Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Pakistanis aren't getting visa entry even in friendly countries. Par inhone Endia ko sabak sikha diya tha Op Baniyan me.

pakistan_untold's profile picture

Pakistan Untold

202,960 subscribers

36,740 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

ComedyNachrichten & PolitikGesundheit & Wellness
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

As always, many of my Zimbabwean followers asked me to do what I usually do when I visit a new place, pick up my phone and show how their roads look, as roads reflect interest in public infrastructure. Last night, my driver took me for a drive around parts of Kigali looking for a place to hang out. Kigali roads resemble those of Zimbabwe in the 1980s without potholes. I was even challenged to a game where if we see a pothole, I get US$50, needless to say, I went home with no penny! I liked the fact that every road I have seen here has a pedestrian track, at least everywhere I have driven to, that is how the roads look like. I also liked their approach that if a pothole is identified, it must be fixed within 24 hours. I have always said that if Zimbabwean authorities fixed roads and public infrastructure and services this way, those of us not interested in being politicians would never oppose them in any way or form. What we oppose is their failures. What we want are good public goods and services. Rwanda is particularly interesting to me because it was once a dusty country with no infrastructure to talk about just recently. If they had as much natural resources as Zimbabwe, I am sure they would have done more. Africans are not asking for mansions and Ferraris, they are just looking for a decent public service system. Another unique if building roads is seen at the end of this video, I first saw it in Qatar and now in Rwanda. Rwanda's progress and stability is particularly remarkable given its recent history and relative lack of natural resources compared to other countries, such as Zimbabwe. This to me highlights the importance of effective governance, resource management and public service delivery in driving economic and infrastructural development. I will share more while I am here, as always, I hope you will learn something from my experiences here, we should learn about each other as Africans. #Zimbabweans don’t need a visa to visit Rwanda, no African needs a visa to visit Rwanda. As of November 2, 2023, Rwanda announced visa-free entry for all African nationals, allowing any African to enter the country without paying visa fees or needing a visa.
16:36

As always, many of my Zimbabwean followers asked me to do what I usually do when I visit a new place, pick up my phone and show how their roads look, as roads reflect interest in public infrastructure. Last night, my driver took me for a drive around parts of Kigali looking for a place to hang out. Kigali roads resemble those of Zimbabwe in the 1980s without potholes. I was even challenged to a game where if we see a pothole, I get US$50, needless to say, I went home with no penny! I liked the fact that every road I have seen here has a pedestrian track, at least everywhere I have driven to, that is how the roads look like. I also liked their approach that if a pothole is identified, it must be fixed within 24 hours. I have always said that if Zimbabwean authorities fixed roads and public infrastructure and services this way, those of us not interested in being politicians would never oppose them in any way or form. What we oppose is their failures. What we want are good public goods and services. Rwanda is particularly interesting to me because it was once a dusty country with no infrastructure to talk about just recently. If they had as much natural resources as Zimbabwe, I am sure they would have done more. Africans are not asking for mansions and Ferraris, they are just looking for a decent public service system. Another unique if building roads is seen at the end of this video, I first saw it in Qatar and now in Rwanda. Rwanda's progress and stability is particularly remarkable given its recent history and relative lack of natural resources compared to other countries, such as Zimbabwe. This to me highlights the importance of effective governance, resource management and public service delivery in driving economic and infrastructural development. I will share more while I am here, as always, I hope you will learn something from my experiences here, we should learn about each other as Africans. #Zimbabweans don’t need a visa to visit Rwanda, no African needs a visa to visit Rwanda. As of November 2, 2023, Rwanda announced visa-free entry for all African nationals, allowing any African to enter the country without paying visa fees or needing a visa.

Hopewell Chin’ono

56,685 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

VIDEO | Delhi: On PM Modi's meeting with President Trump, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor says, "It seems to have gone a long way towards warming up relations once again between the two countries because the feedback I've been getting from various sources on both sides is that the meeting was conducted in a very cordial and warm atmosphere and that everyone tells me that Mr. Trump was particularly friendly in his statements, which has not been the case, as you said, sometimes last year or in the past. But I think that now everyone is busy repairing the breach... The reality of the world is that the US Is an indispensable power in the world, and India can't just turn its back on the US, even if there have been a couple of actions and statements that may have hurt our feelings. When it comes to the... Indian sailors, the Prime Minister rather forcefully made his point, both in the public speech and I understand privately, that you have to understand that we have sailors in various ships. It was not an Indian ship, but even in other countries, flag vessels are lots of Indian crew and sailors. And as long as they are civilians doing commercial shipping, they should not be treated like combatants in a war. And I think that point is something that has to be fully appreciated by all belligerents in a conflict. Fortunately, this conflict now they've signed a sort of ceasefire and they're talking about a possible formal deal that will go on into a 60-day negotiating period. I think all of us, certainly India, will hope that the peace will stick and that we will have a long-lasting peace in the region, in which case this question remains theoretical or academic. But as a general principle, what Mr. Modi has said is right. That is that seafarers should be exempt from combat attacks."
2:11

VIDEO | Delhi: On PM Modi's meeting with President Trump, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor says, "It seems to have gone a long way towards warming up relations once again between the two countries because the feedback I've been getting from various sources on both sides is that the meeting was conducted in a very cordial and warm atmosphere and that everyone tells me that Mr. Trump was particularly friendly in his statements, which has not been the case, as you said, sometimes last year or in the past. But I think that now everyone is busy repairing the breach... The reality of the world is that the US Is an indispensable power in the world, and India can't just turn its back on the US, even if there have been a couple of actions and statements that may have hurt our feelings. When it comes to the... Indian sailors, the Prime Minister rather forcefully made his point, both in the public speech and I understand privately, that you have to understand that we have sailors in various ships. It was not an Indian ship, but even in other countries, flag vessels are lots of Indian crew and sailors. And as long as they are civilians doing commercial shipping, they should not be treated like combatants in a war. And I think that point is something that has to be fully appreciated by all belligerents in a conflict. Fortunately, this conflict now they've signed a sort of ceasefire and they're talking about a possible formal deal that will go on into a 60-day negotiating period. I think all of us, certainly India, will hope that the peace will stick and that we will have a long-lasting peace in the region, in which case this question remains theoretical or academic. But as a general principle, what Mr. Modi has said is right. That is that seafarers should be exempt from combat attacks."

Press Trust of India

24,887 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Trillions have been spent on anti-natal propaganda and ensuring women have fewer interactions with babies. Specifically in White countries. Playgrounds gutted post-COVID, overrun by addicts in US cities or boat migrants in Britain. The few parents we have feel like pariahs for existing, with nowhere to go. Heck, even McDonald’s went from bright, chaotic kid heaven to grey corporate plastic hell. Uncomfortable seats, no fun, quick turnover, all inside your "happy meal". Family pub meals or restaurant nights which were once a weekly tradition are now rare due to sheer cost and time poverty. Children are no longer seen as a natural part of your life cycle and a societal duty. They're not even seen as a fashionable accessory - not that this was healthy either. They've been relegated to impositions that inconvenience lives of others, with parents treated as pariahs should their child be anything but silent and obedient. Don't get me started on the push of women into education since the 70s and how 2/3rds of students are now women. All graduating into pointless make-believe office work that brings them no satisfaction like a family would. No wonder female anti-depressant usage is at a record high. This anti-family programming runs deep in every part of our culture, media and society. The good news is that we CAN undo it. We can give social reward to native women who have kids. They crave attention and recognition. Use that. Make society child-friendly again too. Tax breaks for businesses that meet these criteria. Use incentive structures. We need to signal that we're a society that invests in its next generation. We can flip the script faster than it took to build the current one. It's all so simple - it's hard wired into us. It's as simple as getting women to interact with children:
0:38

Trillions have been spent on anti-natal propaganda and ensuring women have fewer interactions with babies. Specifically in White countries. Playgrounds gutted post-COVID, overrun by addicts in US cities or boat migrants in Britain. The few parents we have feel like pariahs for existing, with nowhere to go. Heck, even McDonald’s went from bright, chaotic kid heaven to grey corporate plastic hell. Uncomfortable seats, no fun, quick turnover, all inside your "happy meal". Family pub meals or restaurant nights which were once a weekly tradition are now rare due to sheer cost and time poverty. Children are no longer seen as a natural part of your life cycle and a societal duty. They're not even seen as a fashionable accessory - not that this was healthy either. They've been relegated to impositions that inconvenience lives of others, with parents treated as pariahs should their child be anything but silent and obedient. Don't get me started on the push of women into education since the 70s and how 2/3rds of students are now women. All graduating into pointless make-believe office work that brings them no satisfaction like a family would. No wonder female anti-depressant usage is at a record high. This anti-family programming runs deep in every part of our culture, media and society. The good news is that we CAN undo it. We can give social reward to native women who have kids. They crave attention and recognition. Use that. Make society child-friendly again too. Tax breaks for businesses that meet these criteria. Use incentive structures. We need to signal that we're a society that invests in its next generation. We can flip the script faster than it took to build the current one. It's all so simple - it's hard wired into us. It's as simple as getting women to interact with children:

Russian Garbage Human

36,038 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Team in Jingdezhen On December 8th, a special policy briefing was held in the lecture hall at Taoxichuan, Jingdezhen. Ditching rigid jargon for laughter and cheer, the organizers turned the classroom into a theater. Police officers from the Zhushan branch of the Jingdezhen Public Security Bureau, joined forces with Read Philip Lenard and Michael May, members of a volunteer team comprising international artists living in Jingdezhen, Jiangxi province, to vividly interpret a series of practical policies for living and working in Jiangxi through a situational play, which was attended by more than 30 foreign artists. This event serves as a vivid microcosm of how the Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Service Team in Jingdezhen promotes cross-cultural integration and supports grassroots social governance. Launched on July 16, 2025, by the Zhushan branch of the Jingdezhen Public Security Bureau, the Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Service Team is the first foreign volunteer team in Jiangxi Province. Its 11 members come from 9 different countries. Leveraging the "Zhushan Police-Citizen Service Platform" in daily operations, the team assists police officers in a wide range of areas including entry reception, policy consultation, language support, and integrate into society. So far, they have organized 9 special service activities, provided policy consultation and translation support to 150 individuals, and served over 500 individuals. In this millennium-old porcelain capital of Jingdezhen, they have evolved from art seekers to cultural envoys, and further to participants in urban governance. "I’ve been living in Jingdezhen for over 30 years; this is my hometown." says Philip, a Canadian who leads the volunteer team, with immense pride. While dedicated to his artistic creations, Philip has also been sharing snippets of his life in Jingdezhen on RedNote (Xiaohongshu), showcasing the city’s beauty through his lens and becoming deeply familiar with every inch of its landscapes. This has laid a solid foundation for him to take the lead in this voluntary initiative. In recent years, he has taken the initiative to provide various life assistance to newly arrived foreign artists, from advising on visa extensions to guiding them around the porcelain capital. With sincerity and enthusiasm, he has built a bridge of trust, encouraging more foreign "Jing drifter"to shift from being onlookers to co-builders of the city. This cross-cultural empathy and connection is the most invaluable asset of the Foreign "Jing drifter" Volunteer Service Team. Michael May, another volunteer, can relate deeply to this sentiment. When he first arrived in Jingdezhen, he was once at a loss over visa-related issues. However, with the patient and meticulous assistance of police officer Li Yuchen from the Zhushan branch of the Jingdezhen Public Security Bureau, his problems were resolved satisfactorily. Upon learning about the establishment of the Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Service Team, Michael signed up without hesitation, eager to use his own experience to help others in similar situations. "Foreign artists often feel anxious when they first come to Jingdezhen due to language barriers and unfamiliarity with local policies. Having gone through the same challenges ourselves, we understand their needs better than anyone else." Michael says, echoing the shared aspiration of all team members. Drawing on their firsthand experience, the volunteers interpret policies and guide procedures for newly arrived foreign artists, effectively bridging cultural gaps. For instance, Indian artist Vijay Kumar successfully extended his 30 day short-term visa to 90 days with the team’s assistance. "The services here are incredibly convenient and friendly. They allow me to focus wholeheartedly on my creations." Vijay remarks happily. This convenient and efficient service experience is far from unique, it is evolving into a unique urban appeal of Jingdezhen. Anastasiya Huminskaya , a Belarusian artist who has taught in Hubei for many years, has also formed a deep impression of the city’s inclusiveness and thoughtfulness after hearing the firsthand experiences of many foreign friends. Having lived in China for 14 years, Anastasiya is no stranger to visa applications for work purposes and is well aware of policy differences across Chinese cities. "In other cities, the entire visa application process can take up to three months and requires a mountain of documents. But in Jingdezhen, with the help of the volunteer team, visa processing is fast and straightforward. I’ve never heard of any foreigner facing difficulties here." she says. This convenience has motivated her to recommend Jingdezhen to friends and family back home: "This is an ideal place for artistic creation, and many outstanding artists have chosen to come here for exactly this reason." "My soul is deeply imprinted with Chinese culture, my compatriots even call me a ‘China hand’." she says. The years of living in China have given her a profound understanding of Chinese culture, which she has seamlessly integrated into her artistic works. She particularly enjoys incorporating elements of traditional Chinese hairstyles and martial arts dance into her creations. The figures in her works, dressed in traditional Chinese attire and practicing martial arts, serve as a unique medium for her cross-cultural expression. These artworks have been exhibited in Belarus and other countries, earning widespread acclaim. "People love these pieces because they embody my unique experiences in China, offering them a more authentic and multi-dimensional glimpse of the country." Anastasiya explains. In the context of globalization, the level of integration of foreign residents is a key indicator of a city’s openness and governance capacity. The Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Service Team is not only policy interpreters and cultural communicators, but also mediators of potential conflicts. With their diverse perspectives, they inject vitality into social governance, effectively mitigating risks arising from cultural differences among foreign residents. Their efforts not only allow foreigners to deeply feel the warmth of Chinese society, but also demonstrate to the world China’s inclusive approach to advancing the modernization of national governance. #Jingdezhen #CulturalExchange #Volunteer #ChinaTravel 薛剑XueJian Zhang Zhisheng 张志昇 XUESONGPAN@CANADA Zhang Heqing Consulat général de Chine à Strasbourg Ribiao Chen
3:31

Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Team in Jingdezhen On December 8th, a special policy briefing was held in the lecture hall at Taoxichuan, Jingdezhen. Ditching rigid jargon for laughter and cheer, the organizers turned the classroom into a theater. Police officers from the Zhushan branch of the Jingdezhen Public Security Bureau, joined forces with Read Philip Lenard and Michael May, members of a volunteer team comprising international artists living in Jingdezhen, Jiangxi province, to vividly interpret a series of practical policies for living and working in Jiangxi through a situational play, which was attended by more than 30 foreign artists. This event serves as a vivid microcosm of how the Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Service Team in Jingdezhen promotes cross-cultural integration and supports grassroots social governance. Launched on July 16, 2025, by the Zhushan branch of the Jingdezhen Public Security Bureau, the Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Service Team is the first foreign volunteer team in Jiangxi Province. Its 11 members come from 9 different countries. Leveraging the "Zhushan Police-Citizen Service Platform" in daily operations, the team assists police officers in a wide range of areas including entry reception, policy consultation, language support, and integrate into society. So far, they have organized 9 special service activities, provided policy consultation and translation support to 150 individuals, and served over 500 individuals. In this millennium-old porcelain capital of Jingdezhen, they have evolved from art seekers to cultural envoys, and further to participants in urban governance. "I’ve been living in Jingdezhen for over 30 years; this is my hometown." says Philip, a Canadian who leads the volunteer team, with immense pride. While dedicated to his artistic creations, Philip has also been sharing snippets of his life in Jingdezhen on RedNote (Xiaohongshu), showcasing the city’s beauty through his lens and becoming deeply familiar with every inch of its landscapes. This has laid a solid foundation for him to take the lead in this voluntary initiative. In recent years, he has taken the initiative to provide various life assistance to newly arrived foreign artists, from advising on visa extensions to guiding them around the porcelain capital. With sincerity and enthusiasm, he has built a bridge of trust, encouraging more foreign "Jing drifter"to shift from being onlookers to co-builders of the city. This cross-cultural empathy and connection is the most invaluable asset of the Foreign "Jing drifter" Volunteer Service Team. Michael May, another volunteer, can relate deeply to this sentiment. When he first arrived in Jingdezhen, he was once at a loss over visa-related issues. However, with the patient and meticulous assistance of police officer Li Yuchen from the Zhushan branch of the Jingdezhen Public Security Bureau, his problems were resolved satisfactorily. Upon learning about the establishment of the Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Service Team, Michael signed up without hesitation, eager to use his own experience to help others in similar situations. "Foreign artists often feel anxious when they first come to Jingdezhen due to language barriers and unfamiliarity with local policies. Having gone through the same challenges ourselves, we understand their needs better than anyone else." Michael says, echoing the shared aspiration of all team members. Drawing on their firsthand experience, the volunteers interpret policies and guide procedures for newly arrived foreign artists, effectively bridging cultural gaps. For instance, Indian artist Vijay Kumar successfully extended his 30 day short-term visa to 90 days with the team’s assistance. "The services here are incredibly convenient and friendly. They allow me to focus wholeheartedly on my creations." Vijay remarks happily. This convenient and efficient service experience is far from unique, it is evolving into a unique urban appeal of Jingdezhen. Anastasiya Huminskaya , a Belarusian artist who has taught in Hubei for many years, has also formed a deep impression of the city’s inclusiveness and thoughtfulness after hearing the firsthand experiences of many foreign friends. Having lived in China for 14 years, Anastasiya is no stranger to visa applications for work purposes and is well aware of policy differences across Chinese cities. "In other cities, the entire visa application process can take up to three months and requires a mountain of documents. But in Jingdezhen, with the help of the volunteer team, visa processing is fast and straightforward. I’ve never heard of any foreigner facing difficulties here." she says. This convenience has motivated her to recommend Jingdezhen to friends and family back home: "This is an ideal place for artistic creation, and many outstanding artists have chosen to come here for exactly this reason." "My soul is deeply imprinted with Chinese culture, my compatriots even call me a ‘China hand’." she says. The years of living in China have given her a profound understanding of Chinese culture, which she has seamlessly integrated into her artistic works. She particularly enjoys incorporating elements of traditional Chinese hairstyles and martial arts dance into her creations. The figures in her works, dressed in traditional Chinese attire and practicing martial arts, serve as a unique medium for her cross-cultural expression. These artworks have been exhibited in Belarus and other countries, earning widespread acclaim. "People love these pieces because they embody my unique experiences in China, offering them a more authentic and multi-dimensional glimpse of the country." Anastasiya explains. In the context of globalization, the level of integration of foreign residents is a key indicator of a city’s openness and governance capacity. The Foreign "Jing Drifter" Volunteer Service Team is not only policy interpreters and cultural communicators, but also mediators of potential conflicts. With their diverse perspectives, they inject vitality into social governance, effectively mitigating risks arising from cultural differences among foreign residents. Their efforts not only allow foreigners to deeply feel the warmth of Chinese society, but also demonstrate to the world China’s inclusive approach to advancing the modernization of national governance. #Jingdezhen #CulturalExchange #Volunteer #ChinaTravel 薛剑XueJian Zhang Zhisheng 张志昇 XUESONGPAN@CANADA Zhang Heqing Consulat général de Chine à Strasbourg Ribiao Chen

Meet Jiangxi

112,564 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Must watch interview. Ed Davey calls for a customs union with the EU to grow the UK economy And Laura Kuenssberg ends up making the case for why the UK should be in a customs union with the EU, without realising it 🤷‍♂️ LK, "Why should we have a long negotiation to go into a customs union?" ED, "People are worried about the cost of living.. And economic growth to fund e.g. the NHS" "If we have a UK-EU customs union we can grow faster than anything Rachel Reeves and Labour are saying at the moment" LK, "Who has the appetite for a long negotiation" ED, "It could be done quickly.. There would be negotiation but it wouldn't be like what we saw before.. And the benefits would come quickly" "A Youth mobility scheme.. To travel work and live across Europe, that would be good for our economy" LK, "EU proposal has no limits" ED, "We should go for a capped scheme.. Korea, Japan, Australia, they're capped schemes.. Two or three year visas" LK, "Conservative leaders found the EU wasn't open limits of migration" ED, "Conservatives leaders sold Britain out" LK, "There might be benefits to a customs union but the UK would have to follow rules of EU countries.. We would be a rule taker not a rule maker" ED, "We're already a rule taker.. Bottles with tops that have to be recycled.. That was an EU regulation, we have no voice whatsoever.. But UK based manufacturers are applying that regulation" LK, "They're choosing to so they can sell into the Eurozone" ED, "You make my point for me, they take those rules for they can market, export and grow - presumably we want to do that don't we?" LK, "European growth.. UK growth is 1%.. EU average is 1%.. Your suggestion that if we work with those countries we'd grow more, that doesn't stack up does it?" ED, "It shows Europe would be keen for a UK-EU customs union" LK, "In some countries their growth is worse than ours, in others its the same" ED, "With respect, you've shown some countries where it's worse than ours but you haven't shown EU countries where growth is better than ours" "My argument is trade deals are mutually beneficial" "Even if economies aren't growing at the moment, there's more reason we should have a trade deal" "You're playing into my own argument that a UK-EU customs union would help us, and it would be relatively easy to get" LK, "Where is your evidence the EU would want this?" ED, "My challenge to Keir Starmer is to open negotiations.. Latest by 2030 we have a full UK-EU customs union" LK, "Is this the first step for the LibDems getting us back into the EU?" ED, "Yes, we are pro European, we should be back at the heart of Europe"
9:14

Must watch interview. Ed Davey calls for a customs union with the EU to grow the UK economy And Laura Kuenssberg ends up making the case for why the UK should be in a customs union with the EU, without realising it 🤷‍♂️ LK, "Why should we have a long negotiation to go into a customs union?" ED, "People are worried about the cost of living.. And economic growth to fund e.g. the NHS" "If we have a UK-EU customs union we can grow faster than anything Rachel Reeves and Labour are saying at the moment" LK, "Who has the appetite for a long negotiation" ED, "It could be done quickly.. There would be negotiation but it wouldn't be like what we saw before.. And the benefits would come quickly" "A Youth mobility scheme.. To travel work and live across Europe, that would be good for our economy" LK, "EU proposal has no limits" ED, "We should go for a capped scheme.. Korea, Japan, Australia, they're capped schemes.. Two or three year visas" LK, "Conservative leaders found the EU wasn't open limits of migration" ED, "Conservatives leaders sold Britain out" LK, "There might be benefits to a customs union but the UK would have to follow rules of EU countries.. We would be a rule taker not a rule maker" ED, "We're already a rule taker.. Bottles with tops that have to be recycled.. That was an EU regulation, we have no voice whatsoever.. But UK based manufacturers are applying that regulation" LK, "They're choosing to so they can sell into the Eurozone" ED, "You make my point for me, they take those rules for they can market, export and grow - presumably we want to do that don't we?" LK, "European growth.. UK growth is 1%.. EU average is 1%.. Your suggestion that if we work with those countries we'd grow more, that doesn't stack up does it?" ED, "It shows Europe would be keen for a UK-EU customs union" LK, "In some countries their growth is worse than ours, in others its the same" ED, "With respect, you've shown some countries where it's worse than ours but you haven't shown EU countries where growth is better than ours" "My argument is trade deals are mutually beneficial" "Even if economies aren't growing at the moment, there's more reason we should have a trade deal" "You're playing into my own argument that a UK-EU customs union would help us, and it would be relatively easy to get" LK, "Where is your evidence the EU would want this?" ED, "My challenge to Keir Starmer is to open negotiations.. Latest by 2030 we have a full UK-EU customs union" LK, "Is this the first step for the LibDems getting us back into the EU?" ED, "Yes, we are pro European, we should be back at the heart of Europe"

Farrukh

77,320 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This PERFECTLY explains the Capitalism vs Socialism argument for America “So now, Colombia rejected a socialist. Peru rejected a socialist. El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina all rejected Marxist or socialist leadership. And Venezuela was destroyed by socialism. Latin Americans are rejecting socialism after having tried it. So why are Americans accepting socialism, having never tried it? Well, partially because most Americans don't know what socialism is It's not healthcare for all or affordable housing. Socialism isn't a synonym for all the things I want, but I'm not getting in my capitalist country. It's not a vibe. It's an economic system characterized by collective or governmental ownership of the means of production. Means of production meaning infrastructure used to produce goods and services like factories, farms, and companies. Capitalism also isn't a vibe. It's not billionaires and corporations controlling politics. It's not a synonym for all the things I hate about my country. It's an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, AKA the means of production. Now, just like Mac versus Windows, there are different versions of capitalism and socialism. Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are less capitalistic than America, but they are still capitalist. Although they have a few exceptions to the rule, private companies own the means of production, not the government in those countries. Now, you might like certain programs that socialism promises, like universal healthcare, but those programs aren't tied to a specific operating system. You can run Photoshop on Mac or Windows, just like you can have universal healthcare in socialism or capitalism. But it seems we as a people keep getting more confused about what socialism is. In 1949, 34% of Americans correctly identified socialism as government ownership of the economy. By 2018, only 17% did, and I suspect it's even worse now. American politicians are confused, too. In 2015, Denmark's prime minister had to correct Bernie Sanders and say, "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." Zoran Mamdani is a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism is a version of socialism. Now, you could argue that socialism just hasn't been done right yet. And when every socialist experiment at the national level in the 20th century failed, and every experiment in the 21st century is failing, maybe the problem isn't that socialism hasn't worked in practice, it, that it almost certainly can't work in principle. And maybe the assertion that this time will be different isn't optimism, it's actually just unfalsifiability, where a theory cannot ever be contradicted by actual evidence. We have bugs in this version of capitalism that need to be fixed, principally that there is too much money in politics, that billions of dollars speak louder than millions of voices. And you know what? The socialists might create healthy pressure to fix those bugs. That's good, but that's different than changing the whole operating system. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Because when there's never been a successful socialist country in history, and the countries who have actually experimented with it are abandoning it, the results start to speak for themselves. And lately, they're speaking Spanish.” And just so we’re crystal clear, here are the stated goals of the Democratic Socialists of America in America - Abolish the US Senate - Replace the Presidency and Supreme Court - Abolish the Electoral College • Abolish police and the prison system • Abolish ICE, grant amnesty to all immigrants and end visa restrictions • Public ownership of the largest corporations - Defund the US military - End economic sanctions on Iran - Government owned social housing
5:41

This PERFECTLY explains the Capitalism vs Socialism argument for America “So now, Colombia rejected a socialist. Peru rejected a socialist. El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina all rejected Marxist or socialist leadership. And Venezuela was destroyed by socialism. Latin Americans are rejecting socialism after having tried it. So why are Americans accepting socialism, having never tried it? Well, partially because most Americans don't know what socialism is It's not healthcare for all or affordable housing. Socialism isn't a synonym for all the things I want, but I'm not getting in my capitalist country. It's not a vibe. It's an economic system characterized by collective or governmental ownership of the means of production. Means of production meaning infrastructure used to produce goods and services like factories, farms, and companies. Capitalism also isn't a vibe. It's not billionaires and corporations controlling politics. It's not a synonym for all the things I hate about my country. It's an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, AKA the means of production. Now, just like Mac versus Windows, there are different versions of capitalism and socialism. Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are less capitalistic than America, but they are still capitalist. Although they have a few exceptions to the rule, private companies own the means of production, not the government in those countries. Now, you might like certain programs that socialism promises, like universal healthcare, but those programs aren't tied to a specific operating system. You can run Photoshop on Mac or Windows, just like you can have universal healthcare in socialism or capitalism. But it seems we as a people keep getting more confused about what socialism is. In 1949, 34% of Americans correctly identified socialism as government ownership of the economy. By 2018, only 17% did, and I suspect it's even worse now. American politicians are confused, too. In 2015, Denmark's prime minister had to correct Bernie Sanders and say, "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." Zoran Mamdani is a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism is a version of socialism. Now, you could argue that socialism just hasn't been done right yet. And when every socialist experiment at the national level in the 20th century failed, and every experiment in the 21st century is failing, maybe the problem isn't that socialism hasn't worked in practice, it, that it almost certainly can't work in principle. And maybe the assertion that this time will be different isn't optimism, it's actually just unfalsifiability, where a theory cannot ever be contradicted by actual evidence. We have bugs in this version of capitalism that need to be fixed, principally that there is too much money in politics, that billions of dollars speak louder than millions of voices. And you know what? The socialists might create healthy pressure to fix those bugs. That's good, but that's different than changing the whole operating system. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Because when there's never been a successful socialist country in history, and the countries who have actually experimented with it are abandoning it, the results start to speak for themselves. And lately, they're speaking Spanish.” And just so we’re crystal clear, here are the stated goals of the Democratic Socialists of America in America - Abolish the US Senate - Replace the Presidency and Supreme Court - Abolish the Electoral College • Abolish police and the prison system • Abolish ICE, grant amnesty to all immigrants and end visa restrictions • Public ownership of the largest corporations - Defund the US military - End economic sanctions on Iran - Government owned social housing

Wall Street Apes

132,065 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I have received several questions from people asking about visiting & investing in Cape Verde. Yes, Cape Verde is absolutely visa free for Nigerians. you only need a flight & hotel. You just need to pre register online for €30 around ₦50,000 before you travel. I will add the link below in the thread. You can also register at the airport with the immigration authorities and show your return ticket. In terms of accommodation, it is quite expensive. Decent Hotels can be up to €50 to €100 (₦160k) per night in the capital city Praia. There are very fancy restaurants as well as local Nigerian restaurants in the Sucupira area where you can find delicious Egusi & Okro. Except you are visiting from Switzerland, Cape Verde will give you one of the best vacations of your life due to the beauty and peaceful nature of the islands. I highly recommend renting a car and traveling to explore the islands 🌳🏔️. However, please note that Cape Verde can be very frustrating if you don’t speak Portuguese or their Kriolu dialect as almost nobody speaks English there. Even their supermarkets struggle with English. So for those who are going wife hunting, make sure your Portuguese is C1 level otherwise you are only going there to stare & come back to your Chioma & Zainabu 😮‍💨. As a woman, make sure your man does not visit Cape Verde without you oo. Toorh. 😂 It’s also good to note that Cape Verde is not a typical African vacation, it is very expensive, so be very ready to spend like you are on vacation in Europe. As for investors willing to buy properties, I have met foreigners who own a house over there and the procedure is quite easy as the country is very investor friendly, I can give you more information if needed. Finally, If you need a cheap and affordable hotel, we have a cozy AirBnB in the capital Praia for €50 per night (+- ₦78,000) . I will add the video to this thread and you can contact me for booking and probably discount whenever you are visiting. More rooms will be made available in the future. Cape Verde is one of the best countries I have ever visited. A proper retirement home. I hope to buy lands & build houses here. Cape Verde is the future 🇨🇻🫶🏽
0:33

I have received several questions from people asking about visiting & investing in Cape Verde. Yes, Cape Verde is absolutely visa free for Nigerians. you only need a flight & hotel. You just need to pre register online for €30 around ₦50,000 before you travel. I will add the link below in the thread. You can also register at the airport with the immigration authorities and show your return ticket. In terms of accommodation, it is quite expensive. Decent Hotels can be up to €50 to €100 (₦160k) per night in the capital city Praia. There are very fancy restaurants as well as local Nigerian restaurants in the Sucupira area where you can find delicious Egusi & Okro. Except you are visiting from Switzerland, Cape Verde will give you one of the best vacations of your life due to the beauty and peaceful nature of the islands. I highly recommend renting a car and traveling to explore the islands 🌳🏔️. However, please note that Cape Verde can be very frustrating if you don’t speak Portuguese or their Kriolu dialect as almost nobody speaks English there. Even their supermarkets struggle with English. So for those who are going wife hunting, make sure your Portuguese is C1 level otherwise you are only going there to stare & come back to your Chioma & Zainabu 😮‍💨. As a woman, make sure your man does not visit Cape Verde without you oo. Toorh. 😂 It’s also good to note that Cape Verde is not a typical African vacation, it is very expensive, so be very ready to spend like you are on vacation in Europe. As for investors willing to buy properties, I have met foreigners who own a house over there and the procedure is quite easy as the country is very investor friendly, I can give you more information if needed. Finally, If you need a cheap and affordable hotel, we have a cozy AirBnB in the capital Praia for €50 per night (+- ₦78,000) . I will add the video to this thread and you can contact me for booking and probably discount whenever you are visiting. More rooms will be made available in the future. Cape Verde is one of the best countries I have ever visited. A proper retirement home. I hope to buy lands & build houses here. Cape Verde is the future 🇨🇻🫶🏽

Abdool Moh.

148,473 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I've migrated the old Mast3r-SLAM example I had made last year to the latest version of Rerun and made a bunch of improvements! I wanted to spend some time with agents to modernize it. Here's an example of me walking around with my iPhone and getting a dense reconstruction at about 10FPS on a 5090. Heres the following improvements I made. Brought it into the monorepo with proper packaging: • Using prefix.dev pixi-build to get rid of all the mast3r/asmk/lietorch vendored code with just a few small patches. This let me remove so 60k lines of code from the repo! • Don't have to build the lietorch code on my machine anymore, which was taking ~10 minutes to compile (and also made it work on blackwell when it previously did not) Rebuilt the Gradio interface: • Fixed incremental updates, .MOV uploads, and stop behavior • Made the CLI + Gradio interface share the same entry point so updates automatically propagate Upgraded the Rerun integration: • Switched to a multiprocessing async logging strategy • Added video/pointmap/confidence logging • Improved blueprint layout and hid noisy entities from 3D view • Biggest perf win was the async background logger - documented about a ~2.5x speedup from decoupling logging from tracking The newest and most interesting part was my attempt to replace the CUDA kernels for Gauss-Newton ray matching with a Modular Mojo backend. As a Python dev, every time I look at CUDA code I basically shy away as it's pretty difficult for me to understand. Mojo let me rewrite the matching logic in a syntax I'm more comfortable with while still getting near-CUDA performance. Mojo is now the default matching backend with CUDA fallback. One major piece that's missing is the custom PyTorch op path, but I'll eventually do that as well. I heavily leaned on Claude Code to do the CUDA → Mojo migration, and I have no doubt it's not the cleanest or most idiomatic, BUT it's way more readable for me and helps me better understand the underlying algorithm. This was a ton of work, and a large part of why I'm doing it is how the monorepo compounds. This becomes an artifact for the next example I want to build with Claude that I can point to, which will make it even faster to implement. The compounding nature of this is really interesting and part of why I'm spending so much time trying to make things nice and readable.
0:21

I've migrated the old Mast3r-SLAM example I had made last year to the latest version of Rerun and made a bunch of improvements! I wanted to spend some time with agents to modernize it. Here's an example of me walking around with my iPhone and getting a dense reconstruction at about 10FPS on a 5090. Heres the following improvements I made. Brought it into the monorepo with proper packaging: • Using prefix.dev pixi-build to get rid of all the mast3r/asmk/lietorch vendored code with just a few small patches. This let me remove so 60k lines of code from the repo! • Don't have to build the lietorch code on my machine anymore, which was taking ~10 minutes to compile (and also made it work on blackwell when it previously did not) Rebuilt the Gradio interface: • Fixed incremental updates, .MOV uploads, and stop behavior • Made the CLI + Gradio interface share the same entry point so updates automatically propagate Upgraded the Rerun integration: • Switched to a multiprocessing async logging strategy • Added video/pointmap/confidence logging • Improved blueprint layout and hid noisy entities from 3D view • Biggest perf win was the async background logger - documented about a ~2.5x speedup from decoupling logging from tracking The newest and most interesting part was my attempt to replace the CUDA kernels for Gauss-Newton ray matching with a Modular Mojo backend. As a Python dev, every time I look at CUDA code I basically shy away as it's pretty difficult for me to understand. Mojo let me rewrite the matching logic in a syntax I'm more comfortable with while still getting near-CUDA performance. Mojo is now the default matching backend with CUDA fallback. One major piece that's missing is the custom PyTorch op path, but I'll eventually do that as well. I heavily leaned on Claude Code to do the CUDA → Mojo migration, and I have no doubt it's not the cleanest or most idiomatic, BUT it's way more readable for me and helps me better understand the underlying algorithm. This was a ton of work, and a large part of why I'm doing it is how the monorepo compounds. This becomes an artifact for the next example I want to build with Claude that I can point to, which will make it even faster to implement. The compounding nature of this is really interesting and part of why I'm spending so much time trying to make things nice and readable.

Pablo Vela

42,674 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The CIA's Covert Networks and The Asia Foundation Blueprint Funding FRAUD, Color Revolutions, and Election Meddling Worldwide. The cover-up became the model. Launder intel ops through "independent" NGOs, slap on USAID labels, and deny everything. A declassified State Department bombshell from 1967 uncovered the CIA's covert creation and funding of the Asia Foundation (TAF) as a front for psychological operations in Asia. What starts as a Cold War relic quickly morphs into a blueprint for today's global regime-change playbook—funneling billions through USAID, Soros-linked NGOs like Open Society Foundations (OSF), and election manipulators like A-WEB. This isn't ancient history; it's the machinery behind "color revolutions" that have toppled governments in over 100 countries, from Serbia to Sudan, and now threatens elections at home in the U.S. Buckle up—this thread exposes the entire web. The CIA's original sin was birthing the Asia Foundation as a covert weapon. Flash back to 1954. Amid the Red Scare, the CIA spins up the Committee for a Free Asia (later rebranded TAF) as a "proprietary"—a fake NGO to wage cultural and educational warfare against communism in Asia. Declassified docs from the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series reveal TAF's mission: "undertake cultural and educational activities on behalf of the U.S. Government in ways not open to official U.S. agencies." It funneled millions covertly to intellectuals, media, and unions, building anti-communist networks under the guise of philanthropy. By 1966, investigative mag Ramparts sniffed out the CIA ties, sparking panic in D.C. A frantic CIA memo to the 303 Committee (the agency's covert ops overseers) admits TAF's "total dependence upon covert funding support" and begs for a bailout to avoid "embarrass[ing] the Administration and U.S. national interests at home and abroad." Enter the Katzenbach Committee, LBJ's fix was to "terminate" CIA cash and pivot to overt funding via USAID and State Department grants. TAF's trustees issued a "carefully limited statement" admitting past ties but vowing to soldier on as a "private institution" with U.S. government backing. TAF funded the East-West Center, where Barack Obama's parents met—tying this op to modern U.S. elite networks. But the real genius? The cover-up became the model. Launder intelligence operations through "independent" NGOs, slap on USAID labels, turn your head and deny everything. USAID became the laundromat for regime-change dollars. Fast-forward to today. TAF's no dusty relic—it's a USAID cash cow, raking in $17.3 million in FY2024 alone for "democracy-building" in Asia. Programs? "Capacity building" for unions, media, judiciary, and civil society in hotspots like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and China. TAF's own site boasts alignment with "U.S. foreign policy priorities," from "improving governance" (i.e., installing friendly judges) to fostering "vibrant civil society" (i.e., training protesters). USAID's role? It's the Trojan horse. Post-1967, Congress codified TAF funding via the Asia Foundation Act, declaring it "advantageous to U.S. relations with Asia." Today, USAID pours billions into 100+ countries, including Australia, South Korea, Canada, the Congo, Brazil, South Africa, and dozens more, for "democracy assistance"—code for grooming opposition, funding election monitors, and scripting narratives. In Indonesia alone, TAF's USAID-backed ERAT program (2021-2025) targets 30 districts for "subnational governance," training local assets to push U.S.-aligned reforms. Critics call it "regime change laundering," black-budget CIA ops rebranded as "aid." Soros's Open Society is like the billionaire enforcer behind the scenes. Enter George Soros and OSF, the $18B+ juggernaut bankrolling "open societies" since 1979. OSF denies direct USAID funding—"manifestly false," they say—but the trails lead straight back. Enter the East-West Management Institute (EWMI). A Soros partner that's slurped $270M in U.S. grants over 15 years, mostly USAID/State, for "judicial reform" and "civil society training" in Albania, Georgia, and beyond. OSF and TAF? Thick as thieves—joint studies on "higher education" and "anti-corruption," with OSF appointing ex-TAF staffers. OSF's Asia program head edited a site funded by TAF, NED, and OSF itself. Soros's fingerprints? All over "color revolutions"—nonviolent coups scripted by U.S. intel cutouts. Serbia's 2000 Bulldozer Revolution? OSF trained Otpor activists with NED/USAID cash. There are plenty of examples like Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution. $42M from OSF to "build democratic institutions." Ukraine's 2004 Orange and 2014 Maidan? Soros poured $100M+, admitting his foundation crafted post-Maidan strategies. Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, even Haiti's unrest—OSF's playbook: Fund media smears, youth mobs, and "election monitors" to delegitimize rulers. Putin nailed it, These aren't "people power"—they're Soros-fueled psyops to install pro-West puppets, collapsing economies for vulture capitalists like him. What many never talk about is A-WEB, the election rigging arm. The stealth player, A-WEB (Association of World Election Bodies), a Seoul-based outfit claiming to "promote democratic elections" in 100+ countries. Sounds benign? Dig deeper. A-WEB's funded via USAID/NED grants for "election training" and observation—mirroring TAF's "capacity building." In Georgia (pre-2003), A-WEB precursors trained "observers" who cried fraud, sparking the Rose Revolution. Fast-forward to A-WEB's in Ukraine, Bolivia, even U.S. swing states via partnerships with IFES (USAID-funded).Allegations? A-WEB's a "deep state" tool for interference. In 2020, Bolivian elections: A-WEB/OAS "observers" (Soros/USAID-backed) alleged fraud against Evo Morales—later debunked—paving his ouster. Domestically? A-WEB trains U.S. poll workers via USAID pipelines, accused of biasing toward Dems in 2020 mail-in ops. Judicial Watch is on the money claiming it's "exporting fraud": Train foreign "experts" to certify rigged votes, then import the tactics home. The global harvest is happening in 100+ countries. This is stolen sovereignty. This nexus—CIA blueprints → USAID laundromats → Soros enforcers → A-WEB fixers—has engineered "color revolutions" in 100+ nations since 2000. Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia (Arab Spring kickoff), Sudan (2019 ouster), even Bolivia and Myanmar. Pattern: Fund NGOs to train protesters, hack elections via "monitors," amplify via OSF media (e.g., Reporters Without Borders). Result? Pro-West regimes, resource grabs, chaos. In the U.S.? It's boomeranging. USAID/OSF cash flows to domestic NGOs like CTIA (Soros-funded) for "voter mobilization"—targeting urban/minority turnout that flipped 2020. A-WEB's U.S. ties? Training via USAID for "secure elections," but whistleblowers allege it greased mail-in fraud pipelines. Foreign echoes: Russia's Doppelganger op mimics this, but who's the OG? The Reckoning needs to happen, not just in the U.S., but around the world. We must dismantle the machine. What Mike Benz added to this isn't just history—it's a warning. This is what many having been saying for decades but nobody believed it. A shadow network steals elections not with just fake ballots, but with "democracy" as cover. Over $70B in U.S. "aid" yearly, much USAID-routed, props up 100+ puppets while eroding sovereignty. Trump and Musk are right. Defund USAID's Soros slush fund. Demand audits, expose cutouts, reclaim foreign policy for Americans. H/T: Mike Benz
20:37

The CIA's Covert Networks and The Asia Foundation Blueprint Funding FRAUD, Color Revolutions, and Election Meddling Worldwide. The cover-up became the model. Launder intel ops through "independent" NGOs, slap on USAID labels, and deny everything. A declassified State Department bombshell from 1967 uncovered the CIA's covert creation and funding of the Asia Foundation (TAF) as a front for psychological operations in Asia. What starts as a Cold War relic quickly morphs into a blueprint for today's global regime-change playbook—funneling billions through USAID, Soros-linked NGOs like Open Society Foundations (OSF), and election manipulators like A-WEB. This isn't ancient history; it's the machinery behind "color revolutions" that have toppled governments in over 100 countries, from Serbia to Sudan, and now threatens elections at home in the U.S. Buckle up—this thread exposes the entire web. The CIA's original sin was birthing the Asia Foundation as a covert weapon. Flash back to 1954. Amid the Red Scare, the CIA spins up the Committee for a Free Asia (later rebranded TAF) as a "proprietary"—a fake NGO to wage cultural and educational warfare against communism in Asia. Declassified docs from the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series reveal TAF's mission: "undertake cultural and educational activities on behalf of the U.S. Government in ways not open to official U.S. agencies." It funneled millions covertly to intellectuals, media, and unions, building anti-communist networks under the guise of philanthropy. By 1966, investigative mag Ramparts sniffed out the CIA ties, sparking panic in D.C. A frantic CIA memo to the 303 Committee (the agency's covert ops overseers) admits TAF's "total dependence upon covert funding support" and begs for a bailout to avoid "embarrass[ing] the Administration and U.S. national interests at home and abroad." Enter the Katzenbach Committee, LBJ's fix was to "terminate" CIA cash and pivot to overt funding via USAID and State Department grants. TAF's trustees issued a "carefully limited statement" admitting past ties but vowing to soldier on as a "private institution" with U.S. government backing. TAF funded the East-West Center, where Barack Obama's parents met—tying this op to modern U.S. elite networks. But the real genius? The cover-up became the model. Launder intelligence operations through "independent" NGOs, slap on USAID labels, turn your head and deny everything. USAID became the laundromat for regime-change dollars. Fast-forward to today. TAF's no dusty relic—it's a USAID cash cow, raking in $17.3 million in FY2024 alone for "democracy-building" in Asia. Programs? "Capacity building" for unions, media, judiciary, and civil society in hotspots like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and China. TAF's own site boasts alignment with "U.S. foreign policy priorities," from "improving governance" (i.e., installing friendly judges) to fostering "vibrant civil society" (i.e., training protesters). USAID's role? It's the Trojan horse. Post-1967, Congress codified TAF funding via the Asia Foundation Act, declaring it "advantageous to U.S. relations with Asia." Today, USAID pours billions into 100+ countries, including Australia, South Korea, Canada, the Congo, Brazil, South Africa, and dozens more, for "democracy assistance"—code for grooming opposition, funding election monitors, and scripting narratives. In Indonesia alone, TAF's USAID-backed ERAT program (2021-2025) targets 30 districts for "subnational governance," training local assets to push U.S.-aligned reforms. Critics call it "regime change laundering," black-budget CIA ops rebranded as "aid." Soros's Open Society is like the billionaire enforcer behind the scenes. Enter George Soros and OSF, the $18B+ juggernaut bankrolling "open societies" since 1979. OSF denies direct USAID funding—"manifestly false," they say—but the trails lead straight back. Enter the East-West Management Institute (EWMI). A Soros partner that's slurped $270M in U.S. grants over 15 years, mostly USAID/State, for "judicial reform" and "civil society training" in Albania, Georgia, and beyond. OSF and TAF? Thick as thieves—joint studies on "higher education" and "anti-corruption," with OSF appointing ex-TAF staffers. OSF's Asia program head edited a site funded by TAF, NED, and OSF itself. Soros's fingerprints? All over "color revolutions"—nonviolent coups scripted by U.S. intel cutouts. Serbia's 2000 Bulldozer Revolution? OSF trained Otpor activists with NED/USAID cash. There are plenty of examples like Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution. $42M from OSF to "build democratic institutions." Ukraine's 2004 Orange and 2014 Maidan? Soros poured $100M+, admitting his foundation crafted post-Maidan strategies. Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, even Haiti's unrest—OSF's playbook: Fund media smears, youth mobs, and "election monitors" to delegitimize rulers. Putin nailed it, These aren't "people power"—they're Soros-fueled psyops to install pro-West puppets, collapsing economies for vulture capitalists like him. What many never talk about is A-WEB, the election rigging arm. The stealth player, A-WEB (Association of World Election Bodies), a Seoul-based outfit claiming to "promote democratic elections" in 100+ countries. Sounds benign? Dig deeper. A-WEB's funded via USAID/NED grants for "election training" and observation—mirroring TAF's "capacity building." In Georgia (pre-2003), A-WEB precursors trained "observers" who cried fraud, sparking the Rose Revolution. Fast-forward to A-WEB's in Ukraine, Bolivia, even U.S. swing states via partnerships with IFES (USAID-funded).Allegations? A-WEB's a "deep state" tool for interference. In 2020, Bolivian elections: A-WEB/OAS "observers" (Soros/USAID-backed) alleged fraud against Evo Morales—later debunked—paving his ouster. Domestically? A-WEB trains U.S. poll workers via USAID pipelines, accused of biasing toward Dems in 2020 mail-in ops. Judicial Watch is on the money claiming it's "exporting fraud": Train foreign "experts" to certify rigged votes, then import the tactics home. The global harvest is happening in 100+ countries. This is stolen sovereignty. This nexus—CIA blueprints → USAID laundromats → Soros enforcers → A-WEB fixers—has engineered "color revolutions" in 100+ nations since 2000. Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia (Arab Spring kickoff), Sudan (2019 ouster), even Bolivia and Myanmar. Pattern: Fund NGOs to train protesters, hack elections via "monitors," amplify via OSF media (e.g., Reporters Without Borders). Result? Pro-West regimes, resource grabs, chaos. In the U.S.? It's boomeranging. USAID/OSF cash flows to domestic NGOs like CTIA (Soros-funded) for "voter mobilization"—targeting urban/minority turnout that flipped 2020. A-WEB's U.S. ties? Training via USAID for "secure elections," but whistleblowers allege it greased mail-in fraud pipelines. Foreign echoes: Russia's Doppelganger op mimics this, but who's the OG? The Reckoning needs to happen, not just in the U.S., but around the world. We must dismantle the machine. What Mike Benz added to this isn't just history—it's a warning. This is what many having been saying for decades but nobody believed it. A shadow network steals elections not with just fake ballots, but with "democracy" as cover. Over $70B in U.S. "aid" yearly, much USAID-routed, props up 100+ puppets while eroding sovereignty. Trump and Musk are right. Defund USAID's Soros slush fund. Demand audits, expose cutouts, reclaim foreign policy for Americans. H/T: Mike Benz

The SCIF

30,975 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

The world of writing has changed forever. AI is getting really good, really fast. ChatGPT is already a better writer than most humans and some professional writers. So, what’s the future of writing? 18 thoughts from Tyler Cowen: 1) Don't let AI smooth out your idiosyncrasies. Let your writing stay weird and uniquely yours. 2) Generic content is dying and the burden is on you as the writer to be distinctive. 3) The more personal your writing becomes, the more future-proof it is. Nobody wants to read memoirs from AI, even if they're technically "better." 4) Use AI as your secondary literature when you read — not just for quick answers, but as a thinking companion. As Tyler puts it, "I'll keep on asking the AI: 'What do you think of chapter two? What happened there? What are some puzzles?' It just gets me thinking... and I'm smarter about the thing in the final analysis." 5) Hallucinations aren't the crisis everyone makes them out to be. No matter the source, if you're going to use a piece of information, you should double-check it. This is true for both books and AI. 6) Secrets will become more valuable in an AI-driven world. 7) One way to use AI as a writer is to research fields you aren't as familiar with before you start writing about them. Tyler said: "I just wrote a column about declassifying classified documents. I don't know that law very well. I asked the AI for a lot of background... now I feel like I'm not an idiot on the topic." 8) AI changes what books are even worth writing. "Predictive books and books about the near future. They don't make sense to write anymore." 9) Editing trick: Try running your writing through AI and asking what some people might find obnoxious. It’s a surprisingly powerful editing trick. 10) When prompting AI, put humans out of your mind and imagine you're talking to an alien or a non-human animal. 11) Many of the most significant AI advancements are likely happening behind closed doors. For example, I hear that Google allows employees to use Gemini with virtually unlimited context windows. 12) What possibilities do large context windows open up? Researchers will be able to load entire regulatory frameworks, historical archives, or massive datasets like "tax records from Renaissance Florence" into a single query. 13) The rate of AI improvement matters more than its current capabilities. As Tyler puts it, "This is the worst they will ever be" is key to understanding their trajectory. "A lot of people don't get that. They're impressed by what they see in the moment, but they don't understand the rate of improvement." 14) The best way to appreciate the current rate of improvement is to use the latest models. 15) Being non-technical can sometimes be an advantage when thinking about AI. Here’s Tyler: "If you're not focused on the technical side, you will see other things more clearly... You just focus on what is this actually good for? And not, am I impressed by all the neat bells and whistles on this advance with AI?" 16) How Tyler uses AI to prep for podcast interviews: Don't waste time asking AI for generic interview questions or broad topics. Tyler says that's the worst question you can ask an AI. It’s “too normy.” Instead, ask specific questions about historical examples and get context. Then, let your own creative questions emerge. 17) Your relationship with mentors and peers becomes more crucial, not less, in an AI world. "Two pieces of general advice with or without AI in the world." Tyler says: "Get more and better mentors and work every day at improving the quality of your peer network." 18) The divide between AI and humans creates a striking paradox. As Tyler puts it: "On one hand the AIs are getting so much better, so learn how to use the AIs. On the other hand, the AIs are getting so much better, so invest in these other things that aren't AI—pure networks. You've gotta do both." I've shared the full conversation with tylercowen below. In the replies, I've also linked to a full transcript and relevant links to YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts if you want to listen there. And if you want a bite-size entry to the episode, I've shared some clips in the replies too.
1:09:02

The world of writing has changed forever. AI is getting really good, really fast. ChatGPT is already a better writer than most humans and some professional writers. So, what’s the future of writing? 18 thoughts from Tyler Cowen: 1) Don't let AI smooth out your idiosyncrasies. Let your writing stay weird and uniquely yours. 2) Generic content is dying and the burden is on you as the writer to be distinctive. 3) The more personal your writing becomes, the more future-proof it is. Nobody wants to read memoirs from AI, even if they're technically "better." 4) Use AI as your secondary literature when you read — not just for quick answers, but as a thinking companion. As Tyler puts it, "I'll keep on asking the AI: 'What do you think of chapter two? What happened there? What are some puzzles?' It just gets me thinking... and I'm smarter about the thing in the final analysis." 5) Hallucinations aren't the crisis everyone makes them out to be. No matter the source, if you're going to use a piece of information, you should double-check it. This is true for both books and AI. 6) Secrets will become more valuable in an AI-driven world. 7) One way to use AI as a writer is to research fields you aren't as familiar with before you start writing about them. Tyler said: "I just wrote a column about declassifying classified documents. I don't know that law very well. I asked the AI for a lot of background... now I feel like I'm not an idiot on the topic." 8) AI changes what books are even worth writing. "Predictive books and books about the near future. They don't make sense to write anymore." 9) Editing trick: Try running your writing through AI and asking what some people might find obnoxious. It’s a surprisingly powerful editing trick. 10) When prompting AI, put humans out of your mind and imagine you're talking to an alien or a non-human animal. 11) Many of the most significant AI advancements are likely happening behind closed doors. For example, I hear that Google allows employees to use Gemini with virtually unlimited context windows. 12) What possibilities do large context windows open up? Researchers will be able to load entire regulatory frameworks, historical archives, or massive datasets like "tax records from Renaissance Florence" into a single query. 13) The rate of AI improvement matters more than its current capabilities. As Tyler puts it, "This is the worst they will ever be" is key to understanding their trajectory. "A lot of people don't get that. They're impressed by what they see in the moment, but they don't understand the rate of improvement." 14) The best way to appreciate the current rate of improvement is to use the latest models. 15) Being non-technical can sometimes be an advantage when thinking about AI. Here’s Tyler: "If you're not focused on the technical side, you will see other things more clearly... You just focus on what is this actually good for? And not, am I impressed by all the neat bells and whistles on this advance with AI?" 16) How Tyler uses AI to prep for podcast interviews: Don't waste time asking AI for generic interview questions or broad topics. Tyler says that's the worst question you can ask an AI. It’s “too normy.” Instead, ask specific questions about historical examples and get context. Then, let your own creative questions emerge. 17) Your relationship with mentors and peers becomes more crucial, not less, in an AI world. "Two pieces of general advice with or without AI in the world." Tyler says: "Get more and better mentors and work every day at improving the quality of your peer network." 18) The divide between AI and humans creates a striking paradox. As Tyler puts it: "On one hand the AIs are getting so much better, so learn how to use the AIs. On the other hand, the AIs are getting so much better, so invest in these other things that aren't AI—pure networks. You've gotta do both." I've shared the full conversation with tylercowen below. In the replies, I've also linked to a full transcript and relevant links to YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts if you want to listen there. And if you want a bite-size entry to the episode, I've shared some clips in the replies too.

David Perell

175,200 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

.The Hill’s Julia Manchester: “You voiced your displeasure with NATO in the past. Is there a danger to the U.S. not being the de facto of the leader of the alliance and then other powers within the alliance then getting the decision making when it comes to wars and nuclear weapons?” Trump: “No, it’s not a danger. NATO’s — look, we went to NATO. I didn’t ask very strongly. I just said, ‘hey, if you want to help, great.’ ‘No, no, no, we will not help.’ I said, ‘that’s all right. You don’t want to help.’ Because I’ve always said NATO is a paper tiger. See, NATO’s a paper tiger. Putin’s not afraid of NATO. Putin’s afraid of us, very afraid of us. And he’s explained it to me a lot of times. I got to know him very well. I know him very well. NATO is a paper tiger. NATO is us. And when we needed them — we didn’t need them, by the way. We didn’t need them, obviously, because they haven’t helped at all. Just the opposite. They’ve actually gone out of their way not to help. They didn’t even want to give us landing strips. Think of it. And it’s not just NATO. You know who else didn’t help us? South Korea didn’t help us. You know who else didn’t help us? Australia didn’t help us. You know who else didn’t help us? Japan. We’ve got 50,000 soldiers in Japan to protect them from North Korea. We have 45,000 soldiers in South Korea to protect us from Kim Jong-un, who I get along with very well, as you know. Do you notice he said very nice things about me. He used to call Joe Biden a mentally retarded person, okay? So, don’t tell me about your stuff. Joe Biden — he said he’s a mentally retarded person. He was so nasty to Joe Biden. It was terrible. But to me, he likes Trump. And you notice how nice things are with North Korea. It’s very nice. But we have 45,000 people, soldiers in harm’s way and right next to Kim Jong-un with a lot of nuclear weapons, 45 — which should have never happened if a certain president — I’m not going to mention this President because I happen to like him, believe it or not — but if a certain President did his job, Kim Jong-un would not have nuclear weapons right now. But they’re all afraid to do their job properly. But just to conclude and just to finish, Japan didn’t help us, Australia didn’t help us, South Korea didn’t help us. And then you get to NATO, and NATO didn’t help us. There were some countries that did. Now countries that have been good. Now, you could also say there got to be a little bit more involved because they’re in the territory. But Saudi Arabia has been excellent. Qatar has been excellent. UAE has been excellent. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman. I mean, Kuwait did shoot down three of our planes. The only planes really that we lost with friendly fire, they call it. I call it unfriendly fire. They, unfortunately, didn’t know how to use our — our great patriots. The pilot said, what kind of missiles coming at us? Patriot. Boom. They got out because they know a Patriot never misses. So, they had beautiful Patriots. There were planes heading in their direction. Unfortunately, they decided to shoot those planes. They were our planes. So, no, NATO is a paper tiger now. He’s coming to see me on Wednesday. As you know, he’s a wonderful guy. Secretary General is great. And Mark Rutte — he’s a great person. But he’s got — and you know, it all began with if you want to know the truth? Greenland. We want Greenland. They don’t want to give it to us. And I said, ‘bye bye.’”
3:38

.The Hill’s Julia Manchester: “You voiced your displeasure with NATO in the past. Is there a danger to the U.S. not being the de facto of the leader of the alliance and then other powers within the alliance then getting the decision making when it comes to wars and nuclear weapons?” Trump: “No, it’s not a danger. NATO’s — look, we went to NATO. I didn’t ask very strongly. I just said, ‘hey, if you want to help, great.’ ‘No, no, no, we will not help.’ I said, ‘that’s all right. You don’t want to help.’ Because I’ve always said NATO is a paper tiger. See, NATO’s a paper tiger. Putin’s not afraid of NATO. Putin’s afraid of us, very afraid of us. And he’s explained it to me a lot of times. I got to know him very well. I know him very well. NATO is a paper tiger. NATO is us. And when we needed them — we didn’t need them, by the way. We didn’t need them, obviously, because they haven’t helped at all. Just the opposite. They’ve actually gone out of their way not to help. They didn’t even want to give us landing strips. Think of it. And it’s not just NATO. You know who else didn’t help us? South Korea didn’t help us. You know who else didn’t help us? Australia didn’t help us. You know who else didn’t help us? Japan. We’ve got 50,000 soldiers in Japan to protect them from North Korea. We have 45,000 soldiers in South Korea to protect us from Kim Jong-un, who I get along with very well, as you know. Do you notice he said very nice things about me. He used to call Joe Biden a mentally retarded person, okay? So, don’t tell me about your stuff. Joe Biden — he said he’s a mentally retarded person. He was so nasty to Joe Biden. It was terrible. But to me, he likes Trump. And you notice how nice things are with North Korea. It’s very nice. But we have 45,000 people, soldiers in harm’s way and right next to Kim Jong-un with a lot of nuclear weapons, 45 — which should have never happened if a certain president — I’m not going to mention this President because I happen to like him, believe it or not — but if a certain President did his job, Kim Jong-un would not have nuclear weapons right now. But they’re all afraid to do their job properly. But just to conclude and just to finish, Japan didn’t help us, Australia didn’t help us, South Korea didn’t help us. And then you get to NATO, and NATO didn’t help us. There were some countries that did. Now countries that have been good. Now, you could also say there got to be a little bit more involved because they’re in the territory. But Saudi Arabia has been excellent. Qatar has been excellent. UAE has been excellent. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman. I mean, Kuwait did shoot down three of our planes. The only planes really that we lost with friendly fire, they call it. I call it unfriendly fire. They, unfortunately, didn’t know how to use our — our great patriots. The pilot said, what kind of missiles coming at us? Patriot. Boom. They got out because they know a Patriot never misses. So, they had beautiful Patriots. There were planes heading in their direction. Unfortunately, they decided to shoot those planes. They were our planes. So, no, NATO is a paper tiger now. He’s coming to see me on Wednesday. As you know, he’s a wonderful guy. Secretary General is great. And Mark Rutte — he’s a great person. But he’s got — and you know, it all began with if you want to know the truth? Greenland. We want Greenland. They don’t want to give it to us. And I said, ‘bye bye.’”

Curtis Houck

151,552 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Elon Musk just told lenders he's paying back $17.5 BILLION in debt across X and xAI. Including $3 billion in high-yield bonds being redeemed early at 117 cents on the dollar. NOBODY knows where the money is coming from. And nobody seems to care. Let me explain why you should: Morgan Stanley has been calling existing lenders and telling them everything gets repaid in full. The X debt from the Twitter buyout. The xAI bonds from June. All of it. The bonds were structured to stay outstanding for at least 2 years. They're being called back less than a year later at a 17% premium. Bondholders are thrilled. Of course they are. They're getting paid above par on junk paper. But here's the part that should make you uncomfortable: xAI lost $1.46 billion in a single quarter last year. Burned through $7.8 billion in cash in the first 9 months of 2025. Revenue for the September quarter was $107 million. That's a company hemorrhaging roughly $1 billion a month. On a standalone basis, xAI exited 2025 at about a $500 million annualized revenue run rate. Even with optimistic projections, they might hit $2 billion in 2026. So where does $17.5 billion come from? xAI raised $20 billion in a Series E round in January. That's the most likely answer. Take the money investors gave you to build AI infrastructure and use a huge chunk of it to retire debt. But that's NOT a sign of strength. That's financial engineering. You raise $20 billion from investors who think they're funding the next frontier of artificial intelligence, then you turn around and use most of it to clean up the balance sheet before an IPO. Because that's what this is really about. SpaceX is targeting a confidential SEC filing as early as this month. IPO could come in June. Valuation targets exceed $1.75 trillion. The combined SpaceX-xAI entity currently carries about $18 billion in obligations. You can't take a $1.25 trillion company public with $18 billion in legacy debt from a money-losing AI startup and a social media platform that was acquired with leveraged buyout financing. So you nuke the debt. Clean the balance sheet. Present a simpler story to IPO investors. Smart? Absolutely. But let's be honest about what it actually is. SpaceX proper generated about $15 billion in revenue and $8 billion in profit in 2025. xAI generated roughly $250 million in six months and lost $2.5 billion doing it. At a $1.5 trillion IPO valuation, you're looking at roughly 94x trailing sales and 500x trailing earnings for the combined business. Those are not rational multiples. Those are lottery ticket multiples with better branding. And the $17.5 billion debt payoff doesn't change the underlying economics. It only changes the optics. xAI is still burning close to $1 billion a month. Grok still has a fraction of ChatGPT's market share. The revenue doesn't come close to justifying the infrastructure spend. What this reminds me of is the classic pre-IPO playbook taken to an extreme: Use private capital to dress up the financials, time the listing for maximum enthusiasm, and let public market investors hold the bag if execution falls short. The companies that need to clean house before going public are rarely the ones that reward you for buying on day one. My positioning hasn't changed. The AI infrastructure spending boom is real. But the returns aren't materializing for the companies actually deploying the technology. That gap between spending and results is where fortunes get destroyed. Stay skeptical. Stay disciplined. And remember: If the source of $17.5 billion in repayment capital is a mystery, it's a WARNING.
0:48

Elon Musk just told lenders he's paying back $17.5 BILLION in debt across X and xAI. Including $3 billion in high-yield bonds being redeemed early at 117 cents on the dollar. NOBODY knows where the money is coming from. And nobody seems to care. Let me explain why you should: Morgan Stanley has been calling existing lenders and telling them everything gets repaid in full. The X debt from the Twitter buyout. The xAI bonds from June. All of it. The bonds were structured to stay outstanding for at least 2 years. They're being called back less than a year later at a 17% premium. Bondholders are thrilled. Of course they are. They're getting paid above par on junk paper. But here's the part that should make you uncomfortable: xAI lost $1.46 billion in a single quarter last year. Burned through $7.8 billion in cash in the first 9 months of 2025. Revenue for the September quarter was $107 million. That's a company hemorrhaging roughly $1 billion a month. On a standalone basis, xAI exited 2025 at about a $500 million annualized revenue run rate. Even with optimistic projections, they might hit $2 billion in 2026. So where does $17.5 billion come from? xAI raised $20 billion in a Series E round in January. That's the most likely answer. Take the money investors gave you to build AI infrastructure and use a huge chunk of it to retire debt. But that's NOT a sign of strength. That's financial engineering. You raise $20 billion from investors who think they're funding the next frontier of artificial intelligence, then you turn around and use most of it to clean up the balance sheet before an IPO. Because that's what this is really about. SpaceX is targeting a confidential SEC filing as early as this month. IPO could come in June. Valuation targets exceed $1.75 trillion. The combined SpaceX-xAI entity currently carries about $18 billion in obligations. You can't take a $1.25 trillion company public with $18 billion in legacy debt from a money-losing AI startup and a social media platform that was acquired with leveraged buyout financing. So you nuke the debt. Clean the balance sheet. Present a simpler story to IPO investors. Smart? Absolutely. But let's be honest about what it actually is. SpaceX proper generated about $15 billion in revenue and $8 billion in profit in 2025. xAI generated roughly $250 million in six months and lost $2.5 billion doing it. At a $1.5 trillion IPO valuation, you're looking at roughly 94x trailing sales and 500x trailing earnings for the combined business. Those are not rational multiples. Those are lottery ticket multiples with better branding. And the $17.5 billion debt payoff doesn't change the underlying economics. It only changes the optics. xAI is still burning close to $1 billion a month. Grok still has a fraction of ChatGPT's market share. The revenue doesn't come close to justifying the infrastructure spend. What this reminds me of is the classic pre-IPO playbook taken to an extreme: Use private capital to dress up the financials, time the listing for maximum enthusiasm, and let public market investors hold the bag if execution falls short. The companies that need to clean house before going public are rarely the ones that reward you for buying on day one. My positioning hasn't changed. The AI infrastructure spending boom is real. But the returns aren't materializing for the companies actually deploying the technology. That gap between spending and results is where fortunes get destroyed. Stay skeptical. Stay disciplined. And remember: If the source of $17.5 billion in repayment capital is a mystery, it's a WARNING.

George Noble

471,839 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

I Spent $100k On Developers Before Learning This: Build Your AI Bot Today the blueprint to building your first ai trading bot without a degree or a single clue where to start is hidden in plain sight. most people think you need a stanford degree or some crazy math background to build these systems but i spent ten years in tech scared to code for that exact reason. i thought it was only for the geniuses and the nerds while i was just a guy who played video games and wanted his time back the reality is that code is the great equalizer because it doesn't care who you are or where you came from. i lost hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring developers who did shoddy work and i lost even more through liquidations and over trading because i was too emotional to follow my own rules. i knew i had to automate everything if i wanted to survive this game so i decided to learn live on youtube and iterate my way to success everyone is looking for the holy grail indicator that prints money while they sleep but they are looking in the wrong place. the real secret isn't a magical line on a chart but a process i call the rbi system which stands for research backtest and implement. most traders fail because they try to build a bot before they even know if their strategy worked in the past which is basically just gambling with extra steps you have to start with deep research into a strategy like supply and demand zones where you buy where the banks buy and sell where they sell. once you have a solid idea you must backtest it against years of data to see if it actually has an edge. if it doesn't work in the past it definitely won't work in the future but if it shows promise then you move to the implementation phase with small size there is a hidden cost to automation that can wipe out your profits before you even place a trade if you aren't careful. i found myself overusing api credits and running up a massive bill just to fetch wallet balances and token lists. if your bot is calling the exchange every five seconds just to see how much money you have you are essentially burning cash for no reason you can use ai tools like cursor to help you write the python code even if you are a total beginner. i still use ai to explain complex functions and identify where my code is being inefficient or chewing through credits. i had to refactor my entire dashboard and timer logic to only check balances every thirty minutes instead of every few seconds to save those precious credits the man who made thirty one billion dollars in the markets had one rule he never broke throughout his entire career. jim simons was the greatest algorithmic trader to ever live and he proved that systems will always beat human intuition over a long enough timeline. his secret wasn't some complex formula that no one else could understand but a commitment to a specific way of thinking simons always said you just have to make your systems better and better because that is what everyone else is trying to do. the game never really ends because the markets are always evolving and your edge will eventually decay if you don't iterate. this is why i build in public and show every step of the process because the iteration is where the actual money is made the reason you get liquidated isn't the market or the whales or some conspiracy against your small account. the real reason is the conversation you have with yourself at two in the morning when you are down on a trade and decide to move your stop loss. humans are built for survival not for trading and our emotions like fomo and fear will always sabotage our results when you automate your trading you are essentially signing a non negotiable contract with yourself that the bot will execute without question. if the plan says to sell fifty percent in an uptrend and ninety five percent in a downtrend the bot does it every single time. it doesn't feel the panic when a red candle drops or the greed when a green one spikes it just follows the code i used to spend all day staring at screens chasing bars up and down thinking that more screen time equaled more profit. i got into trading to get my time back but i ended up becoming a slave to the charts until i finally learned to code. now i have fully automated systems trading for me instead of getting liquidated because i removed the weakest link in the system which was me you don't need to spend ten years learning how to code before you can start building your own trading bots. if you spend three to six months getting the gist of python and using ai to bridge the gap you can start building immediately. start with a simple supply and demand bot that looks for major coin trends and only enters when the odds are heavily in your favor by checking the trend of bitcoin ethereum and solana simultaneously you can ensure you aren't fighting the overall market direction. i look for at least two out of those three to be trending before my bot is even allowed to look for an entry. this simple filter alone can save you from thousands of dollars in paper cuts during choppy sideways markets if you can't fly then run and if you can't run then walk but by all means you must keep moving toward automation. the process of taking an idea out of your brain and putting it into a system is the most secretive and valuable skill in the world. don't follow the pack and try to solve the same problems as everyone else but find your own edge and code it into existence the deal you make with yourself at the start of your journey is what determines if you will actually make it or not. i made a contract with myself to learn live and show everything because i believe that transparency is the only way to truly learn this craft. stick to your plan and iterate every single day because the systems you build today are the equalizers that will change your life tomorrow
50:50

I Spent $100k On Developers Before Learning This: Build Your AI Bot Today the blueprint to building your first ai trading bot without a degree or a single clue where to start is hidden in plain sight. most people think you need a stanford degree or some crazy math background to build these systems but i spent ten years in tech scared to code for that exact reason. i thought it was only for the geniuses and the nerds while i was just a guy who played video games and wanted his time back the reality is that code is the great equalizer because it doesn't care who you are or where you came from. i lost hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring developers who did shoddy work and i lost even more through liquidations and over trading because i was too emotional to follow my own rules. i knew i had to automate everything if i wanted to survive this game so i decided to learn live on youtube and iterate my way to success everyone is looking for the holy grail indicator that prints money while they sleep but they are looking in the wrong place. the real secret isn't a magical line on a chart but a process i call the rbi system which stands for research backtest and implement. most traders fail because they try to build a bot before they even know if their strategy worked in the past which is basically just gambling with extra steps you have to start with deep research into a strategy like supply and demand zones where you buy where the banks buy and sell where they sell. once you have a solid idea you must backtest it against years of data to see if it actually has an edge. if it doesn't work in the past it definitely won't work in the future but if it shows promise then you move to the implementation phase with small size there is a hidden cost to automation that can wipe out your profits before you even place a trade if you aren't careful. i found myself overusing api credits and running up a massive bill just to fetch wallet balances and token lists. if your bot is calling the exchange every five seconds just to see how much money you have you are essentially burning cash for no reason you can use ai tools like cursor to help you write the python code even if you are a total beginner. i still use ai to explain complex functions and identify where my code is being inefficient or chewing through credits. i had to refactor my entire dashboard and timer logic to only check balances every thirty minutes instead of every few seconds to save those precious credits the man who made thirty one billion dollars in the markets had one rule he never broke throughout his entire career. jim simons was the greatest algorithmic trader to ever live and he proved that systems will always beat human intuition over a long enough timeline. his secret wasn't some complex formula that no one else could understand but a commitment to a specific way of thinking simons always said you just have to make your systems better and better because that is what everyone else is trying to do. the game never really ends because the markets are always evolving and your edge will eventually decay if you don't iterate. this is why i build in public and show every step of the process because the iteration is where the actual money is made the reason you get liquidated isn't the market or the whales or some conspiracy against your small account. the real reason is the conversation you have with yourself at two in the morning when you are down on a trade and decide to move your stop loss. humans are built for survival not for trading and our emotions like fomo and fear will always sabotage our results when you automate your trading you are essentially signing a non negotiable contract with yourself that the bot will execute without question. if the plan says to sell fifty percent in an uptrend and ninety five percent in a downtrend the bot does it every single time. it doesn't feel the panic when a red candle drops or the greed when a green one spikes it just follows the code i used to spend all day staring at screens chasing bars up and down thinking that more screen time equaled more profit. i got into trading to get my time back but i ended up becoming a slave to the charts until i finally learned to code. now i have fully automated systems trading for me instead of getting liquidated because i removed the weakest link in the system which was me you don't need to spend ten years learning how to code before you can start building your own trading bots. if you spend three to six months getting the gist of python and using ai to bridge the gap you can start building immediately. start with a simple supply and demand bot that looks for major coin trends and only enters when the odds are heavily in your favor by checking the trend of bitcoin ethereum and solana simultaneously you can ensure you aren't fighting the overall market direction. i look for at least two out of those three to be trending before my bot is even allowed to look for an entry. this simple filter alone can save you from thousands of dollars in paper cuts during choppy sideways markets if you can't fly then run and if you can't run then walk but by all means you must keep moving toward automation. the process of taking an idea out of your brain and putting it into a system is the most secretive and valuable skill in the world. don't follow the pack and try to solve the same problems as everyone else but find your own edge and code it into existence the deal you make with yourself at the start of your journey is what determines if you will actually make it or not. i made a contract with myself to learn live and show everything because i believe that transparency is the only way to truly learn this craft. stick to your plan and iterate every single day because the systems you build today are the equalizers that will change your life tomorrow

Moon Dev

11,726 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

The following is a message from Diana Bloom, an anonymous Iranian activist living in Germany who is being threatened with potentially extremely dangerous "exposure" by what appears to be a lunatic. I am passing this message on since Diana has deleted her account for her own protection and safety. To note, I don't think I should be involved with this crazy Evil Evi woman or her OSINT dramas whatsoever since she went bonkers the other day, but she is acting in defamatory ways and with malicious recklessness in a way that endanger an anonymous Iranian dissident I believe to be good, so I must pass this along. A MESSAGE FROM DIANA BLOOM This is a post in two parts. Part one is a brief summary of what has happened so far. Part two addresses the defamatory claims being made about me. PART 1 - [JL: Diana's explanation and responses] For everyone who doesn’t understand what led to this point, here’s the shortest summary possible: Evi [Kokalari] and I had been friendly in DMs since the end of June. She messaged me first. After [DataRepublican] published her piece on the State Department, I asked Evi not to go too hard against DR. Evi did anyway, and James Lindsay defended DR. I didn’t like the way Evi went after James, including citing Milo. So I unfollowed and removed Evi. She confronted me in DMs, and I explained why. Evi then made a post attacking James that started and ended with me and used my profile picture. I responded once, as politely as I could. Evi then repeatedly threatened to dox me, so I deactivated my account. Now, regarding the substance of the accusations she has made so far: 1. I am not a man. My name is not Derek. 2. I am Iranian. 3. I do know stuff about American politics because (and that is the boring truth) German television is really bad. So I’ve only watched English/American stuff for the past, I don’t know, 15 years, podcasts, late night shows, etc. I didn’t think about it, I just did. Little did I know that that would give me an understanding of the inner dynamics of what’s going on within the Republican Party that would tie back to the Iranian people’s cause in 2026. Believe me, I’m still baffled by it whenever I pause to think about it. But that’s the truth, and here we are. 4. I am not in the United States. I shared a blog, and the provider of that blog (a big, common one) is in the United States. My VPN location is sometimes in the United States. Not me. 5. I am not responsible for the content of people defending me. I have no control over it. It’s not my content, and I keep my distance whenever I see problematic stuff. Many accounts defended me, but going to look for one that has done/said problematic stuff to tie it back to me is not right or fair. I am not responsible. I have nothing to do with it. 6. I wanted to help DR because Evi was threatening to go after her hard, and I didn’t think DR deserved that. I meant no harm, I wanted to help. I made a mistake, and I regret it now, but my intention wasn’t bad at that moment in time. 7. Evi herself was the first to come into my DMs and tell me not to fight with an account named Stephanie. So I did Evi that favor. Meaning: Evi came into my DMs first and tried to calm down a public disagreement between me and someone else. When I did this in defense of DR, I did the same thing Evi had done before. I would never think to accuse Evi of restricting my right to free speech because of it. 8. Publishing private DMs from someone without their permission is wrong. It is something both Evi and Stephanie have now done. Both have shared private messages from me without my permission. 9. Part of Evi’s “sources” seem to be Azi Yazdi (granddaughter of Khomeini’s first foreign minister), Benji, and Nima Yamini, as well as his ghost accounts (I have blocked multiple of them by now). If you know any of them, you know this is insane. None of them are reliable. It’s like using Milo as a source against James Lindsay. This is not about truth but about a (malicious) takedown to silence me and get me out of the way. 10. Evi has threatened to dox me (there is no doubt) multiple times, and she keeps going after me. This puts my life and my family’s lives in Iran in real danger, but she doesn’t care. She keeps going, and I can’t stop her. She keeps putting out one lie after another, and it traps me in a forever loop of defending myself. If I don’t respond to more and more accusations from her against me, rest assured, my silence should never be taken as agreement with the lies she puts out there. Be sure there is always context, a counterargument, counterevidence, etc., that would show that none of what she shares is fair or true. But it’s a forever war that is meant to drain me. So me not commenting on her stuff moving forward is never, ever, ever an admission that she is right about something. It’s just a rejection of playing a game I cannot win. To ALL the people who wrote/shared one or multiple posts and comments in my defense: Thank you very, very, very much. I’ve seen it, and I am grateful. But I think it’s best for my own and my family’s safety, as well as for the whole situation, that I step away and stay away from X. I hope that’s understandable. And Evi, for the last time: if you are not malicious, please just stop. Let me out of this. I am not your target. Just leave me and, through doxxing/"exposing", my family out of it moving forward. I beg of you, please. PART 2 - proof - [JL: The following are direct quotes from Evi indicating her intention to "expose" Diana, which she tries to claim is different than "doxxing," though for all practical purposes the effect will be the same and this is a distinction without a difference. The video below shows all of these quotes from her own posts.] 1. “I’m getting enough information on her from her own community. I may share it…” 2. “Either log back in with your real name, or I will start exposing you. And trust me, you will not like that.” 3. “So stop provoking me. If you continue, I will look much deeper into who you are and what your actual role is behind this anonymous account.” 4. “You know what...WAR IT IS. I will start with Diana!! STAY TUNED” 5. “So I will take those words seriously and dig as deep as I can” 6. “The identities of the "Iranian activists" would never have been called into question had they not attacked my right to freedom of speech in my own country.” 7. Someone: “She deleted her account because she’s concerned for her safety and the safety of her relatives in Iran your threats to dox her” Evi: “She should be...but if she turns out to be clean, I shall protect her identity. But trust me, she is not who she claims to be” 8. “Last I checked, Support on X is against fake accounts. Why are we being threatened for wanting to know the true identity of certain accounts…” 9. “Do you think I know who Diana bloom is? No but I need to find out at this point” 10. “... because I asked one of their group operatives from Germany to debate me using her/his true identity, or I would expose who’s behind the account.” 11. “So I don’t know what you’re all thinking, but this isn’t simply about Diana being scared of the IRGC in Iran. The IRGC has been significantly weakened and has plenty of other things to worry about. There are thousands of Iranian accounts fighting for Iran’s freedom under their own names while still having family members back in Iran. At this point, I think people have every right to ask who is actually behind these anonymous accounts… After a few more new posts on her feed, I was forced to tell her to either come back on X and do this under her real name, or I would expose who she was, so at least we would be having this discussion on equal grounds.” 12. “Don’t freaking interfere with other people’s business like that retard did and no one comes after you. So go ahead down and sue me and I will push harder to expose her and you and anyone else…” MY OWN [JL's] COMMENTS, which Diana has nothing to do with and doesn't know I'm appending here. I now believe Evi is likely to be a malignant narcissist who is incapable of admitting that she is wrong. She will not stop in her behavior, and she will aim to harm anyone who attempts to intervene. I do not recommend you do this. I recommend you mark, avoid, and block. Fighting with her will only fuel her because she simply cannot admit that she's wrong about all of this and can only double down in increasingly insane, dangerous, and reckless ways, including toward Diana and her safety. She believes everything she sees that's trying to talk sense into her about any of this is part of an elaborate "op" that "disrespects her free speech" (which isn't a thing, by the way). No one is silencing her. People are just trying to talk sense into her to stop spreading defamation and reckless "exposure" of people who she will put at risk with it and who do not in any way deserve it, people she considered friends and allies until literally four days ago when she suddenly blew up. Therefore, not only is her reckless belief hermetically sealed against any disagreement, she turns any disagreement into proof of allegedly coordinated attacks against her from a network that simply doesn't exist. As a response, in her malignancy, she is threatening to damage, "expose," or otherwise reputationally harm anyone who even tries politely to talk sense into her, much less to disagree with her or oppose her. I strongly recommend everyone realize what they're getting into if they work with or ally themselves with this crazy woman going forward. You do so at your own risk. I can attest from watching her over the last few days that her research abilities, at least when agitated, are so sloppy as to be beyond worthless, even dangerous. The post I'm quoting below is proof of that. She's trying to prove Diana is secretly an American because she's too sloppy and stupid to realize that a Wordpress domain has an American location. She isn't doing research in good faith or with fidelity on this issue, or about me. She is looking for any information she can to hurt people who have upset her. In fact, she is presently being sued for defamation by an Albanian singer (Evi is an Albanian immigrant to the United States and a U.S. citizen for at least a couple decades), so we might recognize this bad behavior and poor praxis as a pattern with her. I can provide just from the last few days, as can others, much evidence that she's simply grasping at the nastiest straws she can find to try to harm people she has suddenly decided are her opponents because of her jealous outburst at DataRepublican and her narcissistic injury at being called on it. The sloppiness and outright retardation of her "fact" finding and "analysis" are so shocking that it's hard not to laugh even given how horrifically dangerous it is. We can therefore infer this sloppiness, recklessness, and malice-when-opposed to be at least partially true of her other "research" against her other targets, by extension. That's a shame because many of those targets are worthy of real scrutiny, which she is undermining with her loose cannon. Therefore, I insist her OSINT "research" is at best worthless and at worst maliciously harmful. In either case, it cannot be engaged by people who want to make a positive difference in the world, so mark and avoid. Evi seems good at making connections. She was quite positively in my own DMs for a while, trying to find ways to work productively together, even suggesting we start an alternative to CPAC (lol). She appears to be friends with both Eric Trump and Don Jr., though the relationship with the former appears to be more solid. She seems to have worked behind the scenes with a lot of relatively prominent Republican groups. I find all of this incredibly concerning after the events of this week, even though I wouldn't have beforehand. My own assessment from this stupid and nasty drama is that Evi's primary motivation is that she is pathologically envious of DataRepublican and her influence, likely believing it should be her in DataRepublican's place. As we can see, she isn't nearly careful or accurate enough for that. Mark and avoid. Further, though, while DataRepublican has no driving interest to be who or what she is and is doing it in service to the best of her abilities (which are considerable but still limited and imperfect as are anyone's), Evi appears to covet the role, which she has demonstrated she cannot possibly handle responsibly. Again, mark and avoid. Block if you will. I will not unblock her for this post or in the future. You can think of that whatever you want. I will rarely, almost never, say anything about her except in the defense of others she is wantonly and recklessly attacking. I will NEVER interact with her directly again, no arguments, no back and forth, no dunks, nothing. My involvement here is pure exposure and nothing else. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
0:20

The following is a message from Diana Bloom, an anonymous Iranian activist living in Germany who is being threatened with potentially extremely dangerous "exposure" by what appears to be a lunatic. I am passing this message on since Diana has deleted her account for her own protection and safety. To note, I don't think I should be involved with this crazy Evil Evi woman or her OSINT dramas whatsoever since she went bonkers the other day, but she is acting in defamatory ways and with malicious recklessness in a way that endanger an anonymous Iranian dissident I believe to be good, so I must pass this along. A MESSAGE FROM DIANA BLOOM This is a post in two parts. Part one is a brief summary of what has happened so far. Part two addresses the defamatory claims being made about me. PART 1 - [JL: Diana's explanation and responses] For everyone who doesn’t understand what led to this point, here’s the shortest summary possible: Evi [Kokalari] and I had been friendly in DMs since the end of June. She messaged me first. After [DataRepublican] published her piece on the State Department, I asked Evi not to go too hard against DR. Evi did anyway, and James Lindsay defended DR. I didn’t like the way Evi went after James, including citing Milo. So I unfollowed and removed Evi. She confronted me in DMs, and I explained why. Evi then made a post attacking James that started and ended with me and used my profile picture. I responded once, as politely as I could. Evi then repeatedly threatened to dox me, so I deactivated my account. Now, regarding the substance of the accusations she has made so far: 1. I am not a man. My name is not Derek. 2. I am Iranian. 3. I do know stuff about American politics because (and that is the boring truth) German television is really bad. So I’ve only watched English/American stuff for the past, I don’t know, 15 years, podcasts, late night shows, etc. I didn’t think about it, I just did. Little did I know that that would give me an understanding of the inner dynamics of what’s going on within the Republican Party that would tie back to the Iranian people’s cause in 2026. Believe me, I’m still baffled by it whenever I pause to think about it. But that’s the truth, and here we are. 4. I am not in the United States. I shared a blog, and the provider of that blog (a big, common one) is in the United States. My VPN location is sometimes in the United States. Not me. 5. I am not responsible for the content of people defending me. I have no control over it. It’s not my content, and I keep my distance whenever I see problematic stuff. Many accounts defended me, but going to look for one that has done/said problematic stuff to tie it back to me is not right or fair. I am not responsible. I have nothing to do with it. 6. I wanted to help DR because Evi was threatening to go after her hard, and I didn’t think DR deserved that. I meant no harm, I wanted to help. I made a mistake, and I regret it now, but my intention wasn’t bad at that moment in time. 7. Evi herself was the first to come into my DMs and tell me not to fight with an account named Stephanie. So I did Evi that favor. Meaning: Evi came into my DMs first and tried to calm down a public disagreement between me and someone else. When I did this in defense of DR, I did the same thing Evi had done before. I would never think to accuse Evi of restricting my right to free speech because of it. 8. Publishing private DMs from someone without their permission is wrong. It is something both Evi and Stephanie have now done. Both have shared private messages from me without my permission. 9. Part of Evi’s “sources” seem to be Azi Yazdi (granddaughter of Khomeini’s first foreign minister), Benji, and Nima Yamini, as well as his ghost accounts (I have blocked multiple of them by now). If you know any of them, you know this is insane. None of them are reliable. It’s like using Milo as a source against James Lindsay. This is not about truth but about a (malicious) takedown to silence me and get me out of the way. 10. Evi has threatened to dox me (there is no doubt) multiple times, and she keeps going after me. This puts my life and my family’s lives in Iran in real danger, but she doesn’t care. She keeps going, and I can’t stop her. She keeps putting out one lie after another, and it traps me in a forever loop of defending myself. If I don’t respond to more and more accusations from her against me, rest assured, my silence should never be taken as agreement with the lies she puts out there. Be sure there is always context, a counterargument, counterevidence, etc., that would show that none of what she shares is fair or true. But it’s a forever war that is meant to drain me. So me not commenting on her stuff moving forward is never, ever, ever an admission that she is right about something. It’s just a rejection of playing a game I cannot win. To ALL the people who wrote/shared one or multiple posts and comments in my defense: Thank you very, very, very much. I’ve seen it, and I am grateful. But I think it’s best for my own and my family’s safety, as well as for the whole situation, that I step away and stay away from X. I hope that’s understandable. And Evi, for the last time: if you are not malicious, please just stop. Let me out of this. I am not your target. Just leave me and, through doxxing/"exposing", my family out of it moving forward. I beg of you, please. PART 2 - proof - [JL: The following are direct quotes from Evi indicating her intention to "expose" Diana, which she tries to claim is different than "doxxing," though for all practical purposes the effect will be the same and this is a distinction without a difference. The video below shows all of these quotes from her own posts.] 1. “I’m getting enough information on her from her own community. I may share it…” 2. “Either log back in with your real name, or I will start exposing you. And trust me, you will not like that.” 3. “So stop provoking me. If you continue, I will look much deeper into who you are and what your actual role is behind this anonymous account.” 4. “You know what...WAR IT IS. I will start with Diana!! STAY TUNED” 5. “So I will take those words seriously and dig as deep as I can” 6. “The identities of the "Iranian activists" would never have been called into question had they not attacked my right to freedom of speech in my own country.” 7. Someone: “She deleted her account because she’s concerned for her safety and the safety of her relatives in Iran your threats to dox her” Evi: “She should be...but if she turns out to be clean, I shall protect her identity. But trust me, she is not who she claims to be” 8. “Last I checked, Support on X is against fake accounts. Why are we being threatened for wanting to know the true identity of certain accounts…” 9. “Do you think I know who Diana bloom is? No but I need to find out at this point” 10. “... because I asked one of their group operatives from Germany to debate me using her/his true identity, or I would expose who’s behind the account.” 11. “So I don’t know what you’re all thinking, but this isn’t simply about Diana being scared of the IRGC in Iran. The IRGC has been significantly weakened and has plenty of other things to worry about. There are thousands of Iranian accounts fighting for Iran’s freedom under their own names while still having family members back in Iran. At this point, I think people have every right to ask who is actually behind these anonymous accounts… After a few more new posts on her feed, I was forced to tell her to either come back on X and do this under her real name, or I would expose who she was, so at least we would be having this discussion on equal grounds.” 12. “Don’t freaking interfere with other people’s business like that retard did and no one comes after you. So go ahead down and sue me and I will push harder to expose her and you and anyone else…” MY OWN [JL's] COMMENTS, which Diana has nothing to do with and doesn't know I'm appending here. I now believe Evi is likely to be a malignant narcissist who is incapable of admitting that she is wrong. She will not stop in her behavior, and she will aim to harm anyone who attempts to intervene. I do not recommend you do this. I recommend you mark, avoid, and block. Fighting with her will only fuel her because she simply cannot admit that she's wrong about all of this and can only double down in increasingly insane, dangerous, and reckless ways, including toward Diana and her safety. She believes everything she sees that's trying to talk sense into her about any of this is part of an elaborate "op" that "disrespects her free speech" (which isn't a thing, by the way). No one is silencing her. People are just trying to talk sense into her to stop spreading defamation and reckless "exposure" of people who she will put at risk with it and who do not in any way deserve it, people she considered friends and allies until literally four days ago when she suddenly blew up. Therefore, not only is her reckless belief hermetically sealed against any disagreement, she turns any disagreement into proof of allegedly coordinated attacks against her from a network that simply doesn't exist. As a response, in her malignancy, she is threatening to damage, "expose," or otherwise reputationally harm anyone who even tries politely to talk sense into her, much less to disagree with her or oppose her. I strongly recommend everyone realize what they're getting into if they work with or ally themselves with this crazy woman going forward. You do so at your own risk. I can attest from watching her over the last few days that her research abilities, at least when agitated, are so sloppy as to be beyond worthless, even dangerous. The post I'm quoting below is proof of that. She's trying to prove Diana is secretly an American because she's too sloppy and stupid to realize that a Wordpress domain has an American location. She isn't doing research in good faith or with fidelity on this issue, or about me. She is looking for any information she can to hurt people who have upset her. In fact, she is presently being sued for defamation by an Albanian singer (Evi is an Albanian immigrant to the United States and a U.S. citizen for at least a couple decades), so we might recognize this bad behavior and poor praxis as a pattern with her. I can provide just from the last few days, as can others, much evidence that she's simply grasping at the nastiest straws she can find to try to harm people she has suddenly decided are her opponents because of her jealous outburst at DataRepublican and her narcissistic injury at being called on it. The sloppiness and outright retardation of her "fact" finding and "analysis" are so shocking that it's hard not to laugh even given how horrifically dangerous it is. We can therefore infer this sloppiness, recklessness, and malice-when-opposed to be at least partially true of her other "research" against her other targets, by extension. That's a shame because many of those targets are worthy of real scrutiny, which she is undermining with her loose cannon. Therefore, I insist her OSINT "research" is at best worthless and at worst maliciously harmful. In either case, it cannot be engaged by people who want to make a positive difference in the world, so mark and avoid. Evi seems good at making connections. She was quite positively in my own DMs for a while, trying to find ways to work productively together, even suggesting we start an alternative to CPAC (lol). She appears to be friends with both Eric Trump and Don Jr., though the relationship with the former appears to be more solid. She seems to have worked behind the scenes with a lot of relatively prominent Republican groups. I find all of this incredibly concerning after the events of this week, even though I wouldn't have beforehand. My own assessment from this stupid and nasty drama is that Evi's primary motivation is that she is pathologically envious of DataRepublican and her influence, likely believing it should be her in DataRepublican's place. As we can see, she isn't nearly careful or accurate enough for that. Mark and avoid. Further, though, while DataRepublican has no driving interest to be who or what she is and is doing it in service to the best of her abilities (which are considerable but still limited and imperfect as are anyone's), Evi appears to covet the role, which she has demonstrated she cannot possibly handle responsibly. Again, mark and avoid. Block if you will. I will not unblock her for this post or in the future. You can think of that whatever you want. I will rarely, almost never, say anything about her except in the defense of others she is wantonly and recklessly attacking. I will NEVER interact with her directly again, no arguments, no back and forth, no dunks, nothing. My involvement here is pure exposure and nothing else. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

James Lindsay, anti-Communist

57,651 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I agree with Trevor Noah’s analysis of the immigration debate in South Africa, and I also agree with Julius Malema’s noble desire for Africa to be one. From the outset, I must be clear that the biggest obstacle to African unity has been African leadership. Some of our countries have been independent for more than 60 years, yet we are still far from achieving the level of integration many Pan-Africanists envisioned. The failure to get there is fundamentally a leadership issue. I want to focus on what Julius Malema has said. He is one of the continent’s most outspoken Pan-Africanists, and his vision of a more united Africa is both admirable and inspiring. Unfortunately, because of the dysfunctionality of leadership across much of the continent, Pan-Africanism has, in some circles in South Africa, become a dirty word. That is a tragedy because the principle itself is not the problem. The problem is that many African leaders have failed to create the political, economic, and institutional conditions necessary to make that vision a reality. So let us look carefully at what Julius Malema is saying. I have great respect for Julius Malema when it comes to his Pan-African outlook, but I am afraid to say that the idea of an Africa with one passport, one currency, and a fully integrated political and economic system is unlikely to happen within our lifetime. It is good to dream and to idealise the kind of Africa we would like to see, but in its current political and economic format, the continent is nowhere near achieving that goal. I am 55 years old, so when I talk about a lifetime, I am talking about the next 25 years. If I live to 80, that would be wonderful, but I do not believe Africa will achieve that level of integration within that timeframe. The reason is quite simple. If you look at the European Union, countries do not simply join because they want to. They must first meet a long list of requirements and benchmarks. These include economic standards, institutional capacity, governance standards, judicial independence, and human rights protections. Even if we set aside the human rights question in Africa, because we know that remains a long journey, the economic question alone presents a major obstacle. A truly united continent can only emerge if its member states are led by competent, educated, and trustworthy leaders who build functioning economies capable of providing opportunities for their own citizens. The current xenophobic, Afrophobic, and anti-immigration discourse taking place in South Africa is often crude and sometimes ugly. However, stripped of the crudeness, there is an important point being raised that cannot simply be ignored. For Africans to unite successfully, they cannot first unite in one country. They must first unite across the continent by creating broadly comparable economic opportunities and living standards. For example, a Ghanaian should be able to travel to Zimbabwe visa-free. That is largely a political decision. But if that Ghanaian wants to relocate permanently to Zimbabwe, then the economies of Ghana and Zimbabwe should have a reasonable degree of parity. People should not be compelled to migrate primarily because one country is functioning while another is failing. The same applies across the continent. Someone should not feel forced to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo for South Africa purely because of economic collapse at home. If integration is driven solely by economics, then the countries that are relatively well managed will inevitably carry the burden of those that are not. This is an intellectual discussion that Africa cannot avoid. Resource competition is often what inflames tensions. If someone moves from a poor community in Mozambique to a poor community in South Africa, both groups are competing for the same clinics, schools, housing, jobs, and social services. That is where tensions arise. Interestingly, illegal immigrants from Europe are rarely part of the immigration debate in South Africa. Many people immediately attribute this to race, but there is another factor that deserves consideration. Wealthy immigrants generally live in affluent communities where there is little or no competition for scarce public resources. Take Chatunga Mugabe, for example. He lived in Hyde Park, drove expensive cars, and socialised in Sandton. Nobody was concerned about his immigration status. Likewise, where I live in South Africa, there are immigrants from the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Kenya, and elsewhere. They are largely affluent people. The South Africans living there are often excited when newcomers arrive. When I moved from Zimbabwe and bought a house on my road, both black and white South Africans invited me into their homes for dinner and wine. There was no hostility because there was no competition for resources. That reality matters. If Africa is ever going to have one passport and one currency, we must first deal with the economic fundamentals. Most Africans do not realise that this is not primarily a political project. It is an economic one. Turkey, for example, has spent decades seeking membership of the European Union but has not been admitted because it has not met all the requirements. Countries such as Bulgaria and Romania had to meet strict standards before joining. Their judicial systems, governance structures, healthcare systems, and institutions had to reach certain benchmarks. The same logic applies to Africa. If every African citizen were suddenly free to seek healthcare anywhere on the continent, countries with stronger healthcare systems such as South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia would immediately face enormous pressure from people seeking treatment, including specialised care for conditions such as cancer. That is why this discussion is important. We must have it honestly and without slogans. We must discuss it not only in universities and intellectual circles but also in townships, villages, and communities across Africa. The dream of one Africa is a noble one. I support it. But before we get there, we must first address the economic, institutional, and governance realities that stand in the way. Until those challenges are resolved, the vision Julius Malema speaks about will remain an aspiration rather than a practical reality. The tragedy we face today is that we are focusing on the sideshows created by tribalists and rogue political actors who are taking advantage of a genuine problem that exists in South Africa and, indeed, in other parts of Africa as well. We amplify their voices and focus on what they are saying instead of focusing on the real issue. We should be asking ourselves a simple question. Julius Malema is right about the ideal he is advocating, but why are we not getting to where he wants us to get? Once we ask that question honestly, we are forced to examine the root causes. There can be no economic harmony, political harmony, or any other form of harmony between countries that are operating at vastly different levels of development and functionality. Take Zimbabwe and South Africa as an example. Zimbabwe has not had a working radiotherapy machine in its public healthcare system for more than four years. The country’s largest hospital has only one maternity theatre, built in 1977. Then look at South Africa. Its public healthcare system has some problems and could be much better, but by African standards it remains among the most advanced on the continent. If those two countries stand side by side, as they physically do, how do you integrate them when one is dysfunctional and the other remains a functioning state? These are the root causes we need to confront. This discussion must be held in a comprehensive and honest manner, not in fragments. We can speak about the noble aspirations of Pan-Africanism, and we can also discuss the obstacles that stand in its way. Both conversations must be held together. Only then can we identify what needs to be done and begin serious scenario planning around how to get there. Instead, we often get beautiful speeches delivered at the African Union, one of the most ineffective continental organisations in the world. People make grand declarations, earn generous salaries, and then nothing happens. Great speeches have been delivered since the days of the Organisation of African Unity. One of those speeches was even immortalised by Bob Marley in his song War. Yet more than 60 years later, many of the same challenges remain unresolved. That is an indictment not only of African leaders but also of African elites. Too many are content to make money while ignoring the underlying governance failures that hold the continent back. Consider Aliko Dangote, the richest black man in the world and Africa’s most successful entrepreneur. He requires 34 visas to enter dozens of African countries. Yet if I hold a British passport, my movement across much of Africa can often be easier than his. How can Africa speak seriously about integration when one of its own leading business figures faces such barriers within the continent? Until influential African business leaders such as Aliko Dangote, Strive Masiyiwa, Patrice Motsepe, and others begin speaking more forcefully about governance, corruption, economic mismanagement, and state dysfunction, progress will remain slow. As long as these issues are accommodated because money can still be made, Africa will continue to talk about unity without creating the conditions necessary to achieve it. So, back in the townships of South Africa, there is a crisis. I have always said that Zimbabwe is no longer a foreign policy issue. It is a domestic issue because the South African government must deal with its consequences in hospitals, social services, employment, housing, education, and many other facets of daily life. If the South African government does not have the courage to stand up to leaders such as Emmerson Mnangagwa and Mozambique’s President, Daniel Chapo, and say, “The way you are running your economies is creating problems for us,” then the situation will continue to deteriorate. The tragedy is that it is always the poor, the ordinary, and those living in abject poverty who end up fighting amongst themselves. Yet the root causes of these tensions are often created at the highest levels of political leadership. The people competing for jobs, housing, healthcare, and other scarce resources did not create the conditions that led to mass migration. Those conditions were created by policy failures, corruption, poor governance, and economic mismanagement. I would go even further and say that this is also an indictment of South African leadership. SADC already has protocols, principles, and governance frameworks that were specifically designed to prevent member states from becoming dysfunctional and destabilising their neighbours. The problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is the absence of enforcement. Those protocols exist on paper, but too often they are ignored in practice. When governance standards are violated, when economies collapse, when democratic institutions are weakened, and when corruption flourishes, there is rarely any meaningful consequence from the region. As a result, the effects spill across borders and eventually become someone else’s problem. That is why the immigration debate cannot be separated from the governance debate. They are two sides of the same coin. If African leaders are serious about reducing migration pressures, they must first address the political and economic failures that are pushing people to leave their countries in the first place. We all know why that conversation is avoided. So, coming back to Trevor Noah’s analogy, it is ultimately a human analogy. It reflects a reality that has existed throughout history and even in nature itself. If lions have abundant access to zebras and other prey, there is very little competition between lions, leopards, and other predators. But when food becomes scarce, competition intensifies. The struggle is no longer about identity. It becomes a struggle over limited resources. The same principle applies in human societies. When jobs are plentiful, when healthcare functions, when housing is available, and when opportunities are expanding, people are generally more tolerant and welcoming. But the moment resources become scarce, tensions rise. People begin competing for the same opportunities, and that competition often manifests itself through politics, nationalism, tribalism, xenophobia, or other forms of social conflict. This is not unique to South Africa. It is not unique to Africa. It is part of the human condition. In many ways, what we are witnessing is both a human story and an animal kingdom story. The underlying dynamic is remarkably similar. Scarcity creates competition. Competition creates tension. Tension creates conflict. That is why discussions about immigration cannot be separated from discussions about governance, economic growth, service delivery, and opportunity. If we focus only on the symptoms while ignoring the underlying causes, we will never solve the problem. The real challenge is not merely getting people to live together. The real challenge is creating societies and economies that produce enough opportunity for people to live together peacefully.
2:47

I agree with Trevor Noah’s analysis of the immigration debate in South Africa, and I also agree with Julius Malema’s noble desire for Africa to be one. From the outset, I must be clear that the biggest obstacle to African unity has been African leadership. Some of our countries have been independent for more than 60 years, yet we are still far from achieving the level of integration many Pan-Africanists envisioned. The failure to get there is fundamentally a leadership issue. I want to focus on what Julius Malema has said. He is one of the continent’s most outspoken Pan-Africanists, and his vision of a more united Africa is both admirable and inspiring. Unfortunately, because of the dysfunctionality of leadership across much of the continent, Pan-Africanism has, in some circles in South Africa, become a dirty word. That is a tragedy because the principle itself is not the problem. The problem is that many African leaders have failed to create the political, economic, and institutional conditions necessary to make that vision a reality. So let us look carefully at what Julius Malema is saying. I have great respect for Julius Malema when it comes to his Pan-African outlook, but I am afraid to say that the idea of an Africa with one passport, one currency, and a fully integrated political and economic system is unlikely to happen within our lifetime. It is good to dream and to idealise the kind of Africa we would like to see, but in its current political and economic format, the continent is nowhere near achieving that goal. I am 55 years old, so when I talk about a lifetime, I am talking about the next 25 years. If I live to 80, that would be wonderful, but I do not believe Africa will achieve that level of integration within that timeframe. The reason is quite simple. If you look at the European Union, countries do not simply join because they want to. They must first meet a long list of requirements and benchmarks. These include economic standards, institutional capacity, governance standards, judicial independence, and human rights protections. Even if we set aside the human rights question in Africa, because we know that remains a long journey, the economic question alone presents a major obstacle. A truly united continent can only emerge if its member states are led by competent, educated, and trustworthy leaders who build functioning economies capable of providing opportunities for their own citizens. The current xenophobic, Afrophobic, and anti-immigration discourse taking place in South Africa is often crude and sometimes ugly. However, stripped of the crudeness, there is an important point being raised that cannot simply be ignored. For Africans to unite successfully, they cannot first unite in one country. They must first unite across the continent by creating broadly comparable economic opportunities and living standards. For example, a Ghanaian should be able to travel to Zimbabwe visa-free. That is largely a political decision. But if that Ghanaian wants to relocate permanently to Zimbabwe, then the economies of Ghana and Zimbabwe should have a reasonable degree of parity. People should not be compelled to migrate primarily because one country is functioning while another is failing. The same applies across the continent. Someone should not feel forced to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo for South Africa purely because of economic collapse at home. If integration is driven solely by economics, then the countries that are relatively well managed will inevitably carry the burden of those that are not. This is an intellectual discussion that Africa cannot avoid. Resource competition is often what inflames tensions. If someone moves from a poor community in Mozambique to a poor community in South Africa, both groups are competing for the same clinics, schools, housing, jobs, and social services. That is where tensions arise. Interestingly, illegal immigrants from Europe are rarely part of the immigration debate in South Africa. Many people immediately attribute this to race, but there is another factor that deserves consideration. Wealthy immigrants generally live in affluent communities where there is little or no competition for scarce public resources. Take Chatunga Mugabe, for example. He lived in Hyde Park, drove expensive cars, and socialised in Sandton. Nobody was concerned about his immigration status. Likewise, where I live in South Africa, there are immigrants from the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Kenya, and elsewhere. They are largely affluent people. The South Africans living there are often excited when newcomers arrive. When I moved from Zimbabwe and bought a house on my road, both black and white South Africans invited me into their homes for dinner and wine. There was no hostility because there was no competition for resources. That reality matters. If Africa is ever going to have one passport and one currency, we must first deal with the economic fundamentals. Most Africans do not realise that this is not primarily a political project. It is an economic one. Turkey, for example, has spent decades seeking membership of the European Union but has not been admitted because it has not met all the requirements. Countries such as Bulgaria and Romania had to meet strict standards before joining. Their judicial systems, governance structures, healthcare systems, and institutions had to reach certain benchmarks. The same logic applies to Africa. If every African citizen were suddenly free to seek healthcare anywhere on the continent, countries with stronger healthcare systems such as South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia would immediately face enormous pressure from people seeking treatment, including specialised care for conditions such as cancer. That is why this discussion is important. We must have it honestly and without slogans. We must discuss it not only in universities and intellectual circles but also in townships, villages, and communities across Africa. The dream of one Africa is a noble one. I support it. But before we get there, we must first address the economic, institutional, and governance realities that stand in the way. Until those challenges are resolved, the vision Julius Malema speaks about will remain an aspiration rather than a practical reality. The tragedy we face today is that we are focusing on the sideshows created by tribalists and rogue political actors who are taking advantage of a genuine problem that exists in South Africa and, indeed, in other parts of Africa as well. We amplify their voices and focus on what they are saying instead of focusing on the real issue. We should be asking ourselves a simple question. Julius Malema is right about the ideal he is advocating, but why are we not getting to where he wants us to get? Once we ask that question honestly, we are forced to examine the root causes. There can be no economic harmony, political harmony, or any other form of harmony between countries that are operating at vastly different levels of development and functionality. Take Zimbabwe and South Africa as an example. Zimbabwe has not had a working radiotherapy machine in its public healthcare system for more than four years. The country’s largest hospital has only one maternity theatre, built in 1977. Then look at South Africa. Its public healthcare system has some problems and could be much better, but by African standards it remains among the most advanced on the continent. If those two countries stand side by side, as they physically do, how do you integrate them when one is dysfunctional and the other remains a functioning state? These are the root causes we need to confront. This discussion must be held in a comprehensive and honest manner, not in fragments. We can speak about the noble aspirations of Pan-Africanism, and we can also discuss the obstacles that stand in its way. Both conversations must be held together. Only then can we identify what needs to be done and begin serious scenario planning around how to get there. Instead, we often get beautiful speeches delivered at the African Union, one of the most ineffective continental organisations in the world. People make grand declarations, earn generous salaries, and then nothing happens. Great speeches have been delivered since the days of the Organisation of African Unity. One of those speeches was even immortalised by Bob Marley in his song War. Yet more than 60 years later, many of the same challenges remain unresolved. That is an indictment not only of African leaders but also of African elites. Too many are content to make money while ignoring the underlying governance failures that hold the continent back. Consider Aliko Dangote, the richest black man in the world and Africa’s most successful entrepreneur. He requires 34 visas to enter dozens of African countries. Yet if I hold a British passport, my movement across much of Africa can often be easier than his. How can Africa speak seriously about integration when one of its own leading business figures faces such barriers within the continent? Until influential African business leaders such as Aliko Dangote, Strive Masiyiwa, Patrice Motsepe, and others begin speaking more forcefully about governance, corruption, economic mismanagement, and state dysfunction, progress will remain slow. As long as these issues are accommodated because money can still be made, Africa will continue to talk about unity without creating the conditions necessary to achieve it. So, back in the townships of South Africa, there is a crisis. I have always said that Zimbabwe is no longer a foreign policy issue. It is a domestic issue because the South African government must deal with its consequences in hospitals, social services, employment, housing, education, and many other facets of daily life. If the South African government does not have the courage to stand up to leaders such as Emmerson Mnangagwa and Mozambique’s President, Daniel Chapo, and say, “The way you are running your economies is creating problems for us,” then the situation will continue to deteriorate. The tragedy is that it is always the poor, the ordinary, and those living in abject poverty who end up fighting amongst themselves. Yet the root causes of these tensions are often created at the highest levels of political leadership. The people competing for jobs, housing, healthcare, and other scarce resources did not create the conditions that led to mass migration. Those conditions were created by policy failures, corruption, poor governance, and economic mismanagement. I would go even further and say that this is also an indictment of South African leadership. SADC already has protocols, principles, and governance frameworks that were specifically designed to prevent member states from becoming dysfunctional and destabilising their neighbours. The problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is the absence of enforcement. Those protocols exist on paper, but too often they are ignored in practice. When governance standards are violated, when economies collapse, when democratic institutions are weakened, and when corruption flourishes, there is rarely any meaningful consequence from the region. As a result, the effects spill across borders and eventually become someone else’s problem. That is why the immigration debate cannot be separated from the governance debate. They are two sides of the same coin. If African leaders are serious about reducing migration pressures, they must first address the political and economic failures that are pushing people to leave their countries in the first place. We all know why that conversation is avoided. So, coming back to Trevor Noah’s analogy, it is ultimately a human analogy. It reflects a reality that has existed throughout history and even in nature itself. If lions have abundant access to zebras and other prey, there is very little competition between lions, leopards, and other predators. But when food becomes scarce, competition intensifies. The struggle is no longer about identity. It becomes a struggle over limited resources. The same principle applies in human societies. When jobs are plentiful, when healthcare functions, when housing is available, and when opportunities are expanding, people are generally more tolerant and welcoming. But the moment resources become scarce, tensions rise. People begin competing for the same opportunities, and that competition often manifests itself through politics, nationalism, tribalism, xenophobia, or other forms of social conflict. This is not unique to South Africa. It is not unique to Africa. It is part of the human condition. In many ways, what we are witnessing is both a human story and an animal kingdom story. The underlying dynamic is remarkably similar. Scarcity creates competition. Competition creates tension. Tension creates conflict. That is why discussions about immigration cannot be separated from discussions about governance, economic growth, service delivery, and opportunity. If we focus only on the symptoms while ignoring the underlying causes, we will never solve the problem. The real challenge is not merely getting people to live together. The real challenge is creating societies and economies that produce enough opportunity for people to live together peacefully.

Hopewell Chin’ono

92,159 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The CIA's information war with American citizens and the operation that started it all. Project Mockingbird. This is one main aspect as to why people are so divided and brainwashed in today's society. Information has always been a crucial component to power and control. Knowledge is power, right? The only difference today from 40+ years ago is that now information flows at a rate that is absolutely mind-boggling and allows you to connect with anyone, at anytime, anywhere in the world, with real-time information 24/7 at your finger tips. So what happens when you have people who are suppose to be giving you accurate, truthful, information, and start to give you information that benefits, manipulates, and persuades the global population with mis and disinformation, protects certain corrupt people and groups by not reporting on other information, and who also lies and slanders other individuals all for the purpose to maintain power and control over the entire population, entirely on PURPOSE? You get what's called PROPAGANDA, aka, a sh*t show of so much purposeful bad and fake information, that it literally starts to persuade and mold the populations overall views and opinions on an array of various topics to fit the nefarious controllers, behind the scenes narrative or agenda. Ultimitely benefitting only them. If you take notice, these campaigns have been around for a long time, depending what side your on, your personal views and where you get your overall information will ultimately decide or be a factor of how much it has affected you or how much you are aware of the deception in the first place. Most legacy mainstream media groups are owned and operated by a small group of wealthy globalist individuals who seem to lean towards the left, and some leaning even farther left than others. These campaigns started to really pick up when Trump entered the picture in 2016. Trump was never suppose to win in the first place. Obama reinstated propaganda to be used on American citizens once again in 2013. The task to slander and attempt to destroy and imprison Trump through multiple operations and media campaigns were in full effect for the deep state to regain control of The White House. The group that these campaigns affected the most were the older groups and the younger groups. The people in the middle basically got to see both worlds play out in their lives at a crucial time period in their lives. They've seen the mainstream shift from what it once was, to an extreme lying, propaganda machine when Trump took office. The older aged crowd was so used to the regular nightly news and not as comfortable with newer technology to access alternative media sites and really just stuck with the mainstream's words and kept their faith in the MSM. Now the younger crowd literally grew up with the fully scripted, CIA, propaganda MSM because that is literally all they've ever known and haven't experienced anything else before or have anything to compare it to. Especially when your indoctrinated in a public school system that has been infiltrated itself with a majority of far-left teachers who usually end up being predators as well. That's a whole other story. The problem this CIA operation has caused was a population with people all in their own separate groups and boxes, fighting with each other over many things, instead of the people who started this mess in the first place, that aren't even true because one side has been lied to and manipulated. Brainwashed from a literal military style operation that's used to topple foreign countries during regime changes. And the worst part on top of all this is that know since Elon has started DOGE, a government efficiency operation, we are now uncovering that all these communist, Marxist, ideas, and operations and slander campaigns, and legal cases against Trump, down to these politicians luxurious lifestyles have been all funded and paid for by us, the TAXPAYERS. On the one example above, through USAID, there is proof of over $9 MILLION dollars that went to Reuters for a campaign named, " ACTIVE SOCIAL ENGINEERING DEFENSE LARGE SCALE SOCIAL DECEPTION," which is a definitive contract. There are thousands of examples just like this for all different companies, influencers, T.V. shows, Magazines, Articles, any type of media, and all of them are left leaning outlets. This has been going on for decades. Then on top off all of that, you have people who own these publishing and media companies who are not only getting paid by the taxpayers from the CIA to deceive us, but many of these owners are best friends with people like Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxell as you can also see above who is with Laurene Powell Jobs, the owner of "The Atlantic" publication, on vacation just hanging out. You wonder why the media never talks about child trafficking. Their paid to cover it up, or they're literally involved themselves... It just get's better and better. The good news is that it is now being exposed and shut down. Let's dive into the history of PROJECT MOCKINGBIRD now. The story of Project Mockingbird begins in the shadow of the Cold War, a period defined by ideological warfare between the United States and the Soviet Union. In the early 1960s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under the leadership of Director John McCone, launched a covert operation codenamed "Project Mockingbird." Unlike the broader, alleged "Operation Mockingbird" often cited in conspiracy circles as a sprawling media manipulation scheme, the historical Project Mockingbird was a specific, documented wiretapping effort aimed at curbing leaks of classified information. Initiated on March 12, 1963, and concluding on June 15, 1963, Project Mockingbird targeted two Washington-based journalists, Robert S. Allen and Paul J. Scott, who wrote the syndicated "Allen-Scott Report." These columnists had a knack for publishing articles laced with highly classified CIA details—information so sensitive it included Top Secret and Special Intelligence data. Their scoops, often sourced from government insiders, rattled the Kennedy administration, particularly after a July 26, 1962, New York Times article by Hanson Baldwin exposed details of a National Intelligence Estimate comparing U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals. President John F. Kennedy, incensed by such leaks, sought to plug the holes. The operation was a collaborative effort, greenlit by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joseph Carroll. The CIA’s Office of Security, led by Sheffield Edwards, executed the wiretapping, monitoring the journalists’ home and office phones. The surveillance results identified congressional sources, including then-Speaker of the House John McCormack, who spoke with Scott on March 26, 1963. The "Family Jewels"—a 1973 CIA document declassified in 2007—later exposed this operation, revealing its scope and raising questions about its legality. Daniel L. Pines, a CIA Assistant General Counsel, argued in a 2009 Indiana Law Journal review that the wiretapping likely violated legal bounds, as its primary aim was to trace leaks rather than gather foreign intelligence. This historical Project Mockingbird, though limited in duration and scope, planted a seed of distrust between the government, the press, and the public—a seed that would grow into a broader narrative of media manipulation. From Wiretaps to Media Empire While Project Mockingbird of 1963 was a discrete surveillance effort, it became conflated with a larger CIA program dubbed "Operation Mockingbird." This narrative emerged most prominently in Deborah Davis’s 1979 book, Katharine the Great, which claimed that the CIA, under Frank Wisner of the Office of Policy Coordination, had systematically infiltrated American media starting in the 1950s. Davis alleged that Wisner recruited Washington Post publisher Phil Graham to orchestrate a propaganda network, embedding CIA-friendly journalists in outlets like The New York Times, Newsweek, and CBS. Cord Meyer, a key CIA figure, was said to have taken the reins in 1951, expanding the operation’s reach. The Church Committee’s 1975-1976 investigation lent some credence to these claims, uncovering CIA ties to around 50 American journalists and covert funding of front groups like the National Student Association, exposed by Ramparts magazine in 1967. Carl Bernstein’s 1977 Rolling Stone article, "The CIA and the Media," further detailed how over 400 U.S. journalists had covertly worked with the CIA, often disseminating propaganda abroad that would then filter back to domestic audiences. the CIA admitted overreach. By 1976, under Director George H.W. Bush, the CIA publicly pledged to end paid relationships with U.S. journalists. Yet, skeptics argued the agency merely shifted tactics, maintaining influence through foreign media outlets that indirectly shaped American narratives. The line between historical fact and conspiracy theory blurred, setting the stage for modern reinterpretations of Mockingbird’s legacy. They claim. The Turning Point came in 2013 and the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act Fast forward to July 2, 2013, a date that marks a pivotal shift in the Mockingbird saga. Under President Barack Obama, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act—embedded in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—took effect. This legislation amended the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, commonly known as the Smith-Mundt Act, which had long barred government-funded broadcasters like Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (now the U.S. Agency for Global Media, USAGM)—from disseminating their content domestically. The original intent was to prevent the U.S. government from propagandizing its own citizens, a safeguard rooted in post-World War II fears of authoritarian overreach. The 2013 amendment, co-sponsored by Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Mac Thornberry (R-TX), lifted this restriction, allowing USAGM content to be requested and accessed by Americans. Proponents hailed it as a transparency win, arguing that taxpayers deserved to see what their dollars funded—news and programming in 61 languages, reaching over 100 countries. Critics, however, saw it as a Pandora’s box. Foreign Policy reported on July 14, 2013, that the change unleashed "thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption," raising fears of legalized propaganda. The timing was notable: it followed a decade of post-9/11 media scrutiny and preceded a surge in misinformation debates. in 2024 claimed "Operation Mockingbird never ended," tying the NDAA to a supposed CIA media takeover. No hard evidence supports a direct CIA role, but the legal shift undeniably blurred lines between foreign and domestic information flows. While the USAGM insists its mission remains outward-facing—delivering uncensored news to foreign audiences lacking free press—and that its journalists adhere to strict objectivity standards, the repeal stoked speculation. Could this be a modern resurrection of Mockingbird-style influence? The answer is yes. Most projects they say they stopped just get renamed or go black and off the books so Congress doesn't even know it exists or get access to it. Be careful what you read, who you follow, and who you get your information from. Look for patterns and scripts. They're easy to find once you understand what's really going on and their tactics and techniques. Keep asking questions, cross reference everything, do your due diligence, have multiple sources, do not buy everything at face value, go deeper, think about the bigger picture or long term goals. And always remember that there are layers, optics, and timing to everything you see. 90% of everything that comes out gets run by the intelligence agencies first. Lastly, keep fighting for the truth and and continue to help others to wake up as well.
8:02

The CIA's information war with American citizens and the operation that started it all. Project Mockingbird. This is one main aspect as to why people are so divided and brainwashed in today's society. Information has always been a crucial component to power and control. Knowledge is power, right? The only difference today from 40+ years ago is that now information flows at a rate that is absolutely mind-boggling and allows you to connect with anyone, at anytime, anywhere in the world, with real-time information 24/7 at your finger tips. So what happens when you have people who are suppose to be giving you accurate, truthful, information, and start to give you information that benefits, manipulates, and persuades the global population with mis and disinformation, protects certain corrupt people and groups by not reporting on other information, and who also lies and slanders other individuals all for the purpose to maintain power and control over the entire population, entirely on PURPOSE? You get what's called PROPAGANDA, aka, a sh*t show of so much purposeful bad and fake information, that it literally starts to persuade and mold the populations overall views and opinions on an array of various topics to fit the nefarious controllers, behind the scenes narrative or agenda. Ultimitely benefitting only them. If you take notice, these campaigns have been around for a long time, depending what side your on, your personal views and where you get your overall information will ultimately decide or be a factor of how much it has affected you or how much you are aware of the deception in the first place. Most legacy mainstream media groups are owned and operated by a small group of wealthy globalist individuals who seem to lean towards the left, and some leaning even farther left than others. These campaigns started to really pick up when Trump entered the picture in 2016. Trump was never suppose to win in the first place. Obama reinstated propaganda to be used on American citizens once again in 2013. The task to slander and attempt to destroy and imprison Trump through multiple operations and media campaigns were in full effect for the deep state to regain control of The White House. The group that these campaigns affected the most were the older groups and the younger groups. The people in the middle basically got to see both worlds play out in their lives at a crucial time period in their lives. They've seen the mainstream shift from what it once was, to an extreme lying, propaganda machine when Trump took office. The older aged crowd was so used to the regular nightly news and not as comfortable with newer technology to access alternative media sites and really just stuck with the mainstream's words and kept their faith in the MSM. Now the younger crowd literally grew up with the fully scripted, CIA, propaganda MSM because that is literally all they've ever known and haven't experienced anything else before or have anything to compare it to. Especially when your indoctrinated in a public school system that has been infiltrated itself with a majority of far-left teachers who usually end up being predators as well. That's a whole other story. The problem this CIA operation has caused was a population with people all in their own separate groups and boxes, fighting with each other over many things, instead of the people who started this mess in the first place, that aren't even true because one side has been lied to and manipulated. Brainwashed from a literal military style operation that's used to topple foreign countries during regime changes. And the worst part on top of all this is that know since Elon has started DOGE, a government efficiency operation, we are now uncovering that all these communist, Marxist, ideas, and operations and slander campaigns, and legal cases against Trump, down to these politicians luxurious lifestyles have been all funded and paid for by us, the TAXPAYERS. On the one example above, through USAID, there is proof of over $9 MILLION dollars that went to Reuters for a campaign named, " ACTIVE SOCIAL ENGINEERING DEFENSE LARGE SCALE SOCIAL DECEPTION," which is a definitive contract. There are thousands of examples just like this for all different companies, influencers, T.V. shows, Magazines, Articles, any type of media, and all of them are left leaning outlets. This has been going on for decades. Then on top off all of that, you have people who own these publishing and media companies who are not only getting paid by the taxpayers from the CIA to deceive us, but many of these owners are best friends with people like Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxell as you can also see above who is with Laurene Powell Jobs, the owner of "The Atlantic" publication, on vacation just hanging out. You wonder why the media never talks about child trafficking. Their paid to cover it up, or they're literally involved themselves... It just get's better and better. The good news is that it is now being exposed and shut down. Let's dive into the history of PROJECT MOCKINGBIRD now. The story of Project Mockingbird begins in the shadow of the Cold War, a period defined by ideological warfare between the United States and the Soviet Union. In the early 1960s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under the leadership of Director John McCone, launched a covert operation codenamed "Project Mockingbird." Unlike the broader, alleged "Operation Mockingbird" often cited in conspiracy circles as a sprawling media manipulation scheme, the historical Project Mockingbird was a specific, documented wiretapping effort aimed at curbing leaks of classified information. Initiated on March 12, 1963, and concluding on June 15, 1963, Project Mockingbird targeted two Washington-based journalists, Robert S. Allen and Paul J. Scott, who wrote the syndicated "Allen-Scott Report." These columnists had a knack for publishing articles laced with highly classified CIA details—information so sensitive it included Top Secret and Special Intelligence data. Their scoops, often sourced from government insiders, rattled the Kennedy administration, particularly after a July 26, 1962, New York Times article by Hanson Baldwin exposed details of a National Intelligence Estimate comparing U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals. President John F. Kennedy, incensed by such leaks, sought to plug the holes. The operation was a collaborative effort, greenlit by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joseph Carroll. The CIA’s Office of Security, led by Sheffield Edwards, executed the wiretapping, monitoring the journalists’ home and office phones. The surveillance results identified congressional sources, including then-Speaker of the House John McCormack, who spoke with Scott on March 26, 1963. The "Family Jewels"—a 1973 CIA document declassified in 2007—later exposed this operation, revealing its scope and raising questions about its legality. Daniel L. Pines, a CIA Assistant General Counsel, argued in a 2009 Indiana Law Journal review that the wiretapping likely violated legal bounds, as its primary aim was to trace leaks rather than gather foreign intelligence. This historical Project Mockingbird, though limited in duration and scope, planted a seed of distrust between the government, the press, and the public—a seed that would grow into a broader narrative of media manipulation. From Wiretaps to Media Empire While Project Mockingbird of 1963 was a discrete surveillance effort, it became conflated with a larger CIA program dubbed "Operation Mockingbird." This narrative emerged most prominently in Deborah Davis’s 1979 book, Katharine the Great, which claimed that the CIA, under Frank Wisner of the Office of Policy Coordination, had systematically infiltrated American media starting in the 1950s. Davis alleged that Wisner recruited Washington Post publisher Phil Graham to orchestrate a propaganda network, embedding CIA-friendly journalists in outlets like The New York Times, Newsweek, and CBS. Cord Meyer, a key CIA figure, was said to have taken the reins in 1951, expanding the operation’s reach. The Church Committee’s 1975-1976 investigation lent some credence to these claims, uncovering CIA ties to around 50 American journalists and covert funding of front groups like the National Student Association, exposed by Ramparts magazine in 1967. Carl Bernstein’s 1977 Rolling Stone article, "The CIA and the Media," further detailed how over 400 U.S. journalists had covertly worked with the CIA, often disseminating propaganda abroad that would then filter back to domestic audiences. the CIA admitted overreach. By 1976, under Director George H.W. Bush, the CIA publicly pledged to end paid relationships with U.S. journalists. Yet, skeptics argued the agency merely shifted tactics, maintaining influence through foreign media outlets that indirectly shaped American narratives. The line between historical fact and conspiracy theory blurred, setting the stage for modern reinterpretations of Mockingbird’s legacy. They claim. The Turning Point came in 2013 and the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act Fast forward to July 2, 2013, a date that marks a pivotal shift in the Mockingbird saga. Under President Barack Obama, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act—embedded in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—took effect. This legislation amended the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, commonly known as the Smith-Mundt Act, which had long barred government-funded broadcasters like Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (now the U.S. Agency for Global Media, USAGM)—from disseminating their content domestically. The original intent was to prevent the U.S. government from propagandizing its own citizens, a safeguard rooted in post-World War II fears of authoritarian overreach. The 2013 amendment, co-sponsored by Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Mac Thornberry (R-TX), lifted this restriction, allowing USAGM content to be requested and accessed by Americans. Proponents hailed it as a transparency win, arguing that taxpayers deserved to see what their dollars funded—news and programming in 61 languages, reaching over 100 countries. Critics, however, saw it as a Pandora’s box. Foreign Policy reported on July 14, 2013, that the change unleashed "thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption," raising fears of legalized propaganda. The timing was notable: it followed a decade of post-9/11 media scrutiny and preceded a surge in misinformation debates. in 2024 claimed "Operation Mockingbird never ended," tying the NDAA to a supposed CIA media takeover. No hard evidence supports a direct CIA role, but the legal shift undeniably blurred lines between foreign and domestic information flows. While the USAGM insists its mission remains outward-facing—delivering uncensored news to foreign audiences lacking free press—and that its journalists adhere to strict objectivity standards, the repeal stoked speculation. Could this be a modern resurrection of Mockingbird-style influence? The answer is yes. Most projects they say they stopped just get renamed or go black and off the books so Congress doesn't even know it exists or get access to it. Be careful what you read, who you follow, and who you get your information from. Look for patterns and scripts. They're easy to find once you understand what's really going on and their tactics and techniques. Keep asking questions, cross reference everything, do your due diligence, have multiple sources, do not buy everything at face value, go deeper, think about the bigger picture or long term goals. And always remember that there are layers, optics, and timing to everything you see. 90% of everything that comes out gets run by the intelligence agencies first. Lastly, keep fighting for the truth and and continue to help others to wake up as well.

The SCIF

85,170 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

THE TELEGRAM NETWORK STATE? The Telegram TON IPO could be important. Mainly because they get the importance. But first...ok, yes, what got announced it isn’t technically a Telegram offering, nor is TON formally issued by Telegram, nor is it really even an IPO. To be precise, what just launched is a crypto treasury company called VERB that holds $500M+ of TON, which is a coin issued by a foundation that was once formally affiliated with Telegram and then became independent but is now affiliated again. Got all that? But these are really just implementation details. The offering could be important[1] simply because (a) Telegram has a billion users, and (b) TON is now the official coin of those billion users, and (c) Telegram can now officially partner with TON because (d) crypto is now fully legal. So, the potential is clear. Though it was a long and arduous struggle between network and state to get here. Let's review. (1) First, Telegram fought the law and the law…did not win. Briefly, Telegram created TON back in 2018, but an SEC injunction made them turn TON into an independent foundation. However, after the recent democratically-mandated defenestration of Gary Gensler, we saw the regulatory state capitulate and TON reintegrate with Telegram. (2) Next, the French state fought Pavel Durov and that state…did not yet win. Briefly, some French prosecutor came up with a fake case against Durov and grabbed him off a plane. This destroyed Emmanuel Macron’s ambitions to make France “startup friendly”, because investors just avoid France now after Durov's illegitimate prosecution. (3) The UAE has intervened on Durov’s behalf, and he’s now reportedly been let out of house arrest to return to Dubai. If justice still exists, then Durov should beat his case, just as Trump beat his own political prosecutions. In part that's because the case is predicated on the ridiculous idea that Durov is personally responsible for every message sent by the 1B+ users on his platform. That’s like holding Macron personally responsible for every crime committed by 67M Frenchmen. It’s just an unrealistic demand for a zero-crime digital environment, by a French state that can’t itself control crime at all. (4) Anyway, the real reason the French state is going after Durov is the same reason the Blue American state went after Elon and the Chinese state went after Jack Ma. It's because men like Durov are genuine leaders, and their growing strength scares bureaucratic incumbents. Because if there was a technodemocratic[2] plebiscite held, the billion users of Telegram could produce more votes (and hence more democratic legitimacy) for the popular Durov than the 67M French would for the unpopular Macron. The enormous popularity of the heads-of-network means they could become not just more competent but more legitimate than heads-of-state. This is one part of what the bureaucrats (instinctively, inarticulately) fear. (5) The other part is that that a fusion of a messaging app and a cryptocurrency allows something even bigger than a social network to emerge. With communication + AI moderation + crypto transactions, you have something more like a digital economy, one that bureaucrats can't control. Which is the other thing bureaucrats fear. (6) Of course, all that is predicated on actually getting a Telegram coin launched, and making it tradeable, and allowing it to formally integrate with the app. And all that was fought by various states for the better part of a decade, and now all that resistance is finally melting away, seven years after the whole TON thing began. Anyway, so that's why this is interesting to me. Founders like Durov built networks the size of countries, and finally have currencies to match. And as you can see from the video below (from the President of TON Foundation) and the tweet below (from the founder of Telegram), both Telegram and TON are well aware of the potential. They see the beginnings of a cloud country...a network state, if you will. They see the importance.
0:56

THE TELEGRAM NETWORK STATE? The Telegram TON IPO could be important. Mainly because they get the importance. But first...ok, yes, what got announced it isn’t technically a Telegram offering, nor is TON formally issued by Telegram, nor is it really even an IPO. To be precise, what just launched is a crypto treasury company called VERB that holds $500M+ of TON, which is a coin issued by a foundation that was once formally affiliated with Telegram and then became independent but is now affiliated again. Got all that? But these are really just implementation details. The offering could be important[1] simply because (a) Telegram has a billion users, and (b) TON is now the official coin of those billion users, and (c) Telegram can now officially partner with TON because (d) crypto is now fully legal. So, the potential is clear. Though it was a long and arduous struggle between network and state to get here. Let's review. (1) First, Telegram fought the law and the law…did not win. Briefly, Telegram created TON back in 2018, but an SEC injunction made them turn TON into an independent foundation. However, after the recent democratically-mandated defenestration of Gary Gensler, we saw the regulatory state capitulate and TON reintegrate with Telegram. (2) Next, the French state fought Pavel Durov and that state…did not yet win. Briefly, some French prosecutor came up with a fake case against Durov and grabbed him off a plane. This destroyed Emmanuel Macron’s ambitions to make France “startup friendly”, because investors just avoid France now after Durov's illegitimate prosecution. (3) The UAE has intervened on Durov’s behalf, and he’s now reportedly been let out of house arrest to return to Dubai. If justice still exists, then Durov should beat his case, just as Trump beat his own political prosecutions. In part that's because the case is predicated on the ridiculous idea that Durov is personally responsible for every message sent by the 1B+ users on his platform. That’s like holding Macron personally responsible for every crime committed by 67M Frenchmen. It’s just an unrealistic demand for a zero-crime digital environment, by a French state that can’t itself control crime at all. (4) Anyway, the real reason the French state is going after Durov is the same reason the Blue American state went after Elon and the Chinese state went after Jack Ma. It's because men like Durov are genuine leaders, and their growing strength scares bureaucratic incumbents. Because if there was a technodemocratic[2] plebiscite held, the billion users of Telegram could produce more votes (and hence more democratic legitimacy) for the popular Durov than the 67M French would for the unpopular Macron. The enormous popularity of the heads-of-network means they could become not just more competent but more legitimate than heads-of-state. This is one part of what the bureaucrats (instinctively, inarticulately) fear. (5) The other part is that that a fusion of a messaging app and a cryptocurrency allows something even bigger than a social network to emerge. With communication + AI moderation + crypto transactions, you have something more like a digital economy, one that bureaucrats can't control. Which is the other thing bureaucrats fear. (6) Of course, all that is predicated on actually getting a Telegram coin launched, and making it tradeable, and allowing it to formally integrate with the app. And all that was fought by various states for the better part of a decade, and now all that resistance is finally melting away, seven years after the whole TON thing began. Anyway, so that's why this is interesting to me. Founders like Durov built networks the size of countries, and finally have currencies to match. And as you can see from the video below (from the President of TON Foundation) and the tweet below (from the founder of Telegram), both Telegram and TON are well aware of the potential. They see the beginnings of a cloud country...a network state, if you will. They see the importance.

Balaji

255,446 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"How do you know you can trust what [a non-human intelligence is] saying?" ~Bigelow Bigelow/Knapp 2: If I Was President, I'd Tell the World We Have Non-Human Craft and Bodies "The President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation...is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something." ~Bigelow Do China and Russia also have non-human bodies and craft? "Oh yeah, freaking yes!" ~Bigelow ~ "You've opened up Pandora's box." ~Bigelow ~ 17:44 (I'm using the KLAS YT video for time stamps. As you'll see, I add a lot to these, so they take forever to put together.) George Knapp (GK): "Would you guess - based on what you know about the topic and how it's been handled over the decades - would you guess that [Trump] had been briefed, or that any other presidents have been briefed? You know that Bill Clinton was not, even though he expressed an interest in it. So at some point, the President has to be told, 'No, we can't tell ya.'" Robert Bigelow (RB): "I think Bush Sr. knew quite a bit because he was the head of the CIA." (Dr. Eric Davis says Bush. Sr. told him some interesting things, including that he (Bush) was partially briefed in 1976 about the alleged 1964 Holloman AFB landing and meeting, and more, when he first became the director of the CIA in 1976. Watch Davis explain it, here. ) ~ RB: "I think Nixon did." (We have the Jackie Gleason story, where Nixon allegedly snuck away from his Secret Service detail and took Gleason to see non-human bodies at Homestead Air Force Base. But that was a claim from his ex-wife, and Gleason, who died in 1987, never said anything about it, on the record. The controversial Larry Warren (Rendlesham) claims Gleason told him the same story, but that's it.) Bigelow: "I think Eisenhower did. So, it's kind of hit and miss over historic...over the period of history as to who has and who hasn't." 18:20 Knapp: "Can you tell us what would be in the briefing document that you left behind? Was it cases? Here's a wave of UFOs, here's a case, here was a crash. Anything like that?" Bigelow: "Yeah, I related conversations I have had with General De Brouwer, who was the chief of the Air Force for Belgium. And there was a very interesting flap that was about 18 months long (1989-1990) with triangular craft. And he was in command of all the Air Force, and he really chased the heck out of these. "And he told me, he said, Bob, 'I'm just burning fuel, and it makes no sense.' He said, 'We're gonna stop because we're not getting anywhere. All we're doing is getting closer, you know, photographs and things, but we're not getting anywhere. We're not getting any information that is really valuable for us to understand anything.'" (I wonder if those were OUR triangles? If so, it's still a solid case/flap of anomalous craft. Dick D'Amato was a longtime (18 years) senior staffer for Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.) "Dick D'Amato has returned from Belgium where he met with Colonel De Brouwer, a 'very interesting fellow.' Dick’s conclusion, again, is that the triangular objects are very plain human craft. ~Jacques Vallée's Forbidden Science Volume 4 - November 1992 And then we have this... Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP, to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value." Lacatski: "[three-second pause] It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." Video... ~~~ RB: "And I gave [Trump] other examples of where large amounts of witnesses were involved, and so that he could read about these particular [incidents]. And, of course, the one with Fife Simington in '97 was so interesting. Because there you had a governor who was an actual witness, and he made a joke of it on and brought a guy in an alien suit on stage because he was scared to death." GK: "It's the Phoenix Lights case." (Great case for Bigelow to show Trump.) RB: "The Phoenix Lights, which weren't just lights, it was actually friggin' craft, and it came from northern Arizona. I think it started, actually, in southern Nevada, is where the craft began. In the Henderson area (not far from me. ~Joe), I think, somewhere in there. And, so you see this huge triangular craft, gigantic craft, going slowly, and [Symington] was scared to death. "But finally, fast forward 10 years later, and he confesses that he was an eyewitness, but he didn't know what to do. So he was there at a point in time when the dynamic of disclosure could have been forced, and actually, confirmation could have been from a governor of the state like that. He was a credible guy. "So we've had many [incidents] like that in the early 50s, flying over the White House and the Capitol building. We've had so many of those. So, in my report, I included a lot of very dramatic, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of witnesses of exhibitions." GK: "Did you share with him anything about your knowledge of a classified program?" RB: "No." GK: "You got a Top-Secret security clearance, right?" RB: "Yeah" GK: "It was for the AAWSAP program for BAASS." RB: "Right." GK: "Operated under the DIA." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You learned a lot during that program. It's the largest accumulation of UFO info. of any government-funded UFO program ever." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You didn't tell him about it." RB: "It wasn't credible enough, I felt, for him." (Someone on here watched this interview and told me that Bigelow said the AAWSAP data wasn't credible. That is NOT what he said. Not credible enough for Trump, is what he said. And if you read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" or listen any of Lacatki's interviews where he talks about UFOs being under a paranormal umbrella, I think Bigelow made the right decision for an 11-minute briefing for someone (Trump) who seems to be struggling (at least in public comments) with the reality of the basics.) RB: "[The AAWSAP data is] just something pertaining to me. And whereas, these other examples are historic, and they're in a lot of literature, they're very famous. The amount of witnesses were huge. We operated under a private situation with the Skinwalker Ranch, and he wouldn't relate to...well, we all had hitchhikers, we all took things home with us. You know, we all saw a lot of stuff. Whether it was at the ranch or where we lived, it didn't make any difference where in the United States we lived. We saw a lot of things, but that wouldn't be relevant for him to be able to relate to that, right?" GK: "Well." RB: "So, why talk about it?" GK: "Yeah, I mean, you know, you're kind of jumping into the deep end of the pool when you get into hitchhikers and skinwalkers." RB: "Yeah." GK: "Maybe for your first big conversation on this topic, that might not be the place to go." RB: "No, you know. And I couldn't even...if he said, 'Oh, I need a beer (Knapp laughs),' I couldn't even give him something to drink. You know, maybe stronger than that. So, I didn't wanna do any, you know." 22:15 GK: "You used the term non-human intelligence in the sentence you gave him. Hey, try this as you're climbing aboard Air Force One. Say that to media, and then, you know, close the door." RB: "Right." GK: "You said non-human intelligence, not ET. Are they the same, and did you share anything with him about what you think it is?" RB: "Well, there have been reports of humans on board, right? But the non-human are more interesting. I mean, if a human's on board and he or she has free reign of the craft, that's pretty damn interesting, right? And you don't know where those people are when they're not on board." (I wonder what cases he's talking about? Travis Walton reported seeing humans with non-humans and John Keel wrote about humans being seen onboard craft.) ~ Bigelow: "But the other ones are...some are scary, you know? It's not surprising, that, in the Universe, everything is [not] gonna look like us. Every intelligent organism is [not] going to look like us. But you have to have... It's also a matter of respect for any really intelligent animal or creature, whatever it is, right? And the more advanced, the more respect because you don't know what they know, and you don't know the future. And they may know. They may know more than just the now." (In interviews (which I can't find right now), Bigelow has hinted at an unstoppable, not-so-rosy future for mankind. Have people in the Legacy programs told him that the NHI have warned us about our doomed future or some cataclysmic event? Or, has Bigelow encountered these non-humans (or humans) and had them make claims about our future?) ~ 23:34 GK: "If you were to have a second conversation with him, would you explain that ET is one idea, but it's not necessarily the only option for a non-human intelligence that's out there?" RB: "You have to tell me first how much time do I have with the second conversation?" GK: "[laughs] Let's make it an hour. You have an hour with the President. What would you tell them about who they are, who they might be?" RB: "Umm... So, I would try to get into the complexity of the relationship. That once you've had confirmation, you know, you've given that text of that little sentence I wrote and quoted there, and you start to go down the path of disclosure, where it's more than than just FLIR videos, and you're seeing other things that are much more crystal clear, you know, in video. "Or, legitimate people in places that you recognize these people, and they're around something, or with some thing, or somebody that's a holy cow, that's wow, you know. That's a very dramatic kind of disclosure about something landing on the lawn somewhere, you know." (I have no idea what he's talking about. Anybody else able to decipher that? Is he saying that there's evidence (that he's seen?) of people that we know (a President or head of state?) hanging with a non-human or next to a downed or landed craft?) RB: "So I think what I would have spent time doing is talking about, how do you establish: You've been in 80 years of denial as a nation, and the world. We have countries who are very upfront, and others that are also in denial. Now you wanna pivot 180 degrees. How do you start that relationship? How do you do that? "And it's not as though that we've ever been in control. We haven't been in control of anything, ever, for this 80 years of modern history. Nothing. We have no ability to control anything." GK: "That's a tough thing to tell the President, right? I would think that would be a tough thing for a President to accept." RB: "Well, you're giving me an hour to talk to him, you said." GK: "[laughs] Yeah, okay." RB: "So I'm using my hour." GK: "All right." 25:46 RB:" So, yeah! So, that's a really intriguing thing is: How do you do that, where do you start? And into a relationship? And I would say more like, well, I would wanna start with, the biggest question I would ask, I would say, what I wanna get from them is... My first question is: What are the chances we are gonna survive ourselves? That we are not going to annihilate ourselves. "Because they already are familiar with a whole lot of other species on a lot of other worlds or other planets. So, chances are they have a pretty good idea of percentage." (That assumes a lot, since we have no idea how long they've been around, what they've seen, or where they're from. Unless...Mr. Bigelow has seen evidence that relates to those questions or heard it from folks who work in the Legacy programs?) RB: "And it's not that we're a spiritual species. You talk to people that have near-death experiences; they're changed for the rest of their life. They've become a spiritual person of a caliber that they've never been. "Well, we're a long way, as an average, from that category, from that level. There are monsters among us, as human beings, and they're angelic people among us. So we are a danger to another species, we're potentially the Klingons. We have a technological maturity that is not just going on a line, but it's vertical and it's segmented because it's jumping. "And meanwhile, our spiritual maturity just bumps along the bottom, you know? So, we look at the 20th century; 60 million people were killed. Are we ever gonna get beyond that? So, the thing of it is, we know so little about how to have a relationship. I'm not in any position to really advise, except for the few ideas I have as to where to start, and the how is really super important. 27:49 "It's not gonna be like a 'Close Encounter of the Third, Kind,' which was a really cool movie. And it's not gonna be because of SETI. You know, it's gonna be by some other kinds of means that you're embarking on. And I'm interested in that kind of research." 28:06 GK: "We go back to your meeting with the President. You walk into the Oval Office, they clear off the Resolute Desk, you spread out your seven piles of stuff, and you start making a presentation about each one, in particular about ET, non-human intelligence. You can't say what he said to you. Can you say whether he asked questions? Was he curious?" RB: "He was distracted by other things. So, he also asked me... He did ask questions, but he asked questions about other stuff that wasn't necessarily just on what I was talking about." GK: "He's getting your input on other things going on in the world." RB: "Yeah, yeah." 28:49 GK: "If you had to make a guess, would you guess that you got through to him on this issue? I mean, he hasn't stood in the doorway of Air Force One and made those remarks yet, but he has taken some pretty dramatic steps on this topic since you met with him. Do you think you made a dent?" RB: "Don't know. I advised him on something that I can measure, and he hasn't taken my advice so far on what I suggested to him, on a totally different, unrelated subject. But so far, he has not taken my advice." GK: Well, somebody seems to have got through to him, because he's been taking steps that we're seeing real results. I mean, people are either..." RB: "Well, I'm talking about an unrelated subject altogether. So, yes, there there are a couple of different task forces that are involved. So, there is an initiation of an activity in this subject, [but] it remains to be seen, though, that he gives actual presidential confirmation. I don't, I haven't... Maybe you're more aware than I am. Has that been...has he done that?" GK: "Not, not really. Nothing like what I'd call confirmation. But that's really what you're talking about. I remember us having a conversation in 2008, right after you had signed the contract with DIA for BAASS to run [AAWSAP]. And you made the case then that what we need is not Disclosure; it's confirmation." RB: "Yeah." 30:25 GK: "For somebody like the President, I'm not sure if it could be anyone less than the President that steps forward and says this, and it carries the same kind of weight." RB: "Yeah. It's a big appetizer. You know, you're looking for the entree, and where's the dessert in this whole buffet? But the confirmation is a huge appetizer to start with, and that's why I started with that in my conversation with him. Is, pushing him to try and make a confirmation. And maybe he wants to get personally more comfortable?" (I have said that I want the entire enchilada NOW, but I'm also a realist, and would take a simple confirmation that somebody else is on this planet with us. That SHOULD wake up the mainstream media and masses, but no guarantees since Trump is so controversial and people might just ignore it, IF he ever did it. I've also said that I'd surround him with people like Schumer, Rubio, Rounds and Gillibrand in order to show that it's bipartisan. And a few firsthand whistleblowers who say they worked hands on, IN one of these alleged Legacy UFO/UAP programs.) 30:57 Bigelow: "And, you know, he will go down in history for a lot of things, for better or worse, that people are on both sides of the fence about him and so forth. But he's involved in so many different things and has been, that I don't know what his legacy is gonna be, I really don't. "He has an opportunity, in this serious subject, to build a legacy using this as part of the blocks, part of the brick and the structure...the content of a structure that is very unique. So, you can have all the political programs that you want, and so forth, and nobody is gonna really remember those as time goes by, as the decades fade away. "Nobody can remember Benghazi and Afghanistan and Iraq, different kinds of things, and that's just recent history. You know, the world goes so fast. But the President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation, and actually built a satisfactory conclusion of a relationship between human beings and that subject is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something. And if it's handled right, it can be done successfully." (To me, it's a no brainer. His presidency would go down as one that changed the world and our species. Or course, I'm sure he has people in his ear telling him that confirmation would cause societal disruption that we're not prepared to handle, and that THAT would be his legacy.) (32:21) GK: "A lot of Presidents have made comments, often after they're out of office, on this topic. 'Yeah, gosh, I'm real interested in that.' Or, 'Wouldn't that be something?' Or, 'I think aliens could exist.' Something like that. But nothing like what you're talking about, which amounts to confirmation, saying, 'It's real. They're here. We gotta figure it out,' and stopping it there, not disclosing..." RB: "Well, the dialogue, the ability to learn something from them is huge. What can we do for you? I mean, that's where...one of the first things I would ask is, not just, are we going to survive ourselves? Yeah, that's pretty damn important. That's like, probably number one, you know? "But close behind that is: Okay, we've been aware of you for a long time, and the government's never admitted it. But us as a public, we know it, and we're really curious. Is there anything that we can do for you? Not just what can you do... I loved what John Kennedy, what he said famously: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That huge. So that's giving them a kind of a respect that they deserve." (Do they deserve respect? I'm not so sure. It all depends on if they're upfront with us and tell us their true intentions. Of course, how do we know they're telling us the truth? Why have you (or some of you) been abducting us against our will, and injuring some of us? See Jim Semivan's abduction story with his wife. "I don't think [the phenomenon] cares whether it does harm. I think it may go out of its way not to do harm, but, if it does harm... "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." ~Former CIA Officer, Jim Semivan to Engaging The Phenomenon ~ 33:33 GK: "If you were President, would you announce that yes, we've got crash retrievals, yes, we have reverse engineering programs, and yes, we've got bodies?" RB: "Yeah, because the rest of the world already knows that. The people that count in Russia and China already know." GK: "Because they've got their own." RB: "Oh yeah, freaking yes! Yeah! They've had their missiles shut down, they've had their missiles activated. You know, depending on which country you're talking about." 33:56 GK: "Have you considered the political fallout for a President? Let's say it's Trump, because he might be the guy that would do it and just cast his fate to the winds. But, he makes an announcement: 'Yeah, they're here. Yeah, we've got programs. Yeah, we've got crashes, we've got bodies. That's as far as I'm able to go right now.' What happens to him, politically? Is he able to get anything else done?" RB: "That's more than I would have said, for him to say. What you just said." GK: "That goes too far." RB: "I wouldn't advise him to say, initially, what you just said." GK: "You just say, non-human intelligence, been here a long time, and leave it at that." RB: "Yeah, that one sentence is a starter because it's a huge canon. You've opened up Pandora's box, in terms of, 'Oh my gosh, what's gonna happen?' Okay. So now, you can categorize and segment into topics. And you need time to do that, and it needs to be digestible." ~ “I have met with people who I know are in the know. One of them told me the truth is indigestible.” ~Jim Semivan to James Iandoli ~ RB: "And it needs to be not packaged in a scary kind of way, and it can't be packaged in a way that you're divulging what you shouldn't be divulging. You know, other countries aren't, so there's reasons to have national secrets. There really are. I mean, that's kind of like common sense, right?" (Well, David Grusch claimed that some other countries aren't divulging for a specific reason." Grusch on Yes Theory: "So there are certainly friendly governments, both across the pond and say, local to where we...our landmass, that are for this. And a lot of them know that they got a raw deal with the U.S. because they were, basically, part of the secrecy, through kind of agreements like, bilateral, unilateral agreements. And they're like, you know, they kind of wanna be, 'Release me!' Like, you know, because they they do realize it was a bad deal. "With the ecosystem secrecy, some people, one of their arguments is like, 'Well how would they keep the secret?' I'm, like dude, I was cleared to some of the most nation's most sensitive programs, I used to handle the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing). You know, I had full access to most DoD activities. And most of the stuff, BROAD programs that were enduring, have NEVER leaked. "So the U.S. and its allies are very good at keeping secrecies, to include programs that are, let's say, global in nature. And really, it's been leaking like a sieve in some weird way for many decades. Now it's been mixed in with some BS in ufology and stuff, but the general gist of it's actually been out there for a long time. It has been leaking in some sense, so." ~ 35:06 GK: "We don't want the Russians and Chinese and maybe other adversaries to know how far along we are, or are not, in configuring this out." RB: "Absolutely. Especially of that. I think that the relationship (with he phenomenon) thing is a mankind relationship. It's not just for America. When you are embarking as a President on trying to initiate a solemn relationship, you're not doing for U.S. of A. only. "And so, the...and then we probably can do a show on communication (with a non-human intelligence), but it's really complex because, who are you going to have initiate it? Are you going to have politicians initiate? Are you going to have military people? Because everybody has kind of their own mindset. Are you gonna have a bunch of lawyers initiate it? Are you gonna have scientists only, initiate it? (And what if we're dealing with more than one non-human intelligence? Who do we communicate with? And what if it's one intelligence pretended to be multiple? How would we even figure that out?) "[Hynek] cited the 'poltergeist' phenomena experienced by some...after a close encounter; the fact that some witnesses develop psychic abilities after an encounter. 'Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?'" ~J. Allen Hynek ~ RB: "And how do you know to whom you're talking? You know, how do you know you can trust what they're saying?" (I'm so glad he said that. We don't, and we don't.) RB: "Because it depends on the form of communication, and what are you asking for in the way of proof or demonstrations to establish trust, both ways, in the communication process?" "Because, we haven't had that happen before. It is totally new ground, and frankly, we need The Others' help. We need the help of The Others to help, to guide us." (Firs off, it MAY have happened within these Legacy programs. And, if we don't know who we're talking to, or if we can trust them, why would we enlist the help of The Others? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.)
10:24

"How do you know you can trust what [a non-human intelligence is] saying?" ~Bigelow Bigelow/Knapp 2: If I Was President, I'd Tell the World We Have Non-Human Craft and Bodies "The President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation...is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something." ~Bigelow Do China and Russia also have non-human bodies and craft? "Oh yeah, freaking yes!" ~Bigelow ~ "You've opened up Pandora's box." ~Bigelow ~ 17:44 (I'm using the KLAS YT video for time stamps. As you'll see, I add a lot to these, so they take forever to put together.) George Knapp (GK): "Would you guess - based on what you know about the topic and how it's been handled over the decades - would you guess that [Trump] had been briefed, or that any other presidents have been briefed? You know that Bill Clinton was not, even though he expressed an interest in it. So at some point, the President has to be told, 'No, we can't tell ya.'" Robert Bigelow (RB): "I think Bush Sr. knew quite a bit because he was the head of the CIA." (Dr. Eric Davis says Bush. Sr. told him some interesting things, including that he (Bush) was partially briefed in 1976 about the alleged 1964 Holloman AFB landing and meeting, and more, when he first became the director of the CIA in 1976. Watch Davis explain it, here. ) ~ RB: "I think Nixon did." (We have the Jackie Gleason story, where Nixon allegedly snuck away from his Secret Service detail and took Gleason to see non-human bodies at Homestead Air Force Base. But that was a claim from his ex-wife, and Gleason, who died in 1987, never said anything about it, on the record. The controversial Larry Warren (Rendlesham) claims Gleason told him the same story, but that's it.) Bigelow: "I think Eisenhower did. So, it's kind of hit and miss over historic...over the period of history as to who has and who hasn't." 18:20 Knapp: "Can you tell us what would be in the briefing document that you left behind? Was it cases? Here's a wave of UFOs, here's a case, here was a crash. Anything like that?" Bigelow: "Yeah, I related conversations I have had with General De Brouwer, who was the chief of the Air Force for Belgium. And there was a very interesting flap that was about 18 months long (1989-1990) with triangular craft. And he was in command of all the Air Force, and he really chased the heck out of these. "And he told me, he said, Bob, 'I'm just burning fuel, and it makes no sense.' He said, 'We're gonna stop because we're not getting anywhere. All we're doing is getting closer, you know, photographs and things, but we're not getting anywhere. We're not getting any information that is really valuable for us to understand anything.'" (I wonder if those were OUR triangles? If so, it's still a solid case/flap of anomalous craft. Dick D'Amato was a longtime (18 years) senior staffer for Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.) "Dick D'Amato has returned from Belgium where he met with Colonel De Brouwer, a 'very interesting fellow.' Dick’s conclusion, again, is that the triangular objects are very plain human craft. ~Jacques Vallée's Forbidden Science Volume 4 - November 1992 And then we have this... Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP, to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value." Lacatski: "[three-second pause] It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." Video... ~~~ RB: "And I gave [Trump] other examples of where large amounts of witnesses were involved, and so that he could read about these particular [incidents]. And, of course, the one with Fife Simington in '97 was so interesting. Because there you had a governor who was an actual witness, and he made a joke of it on and brought a guy in an alien suit on stage because he was scared to death." GK: "It's the Phoenix Lights case." (Great case for Bigelow to show Trump.) RB: "The Phoenix Lights, which weren't just lights, it was actually friggin' craft, and it came from northern Arizona. I think it started, actually, in southern Nevada, is where the craft began. In the Henderson area (not far from me. ~Joe), I think, somewhere in there. And, so you see this huge triangular craft, gigantic craft, going slowly, and [Symington] was scared to death. "But finally, fast forward 10 years later, and he confesses that he was an eyewitness, but he didn't know what to do. So he was there at a point in time when the dynamic of disclosure could have been forced, and actually, confirmation could have been from a governor of the state like that. He was a credible guy. "So we've had many [incidents] like that in the early 50s, flying over the White House and the Capitol building. We've had so many of those. So, in my report, I included a lot of very dramatic, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of witnesses of exhibitions." GK: "Did you share with him anything about your knowledge of a classified program?" RB: "No." GK: "You got a Top-Secret security clearance, right?" RB: "Yeah" GK: "It was for the AAWSAP program for BAASS." RB: "Right." GK: "Operated under the DIA." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You learned a lot during that program. It's the largest accumulation of UFO info. of any government-funded UFO program ever." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You didn't tell him about it." RB: "It wasn't credible enough, I felt, for him." (Someone on here watched this interview and told me that Bigelow said the AAWSAP data wasn't credible. That is NOT what he said. Not credible enough for Trump, is what he said. And if you read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" or listen any of Lacatki's interviews where he talks about UFOs being under a paranormal umbrella, I think Bigelow made the right decision for an 11-minute briefing for someone (Trump) who seems to be struggling (at least in public comments) with the reality of the basics.) RB: "[The AAWSAP data is] just something pertaining to me. And whereas, these other examples are historic, and they're in a lot of literature, they're very famous. The amount of witnesses were huge. We operated under a private situation with the Skinwalker Ranch, and he wouldn't relate to...well, we all had hitchhikers, we all took things home with us. You know, we all saw a lot of stuff. Whether it was at the ranch or where we lived, it didn't make any difference where in the United States we lived. We saw a lot of things, but that wouldn't be relevant for him to be able to relate to that, right?" GK: "Well." RB: "So, why talk about it?" GK: "Yeah, I mean, you know, you're kind of jumping into the deep end of the pool when you get into hitchhikers and skinwalkers." RB: "Yeah." GK: "Maybe for your first big conversation on this topic, that might not be the place to go." RB: "No, you know. And I couldn't even...if he said, 'Oh, I need a beer (Knapp laughs),' I couldn't even give him something to drink. You know, maybe stronger than that. So, I didn't wanna do any, you know." 22:15 GK: "You used the term non-human intelligence in the sentence you gave him. Hey, try this as you're climbing aboard Air Force One. Say that to media, and then, you know, close the door." RB: "Right." GK: "You said non-human intelligence, not ET. Are they the same, and did you share anything with him about what you think it is?" RB: "Well, there have been reports of humans on board, right? But the non-human are more interesting. I mean, if a human's on board and he or she has free reign of the craft, that's pretty damn interesting, right? And you don't know where those people are when they're not on board." (I wonder what cases he's talking about? Travis Walton reported seeing humans with non-humans and John Keel wrote about humans being seen onboard craft.) ~ Bigelow: "But the other ones are...some are scary, you know? It's not surprising, that, in the Universe, everything is [not] gonna look like us. Every intelligent organism is [not] going to look like us. But you have to have... It's also a matter of respect for any really intelligent animal or creature, whatever it is, right? And the more advanced, the more respect because you don't know what they know, and you don't know the future. And they may know. They may know more than just the now." (In interviews (which I can't find right now), Bigelow has hinted at an unstoppable, not-so-rosy future for mankind. Have people in the Legacy programs told him that the NHI have warned us about our doomed future or some cataclysmic event? Or, has Bigelow encountered these non-humans (or humans) and had them make claims about our future?) ~ 23:34 GK: "If you were to have a second conversation with him, would you explain that ET is one idea, but it's not necessarily the only option for a non-human intelligence that's out there?" RB: "You have to tell me first how much time do I have with the second conversation?" GK: "[laughs] Let's make it an hour. You have an hour with the President. What would you tell them about who they are, who they might be?" RB: "Umm... So, I would try to get into the complexity of the relationship. That once you've had confirmation, you know, you've given that text of that little sentence I wrote and quoted there, and you start to go down the path of disclosure, where it's more than than just FLIR videos, and you're seeing other things that are much more crystal clear, you know, in video. "Or, legitimate people in places that you recognize these people, and they're around something, or with some thing, or somebody that's a holy cow, that's wow, you know. That's a very dramatic kind of disclosure about something landing on the lawn somewhere, you know." (I have no idea what he's talking about. Anybody else able to decipher that? Is he saying that there's evidence (that he's seen?) of people that we know (a President or head of state?) hanging with a non-human or next to a downed or landed craft?) RB: "So I think what I would have spent time doing is talking about, how do you establish: You've been in 80 years of denial as a nation, and the world. We have countries who are very upfront, and others that are also in denial. Now you wanna pivot 180 degrees. How do you start that relationship? How do you do that? "And it's not as though that we've ever been in control. We haven't been in control of anything, ever, for this 80 years of modern history. Nothing. We have no ability to control anything." GK: "That's a tough thing to tell the President, right? I would think that would be a tough thing for a President to accept." RB: "Well, you're giving me an hour to talk to him, you said." GK: "[laughs] Yeah, okay." RB: "So I'm using my hour." GK: "All right." 25:46 RB:" So, yeah! So, that's a really intriguing thing is: How do you do that, where do you start? And into a relationship? And I would say more like, well, I would wanna start with, the biggest question I would ask, I would say, what I wanna get from them is... My first question is: What are the chances we are gonna survive ourselves? That we are not going to annihilate ourselves. "Because they already are familiar with a whole lot of other species on a lot of other worlds or other planets. So, chances are they have a pretty good idea of percentage." (That assumes a lot, since we have no idea how long they've been around, what they've seen, or where they're from. Unless...Mr. Bigelow has seen evidence that relates to those questions or heard it from folks who work in the Legacy programs?) RB: "And it's not that we're a spiritual species. You talk to people that have near-death experiences; they're changed for the rest of their life. They've become a spiritual person of a caliber that they've never been. "Well, we're a long way, as an average, from that category, from that level. There are monsters among us, as human beings, and they're angelic people among us. So we are a danger to another species, we're potentially the Klingons. We have a technological maturity that is not just going on a line, but it's vertical and it's segmented because it's jumping. "And meanwhile, our spiritual maturity just bumps along the bottom, you know? So, we look at the 20th century; 60 million people were killed. Are we ever gonna get beyond that? So, the thing of it is, we know so little about how to have a relationship. I'm not in any position to really advise, except for the few ideas I have as to where to start, and the how is really super important. 27:49 "It's not gonna be like a 'Close Encounter of the Third, Kind,' which was a really cool movie. And it's not gonna be because of SETI. You know, it's gonna be by some other kinds of means that you're embarking on. And I'm interested in that kind of research." 28:06 GK: "We go back to your meeting with the President. You walk into the Oval Office, they clear off the Resolute Desk, you spread out your seven piles of stuff, and you start making a presentation about each one, in particular about ET, non-human intelligence. You can't say what he said to you. Can you say whether he asked questions? Was he curious?" RB: "He was distracted by other things. So, he also asked me... He did ask questions, but he asked questions about other stuff that wasn't necessarily just on what I was talking about." GK: "He's getting your input on other things going on in the world." RB: "Yeah, yeah." 28:49 GK: "If you had to make a guess, would you guess that you got through to him on this issue? I mean, he hasn't stood in the doorway of Air Force One and made those remarks yet, but he has taken some pretty dramatic steps on this topic since you met with him. Do you think you made a dent?" RB: "Don't know. I advised him on something that I can measure, and he hasn't taken my advice so far on what I suggested to him, on a totally different, unrelated subject. But so far, he has not taken my advice." GK: Well, somebody seems to have got through to him, because he's been taking steps that we're seeing real results. I mean, people are either..." RB: "Well, I'm talking about an unrelated subject altogether. So, yes, there there are a couple of different task forces that are involved. So, there is an initiation of an activity in this subject, [but] it remains to be seen, though, that he gives actual presidential confirmation. I don't, I haven't... Maybe you're more aware than I am. Has that been...has he done that?" GK: "Not, not really. Nothing like what I'd call confirmation. But that's really what you're talking about. I remember us having a conversation in 2008, right after you had signed the contract with DIA for BAASS to run [AAWSAP]. And you made the case then that what we need is not Disclosure; it's confirmation." RB: "Yeah." 30:25 GK: "For somebody like the President, I'm not sure if it could be anyone less than the President that steps forward and says this, and it carries the same kind of weight." RB: "Yeah. It's a big appetizer. You know, you're looking for the entree, and where's the dessert in this whole buffet? But the confirmation is a huge appetizer to start with, and that's why I started with that in my conversation with him. Is, pushing him to try and make a confirmation. And maybe he wants to get personally more comfortable?" (I have said that I want the entire enchilada NOW, but I'm also a realist, and would take a simple confirmation that somebody else is on this planet with us. That SHOULD wake up the mainstream media and masses, but no guarantees since Trump is so controversial and people might just ignore it, IF he ever did it. I've also said that I'd surround him with people like Schumer, Rubio, Rounds and Gillibrand in order to show that it's bipartisan. And a few firsthand whistleblowers who say they worked hands on, IN one of these alleged Legacy UFO/UAP programs.) 30:57 Bigelow: "And, you know, he will go down in history for a lot of things, for better or worse, that people are on both sides of the fence about him and so forth. But he's involved in so many different things and has been, that I don't know what his legacy is gonna be, I really don't. "He has an opportunity, in this serious subject, to build a legacy using this as part of the blocks, part of the brick and the structure...the content of a structure that is very unique. So, you can have all the political programs that you want, and so forth, and nobody is gonna really remember those as time goes by, as the decades fade away. "Nobody can remember Benghazi and Afghanistan and Iraq, different kinds of things, and that's just recent history. You know, the world goes so fast. But the President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation, and actually built a satisfactory conclusion of a relationship between human beings and that subject is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something. And if it's handled right, it can be done successfully." (To me, it's a no brainer. His presidency would go down as one that changed the world and our species. Or course, I'm sure he has people in his ear telling him that confirmation would cause societal disruption that we're not prepared to handle, and that THAT would be his legacy.) (32:21) GK: "A lot of Presidents have made comments, often after they're out of office, on this topic. 'Yeah, gosh, I'm real interested in that.' Or, 'Wouldn't that be something?' Or, 'I think aliens could exist.' Something like that. But nothing like what you're talking about, which amounts to confirmation, saying, 'It's real. They're here. We gotta figure it out,' and stopping it there, not disclosing..." RB: "Well, the dialogue, the ability to learn something from them is huge. What can we do for you? I mean, that's where...one of the first things I would ask is, not just, are we going to survive ourselves? Yeah, that's pretty damn important. That's like, probably number one, you know? "But close behind that is: Okay, we've been aware of you for a long time, and the government's never admitted it. But us as a public, we know it, and we're really curious. Is there anything that we can do for you? Not just what can you do... I loved what John Kennedy, what he said famously: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That huge. So that's giving them a kind of a respect that they deserve." (Do they deserve respect? I'm not so sure. It all depends on if they're upfront with us and tell us their true intentions. Of course, how do we know they're telling us the truth? Why have you (or some of you) been abducting us against our will, and injuring some of us? See Jim Semivan's abduction story with his wife. "I don't think [the phenomenon] cares whether it does harm. I think it may go out of its way not to do harm, but, if it does harm... "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." ~Former CIA Officer, Jim Semivan to Engaging The Phenomenon ~ 33:33 GK: "If you were President, would you announce that yes, we've got crash retrievals, yes, we have reverse engineering programs, and yes, we've got bodies?" RB: "Yeah, because the rest of the world already knows that. The people that count in Russia and China already know." GK: "Because they've got their own." RB: "Oh yeah, freaking yes! Yeah! They've had their missiles shut down, they've had their missiles activated. You know, depending on which country you're talking about." 33:56 GK: "Have you considered the political fallout for a President? Let's say it's Trump, because he might be the guy that would do it and just cast his fate to the winds. But, he makes an announcement: 'Yeah, they're here. Yeah, we've got programs. Yeah, we've got crashes, we've got bodies. That's as far as I'm able to go right now.' What happens to him, politically? Is he able to get anything else done?" RB: "That's more than I would have said, for him to say. What you just said." GK: "That goes too far." RB: "I wouldn't advise him to say, initially, what you just said." GK: "You just say, non-human intelligence, been here a long time, and leave it at that." RB: "Yeah, that one sentence is a starter because it's a huge canon. You've opened up Pandora's box, in terms of, 'Oh my gosh, what's gonna happen?' Okay. So now, you can categorize and segment into topics. And you need time to do that, and it needs to be digestible." ~ “I have met with people who I know are in the know. One of them told me the truth is indigestible.” ~Jim Semivan to James Iandoli ~ RB: "And it needs to be not packaged in a scary kind of way, and it can't be packaged in a way that you're divulging what you shouldn't be divulging. You know, other countries aren't, so there's reasons to have national secrets. There really are. I mean, that's kind of like common sense, right?" (Well, David Grusch claimed that some other countries aren't divulging for a specific reason." Grusch on Yes Theory: "So there are certainly friendly governments, both across the pond and say, local to where we...our landmass, that are for this. And a lot of them know that they got a raw deal with the U.S. because they were, basically, part of the secrecy, through kind of agreements like, bilateral, unilateral agreements. And they're like, you know, they kind of wanna be, 'Release me!' Like, you know, because they they do realize it was a bad deal. "With the ecosystem secrecy, some people, one of their arguments is like, 'Well how would they keep the secret?' I'm, like dude, I was cleared to some of the most nation's most sensitive programs, I used to handle the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing). You know, I had full access to most DoD activities. And most of the stuff, BROAD programs that were enduring, have NEVER leaked. "So the U.S. and its allies are very good at keeping secrecies, to include programs that are, let's say, global in nature. And really, it's been leaking like a sieve in some weird way for many decades. Now it's been mixed in with some BS in ufology and stuff, but the general gist of it's actually been out there for a long time. It has been leaking in some sense, so." ~ 35:06 GK: "We don't want the Russians and Chinese and maybe other adversaries to know how far along we are, or are not, in configuring this out." RB: "Absolutely. Especially of that. I think that the relationship (with he phenomenon) thing is a mankind relationship. It's not just for America. When you are embarking as a President on trying to initiate a solemn relationship, you're not doing for U.S. of A. only. "And so, the...and then we probably can do a show on communication (with a non-human intelligence), but it's really complex because, who are you going to have initiate it? Are you going to have politicians initiate? Are you going to have military people? Because everybody has kind of their own mindset. Are you gonna have a bunch of lawyers initiate it? Are you gonna have scientists only, initiate it? (And what if we're dealing with more than one non-human intelligence? Who do we communicate with? And what if it's one intelligence pretended to be multiple? How would we even figure that out?) "[Hynek] cited the 'poltergeist' phenomena experienced by some...after a close encounter; the fact that some witnesses develop psychic abilities after an encounter. 'Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?'" ~J. Allen Hynek ~ RB: "And how do you know to whom you're talking? You know, how do you know you can trust what they're saying?" (I'm so glad he said that. We don't, and we don't.) RB: "Because it depends on the form of communication, and what are you asking for in the way of proof or demonstrations to establish trust, both ways, in the communication process?" "Because, we haven't had that happen before. It is totally new ground, and frankly, we need The Others' help. We need the help of The Others to help, to guide us." (Firs off, it MAY have happened within these Legacy programs. And, if we don't know who we're talking to, or if we can trust them, why would we enlist the help of The Others? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.)

Joe Murgia

53,256 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat