and we had an incredible trip, as you know, to U.K., and I said it during the press conference. It’s one of the most powerful runways ever built in terms of weight, length and load, what it can — what it could take, and we just gave it up for nothing. We gave it up for nothing. There was no reason to give it up. We weren’t going to leave Bagram. Joe Biden didn’t know what he was doing. We had a man that didn’t know what he was doing. We had a man, by the way, that didn’t approve — if you take a look at what’s happening in Congress — we had a man that signed everything with almost everything with an autopen and he didn’t tell the people from the autopen whoever was using it. The one man that used it predominantly said that Biden only spoke to him twice, and it was only about the weather. It was about nothing. So, those pardons that he gave are illegal. He gave illegal pardons, and that includes the congressman that destroyed and deleted all the information from J6. They deleted everything because it turned out that they were wrong. It turned out that I offered 10,000 National Guard soldiers whatever they wanted, and you wouldn’t have had a problem and they turned it down. Nancy Pelosi turned it down, and the mayor of Washington, D.C. turned it down. They deleted everything and they destroyed it, illegally destroyed it. And Biden gave them a pardon. And Biden gave a lot of other people pardons that, frankly, would be in jail if it wasn’t for those pardons. But those pardons now are illegal, according to just about everybody.”

.Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese: “On Bagram, what goes into retaking Bagram? Does that require boots on the ground?” President Donald Trump: “We’ll see what happens with Bagram. We’re talking to Afghanistan. It should have never been given up. It was the most embarrassing day in the history of our country. There was no reason to give it up. I was leaving Afghanistan. I was leaving, I was the one that got it down to 5,000 soldiers. But we were going to we were going to keep Bagram, the air base. I said it yesterday and we had an incredible trip, as you know, to U.K., and I said it during the press conference. It’s one of the most powerful runways ever built in terms of weight, length and load, what it can — what it could take, and we just gave it up for nothing. We gave it up for nothing. There was no reason to give it up. We weren’t going to leave Bagram. Joe Biden didn’t know what he was doing. We had a man that didn’t know what he was doing. We had a man, by the way, that didn’t approve — if you take a look at what’s happening in Congress — we had a man that signed everything with almost everything with an autopen and he didn’t tell the people from the autopen whoever was using it. The one man that used it predominantly said that Biden only spoke to him twice, and it was only about the weather. It was about nothing. So, those pardons that he gave are illegal. He gave illegal pardons, and that includes the congressman that destroyed and deleted all the information from J6. They deleted everything because it turned out that they were wrong. It turned out that I offered 10,000 National Guard soldiers whatever they wanted, and you wouldn’t have had a problem and they turned it down. Nancy Pelosi turned it down, and the mayor of Washington, D.C. turned it down. They deleted everything and they destroyed it, illegally destroyed it. And Biden gave them a pardon. And Biden gave a lot of other people pardons that, frankly, would be in jail if it wasn’t for those pardons. But those pardons now are illegal, according to just about everybody.”

Curtis Houck

11,963 views • 10 months ago

The pool hall scene in Carlito’s Way is one of the most suspenseful set pieces in all of crime cinema. However, when the studio executives saw an early cut, they thought it was too long and asked Brian De Palma to cut it back - but instead, he made it even longer. The writer of the film, David Koepp explains…. “We showed an early cut to the studio, and one of their notes was that the pool hall scene seemed too long. I was talking to Brian about it, and I said, “what do you think about this note that the pool hall scene is too long? I don't think they're right about that.” And he said, “No, no, no, they're absolutely right, they're absolutely right. But what they mean is that it's not long enough” And I thought he was just being cheeky and defiant. But actually, no - I mean, he knows suspense so well, he felt that it was just that he had failed to set up a little bit of the geography of the suspense - which is of course, his mastery. You know - the guys in the bathroom, the door is slightly open, the other guys over here - all that great establishment of where everybody is, and how close they are to each other, and what all the stakes are. The suspense only works later if that stuff's set up properly before. And so when he went back and furthered some of that coverage and expanded the front of the scene a little bit, the scene was nail biting and great. And they saw another cut and said, “much better shorter, much better shorter.”

The pool hall scene in Carlito’s Way is one of the most suspenseful set pieces in all of crime cinema. However, when the studio executives saw an early cut, they thought it was too long and asked Brian De Palma to cut it back - but instead, he made it even longer. The writer of the film, David Koepp explains…. “We showed an early cut to the studio, and one of their notes was that the pool hall scene seemed too long. I was talking to Brian about it, and I said, “what do you think about this note that the pool hall scene is too long? I don't think they're right about that.” And he said, “No, no, no, they're absolutely right, they're absolutely right. But what they mean is that it's not long enough” And I thought he was just being cheeky and defiant. But actually, no - I mean, he knows suspense so well, he felt that it was just that he had failed to set up a little bit of the geography of the suspense - which is of course, his mastery. You know - the guys in the bathroom, the door is slightly open, the other guys over here - all that great establishment of where everybody is, and how close they are to each other, and what all the stakes are. The suspense only works later if that stuff's set up properly before. And so when he went back and furthered some of that coverage and expanded the front of the scene a little bit, the scene was nail biting and great. And they saw another cut and said, “much better shorter, much better shorter.”

Gangster Cinema Central

62,984 views • 3 months ago

When I was in school and I did something bad, the one thing that I was afraid of was that others would find out I got caught doing something so stupid. Back when I was a kid, that was the worst thing that could happen, The other kids would clown us and make fun of us until we left school. For me it was the equivalent to the smelly kid or the one who soiled his pants at school, it was that bad. I wasn’t too concerned about my parents because they were busy supporting us, they weren’t home much and during that time they barely spoke English. So if a teacher called my parents, they wouldn’t know what the school staff was saying anyways, my parents would ask me what they wanted and I would just make something up. Regardless of the method, I think we can all agree that behavior like this is getting more and more common and shouldn’t be tolerated. Either way, what would you think is the solution for this? Was the guard crossing the line for tazing him? I think she shouldn’t have done that.

When I was in school and I did something bad, the one thing that I was afraid of was that others would find out I got caught doing something so stupid. Back when I was a kid, that was the worst thing that could happen, The other kids would clown us and make fun of us until we left school. For me it was the equivalent to the smelly kid or the one who soiled his pants at school, it was that bad. I wasn’t too concerned about my parents because they were busy supporting us, they weren’t home much and during that time they barely spoke English. So if a teacher called my parents, they wouldn’t know what the school staff was saying anyways, my parents would ask me what they wanted and I would just make something up. Regardless of the method, I think we can all agree that behavior like this is getting more and more common and shouldn’t be tolerated. Either way, what would you think is the solution for this? Was the guard crossing the line for tazing him? I think she shouldn’t have done that.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

35,260 views • 1 month ago

$This is actually crazy Chad Bianco reveals how Democrats got voters to pass letting people steal up to $850 with no consequences Democrats knew voters would never vote for it, so instead they named it “The Safe Schools and the Safe Streets initiative” and voters were tricked into voting for it “Prop 47 made felonies, misdemeanors, misdemeanors, infractions, or not crimes anymore. It increased the, the level of theft to where it was a crime to that $950 threshold. And so that enabled just crime to just run rampant. It. It was profitable now to be a criminal, and there was no consequence” He says Gavin Newsom did this deception on purpose, “Never would the voters agree to that — The voters would never, ever, ever go for that -1 So what they did is they let you pass it and they gave you this sheet of paper and a ballot next to it with yes or no. And they said, ‘do you want safe schools and safe streets?’ And you said, yes, I do. And you said Yes. And that's what Prop 47 was. It was the Safe Schools and the Safe Streets initiative that our attorney General Kamala Harris at the time, our Secretary of State” “They lied to us and convinced us as voters to make that a law. And the thing that happens after that is that law can never be changed unless the voters change it. The lawmakers in Sacramento can't change a law that the voters put into place. So they lied to us. But why are they allowed to put deceiving descriptions on these laws? Because government made their own another law that said it was okay to lie to you.” Democrats are the party of criminals$

This is actually crazy Chad Bianco reveals how Democrats got voters to pass letting people steal up to $850 with no consequences Democrats knew voters would never vote for it, so instead they named it “The Safe Schools and the Safe Streets initiative” and voters were tricked into voting for it “Prop 47 made felonies, misdemeanors, misdemeanors, infractions, or not crimes anymore. It increased the, the level of theft to where it was a crime to that $950 threshold. And so that enabled just crime to just run rampant. It. It was profitable now to be a criminal, and there was no consequence” He says Gavin Newsom did this deception on purpose, “Never would the voters agree to that — The voters would never, ever, ever go for that -1 So what they did is they let you pass it and they gave you this sheet of paper and a ballot next to it with yes or no. And they said, ‘do you want safe schools and safe streets?’ And you said, yes, I do. And you said Yes. And that's what Prop 47 was. It was the Safe Schools and the Safe Streets initiative that our attorney General Kamala Harris at the time, our Secretary of State” “They lied to us and convinced us as voters to make that a law. And the thing that happens after that is that law can never be changed unless the voters change it. The lawmakers in Sacramento can't change a law that the voters put into place. So they lied to us. But why are they allowed to put deceiving descriptions on these laws? Because government made their own another law that said it was okay to lie to you.” Democrats are the party of criminals

Wall Street Apes

99,283 views • 2 months ago

James Stewart on what makes a great film performance: In a 1972 BBC interview, the legendary actor was asked how he approaches biographical roles like Glenn Miller and Charles Lindbergh. His answer revealed a philosophy he'd developed over decades in Hollywood. "You have to make a thing believable without using the device of acting. And that doesn't make any sense at all." But then he explained what he meant: "Over the years, I've developed a theory. I'm getting to believe that in films, what everybody is striving for is to produce moments. Not a performance, not a characterization, not something that you get into the part and it's you. You produce moments that create a feeling of believability to what you're doing." Stewart admitted these moments aren't guaranteed. "Sometimes it doesn't go, nothing happens." To illustrate, he shared a story about director Billy Wilder, who was famous for shooting take after take. In one important scene, Wilder had already done 30 takes when one of the actors finally asked what they were doing wrong. Wilder's response: "No, you're doing it fine. I'm just waiting for something to happen." That, Stewart said, is what creating moments looks like in practice. You can't force it. You set the conditions and wait. He then offered a second piece of evidence for his theory, drawn from his interactions with fans over the years: "People will come up to me and say, 'Boy, I like that picture you did.' Now they won't remember the name of the picture. They won't remember where they saw it. They won't remember who was in it or who directed it. But they said, 'You know, that picture. You were in this room and you were some kind of a lawyer or something and this fellow was over there and he turned to you and he said (and I forget what he said) but you looked at him and boy, that look, that was some look.'" The plot fades. The credits fade. But the moment stays. And Stewart admitted he often agreed with them: "A great many times you remember that moment too. And you thought it was pretty good."

James Stewart on what makes a great film performance: In a 1972 BBC interview, the legendary actor was asked how he approaches biographical roles like Glenn Miller and Charles Lindbergh. His answer revealed a philosophy he'd developed over decades in Hollywood. "You have to make a thing believable without using the device of acting. And that doesn't make any sense at all." But then he explained what he meant: "Over the years, I've developed a theory. I'm getting to believe that in films, what everybody is striving for is to produce moments. Not a performance, not a characterization, not something that you get into the part and it's you. You produce moments that create a feeling of believability to what you're doing." Stewart admitted these moments aren't guaranteed. "Sometimes it doesn't go, nothing happens." To illustrate, he shared a story about director Billy Wilder, who was famous for shooting take after take. In one important scene, Wilder had already done 30 takes when one of the actors finally asked what they were doing wrong. Wilder's response: "No, you're doing it fine. I'm just waiting for something to happen." That, Stewart said, is what creating moments looks like in practice. You can't force it. You set the conditions and wait. He then offered a second piece of evidence for his theory, drawn from his interactions with fans over the years: "People will come up to me and say, 'Boy, I like that picture you did.' Now they won't remember the name of the picture. They won't remember where they saw it. They won't remember who was in it or who directed it. But they said, 'You know, that picture. You were in this room and you were some kind of a lawyer or something and this fellow was over there and he turned to you and he said (and I forget what he said) but you looked at him and boy, that look, that was some look.'" The plot fades. The credits fade. But the moment stays. And Stewart admitted he often agreed with them: "A great many times you remember that moment too. And you thought it was pretty good."

History Nerd

41,702 views • 2 months ago

Interview from 5 months ago with “RA” the new UFO whistleblower Randy Anderson by Gerb Here he describes the sphere encounter and the possible consciousness connection and how his memories of the incident are strangely fuzzy Link to full interview in comments H/T wow RA - “Both the items they had under there, they said somehow interacted with consciousness and, and the way he said it, this is why it's so fuzzy, he said, I wouldn't quote these things 'cause I'm gonna try to just remember the, the, the context. And I, and I can again, like when I meditate and I think about this, I can usually get more back. But just, just like sitting here talking to you and remembering it, it's difficult sometimes. But I remember him saying, we don't understand quite how to operate the systems or how they, but they do interact with consciousness so certain and some people they interact with and some people they don't. So certain people will go up to the object and it will respond. And some people go up to the object and it does nothing. So certain types of, I don't know if that's related to DNA or to consciousness or what, whatever, but it's different. People will have a different response and they, they had us kind of walked closer to the, the window and nothing happened. So we didn't, I mean, I don't know if we got closer or something would've happened, but they, I don't know if they were even looking for that, but maybe, you know, that they, that's one thing he said that like certain people will go near the object and will react. And he didn't describe how it would react. He instead it would react,” RA - “There's a really weird component to this, and I don't know what this means, but when I think back to this particular memory and, and this never happens to me in any other thing, I, I get real fuzzy. It gets real fuzzy, like, like almost like something was purposely done to to, to make it that way. Because I have a very photographic memory and things I've done in the military. Like I can tell you the color of the buttons on a shirt of a guy that I sniped from, you know, 800 feet, 800 meters away. So I mean, I, there's for me to not remember this is really bothers me, but there's, there's some cloudiness when I try to access this part of my brain, you know, I can definitely, maybe it's, it could definitely be the, the objects itself that had, and it felt this, this is why it's difficult because it obviously, it felt weird being down there. Okay. There's, there's something like, there was just, it is an unnatural feeling we're doing. It felt like we were doing something that wasn't normal. I mean, the fact that we were so deep underground, me and the dude were kind of freaked out and, and, but we didn't display that outwardly because we're trained to not do that, you know? But internally, yeah, I was like, what the hell is going on? And when they talk about optimal stuff, they didn't say it like, by the way, aliens are real like you or anything like of that sort. It was just, oh yeah, this is the off world technology division, this is Chuck, this is whatever. And just started talking like everything was normal and we just went along with it because we acted like it was normal, but the first time I'd ever been exposed to it and it, it was a lot to take in. So that could be part of it too.”

Interview from 5 months ago with “RA” the new UFO whistleblower Randy Anderson by Gerb Here he describes the sphere encounter and the possible consciousness connection and how his memories of the incident are strangely fuzzy Link to full interview in comments H/T wow RA - “Both the items they had under there, they said somehow interacted with consciousness and, and the way he said it, this is why it's so fuzzy, he said, I wouldn't quote these things 'cause I'm gonna try to just remember the, the, the context. And I, and I can again, like when I meditate and I think about this, I can usually get more back. But just, just like sitting here talking to you and remembering it, it's difficult sometimes. But I remember him saying, we don't understand quite how to operate the systems or how they, but they do interact with consciousness so certain and some people they interact with and some people they don't. So certain people will go up to the object and it will respond. And some people go up to the object and it does nothing. So certain types of, I don't know if that's related to DNA or to consciousness or what, whatever, but it's different. People will have a different response and they, they had us kind of walked closer to the, the window and nothing happened. So we didn't, I mean, I don't know if we got closer or something would've happened, but they, I don't know if they were even looking for that, but maybe, you know, that they, that's one thing he said that like certain people will go near the object and will react. And he didn't describe how it would react. He instead it would react,” RA - “There's a really weird component to this, and I don't know what this means, but when I think back to this particular memory and, and this never happens to me in any other thing, I, I get real fuzzy. It gets real fuzzy, like, like almost like something was purposely done to to, to make it that way. Because I have a very photographic memory and things I've done in the military. Like I can tell you the color of the buttons on a shirt of a guy that I sniped from, you know, 800 feet, 800 meters away. So I mean, I, there's for me to not remember this is really bothers me, but there's, there's some cloudiness when I try to access this part of my brain, you know, I can definitely, maybe it's, it could definitely be the, the objects itself that had, and it felt this, this is why it's difficult because it obviously, it felt weird being down there. Okay. There's, there's something like, there was just, it is an unnatural feeling we're doing. It felt like we were doing something that wasn't normal. I mean, the fact that we were so deep underground, me and the dude were kind of freaked out and, and, but we didn't display that outwardly because we're trained to not do that, you know? But internally, yeah, I was like, what the hell is going on? And when they talk about optimal stuff, they didn't say it like, by the way, aliens are real like you or anything like of that sort. It was just, oh yeah, this is the off world technology division, this is Chuck, this is whatever. And just started talking like everything was normal and we just went along with it because we acted like it was normal, but the first time I'd ever been exposed to it and it, it was a lot to take in. So that could be part of it too.”

neandrewthal

41,422 views • 1 year ago

"I'm still a little suspicious of who they know, but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares. Nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. "The big issue is that Jen was friends with Brian Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And I think they brought on the PI, Marty Kraft, and Kate Peter to insulate their exposure [as to Sandra Birchmore] from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. "Therefore, I think what Alan Jackson's actual plan was—I don't think he ever said this, but this is what I think he was up to. I think Alan Jackson was using the fact that this unit had to sense that the more attention got paid to them, the more the microscope of national and international focus zeroed in on Norfolk County, Massachusetts, the more likely it was that Sandra Birchmore's grave was going to become the locus of the investigatory scrutiny. And that is why I believe they had something to hide. Tully had something to hide. Fanning had something to hide. Yuri had something to hide. Guarino had something to hide, although I'm pretty sure they made him do it. They had something to hide, in my opinion. And so they were worried. "And who would you bring in? If you had covered up a murder—if you were a state police unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids. And I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck is the perfect person? Be like, 'If that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these different people who get too close to this, or we're going to get our spot blown up here—not literally, figuratively. We're going to be exposed for what we did with Birchmore.'" "That's what really pisses me off. Like, that it's so hardened. It's such a jaded fucking view of the world. It's like people who leverage children to stay in other people's lives. Okay, they're the sickest, most demented humans, especially if they're only not in jail because they gave people up or something like that for serious drug crimes. And then they walk around like sanctimonious hypocrites. That's the only type of person in the world that I loathe more than someone who would knowingly try to manipulate a public narrative to insulate a state police unit from accountability for covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder. It's the lowest, most disgusting, most base form of existence. It requires one to have literally numbed their soul to the point where you can sleep at night, having participated in that. I don't think there's enough alcohol, drugs, or sedatives in the world that could make me sleep if I was a party to such a thing. And I question how some of these people do it. "But let me bring it back to the point here, which is: In 2022, the feds clearly—I believe—were starting to poke around. And come 2023, I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept alive, even in light of the national spotlight? "When you think about it from that perspective—when you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement, but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation on Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her. But if you think about it in the context that Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore, then you understand why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them, the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway, and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA. It destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly, and she's a tactical fucking genius. "I'm fully of the opinion that Karen Read staged a fake falling out with Natalie so that Natalie would get in the orbit of the MSP in June, July, and August of 2023 and feed information back to Karen. Likewise, I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the criminal prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely, in my opinion, bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. "If you don't know what a backhand is, folks, a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface, because you're dealing with a very, very high-level operation like the state police, who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death, but really you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together, and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got wind of it and died. "Now it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: This is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power—who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said, "Nope, it's out of your hands." And that's what Judge Doolin did today. The exposure potential—someone just needed to not be involved with Karen Read, Kearney, or the Norfolk DA, or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft, and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there, but at least for Lindsey Gaetani, Judge Doolin said, 'enough of this nonsense.'"

"I'm still a little suspicious of who they know, but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares. Nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. "The big issue is that Jen was friends with Brian Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And I think they brought on the PI, Marty Kraft, and Kate Peter to insulate their exposure [as to Sandra Birchmore] from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. "Therefore, I think what Alan Jackson's actual plan was—I don't think he ever said this, but this is what I think he was up to. I think Alan Jackson was using the fact that this unit had to sense that the more attention got paid to them, the more the microscope of national and international focus zeroed in on Norfolk County, Massachusetts, the more likely it was that Sandra Birchmore's grave was going to become the locus of the investigatory scrutiny. And that is why I believe they had something to hide. Tully had something to hide. Fanning had something to hide. Yuri had something to hide. Guarino had something to hide, although I'm pretty sure they made him do it. They had something to hide, in my opinion. And so they were worried. "And who would you bring in? If you had covered up a murder—if you were a state police unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids. And I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck is the perfect person? Be like, 'If that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these different people who get too close to this, or we're going to get our spot blown up here—not literally, figuratively. We're going to be exposed for what we did with Birchmore.'" "That's what really pisses me off. Like, that it's so hardened. It's such a jaded fucking view of the world. It's like people who leverage children to stay in other people's lives. Okay, they're the sickest, most demented humans, especially if they're only not in jail because they gave people up or something like that for serious drug crimes. And then they walk around like sanctimonious hypocrites. That's the only type of person in the world that I loathe more than someone who would knowingly try to manipulate a public narrative to insulate a state police unit from accountability for covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder. It's the lowest, most disgusting, most base form of existence. It requires one to have literally numbed their soul to the point where you can sleep at night, having participated in that. I don't think there's enough alcohol, drugs, or sedatives in the world that could make me sleep if I was a party to such a thing. And I question how some of these people do it. "But let me bring it back to the point here, which is: In 2022, the feds clearly—I believe—were starting to poke around. And come 2023, I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept alive, even in light of the national spotlight? "When you think about it from that perspective—when you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement, but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation on Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her. But if you think about it in the context that Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore, then you understand why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them, the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway, and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA. It destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly, and she's a tactical fucking genius. "I'm fully of the opinion that Karen Read staged a fake falling out with Natalie so that Natalie would get in the orbit of the MSP in June, July, and August of 2023 and feed information back to Karen. Likewise, I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the criminal prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely, in my opinion, bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. "If you don't know what a backhand is, folks, a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface, because you're dealing with a very, very high-level operation like the state police, who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death, but really you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together, and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got wind of it and died. "Now it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: This is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power—who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said, "Nope, it's out of your hands." And that's what Judge Doolin did today. The exposure potential—someone just needed to not be involved with Karen Read, Kearney, or the Norfolk DA, or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft, and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there, but at least for Lindsey Gaetani, Judge Doolin said, 'enough of this nonsense.'"

Grant Smith Ellis

21,114 views • 9 months ago

NEW: Tech billionaire and lifelong Democrat Mark Pincus reveals his "Red Pill" moment, sparked by Mike Solana's Pirate Wires and the "very fine people" hoax, culminating in him voting for Donald Trump. "I started reading Pirate Wires and Mike Solana, and I thought he was a little crazy at first because he would write these articles, and one he wrote was about how the Ukrainian soldiers had swastikas on their helmets, and the NYT photographers would ask them to take the swastikas off for photos." "I said that can't be true, and then four months later, it was in the NYT buried in the middle of the paper, and I kept seeing stories like that that he would be early on. So, I started feeling more uncomfortable and queasy with what was going on with mainstream media." "Then, in May 2024, I read an article that talked about Trump's speech in Charlottesville, where he said there are good people on both sides, and the article said it was completely propaganda and didn't actually reflect what he said. That he denounced the Nazis a bunch of times in his speech, so then I went and watched that video, and that was my red pill moment." "I think it was for a lot of people because it wasn't just the media or politicians spinning it. That speech was one of the pillars of why you were supposed to hate Trump. Then you see Biden say that's why he had to run a second time, and Obama says it, and Biden brings it up again at the DNC." "They clearly know they are misrepresenting things, so for me, that was beyond uncomfortable. Now, I have to go back to first principles and look at the primary data, listen to only original speeches by people, and I just realized I couldn't trust the mainstream media." What was your Red Pill moment? Drop your story in the comments.👇

NEW: Tech billionaire and lifelong Democrat Mark Pincus reveals his "Red Pill" moment, sparked by Mike Solana's Pirate Wires and the "very fine people" hoax, culminating in him voting for Donald Trump. "I started reading Pirate Wires and Mike Solana, and I thought he was a little crazy at first because he would write these articles, and one he wrote was about how the Ukrainian soldiers had swastikas on their helmets, and the NYT photographers would ask them to take the swastikas off for photos." "I said that can't be true, and then four months later, it was in the NYT buried in the middle of the paper, and I kept seeing stories like that that he would be early on. So, I started feeling more uncomfortable and queasy with what was going on with mainstream media." "Then, in May 2024, I read an article that talked about Trump's speech in Charlottesville, where he said there are good people on both sides, and the article said it was completely propaganda and didn't actually reflect what he said. That he denounced the Nazis a bunch of times in his speech, so then I went and watched that video, and that was my red pill moment." "I think it was for a lot of people because it wasn't just the media or politicians spinning it. That speech was one of the pillars of why you were supposed to hate Trump. Then you see Biden say that's why he had to run a second time, and Obama says it, and Biden brings it up again at the DNC." "They clearly know they are misrepresenting things, so for me, that was beyond uncomfortable. Now, I have to go back to first principles and look at the primary data, listen to only original speeches by people, and I just realized I couldn't trust the mainstream media." What was your Red Pill moment? Drop your story in the comments.👇

KanekoaTheGreat

47,358,984 views • 1 year ago

Whitney Webb gives insight into Trump and the Palantir "Panopticon" being built: "Trump has been openly building databases on people with Palantir...most people know they're doing that with ICE, but the administration [has] announced... they're doing it for everybody." This clip of Webb (Whitney Webb), a contributing editor of Unlimited Hangout and author of One Nation Under Blackmail, is taken from an interview with Sabrina Salvati (Sabby Sabs) posted to Rumble on August 14, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "And Trump has been openly building databases on people with Palantir. Of course most people know that they're doing that with ICE, but the administration announced not that long ago that they're doing it for everybody. And Palantir also manages all of your health data, because they contract extensively with hhs. "So this is very concerning for a lot of reasons. One, one point on that I would point to is, held Trump in his first term. There was the spate of mass shootings I believe in the Latter Half of 2019. And Trump called on social media companies to stop shooting, stop shooters before they commit a crime and to basically flag what people were saying on social media and use that to determine if they, you know, if they, if there should be intervention before a crime might be committed. "Actually William Barr, when he was in office the first time, created this program that legalized pre-crime in the United States. And I think I was like one of two people maybe that reported on that at the time. It was called deep. And there's been a few arrests under DEEP for people making Facebook posts and things like that, but not that many. "But the legal framework has been there since you know, Trump round one, basically. But anyway, this pitch to that Trump made about having social media spy on its users and use like analytics to you know, bring about some sort of pre-crime society. He was being pitched at the time and he was interested in it, but it didn't ultimately happen, in creating this agency called HARPA, which was supposed to be like the health version of the Pentagon's DARPA and the, the program that they wanted to start with, the acronym was Safe Homes and it was basically about analyzing American social media posts for early warning signs of neuropsychiatric violence. And then based on that, would, would either you know, send people to a court ordered psychologist or physician or even you know, house arrest, without them having committed any crime. "So now that we have Big Tech even more intertwined with Trump Round two, you know, people should really be paying attention to the stuff, especially now that Palantir, especially through the Doge, formerly led by Elon Musk Agency Has sort of embedded Palantir in even more aspects of the government than it was in before, including like the IRS and you know, mortgage stuff like Fannie Mae and all of that. You know, all have Palantir now. And then basically giving them the keys to the kingdom with a lot of you know, data that the Department of Treasury has about your finances in the irs and all of that, you know, all of this is going to go into this master database. "And the goal of Palantir, just like it was with total information awareness, is about stopping crime before it happens. It's pre crime. And Palantir did that, you know, for a few years, several years, in police departments around the country piloting predictive policing programs which is pre- crime, in mainly low income minority neighborhoods, starting off in New Orleans. And now you have other companies besides Palantir that do this. There's one in LA called PredPol, and they have an accuracy of half a percent and they haven't gotten rid of the contract. "So it's not really about better, more efficient policing. I mean that's what it's going to be sold as. It's basically the idea that was developed, you know, by the, the British for prison designs in the 1800s, the Panopticon. The idea that if people feel like they're constantly under watch and something and they could, you know, be you know, well, obviously out of the prison context, you could be put in prison for doing the wrong thing or whatever. You know, then people will police themselves if they're under constant, if they know they're under constant watch, they will police themselves, they will censor themselves, things of that nature. And I think ultimately that's the form of control it is about."

Sensitive content

Whitney Webb gives insight into Trump and the Palantir "Panopticon" being built: "Trump has been openly building databases on people with Palantir...most people know they're doing that with ICE, but the administration [has] announced... they're doing it for everybody." This clip of Webb (Whitney Webb), a contributing editor of Unlimited Hangout and author of One Nation Under Blackmail, is taken from an interview with Sabrina Salvati (Sabby Sabs) posted to Rumble on August 14, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "And Trump has been openly building databases on people with Palantir. Of course most people know that they're doing that with ICE, but the administration announced not that long ago that they're doing it for everybody. And Palantir also manages all of your health data, because they contract extensively with hhs. "So this is very concerning for a lot of reasons. One, one point on that I would point to is, held Trump in his first term. There was the spate of mass shootings I believe in the Latter Half of 2019. And Trump called on social media companies to stop shooting, stop shooters before they commit a crime and to basically flag what people were saying on social media and use that to determine if they, you know, if they, if there should be intervention before a crime might be committed. "Actually William Barr, when he was in office the first time, created this program that legalized pre-crime in the United States. And I think I was like one of two people maybe that reported on that at the time. It was called deep. And there's been a few arrests under DEEP for people making Facebook posts and things like that, but not that many. "But the legal framework has been there since you know, Trump round one, basically. But anyway, this pitch to that Trump made about having social media spy on its users and use like analytics to you know, bring about some sort of pre-crime society. He was being pitched at the time and he was interested in it, but it didn't ultimately happen, in creating this agency called HARPA, which was supposed to be like the health version of the Pentagon's DARPA and the, the program that they wanted to start with, the acronym was Safe Homes and it was basically about analyzing American social media posts for early warning signs of neuropsychiatric violence. And then based on that, would, would either you know, send people to a court ordered psychologist or physician or even you know, house arrest, without them having committed any crime. "So now that we have Big Tech even more intertwined with Trump Round two, you know, people should really be paying attention to the stuff, especially now that Palantir, especially through the Doge, formerly led by Elon Musk Agency Has sort of embedded Palantir in even more aspects of the government than it was in before, including like the IRS and you know, mortgage stuff like Fannie Mae and all of that. You know, all have Palantir now. And then basically giving them the keys to the kingdom with a lot of you know, data that the Department of Treasury has about your finances in the irs and all of that, you know, all of this is going to go into this master database. "And the goal of Palantir, just like it was with total information awareness, is about stopping crime before it happens. It's pre crime. And Palantir did that, you know, for a few years, several years, in police departments around the country piloting predictive policing programs which is pre- crime, in mainly low income minority neighborhoods, starting off in New Orleans. And now you have other companies besides Palantir that do this. There's one in LA called PredPol, and they have an accuracy of half a percent and they haven't gotten rid of the contract. "So it's not really about better, more efficient policing. I mean that's what it's going to be sold as. It's basically the idea that was developed, you know, by the, the British for prison designs in the 1800s, the Panopticon. The idea that if people feel like they're constantly under watch and something and they could, you know, be you know, well, obviously out of the prison context, you could be put in prison for doing the wrong thing or whatever. You know, then people will police themselves if they're under constant, if they know they're under constant watch, they will police themselves, they will censor themselves, things of that nature. And I think ultimately that's the form of control it is about."

Sense Receptor

12,941 views • 11 months ago