Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Paresh Rawal Falls into Interviewer’s Trap & Casually Exposes How the System Silences Celebrities 😭😭 Interviewer: "Even the angry young man Amitabh has gone silent, who used to do movies against the system" Paresh Rawal: "Yes, I agree. Coz they realized ki unko bhi harass kiya jayega. Ek baar...

idfcwau's profile picture

Raj

3,680 subscribers

548,322 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

KunstComedyNachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

What Heil Hitler Actually Means Listen to the first forty seconds of the song “Man these people took my kids from me Then they froze my bank account. I got so much anger in me Got no way to take it out. Think I’m stuck in the matrix, where the fcks my nitrous. Guess I am a cuck, I like when people fck on my bitch The shit that I post on Twitter they’re telling me Ye don’t say that. How niggas can’t see me in public? I’m driving an all chrome maybach With all the money and fame I still can’t get my kids back. With all the money and fame I still don’t get to see my children. Niggas see my Twitter but they don’t see how I be feeling… So I became a Nazi, yea, bitch I’m the Viliannn That’s not a man trolling. That’s a man reaching the breaking point and telling all, cuck included. And if you’re paying attention, you’ll see that this moment has been building for years. The song isn’t really about Hitler. But it’s exactly about him at the same time. It’s about what Kanye thinks Hitler represents. He sees a man who was demonized for trying to take power back from those who held it. He sees a man who loved his people. He sees a man who lost everything after naming names. He sees himself. This isn’t some weird appropriation or race-baiting media stunt. This is someone who’s been inside the machine long enough to know who runs it, what happens when you speak out, and what they’ll call you once you do. He’s not pretending to be a villain. He’s saying: if you’ve already made me one, I’ll become the kind that scares you. Some people are upset that he said it. Others are upset that he said it as a black man. But what did they expect? He’s not speaking to please the media, or the white nationalist who thinks he’s “off message.” He’s not here to be clean, or consistent, or perfect. He’s black. He’s flawed. He’s not hiding who he is. And he’s f***ing angry. And now he’s calling out the system that he was a part of. That used him, broke him, and then tried to erase him. The people he’s naming are real. And the people who claim to hate that system, but suddenly get uncomfortable when the wrong kind of person exposes it? They need to ask themselves what they’re really fighting for. Because the most famous man on the planet just echoed your message…and you’re mad about it? Kanye West isn’t appealing to the system for forgiveness. He’s naming it. He’s rejecting it. And he’s declaring war. Which side are you on? (2/7)
0:43

What Heil Hitler Actually Means Listen to the first forty seconds of the song “Man these people took my kids from me Then they froze my bank account. I got so much anger in me Got no way to take it out. Think I’m stuck in the matrix, where the fcks my nitrous. Guess I am a cuck, I like when people fck on my bitch The shit that I post on Twitter they’re telling me Ye don’t say that. How niggas can’t see me in public? I’m driving an all chrome maybach With all the money and fame I still can’t get my kids back. With all the money and fame I still don’t get to see my children. Niggas see my Twitter but they don’t see how I be feeling… So I became a Nazi, yea, bitch I’m the Viliannn That’s not a man trolling. That’s a man reaching the breaking point and telling all, cuck included. And if you’re paying attention, you’ll see that this moment has been building for years. The song isn’t really about Hitler. But it’s exactly about him at the same time. It’s about what Kanye thinks Hitler represents. He sees a man who was demonized for trying to take power back from those who held it. He sees a man who loved his people. He sees a man who lost everything after naming names. He sees himself. This isn’t some weird appropriation or race-baiting media stunt. This is someone who’s been inside the machine long enough to know who runs it, what happens when you speak out, and what they’ll call you once you do. He’s not pretending to be a villain. He’s saying: if you’ve already made me one, I’ll become the kind that scares you. Some people are upset that he said it. Others are upset that he said it as a black man. But what did they expect? He’s not speaking to please the media, or the white nationalist who thinks he’s “off message.” He’s not here to be clean, or consistent, or perfect. He’s black. He’s flawed. He’s not hiding who he is. And he’s f***ing angry. And now he’s calling out the system that he was a part of. That used him, broke him, and then tried to erase him. The people he’s naming are real. And the people who claim to hate that system, but suddenly get uncomfortable when the wrong kind of person exposes it? They need to ask themselves what they’re really fighting for. Because the most famous man on the planet just echoed your message…and you’re mad about it? Kanye West isn’t appealing to the system for forgiveness. He’s naming it. He’s rejecting it. And he’s declaring war. Which side are you on? (2/7)

Fractured Light

234,465 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Ok, guess things have settled down a bit. I think it’s worth looking at the reality of this case. (long post btw) Honestly, the chances of NJZ winning this case were always slim. In a typical civil law system, rulings follow established precedents and written conventions. Courts rarely go against existing norms unless there’s an overwhelming cause. Their legal strategy itself was unconventional. Unlike typical contract disputes where an artist files a lawsuit claiming the agency violated the contract, they directly exercised the termination clause within the contract, challenging its validity, and made ADOR the party to file a lawsuit claiming the contract was still valid. It’s a bold move because it shifts the burden of proof onto the company. But here’s the catch: it entrusts the outcome to judicial determination and leaves the hardest question entirely to the court, asking not who breached first, but whether the contract itself should still exist. And that’s not something courts handle lightly. This case can’t merely rely on factual evidence like they normally do. The decision depends on whether a relationship that is built on TRUST has truly collapsed. And TRUST, as you know, is a very abstract thing to define. It’s not just about payment or duration of the contract, but about whether trust can be legally recognized as the foundation of a valid contract. (Of course there's the actual fact of breach, but that's another story..) That’s what makes this fight so significant and so risky. Because if the court dares to recognize trust and mutual respect as essential parts of a management contract, it could change the entire industry. This case directly challenges the court’s conservativeness in handling abstract concepts like "Act of Good Faith", "Mutual Trust", and "Public Morality". These aren’t easily proven by numbers or written clauses, yet they lie at the core of every artist–agency relationship. And when the court is unable to make a clear decision based on factual evidence, it refers to precedent rulings. Since there haven’t been many high-profile cases like this (at least none I’m aware of), they’ll likely choose to stay conservative, as we’ve seen in previous judgments. --- So yes, NJZ clearly knew the chances of winning were slim. Because really, who has ever won in a case like this before? No one. They’re not stupid. They knew what they were up against. It’s a system built to protect power, not people. They knew the contracts, the money, the politics all of it was stacked against them. But they still chose this route. Why? Are they really that naive? No. They did it because they knew someone had to. Because silence would mean surrender. Because if no one ever challenges the system, it will never change. They knew it would be hard. They knew it would take time. And they knew it might break them. But they still stood up, not just for themselves, but for every artist and every young person who’s ever been told to stay quiet and follow the rules. The truth is, they know they’ll probably lose again in the appellate court, and maybe also in the Supreme Court after that. But that’s not the point. This isn’t just about winning a case. It’s about taking responsibility into their own hands and refusing to accept a world where everyone just stays silent and lets the “higher-ups” rule everything. Of course we still hold on to hope. But in reality, the system is corrupted beyond repair. And yet, through this fight, they’re just basically showing us that it’s okay to fight, even when you might lose. That standing up is still worth it. That’s why this isn’t just any lawsuit. I proudly say they created a movement. A call for change, even if the world refuses to listen. Unfortunately, we might never change the system, but we’ll never let the system change us. Remember, they never said NewJeans will win. They said NewJeans never die. #WeSupportNJZ #WeStandWithNJZ
1:37

Ok, guess things have settled down a bit. I think it’s worth looking at the reality of this case. (long post btw) Honestly, the chances of NJZ winning this case were always slim. In a typical civil law system, rulings follow established precedents and written conventions. Courts rarely go against existing norms unless there’s an overwhelming cause. Their legal strategy itself was unconventional. Unlike typical contract disputes where an artist files a lawsuit claiming the agency violated the contract, they directly exercised the termination clause within the contract, challenging its validity, and made ADOR the party to file a lawsuit claiming the contract was still valid. It’s a bold move because it shifts the burden of proof onto the company. But here’s the catch: it entrusts the outcome to judicial determination and leaves the hardest question entirely to the court, asking not who breached first, but whether the contract itself should still exist. And that’s not something courts handle lightly. This case can’t merely rely on factual evidence like they normally do. The decision depends on whether a relationship that is built on TRUST has truly collapsed. And TRUST, as you know, is a very abstract thing to define. It’s not just about payment or duration of the contract, but about whether trust can be legally recognized as the foundation of a valid contract. (Of course there's the actual fact of breach, but that's another story..) That’s what makes this fight so significant and so risky. Because if the court dares to recognize trust and mutual respect as essential parts of a management contract, it could change the entire industry. This case directly challenges the court’s conservativeness in handling abstract concepts like "Act of Good Faith", "Mutual Trust", and "Public Morality". These aren’t easily proven by numbers or written clauses, yet they lie at the core of every artist–agency relationship. And when the court is unable to make a clear decision based on factual evidence, it refers to precedent rulings. Since there haven’t been many high-profile cases like this (at least none I’m aware of), they’ll likely choose to stay conservative, as we’ve seen in previous judgments. --- So yes, NJZ clearly knew the chances of winning were slim. Because really, who has ever won in a case like this before? No one. They’re not stupid. They knew what they were up against. It’s a system built to protect power, not people. They knew the contracts, the money, the politics all of it was stacked against them. But they still chose this route. Why? Are they really that naive? No. They did it because they knew someone had to. Because silence would mean surrender. Because if no one ever challenges the system, it will never change. They knew it would be hard. They knew it would take time. And they knew it might break them. But they still stood up, not just for themselves, but for every artist and every young person who’s ever been told to stay quiet and follow the rules. The truth is, they know they’ll probably lose again in the appellate court, and maybe also in the Supreme Court after that. But that’s not the point. This isn’t just about winning a case. It’s about taking responsibility into their own hands and refusing to accept a world where everyone just stays silent and lets the “higher-ups” rule everything. Of course we still hold on to hope. But in reality, the system is corrupted beyond repair. And yet, through this fight, they’re just basically showing us that it’s okay to fight, even when you might lose. That standing up is still worth it. That’s why this isn’t just any lawsuit. I proudly say they created a movement. A call for change, even if the world refuses to listen. Unfortunately, we might never change the system, but we’ll never let the system change us. Remember, they never said NewJeans will win. They said NewJeans never die. #WeSupportNJZ #WeStandWithNJZ

𝙡𝙤𝙗𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧🦞

37,932 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨 THE TRUTH 🚨 President Trump has used tariffs as a weapon of national survival to help bring America back to life. And now you’re watching the tell: who’s cheering as SCOTUS “tries” to take that weapon away from him. Because this is the moment you see who’s real… and who’s been cosplaying as a constitutionalist to hide their true objective: Keep the United States handcuffed, weakened, and forced into submission to globalist power. Let’s get something straight. -Canada uses tariffs against America. -The European Union weaponizes tariffs against America. -China uses tariffs as weapons against America. -Decades of countries using tariffs against America. And what do those regimes have in common? Their governments are fine with using economic force. Only our politicians act like America defending itself is immoral. And leading the “handcuff America” parade are the same predictable actors and clowns like Thomas Massie and Rand Paul...who suddenly become very concerned about “principle” the second it’s Trump holding the tool. They don’t want leverage. They don’t want pressure. They don’t want America with teeth. They want America polite, compliant, and permanently negotiable. Some of you hate Trump so much that you’ll celebrate anything that blocks him...no matter what it costs the country. Even if it collapses America. And for some of you, that collapse is the goal! Then there’s the other crowd, the “ARRESTS NOW” crowd, the people so wrapped up in their own suffering, their own vindication fantasies, their own need to feel like they “won,” that they think perp-walks are the end of the Deep State. These clowns scream for arrests, but tariffs scare them.... Listen carefully: The system doesn’t care who gets arrested. The system doesn’t care who gets perp-walked. The system doesn’t care about your memes. The system doesn’t care about your podcasts. The system doesn’t care about your “content.” None of that, by itself, brings down a machine that has had generations to perfect itself. What brings the system down, aside from God, is this: EXPOSURE OF THE MECHANISM. How it works. How it recruits. How it launders. How it infiltrates. How it manufactures consent. How it weaponizes bureaucracy. How it rigs outcomes while pretending it’s “process.” For 13 months, President Trump has been forcing America to SEE and FEEL the system clearly, so it can be dismantled in a controlled demolition. So American's know how to NEVER allow it control again. Controlled. Disciplined. Strategic. Because I need you to understand a truth that will crush childish slogans like “Let it all collapse.” Good doesn’t rise from the ashes like a Hollywood ending. Evil rises. Chaos is not your friend. Collapse is not cleansing. The vacuum doesn’t fill itself with virtue. The Deep State’s contingency plan has ALWAYS been: LET IT COLLAPSE. Because they’re already positioned for that scenario. They infiltrated your “grassroots” years ago. They infiltrated organizations. They infiltrated militias. They infiltrated parent groups. They infiltrated church networks. They infiltrated movements with “new heroes” and “fresh faces.” So when the collapse happens, they rebrand the same control system under new names, new flags, and new saviors...owned, guided, and managed. And good people lose in that environment because good people refuse to do what evil does. Good men try to fight a ruthless enemy with moral restraints… while that enemy practices UNRESTRICTED WARFARE. And you lose. Every time. Then it takes months, years, sometimes decades, for good men to finally accept the reality: You cannot defeat an enemy with no restraints while you insist on keeping yours. And in the window while people “come around” innocent people suffer. Innocent people die. That’s why Trump isn’t walking America toward a bonfire. He’s walking America toward sovereignty...step-by-step, forcing exposure, forcing the pathway to accountability, forcing clarity, so the takedown doesn’t create a vacuum that evil fills. And here’s the part that’s going to sting: Too many of you don’t want to fight. You want to perform. You want applause. You want retweets. You want to be seen as brave, without paying the price of being brave. You hide behind “virtue wars” because they feel righteous and cost you nothing. And I’m speaking to ALL of you...from the silent listener to the loudest influencer: If you have a voice and you refuse to use it when it matters… If you have influence and you refuse to lead when it’s unpopular… If you have conviction and you keep it locked in a drawer because you fear the crowd… YOU are why the Deep State stays in power....not Trump. You forgot your civic responsibility. You forgot your patriotic duty. You forgot your faith. You’ve trained yourself to be a spectator, watching other men fight your battles...then complaining about the results. That ends now. I don’t care how young you are. How old you are. Whether you served or not. Whether you have kids or not. It’s time to WORK for your freedom. Because if America falls, it won’t be because evil was unstoppable. It’ll be because you quit. Or because you never fought to begin with. Stand with President Trump. Stop listening to professional complainers who offer no remedy. Stop empowering crybabies who grift off outrage. Stop following people who complain about the FBI, the DOJ, and “the system” while sipping cocktails at galas like nothing matters. And to every podcaster, influencer, and “digital soldier”: If your audience is static, uninvolved, and passive...that’s on us. Fix your message. Fix your leadership. Fix your mission. Help Trump expose the mechanism. Because when you expose the mechanism, accountability becomes unavoidable. Justice becomes inevitable. Arrests become the result...not the obsession. Get to work. Accountability starts with you - not the President. -ALPHA
9:38

🚨 THE TRUTH 🚨 President Trump has used tariffs as a weapon of national survival to help bring America back to life. And now you’re watching the tell: who’s cheering as SCOTUS “tries” to take that weapon away from him. Because this is the moment you see who’s real… and who’s been cosplaying as a constitutionalist to hide their true objective: Keep the United States handcuffed, weakened, and forced into submission to globalist power. Let’s get something straight. -Canada uses tariffs against America. -The European Union weaponizes tariffs against America. -China uses tariffs as weapons against America. -Decades of countries using tariffs against America. And what do those regimes have in common? Their governments are fine with using economic force. Only our politicians act like America defending itself is immoral. And leading the “handcuff America” parade are the same predictable actors and clowns like Thomas Massie and Rand Paul...who suddenly become very concerned about “principle” the second it’s Trump holding the tool. They don’t want leverage. They don’t want pressure. They don’t want America with teeth. They want America polite, compliant, and permanently negotiable. Some of you hate Trump so much that you’ll celebrate anything that blocks him...no matter what it costs the country. Even if it collapses America. And for some of you, that collapse is the goal! Then there’s the other crowd, the “ARRESTS NOW” crowd, the people so wrapped up in their own suffering, their own vindication fantasies, their own need to feel like they “won,” that they think perp-walks are the end of the Deep State. These clowns scream for arrests, but tariffs scare them.... Listen carefully: The system doesn’t care who gets arrested. The system doesn’t care who gets perp-walked. The system doesn’t care about your memes. The system doesn’t care about your podcasts. The system doesn’t care about your “content.” None of that, by itself, brings down a machine that has had generations to perfect itself. What brings the system down, aside from God, is this: EXPOSURE OF THE MECHANISM. How it works. How it recruits. How it launders. How it infiltrates. How it manufactures consent. How it weaponizes bureaucracy. How it rigs outcomes while pretending it’s “process.” For 13 months, President Trump has been forcing America to SEE and FEEL the system clearly, so it can be dismantled in a controlled demolition. So American's know how to NEVER allow it control again. Controlled. Disciplined. Strategic. Because I need you to understand a truth that will crush childish slogans like “Let it all collapse.” Good doesn’t rise from the ashes like a Hollywood ending. Evil rises. Chaos is not your friend. Collapse is not cleansing. The vacuum doesn’t fill itself with virtue. The Deep State’s contingency plan has ALWAYS been: LET IT COLLAPSE. Because they’re already positioned for that scenario. They infiltrated your “grassroots” years ago. They infiltrated organizations. They infiltrated militias. They infiltrated parent groups. They infiltrated church networks. They infiltrated movements with “new heroes” and “fresh faces.” So when the collapse happens, they rebrand the same control system under new names, new flags, and new saviors...owned, guided, and managed. And good people lose in that environment because good people refuse to do what evil does. Good men try to fight a ruthless enemy with moral restraints… while that enemy practices UNRESTRICTED WARFARE. And you lose. Every time. Then it takes months, years, sometimes decades, for good men to finally accept the reality: You cannot defeat an enemy with no restraints while you insist on keeping yours. And in the window while people “come around” innocent people suffer. Innocent people die. That’s why Trump isn’t walking America toward a bonfire. He’s walking America toward sovereignty...step-by-step, forcing exposure, forcing the pathway to accountability, forcing clarity, so the takedown doesn’t create a vacuum that evil fills. And here’s the part that’s going to sting: Too many of you don’t want to fight. You want to perform. You want applause. You want retweets. You want to be seen as brave, without paying the price of being brave. You hide behind “virtue wars” because they feel righteous and cost you nothing. And I’m speaking to ALL of you...from the silent listener to the loudest influencer: If you have a voice and you refuse to use it when it matters… If you have influence and you refuse to lead when it’s unpopular… If you have conviction and you keep it locked in a drawer because you fear the crowd… YOU are why the Deep State stays in power....not Trump. You forgot your civic responsibility. You forgot your patriotic duty. You forgot your faith. You’ve trained yourself to be a spectator, watching other men fight your battles...then complaining about the results. That ends now. I don’t care how young you are. How old you are. Whether you served or not. Whether you have kids or not. It’s time to WORK for your freedom. Because if America falls, it won’t be because evil was unstoppable. It’ll be because you quit. Or because you never fought to begin with. Stand with President Trump. Stop listening to professional complainers who offer no remedy. Stop empowering crybabies who grift off outrage. Stop following people who complain about the FBI, the DOJ, and “the system” while sipping cocktails at galas like nothing matters. And to every podcaster, influencer, and “digital soldier”: If your audience is static, uninvolved, and passive...that’s on us. Fix your message. Fix your leadership. Fix your mission. Help Trump expose the mechanism. Because when you expose the mechanism, accountability becomes unavoidable. Justice becomes inevitable. Arrests become the result...not the obsession. Get to work. Accountability starts with you - not the President. -ALPHA

ALPHAWARRIOR

44,017 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

The Circle (2000, Panahi)/ Iran "Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date." --- Jafar Panahi Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: The subject matter of 'The Circle' (2000) is controversial. You mentioned that the film is still banned in Iran. In fact, when I was watching the film, I realized that through the characters, there’s a lot of fear about the system, the establishment, the police. The women can’t smoke; they have to wear the chador; they seem to want to hide every time. This is all very clear from watching the film. Did you deliberately want to make a statement about the political situation in Iran? Panahi: I have to tell you again that I’m not a political person. I don’t like political movies. But I take every opportunity to comment on the social issues. I talk about the current issues. To me it’s not important what is the reason for what has happened. Whether it’s political reasons or geographical reasons: these are not important—but the condition, the social issues. It is important to me to talk about the plight of humanity at that time. I don’t want to give a political view, or start a political war. I think that the artist should rise above this. Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date. So it doesn’t really serve a political purpose. Then it can be everlasting, for always, and it could be for anywhere. But I know that politically, with the film authorities, with any kind of film that has some political background in it, they would take issue with it. And for this reason, that is what the problem is. Interviewer: Still, your film makes a very strong statement about the problems that women face in Iran. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. Interviewer: So that is humanitarian, of course, but it’s also political. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. It has the elements. It all depends on how you look at it. If a person has only political views, then he will only see the political. But if you are a poet or an artist, then you see other things as well in the movie. If you are a socialist, you see political or economic or whatever different points of view. You mustn’t look at a film with only one point of view. If you want to see 'The Circle' (2000) as political, then it is one of the most political movies in Iran. By political, I mean partisan politics. But even the police, I didn’t want to show them as bad. In the first instance, you are afraid of the police. Because you are looking at them from the point of view of someone who is now in prison. And normally you see him in a long shot, but when they come nearer and you see them in a medium shot, you can see their human faces. Then it comes down to, “Do you need any help?” But he goes back again and becomes frightening. If I were being political, then I would always show the police as dangerous or bad persons." (Jafar Panahi's interview with Stephen Teo, Senses of Cinema, 2001)
3:01

The Circle (2000, Panahi)/ Iran "Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date." --- Jafar Panahi Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: The subject matter of 'The Circle' (2000) is controversial. You mentioned that the film is still banned in Iran. In fact, when I was watching the film, I realized that through the characters, there’s a lot of fear about the system, the establishment, the police. The women can’t smoke; they have to wear the chador; they seem to want to hide every time. This is all very clear from watching the film. Did you deliberately want to make a statement about the political situation in Iran? Panahi: I have to tell you again that I’m not a political person. I don’t like political movies. But I take every opportunity to comment on the social issues. I talk about the current issues. To me it’s not important what is the reason for what has happened. Whether it’s political reasons or geographical reasons: these are not important—but the condition, the social issues. It is important to me to talk about the plight of humanity at that time. I don’t want to give a political view, or start a political war. I think that the artist should rise above this. Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date. So it doesn’t really serve a political purpose. Then it can be everlasting, for always, and it could be for anywhere. But I know that politically, with the film authorities, with any kind of film that has some political background in it, they would take issue with it. And for this reason, that is what the problem is. Interviewer: Still, your film makes a very strong statement about the problems that women face in Iran. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. Interviewer: So that is humanitarian, of course, but it’s also political. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. It has the elements. It all depends on how you look at it. If a person has only political views, then he will only see the political. But if you are a poet or an artist, then you see other things as well in the movie. If you are a socialist, you see political or economic or whatever different points of view. You mustn’t look at a film with only one point of view. If you want to see 'The Circle' (2000) as political, then it is one of the most political movies in Iran. By political, I mean partisan politics. But even the police, I didn’t want to show them as bad. In the first instance, you are afraid of the police. Because you are looking at them from the point of view of someone who is now in prison. And normally you see him in a long shot, but when they come nearer and you see them in a medium shot, you can see their human faces. Then it comes down to, “Do you need any help?” But he goes back again and becomes frightening. If I were being political, then I would always show the police as dangerous or bad persons." (Jafar Panahi's interview with Stephen Teo, Senses of Cinema, 2001)

DepressedBergman

43,871 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

"If you watch 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Ki!!er' (1986) often enough, you realise that in a way it’s like an extremely bizarre comedy." --- John McNaughton Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: Henry isn’t entirely unsympathetic, is he? McNaughton: I think of Henry as being a monster, but Ottis is the beast. Henry’s a bit like Frankenstein’s monster – there might just be that little bit of goodness somewhere deep inside that might come out. But once Ottis starts following Henry’s “teachings”, so to speak, he just gives way to his worst impulses and he becomes the beast. Henry is the “better” of the two, if you can make that comparison. It’s not like in most serial-ki!!er films, where what they normally do is present the ki!!er as some evil creature who will not be redeemed, so the audience doesn’t have to bother thinking any deeper thoughts. With Henry, no moral judgement is provided, so you have to think for yourself. Now that’s always been a tough sell in Hollywood. Interviewer: And there’s also a surprising amount of humour in the movie, albeit mostly very black humour. McNaughton: If you watch it often enough, you realise that in a way it’s like an extremely bizarre comedy. Tom Towles, who plays Ottis, his training was with the Second City group – improvisational comedy. He’s great at playing buffoons, and I’ve used him several times since. The relationship between Henry and Ottis is, at certain points, a little like a bickering couple – like when Ottis smashes the TV in, or when the video-camera breaks and they have their little argument in the car. The way they played those scenes makes me laugh – but of course there’s a lot about the film that’s so shocking that if somebody saw it just once they might think you were crazy to even think of laughing at it. Interviewer: Do you think the film still has the same power to shock, 18 years after you made it? McNaughton: I think it does, yes, though not quite as much as when it first came out – because this kind of thing really hadn’t been seen before. And we were trying to do something different with the presentation of the violent scenes. If you take the early scene where they ki!! the TV man – he’s this repulsive man who goads them until they attack him. It’s a quite traditional setup of introducing a distasteful character, and you’re rooting for the hero to dispatch him. And of course he gets the TV smashed over his head – it’s a kind of gratifying use of violence. Then later we have the ‘home invasion’ sequence, and that’s very different – it’s like a home movie of the massacre of a completely innocent family, chosen at random. We watch them slaughtered, and hopefully people will ask themselves – how entertaining is violence, really? Interviewer: Because in the mid-80s when the film came out, there were many violent films – the 'Rambos' and 'Terminators' and the like. McNaughton: Well, normally the hero goes and shoots a thousand people, and that’s the kind of violence that was shown in movies at the time. We didn’t exactly have those specific films in mind when we made 'Henry', but when trying to tell the story, we realised it was a lot to do with violence, so we tried to dig a little deeper." (John McNaughton's interview with Neil Young, Jigsaw Lounge)
1:45

"If you watch 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Ki!!er' (1986) often enough, you realise that in a way it’s like an extremely bizarre comedy." --- John McNaughton Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: Henry isn’t entirely unsympathetic, is he? McNaughton: I think of Henry as being a monster, but Ottis is the beast. Henry’s a bit like Frankenstein’s monster – there might just be that little bit of goodness somewhere deep inside that might come out. But once Ottis starts following Henry’s “teachings”, so to speak, he just gives way to his worst impulses and he becomes the beast. Henry is the “better” of the two, if you can make that comparison. It’s not like in most serial-ki!!er films, where what they normally do is present the ki!!er as some evil creature who will not be redeemed, so the audience doesn’t have to bother thinking any deeper thoughts. With Henry, no moral judgement is provided, so you have to think for yourself. Now that’s always been a tough sell in Hollywood. Interviewer: And there’s also a surprising amount of humour in the movie, albeit mostly very black humour. McNaughton: If you watch it often enough, you realise that in a way it’s like an extremely bizarre comedy. Tom Towles, who plays Ottis, his training was with the Second City group – improvisational comedy. He’s great at playing buffoons, and I’ve used him several times since. The relationship between Henry and Ottis is, at certain points, a little like a bickering couple – like when Ottis smashes the TV in, or when the video-camera breaks and they have their little argument in the car. The way they played those scenes makes me laugh – but of course there’s a lot about the film that’s so shocking that if somebody saw it just once they might think you were crazy to even think of laughing at it. Interviewer: Do you think the film still has the same power to shock, 18 years after you made it? McNaughton: I think it does, yes, though not quite as much as when it first came out – because this kind of thing really hadn’t been seen before. And we were trying to do something different with the presentation of the violent scenes. If you take the early scene where they ki!! the TV man – he’s this repulsive man who goads them until they attack him. It’s a quite traditional setup of introducing a distasteful character, and you’re rooting for the hero to dispatch him. And of course he gets the TV smashed over his head – it’s a kind of gratifying use of violence. Then later we have the ‘home invasion’ sequence, and that’s very different – it’s like a home movie of the massacre of a completely innocent family, chosen at random. We watch them slaughtered, and hopefully people will ask themselves – how entertaining is violence, really? Interviewer: Because in the mid-80s when the film came out, there were many violent films – the 'Rambos' and 'Terminators' and the like. McNaughton: Well, normally the hero goes and shoots a thousand people, and that’s the kind of violence that was shown in movies at the time. We didn’t exactly have those specific films in mind when we made 'Henry', but when trying to tell the story, we realised it was a lot to do with violence, so we tried to dig a little deeper." (John McNaughton's interview with Neil Young, Jigsaw Lounge)

DepressedBergman

37,186 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

As I often do after a significant electoral contest in this country, I turned to my trusted correspondent and political analyst Mark Littlewood to digest what has happened. The Makerfield by-election represents a huge setback for the political Right in this country in a number of ways. We have grown used to seeing Reform on the march since the election of 2024. Labour's collapsing polling and credibility has appeared for the last two years to play straight into the hands of Nigel Farage. But a confluence of factors has stalled that progress. First things first, Andy Burnham was always by far the most likely winner of this by-election. Many analysts with an axe to grind against Reform presented the Makerfield constituency as theirs to lose because of the friendly demographics, totally ignoring that it is slap bang in the middle of Burnham's home ground, where his popularity is (deservedly or not) stratospheric. Reform didn't help themselves by talking up their chances at the beginning of campaigning, like Gawain Towler did on my channel. It was only towards the end of campaigning that they began to recognise what they were up against in Burnham. Secondly, Reform's methods have been tested by this contest and found wanting. They relied once again on the unpopularity of Sir Keir Starmer, not considering that Andy Burnham was running on exactly the same message and providing a much quicker means of dispatching the Prime Minister. And they failed to articulate clearly and confidently what it was they stood *for* and how it is applicable to this constituency. Thirdly, though Restore performed very poorly and demonstrated that their online predictions were completely illusory, even the small fraction of votes they did pick up in this most favourable of regions is enough to deny any party of the Right many seats during a full general election. Supporters of the political Right in Britain are in danger of falling into the same trap of all disenfranchised peoples; that is voting for parties who are big on performative antics and emotionally satisfying bold statements, while totally ignoring the tactical reality they're facing. Let me be clear, Andy Burnham will fail as Prime Minister once he inevitably takes over from Starmer. He has no better answers to the problems facing this country than his soon-to-be predecessor. But that will not stop him doing enormous damage and potentially rigging the electoral system in his favour to further disenfranchise the political Right, who really do have the answers. We're entering dangerous times, and must choose our path with great care.
46:16

As I often do after a significant electoral contest in this country, I turned to my trusted correspondent and political analyst Mark Littlewood to digest what has happened. The Makerfield by-election represents a huge setback for the political Right in this country in a number of ways. We have grown used to seeing Reform on the march since the election of 2024. Labour's collapsing polling and credibility has appeared for the last two years to play straight into the hands of Nigel Farage. But a confluence of factors has stalled that progress. First things first, Andy Burnham was always by far the most likely winner of this by-election. Many analysts with an axe to grind against Reform presented the Makerfield constituency as theirs to lose because of the friendly demographics, totally ignoring that it is slap bang in the middle of Burnham's home ground, where his popularity is (deservedly or not) stratospheric. Reform didn't help themselves by talking up their chances at the beginning of campaigning, like Gawain Towler did on my channel. It was only towards the end of campaigning that they began to recognise what they were up against in Burnham. Secondly, Reform's methods have been tested by this contest and found wanting. They relied once again on the unpopularity of Sir Keir Starmer, not considering that Andy Burnham was running on exactly the same message and providing a much quicker means of dispatching the Prime Minister. And they failed to articulate clearly and confidently what it was they stood *for* and how it is applicable to this constituency. Thirdly, though Restore performed very poorly and demonstrated that their online predictions were completely illusory, even the small fraction of votes they did pick up in this most favourable of regions is enough to deny any party of the Right many seats during a full general election. Supporters of the political Right in Britain are in danger of falling into the same trap of all disenfranchised peoples; that is voting for parties who are big on performative antics and emotionally satisfying bold statements, while totally ignoring the tactical reality they're facing. Let me be clear, Andy Burnham will fail as Prime Minister once he inevitably takes over from Starmer. He has no better answers to the problems facing this country than his soon-to-be predecessor. But that will not stop him doing enormous damage and potentially rigging the electoral system in his favour to further disenfranchise the political Right, who really do have the answers. We're entering dangerous times, and must choose our path with great care.

David Starkey

60,107 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

My brief theory on how we got to this point. Indoctrination and the destruction of the nuclear family is how we got here. We are being destroyed from within by the very government sworn to protect us. Since the Civil War the Democrats have been planning and plotting to change this country by destroying it from within. Look at what they did to Lincoln for an example, they never accept their defeat. In the 1960s, when JFK was assassinated by the government, one could assume that we went from a two-party system to a Uniparty system. There is no way that JFK's assassination would have been covered up if the Federal government wasn't already corrupted on both sides by communists that JFK and others had warned Americans about. 1. The government destroyed the nuclear family, forcing both parents to work in most households, using various methods including feminism. 2. The government then stepped in, taking the place of parents as the authority on what is right and wrong, true or false, and that continues even after school. The government has taken control of what propaganda the media puts out in order to continue the brainwashing of children and others with commercials, TV shows, movies, and their woke agenda, which is anti-family, anti-God, anti-morality, pro-climate change, pro-open borders, pro-illegal immigration, pro-COVID-19 vaccines, endless pronouns, and anything the government says they should support. 3. This indoctrination has been happening for decades, so some of them are now young adults who accept these ideas of open borders, welcoming illegal immigrants at any cost, and climate change. Where did these traitors in our government learn this from? They learned it from the Nazi's during World War II. They saw how effective taking control of the youth was and how quickly they could change a nation by doing so. 4. These young adults do have the time to protest and they do when it goes against what the government has taught them, but not when it comes to their best interests, like having a secure border, deporting illegals, and putting law-abiding citizens' safety before criminals, because the majority of them have been brainwashed like I stated above. Meanwhile, the parents who have not been brainwashed are aging, working full-time, barely making it, and they're watching as no one is protesting, asking themselves "how did we get to this point?" They're getting angry and wondering why so few are demanding change. We are at a point where people are now being affected more and more on a personal level, with the costs of everything going up, higher crime, and other issues. Then we see the illegals getting VIP treatment while homeless vets and the rest of us are treated like second-class citizens, having to live by a set of rules that the illegals don't. So then one might ask, why would people allow this? I answered it above. When you destroy the nuclear family and indoctrinate children/people with anti-family, anti-God, anti-morality, you lower the morality in this country. Once morals tank below a certain level, you see these kinds of behaviors that allow this to happen from people on a mass scale. This is human nature and has happened throughout history. Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity explains this concept.
5:58

My brief theory on how we got to this point. Indoctrination and the destruction of the nuclear family is how we got here. We are being destroyed from within by the very government sworn to protect us. Since the Civil War the Democrats have been planning and plotting to change this country by destroying it from within. Look at what they did to Lincoln for an example, they never accept their defeat. In the 1960s, when JFK was assassinated by the government, one could assume that we went from a two-party system to a Uniparty system. There is no way that JFK's assassination would have been covered up if the Federal government wasn't already corrupted on both sides by communists that JFK and others had warned Americans about. 1. The government destroyed the nuclear family, forcing both parents to work in most households, using various methods including feminism. 2. The government then stepped in, taking the place of parents as the authority on what is right and wrong, true or false, and that continues even after school. The government has taken control of what propaganda the media puts out in order to continue the brainwashing of children and others with commercials, TV shows, movies, and their woke agenda, which is anti-family, anti-God, anti-morality, pro-climate change, pro-open borders, pro-illegal immigration, pro-COVID-19 vaccines, endless pronouns, and anything the government says they should support. 3. This indoctrination has been happening for decades, so some of them are now young adults who accept these ideas of open borders, welcoming illegal immigrants at any cost, and climate change. Where did these traitors in our government learn this from? They learned it from the Nazi's during World War II. They saw how effective taking control of the youth was and how quickly they could change a nation by doing so. 4. These young adults do have the time to protest and they do when it goes against what the government has taught them, but not when it comes to their best interests, like having a secure border, deporting illegals, and putting law-abiding citizens' safety before criminals, because the majority of them have been brainwashed like I stated above. Meanwhile, the parents who have not been brainwashed are aging, working full-time, barely making it, and they're watching as no one is protesting, asking themselves "how did we get to this point?" They're getting angry and wondering why so few are demanding change. We are at a point where people are now being affected more and more on a personal level, with the costs of everything going up, higher crime, and other issues. Then we see the illegals getting VIP treatment while homeless vets and the rest of us are treated like second-class citizens, having to live by a set of rules that the illegals don't. So then one might ask, why would people allow this? I answered it above. When you destroy the nuclear family and indoctrinate children/people with anti-family, anti-God, anti-morality, you lower the morality in this country. Once morals tank below a certain level, you see these kinds of behaviors that allow this to happen from people on a mass scale. This is human nature and has happened throughout history. Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity explains this concept.

Suhr Majesty

1,000,961 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Brennan's thoughts on his upcoming indictment Brennan "I don't know, I guess it's up to President Trump to say why [he hates me], but clearly my engagement with the CIA during the 2016 period, where we uncovered Russian attempts to interfere in the presidential election, where we determined that Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, was trying to interfere to hurt Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump, is something that Donald Trump still does not come to terms with and continues to believe that we try to undermine his election and his presidency, which is so far from the truth. When I was director of CIA, we tried to do our best to stop the Russians, any country, from interfering in the foundation of our democracy, which is our presidential elections. And so Donald Trump has had this gripe against me for the past 8 plus years. And again, what we're seeing right now in terms of the indictment of Jim Comey, clearly this was politically motivated. There have been the career prosecutors that resigned rather than bring charges because there was a lack of evidence, I think strongly suggests that this is something that is part of Donald Trump's revenge tour. And unfortunately, he cannot get over the past. He is somebody who has retribution, I think, in his heart and wants to hurt people, whether it be hurt them reputationally, professionally, financially, or whatever, or legally. And unfortunately, tragically, the Department of Justice now has become putty in his hands. And I think all Americans should be outraged. And I'm waiting for the Republicans, especially Republicans in Congress, to be outraged over what has happened to the Department of Justice. Question: Have you talked to any of them, the Republicans in Congress, about this? Brennan: Not recently, no. They don't call me anymore. Interviewer: I'm curious, especially because you are dealing with this personally. It feels to me that the conviction is not the point. That at the end of the day, whether or not Comey actually gets convicted by a judge at the end of this year is not the point. That it is the selling of the reputation. It is making you guys get lawyers and deal with this, making your family concerned and scared. The chilling effect that it creates to all the people who have something to say about Donald Trump and this country, whether they have power and access to resources or not. Am I right? Is the conviction the point, or is it something else? BRENNAN: Well, I think some of Trump's allies have publicly said, if we cannot charge them with something, we're going to publicly shame them. And so clearly, I think what they're trying to do is to publicly try to embarrass, defame, and disparage individuals who have given their lives in service to this country. Jim Comey, I worked very closely with him when he was director of FBI and CIA. He was trying to carry out his responsibilities to fulfill his oath of office. And I disagree with Jim on a number of issues, but I never doubted his integrity. I never doubted that he was really trying to do everything possible to continue to protect this country from foreign interference in terms of the 2016 election. So, yes, I do believe that what Trump is doing when he talks in such disparaging and profane terms about individuals. Interviewer: And he even said in a recent Charlie Kirk memorial service that he hates his opponents. For the President of the United States to say this. Is it just about disparaging individuals, though? You're the former director of the CIA. Jim Comey is the former director of the FBI. What does this do to Americans' trust in those institutions, in the FBI and the CIA and the Justice Department? Brennan; Well, I think certainly it has undermined confidence in the U.S. judicial system or the Department of Justice, first and foremost, because he's using now prosecutions against individuals. But also I think it makes the individuals within the CIA and the FBI really worry about what it is that the President of the United States may be directing them to do. He doesn't follow not just norms and traditions, but also he pushes the boundaries as far as presidential executive authority. And so I really do think in talking to a number of people, either recently retired or still in government, they really are questioning whether or not this is what they signed up for. And whether or not they can fulfill their obligations, their oath of office, in a way that is consistent with their values and the foundational principles, again, of this country. Interviewer: I realize it's a bit unusual to ask you about the potential case being built against you inside the administration. But I do want to ask about Washington Post reporting that came out this week. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, revoked security clearances of current and former officials who could be viewed, called as potential witnesses in the case, according to two senior administration officials. Some of these people targeted by Gabbard worked in the Obama administration at the same time as you did and could possibly be called as witnesses in the government's probe. But these potential witnesses have been labeled by the Director of National Intelligence as unreliable and traitorous, which will complicate efforts by prosecutors to build a case against you. What is your reaction? Brennan: It was absolutely appalling that she revoked the security clearances of those 37 individuals, some of whom were still in government. And there was no basis whatsoever to do that. And the story that says that because of her revocation, it really undermines the case against me. You know, I don't see any case against me. I have looked back on all of my actions and decisions. And with John Durham, the special counsel, and others that have looked at what we did, it was certainly consistent with our legal authorities and with the law. So I don't know what they're referring to there. Individuals who used to work in the government, even if their security clearances were revoked, they could be subpoenaed. They could be called to provide testimony in support of whatever allegations they have. I just don't see a case there. Interviewer: People who are in the crosshairs of these kinds of possible investigations and how it changes your entire life and how you and your family can operate. So how are you? Brennan: Well, I'm glad that Jim Comey put out that video statement the other night where he said that they're not going to live on their knees, his family, and others shouldn't as well. I'm not going to be intimidated by the likes of Donald Trump. I have always tried to speak my mind and do what I thought was right. And clearly there is a corruption and a perversion of the justice system right now within the executive branch. And so I don't know what may be coming my way, but I'm not going to do things that are inconsistent with my ethics and my values. And what it is that I believe is important, I think more people have to speak out when they see injustice. When they see a government that is abusing its authority and its power, I think more and more people have to speak out. And I'm waiting for those Republicans in Congress to come to their senses because the damage that's being done to this country and the dangerous times that we're in, I think too many Americans do not appreciate the extent of that. And certainly I think we're in for even choppier waters ahead. Interviewer: Talking about speaking out, you said that you're still talking to people inside of government. Do you think that it's time for people to hand in their resignations as a sign that they think that this government isn't functioning anymore? Brennan: Well, I'm talking mostly to people who have retired and people who are now transitioning out because they have not been able to put up with what this government is involved in right now. I applaud those individuals who will not bow to Donald Trump. So Eric Siebert, the acting U.S. attorney in the eastern district of Virginia, who resigned rather than bringing charges that he thought were hollow against Jim Comey. I think more and more individuals, if they're being pushed to do something that is either illegal, unethical, unprincipled, or inconsistent with what their responsibilities are, they need to say, no, I'm not going to do that and either be fired or resign. I am hoping, though, that we're still going to have people in the national security community, in law enforcement, who are going to carry out their responsibilities. Because this country really depends on the professionals for them to do their work. This country faces so many challenges, both domestically and internationally. And so what we can't do is be distracted by all these politically motivated prosecutions. And again, I'm hoping that my former colleagues who remain inside of the government are going to continue to carry out their duties in full faith that the American people have in them. Interviewer: I think it's worth also putting a pin in the James Comey statement, which is, he also said, fear is a tool of the tyrant. Brennan: Absolutely. That's what Donald Trump's trying to do. He's trying to stop all people from talking and coerce them into it. I'm not going to be silent.
9:46

Brennan's thoughts on his upcoming indictment Brennan "I don't know, I guess it's up to President Trump to say why [he hates me], but clearly my engagement with the CIA during the 2016 period, where we uncovered Russian attempts to interfere in the presidential election, where we determined that Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, was trying to interfere to hurt Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump, is something that Donald Trump still does not come to terms with and continues to believe that we try to undermine his election and his presidency, which is so far from the truth. When I was director of CIA, we tried to do our best to stop the Russians, any country, from interfering in the foundation of our democracy, which is our presidential elections. And so Donald Trump has had this gripe against me for the past 8 plus years. And again, what we're seeing right now in terms of the indictment of Jim Comey, clearly this was politically motivated. There have been the career prosecutors that resigned rather than bring charges because there was a lack of evidence, I think strongly suggests that this is something that is part of Donald Trump's revenge tour. And unfortunately, he cannot get over the past. He is somebody who has retribution, I think, in his heart and wants to hurt people, whether it be hurt them reputationally, professionally, financially, or whatever, or legally. And unfortunately, tragically, the Department of Justice now has become putty in his hands. And I think all Americans should be outraged. And I'm waiting for the Republicans, especially Republicans in Congress, to be outraged over what has happened to the Department of Justice. Question: Have you talked to any of them, the Republicans in Congress, about this? Brennan: Not recently, no. They don't call me anymore. Interviewer: I'm curious, especially because you are dealing with this personally. It feels to me that the conviction is not the point. That at the end of the day, whether or not Comey actually gets convicted by a judge at the end of this year is not the point. That it is the selling of the reputation. It is making you guys get lawyers and deal with this, making your family concerned and scared. The chilling effect that it creates to all the people who have something to say about Donald Trump and this country, whether they have power and access to resources or not. Am I right? Is the conviction the point, or is it something else? BRENNAN: Well, I think some of Trump's allies have publicly said, if we cannot charge them with something, we're going to publicly shame them. And so clearly, I think what they're trying to do is to publicly try to embarrass, defame, and disparage individuals who have given their lives in service to this country. Jim Comey, I worked very closely with him when he was director of FBI and CIA. He was trying to carry out his responsibilities to fulfill his oath of office. And I disagree with Jim on a number of issues, but I never doubted his integrity. I never doubted that he was really trying to do everything possible to continue to protect this country from foreign interference in terms of the 2016 election. So, yes, I do believe that what Trump is doing when he talks in such disparaging and profane terms about individuals. Interviewer: And he even said in a recent Charlie Kirk memorial service that he hates his opponents. For the President of the United States to say this. Is it just about disparaging individuals, though? You're the former director of the CIA. Jim Comey is the former director of the FBI. What does this do to Americans' trust in those institutions, in the FBI and the CIA and the Justice Department? Brennan; Well, I think certainly it has undermined confidence in the U.S. judicial system or the Department of Justice, first and foremost, because he's using now prosecutions against individuals. But also I think it makes the individuals within the CIA and the FBI really worry about what it is that the President of the United States may be directing them to do. He doesn't follow not just norms and traditions, but also he pushes the boundaries as far as presidential executive authority. And so I really do think in talking to a number of people, either recently retired or still in government, they really are questioning whether or not this is what they signed up for. And whether or not they can fulfill their obligations, their oath of office, in a way that is consistent with their values and the foundational principles, again, of this country. Interviewer: I realize it's a bit unusual to ask you about the potential case being built against you inside the administration. But I do want to ask about Washington Post reporting that came out this week. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, revoked security clearances of current and former officials who could be viewed, called as potential witnesses in the case, according to two senior administration officials. Some of these people targeted by Gabbard worked in the Obama administration at the same time as you did and could possibly be called as witnesses in the government's probe. But these potential witnesses have been labeled by the Director of National Intelligence as unreliable and traitorous, which will complicate efforts by prosecutors to build a case against you. What is your reaction? Brennan: It was absolutely appalling that she revoked the security clearances of those 37 individuals, some of whom were still in government. And there was no basis whatsoever to do that. And the story that says that because of her revocation, it really undermines the case against me. You know, I don't see any case against me. I have looked back on all of my actions and decisions. And with John Durham, the special counsel, and others that have looked at what we did, it was certainly consistent with our legal authorities and with the law. So I don't know what they're referring to there. Individuals who used to work in the government, even if their security clearances were revoked, they could be subpoenaed. They could be called to provide testimony in support of whatever allegations they have. I just don't see a case there. Interviewer: People who are in the crosshairs of these kinds of possible investigations and how it changes your entire life and how you and your family can operate. So how are you? Brennan: Well, I'm glad that Jim Comey put out that video statement the other night where he said that they're not going to live on their knees, his family, and others shouldn't as well. I'm not going to be intimidated by the likes of Donald Trump. I have always tried to speak my mind and do what I thought was right. And clearly there is a corruption and a perversion of the justice system right now within the executive branch. And so I don't know what may be coming my way, but I'm not going to do things that are inconsistent with my ethics and my values. And what it is that I believe is important, I think more people have to speak out when they see injustice. When they see a government that is abusing its authority and its power, I think more and more people have to speak out. And I'm waiting for those Republicans in Congress to come to their senses because the damage that's being done to this country and the dangerous times that we're in, I think too many Americans do not appreciate the extent of that. And certainly I think we're in for even choppier waters ahead. Interviewer: Talking about speaking out, you said that you're still talking to people inside of government. Do you think that it's time for people to hand in their resignations as a sign that they think that this government isn't functioning anymore? Brennan: Well, I'm talking mostly to people who have retired and people who are now transitioning out because they have not been able to put up with what this government is involved in right now. I applaud those individuals who will not bow to Donald Trump. So Eric Siebert, the acting U.S. attorney in the eastern district of Virginia, who resigned rather than bringing charges that he thought were hollow against Jim Comey. I think more and more individuals, if they're being pushed to do something that is either illegal, unethical, unprincipled, or inconsistent with what their responsibilities are, they need to say, no, I'm not going to do that and either be fired or resign. I am hoping, though, that we're still going to have people in the national security community, in law enforcement, who are going to carry out their responsibilities. Because this country really depends on the professionals for them to do their work. This country faces so many challenges, both domestically and internationally. And so what we can't do is be distracted by all these politically motivated prosecutions. And again, I'm hoping that my former colleagues who remain inside of the government are going to continue to carry out their duties in full faith that the American people have in them. Interviewer: I think it's worth also putting a pin in the James Comey statement, which is, he also said, fear is a tool of the tyrant. Brennan: Absolutely. That's what Donald Trump's trying to do. He's trying to stop all people from talking and coerce them into it. I'm not going to be silent.

Svetlana Lokhova

123,303 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Imagine if this man were the president of Zimbabwe, wielding all the powers that come with Zimbabwe’s dictatorship. Imagine if he led ZANUPF and governed a country without strong institutions capable of protecting citizens from the abuse of power. Imagine if he had the same power that Emmerson Mnangagwa has to send police officers to arrest journalists simply for reporting the truth. How many journalists in America would be in prison today because they reported facts he did not like and he dismissed them as fake news? When I watched this video, I was reminded of the beauty of a democratic system built on strong institutions. These American journalists would likely be in prison if they were operating in Zimbabwe. Instead, they are protected by strong institutions, a separation of powers, and constitutional safeguards that place limits on what a president can do. A president can be angry. A president can be unreasonable. A president can even be ridiculous. But in a functioning democracy, there are limits to how far that behaviour can go because institutions are stronger than any individual. When Trevor Noah said that Donald Trump is a quintessential African dictator without the powers that African dictators have, he was not far off the mark. He was highlighting an important point. You can see the anger when he feels exposed, but you can also see the frustration of knowing there is very little he can do because the institutions are strong enough to resist political pressure and abuse. This is why Africa must build strong institutions. It is also why dictators fear strong institutions. Independent courts, professional civil services, free media, and accountable law enforcement are the very things that limit presidential power and prevent its abuse. Dictators rarely strengthen institutions because strong institutions constrain them. They stop them from abusing the enormous authority that comes with the presidency. I speak from experience. I have been on the receiving end of a president who was angered by truthful reporting and who used the machinery of the state to throw journalists into prison. That is precisely why strong institutions matter. They are the difference between freedom and fear, between accountability and impunity, and between democracy and dictatorship. I would never understand a Zimbabwean, or an African for that matter, who idolises Donald Trump, given the history that Zimbabweans and Africans have endured under dictatorships and strongman rule. Many Africans have spent decades fighting against leaders who undermine institutions, concentrate power in their own hands, attack the media, and treat criticism as a personal insult. It is therefore difficult to understand why some would celebrate those same traits when they appear elsewhere. Perhaps that is what they call Stockholm syndrome, identifying with and admiring behaviours that have caused so much suffering at home rather than recognising the dangers they represent.
1:00

Imagine if this man were the president of Zimbabwe, wielding all the powers that come with Zimbabwe’s dictatorship. Imagine if he led ZANUPF and governed a country without strong institutions capable of protecting citizens from the abuse of power. Imagine if he had the same power that Emmerson Mnangagwa has to send police officers to arrest journalists simply for reporting the truth. How many journalists in America would be in prison today because they reported facts he did not like and he dismissed them as fake news? When I watched this video, I was reminded of the beauty of a democratic system built on strong institutions. These American journalists would likely be in prison if they were operating in Zimbabwe. Instead, they are protected by strong institutions, a separation of powers, and constitutional safeguards that place limits on what a president can do. A president can be angry. A president can be unreasonable. A president can even be ridiculous. But in a functioning democracy, there are limits to how far that behaviour can go because institutions are stronger than any individual. When Trevor Noah said that Donald Trump is a quintessential African dictator without the powers that African dictators have, he was not far off the mark. He was highlighting an important point. You can see the anger when he feels exposed, but you can also see the frustration of knowing there is very little he can do because the institutions are strong enough to resist political pressure and abuse. This is why Africa must build strong institutions. It is also why dictators fear strong institutions. Independent courts, professional civil services, free media, and accountable law enforcement are the very things that limit presidential power and prevent its abuse. Dictators rarely strengthen institutions because strong institutions constrain them. They stop them from abusing the enormous authority that comes with the presidency. I speak from experience. I have been on the receiving end of a president who was angered by truthful reporting and who used the machinery of the state to throw journalists into prison. That is precisely why strong institutions matter. They are the difference between freedom and fear, between accountability and impunity, and between democracy and dictatorship. I would never understand a Zimbabwean, or an African for that matter, who idolises Donald Trump, given the history that Zimbabweans and Africans have endured under dictatorships and strongman rule. Many Africans have spent decades fighting against leaders who undermine institutions, concentrate power in their own hands, attack the media, and treat criticism as a personal insult. It is therefore difficult to understand why some would celebrate those same traits when they appear elsewhere. Perhaps that is what they call Stockholm syndrome, identifying with and admiring behaviours that have caused so much suffering at home rather than recognising the dangers they represent.

Hopewell Chin’ono

45,243 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

"Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." 🤬 What The F**k, Chuck? 🤬 (Make sure you read my comments in ( ). After Dylan Borland testified last month, I wrote this: ) "The most troubling thing is his visit to the ICIG. Seems the whole system is f**king corrupt." (Today, he shared more details, and it's much worse than I thought. When he told the ICIG he wanted to testify to Congress under oath, the reply was: ) "You already did that, and you're not doing it again." 🖕🖕🖕 (And the advice from the attorney who urged Borland to go to the ICIG?) "Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." (This is very troubling. Especially if the person who said that was Charles "Chuck" McCullough.) ~ Borland: "So I get a phone call after Dave [Grusch] testifies, and they notify me, 'Hey, Dylan, we want you to go the IG.' And I said, 'All right. What about?' They're like, 'You know, this stuff.'" George Knapp: "They, meaning who? Congress?" Borland: "Uh, a staffer, and Dave. and an attorney, that you guys are aware of. I don't know if I can say their name. But an attorney you guys are aware of." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "I think, just yeah, that's good." (The only attorney that I'm aware of who fits the bill is: Charles McCullough, who was the first ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) and also the attorney for David Grusch. If it's him, that's very concerning. As you watch the clip, or read my transcript, you'll see why. And the ICIG was Thomas Monheim, who was also in that position when Grusch filed his whistleblower complaint, which he deemed, "urgent and credible." Monheim resigned in January of 2025.) ~ Borland: "All right. Um, and they're like, 'Go to the IG.' And I said, 'Am I safe? Is it what the country needs?' [And they said,] 'Yes, yes.' And I said, 'All right, let's make it happen.' And I go the IG. That was in, I wanna say September or October. I actually have the date for you guys if you need it. But I went there in 2023, late summer, early fall of 2023 and I go through the IG process. "And to be honest with you, out of everything, I really feel like the IG process was the worst. I think the people at AARO genuinely cared. But, my opinion, going through the IG and the questions they asked me, the things that were said to me made me feel like that was a fishing expedition. And the only thing they cared about was finding out how much I actually knew." Corbell: "Wow. That is highly disappointing." Borland: "It was very disappointing being in that room with the conversation and statements that were being made to me. Like, when somebody's asking you a question and the IG government employee cuts them off and says, 'You don't ask him that question' and then looks at me and tells me, 'You don't answer that question.' Yeah. "When they ask you, 'What do you want out of this?' And verbatim, direct-quote, on film. By all means, go get the recording, because they said they recorded it. But they said, 'What do you want out of this?' And I said, 'I want to look Congress in the eyes, tell them the truth under oath, so when I die I can answer for this and know I did my job.' And the response was, 'As far as we're concerned, you already did that, and you're not doing it again.' So..." Knapp: "So is this the actual Inspector General or..." Borland: "The ICIG, yes. I have his card at my house." (Again, Monheim.) Knapp: "You went through the whole thing." Borland: "I went through the whole thing." Knapp: "Who else is there?" Borland: "So, ICIG, assistant director, director, [government] attorney on my right." Corbell: "So you try to do this right. You go to ICIG, and you literally feel like that they are just trying to pump you to figure out how much you know, how dangerous you are to the Legacy program." Borland: "In my opinion, looking back on this, yes. Because, the way they ask[ed] questions, the statements they made to each other, the statements they made to me, 100% seemed like they wanted to find out how much I knew. And at the end of this, which you're aware of the conversation I had with the attorney, it was. 'You are credible, not urgent. Go disappear in the winds. Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything. Your entire...everything you said,' which goes back to what we talked...I mean, I talked about my childhood in there. I was told, everything I talked about in that room, now is up for executive review. And I brought up to the attorney, 'I talked about my childhood, is that now up for it? I talked about unclassified information, readily available on the internet.' And they said, 'Dylan, every single thing you talked about is now subject to executive review. Do not go outside of those bounds.'" Knapp: "Your whole life." Borland: "Pretty damn much." (If this is McCullough being referred to here, I have a problem with it. Borland took the advice of McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer by going to ICIG and it turned out to be a 💩 show. Now he's telling Borland to disappear and leave it all behind? WTF?) Corbell: "It's like a great way to lock somebody down if you want to kind of intake their whole whistleblower story, what they know, and then say, 'Now that you've testified to ICIG, you have to walk away.'" Knapp: "Well you realize they say that, and that this has been, in essence, a waste of time, that you walked into sort of a trap. I mean, I can imagine how depressing it would be." Borland: "Depressing. It pissed me off, because I was already blacklisted from the IC. And I told the attorney that, I told the IG that. Like, I already know that there are things that are in place for me, getting jobs, working in this field, that, years back, are in play. And it's happened to me since I've gone to the IG, which goes back to retaliation. Like, technically, I'm still being retaliated against." Knapp: "The Inspector General's office is there to hear about wrongdoing and things that shouldn't be happening in the agencies that it oversees." Borland: "I...you would think, but this is now me being black pilled, and there's a joke amongst all the military guys, which is: The JAG isn't for you, the JAG is for the DOD. The IG isn't for us, the IG is for the government. And that's the way I feel now." (The Air Force JAG (Judge Advocate General) corps provides comprehensive legal services to the U.S. Air Force and Space Force. ~AI) Knapp: "Did you share this with the attorney who had been advising you about seeing these guys? We're not saying who it is." Corbell: "I think with the client, I just think you're not supposed to do that. It's not like a big secret, I'm just trying to be respectful." Borland: "I made it aware to them that the statement that he had made to me was of grave concern. It made no sense. And I had asked, 'How do I do DOPSR? Because I do not trust this process at all anymore.' And, basically, from that point, I was completely shut out for over a year, a year and a half.' Corbell: "I think lawyers are...try to protect their clients. You know, I don't think it's nefarious. I think that they're just trying to do...or guide their client in what's best for their well being." Knapp: "Yeah, well, especially somebody who has been around and knows what could happen." Corbell: "Knows his stuff. That's unfortunate. Borland: "Don't disagree." (I would like to know why McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer sent Borland to the ICIG? Did they have any idea this would happen? And was it McCullough who shut out Borland for a year and a half? If so, why? Nefarious shouldn't be ruled out.)
5:24

"Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." 🤬 What The F**k, Chuck? 🤬 (Make sure you read my comments in ( ). After Dylan Borland testified last month, I wrote this: ) "The most troubling thing is his visit to the ICIG. Seems the whole system is f**king corrupt." (Today, he shared more details, and it's much worse than I thought. When he told the ICIG he wanted to testify to Congress under oath, the reply was: ) "You already did that, and you're not doing it again." 🖕🖕🖕 (And the advice from the attorney who urged Borland to go to the ICIG?) "Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." (This is very troubling. Especially if the person who said that was Charles "Chuck" McCullough.) ~ Borland: "So I get a phone call after Dave [Grusch] testifies, and they notify me, 'Hey, Dylan, we want you to go the IG.' And I said, 'All right. What about?' They're like, 'You know, this stuff.'" George Knapp: "They, meaning who? Congress?" Borland: "Uh, a staffer, and Dave. and an attorney, that you guys are aware of. I don't know if I can say their name. But an attorney you guys are aware of." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "I think, just yeah, that's good." (The only attorney that I'm aware of who fits the bill is: Charles McCullough, who was the first ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) and also the attorney for David Grusch. If it's him, that's very concerning. As you watch the clip, or read my transcript, you'll see why. And the ICIG was Thomas Monheim, who was also in that position when Grusch filed his whistleblower complaint, which he deemed, "urgent and credible." Monheim resigned in January of 2025.) ~ Borland: "All right. Um, and they're like, 'Go to the IG.' And I said, 'Am I safe? Is it what the country needs?' [And they said,] 'Yes, yes.' And I said, 'All right, let's make it happen.' And I go the IG. That was in, I wanna say September or October. I actually have the date for you guys if you need it. But I went there in 2023, late summer, early fall of 2023 and I go through the IG process. "And to be honest with you, out of everything, I really feel like the IG process was the worst. I think the people at AARO genuinely cared. But, my opinion, going through the IG and the questions they asked me, the things that were said to me made me feel like that was a fishing expedition. And the only thing they cared about was finding out how much I actually knew." Corbell: "Wow. That is highly disappointing." Borland: "It was very disappointing being in that room with the conversation and statements that were being made to me. Like, when somebody's asking you a question and the IG government employee cuts them off and says, 'You don't ask him that question' and then looks at me and tells me, 'You don't answer that question.' Yeah. "When they ask you, 'What do you want out of this?' And verbatim, direct-quote, on film. By all means, go get the recording, because they said they recorded it. But they said, 'What do you want out of this?' And I said, 'I want to look Congress in the eyes, tell them the truth under oath, so when I die I can answer for this and know I did my job.' And the response was, 'As far as we're concerned, you already did that, and you're not doing it again.' So..." Knapp: "So is this the actual Inspector General or..." Borland: "The ICIG, yes. I have his card at my house." (Again, Monheim.) Knapp: "You went through the whole thing." Borland: "I went through the whole thing." Knapp: "Who else is there?" Borland: "So, ICIG, assistant director, director, [government] attorney on my right." Corbell: "So you try to do this right. You go to ICIG, and you literally feel like that they are just trying to pump you to figure out how much you know, how dangerous you are to the Legacy program." Borland: "In my opinion, looking back on this, yes. Because, the way they ask[ed] questions, the statements they made to each other, the statements they made to me, 100% seemed like they wanted to find out how much I knew. And at the end of this, which you're aware of the conversation I had with the attorney, it was. 'You are credible, not urgent. Go disappear in the winds. Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything. Your entire...everything you said,' which goes back to what we talked...I mean, I talked about my childhood in there. I was told, everything I talked about in that room, now is up for executive review. And I brought up to the attorney, 'I talked about my childhood, is that now up for it? I talked about unclassified information, readily available on the internet.' And they said, 'Dylan, every single thing you talked about is now subject to executive review. Do not go outside of those bounds.'" Knapp: "Your whole life." Borland: "Pretty damn much." (If this is McCullough being referred to here, I have a problem with it. Borland took the advice of McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer by going to ICIG and it turned out to be a 💩 show. Now he's telling Borland to disappear and leave it all behind? WTF?) Corbell: "It's like a great way to lock somebody down if you want to kind of intake their whole whistleblower story, what they know, and then say, 'Now that you've testified to ICIG, you have to walk away.'" Knapp: "Well you realize they say that, and that this has been, in essence, a waste of time, that you walked into sort of a trap. I mean, I can imagine how depressing it would be." Borland: "Depressing. It pissed me off, because I was already blacklisted from the IC. And I told the attorney that, I told the IG that. Like, I already know that there are things that are in place for me, getting jobs, working in this field, that, years back, are in play. And it's happened to me since I've gone to the IG, which goes back to retaliation. Like, technically, I'm still being retaliated against." Knapp: "The Inspector General's office is there to hear about wrongdoing and things that shouldn't be happening in the agencies that it oversees." Borland: "I...you would think, but this is now me being black pilled, and there's a joke amongst all the military guys, which is: The JAG isn't for you, the JAG is for the DOD. The IG isn't for us, the IG is for the government. And that's the way I feel now." (The Air Force JAG (Judge Advocate General) corps provides comprehensive legal services to the U.S. Air Force and Space Force. ~AI) Knapp: "Did you share this with the attorney who had been advising you about seeing these guys? We're not saying who it is." Corbell: "I think with the client, I just think you're not supposed to do that. It's not like a big secret, I'm just trying to be respectful." Borland: "I made it aware to them that the statement that he had made to me was of grave concern. It made no sense. And I had asked, 'How do I do DOPSR? Because I do not trust this process at all anymore.' And, basically, from that point, I was completely shut out for over a year, a year and a half.' Corbell: "I think lawyers are...try to protect their clients. You know, I don't think it's nefarious. I think that they're just trying to do...or guide their client in what's best for their well being." Knapp: "Yeah, well, especially somebody who has been around and knows what could happen." Corbell: "Knows his stuff. That's unfortunate. Borland: "Don't disagree." (I would like to know why McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer sent Borland to the ICIG? Did they have any idea this would happen? And was it McCullough who shut out Borland for a year and a half? If so, why? Nefarious shouldn't be ruled out.)

Joe Murgia

13,066 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

🚨Manhattan’s Diamond District Hides a Dark Secret: Migrant Children Allegedly Forced to Work : sources . A disturbing and largely hidden operation has been quietly playing out on 47th Street in Manhattan’s Diamond District, where migrant children and their mothers are allegedly being forced to sell candy under threat and control by suspected migrant gang members, according to sources who spoke with Viral News NYC. Multiple witnesses have reported seeing young children—some as young as five—standing on sidewalks or walking into jewelry stores selling candy with tired or fearful expressions. Often accompanied by their mothers, they repeat the same routine day after day. A longtime worker in the area told Viral News NYC that the same man, described as a darker-skinned Venezuelan, repeatedly shows up to collect money from different groups of children and their parents. According to the source, this man is aggressive and violent. “He doesn’t just take the money—he intimidates them,” the source said. “I’ve seen him yell at the kids, push them around, even hit one of them when he was angry.” While the exact groups of children may change, the pattern is consistent. Other migrant children, appearing in different locations such as subway stations, shopping districts, and on highways, have been seen selling the same items—typically candy or mangoes—in nearly identical setups. The candy is always the same, and the way the children present it remains uniform, suggesting an organized operation at play. This points to something larger: a potentially organized trafficking or forced labor scheme operating across various parts of the city. Police sources have also confirmed to Viral News NYC that a similar system appears to be in place with some of the migrants who sell mangoes on the street. In those cases, individuals—often mothers with young children—are allegedly forced to work and then turn over money to an overseer. Some victims have reportedly had their documents taken and are working under threat of violence or deportation. Mayor Eric Adams recently acknowledged that certain migrant gang members have been targeting innocent migrants—confiscating their documents and forcing them into exploitative labor conditions. Multiple sources also stated that a group known as TDA is connected to these operations. Migrants I’ve spoken to in the past have told me they’re scared to death of these gangs. The fear I once saw on the face of a mother and child was horrifying. When I asked if bad people were bothering them or taking advantage of them, they quietly pointed to a group of Venezuelan men who appeared to be gang members. The mother looked me in the eye, said “bad people,” began to cry—and then she and her child ran away from me. That moment has never left me. “This isn’t just about kids trying to make money,” a local source said. “This looks like a system—an organized setup forcing vulnerable people to work under control.” As this secret continues to unfold on one of Manhattan’s busiest commercial streets, many are left wondering: how long has this been happening, and how many more children are being used this way right under the city’s nose? By Leeroy Johnson For licensing email viralnewsnyc@gmail.com
0:42

🚨Manhattan’s Diamond District Hides a Dark Secret: Migrant Children Allegedly Forced to Work : sources . A disturbing and largely hidden operation has been quietly playing out on 47th Street in Manhattan’s Diamond District, where migrant children and their mothers are allegedly being forced to sell candy under threat and control by suspected migrant gang members, according to sources who spoke with Viral News NYC. Multiple witnesses have reported seeing young children—some as young as five—standing on sidewalks or walking into jewelry stores selling candy with tired or fearful expressions. Often accompanied by their mothers, they repeat the same routine day after day. A longtime worker in the area told Viral News NYC that the same man, described as a darker-skinned Venezuelan, repeatedly shows up to collect money from different groups of children and their parents. According to the source, this man is aggressive and violent. “He doesn’t just take the money—he intimidates them,” the source said. “I’ve seen him yell at the kids, push them around, even hit one of them when he was angry.” While the exact groups of children may change, the pattern is consistent. Other migrant children, appearing in different locations such as subway stations, shopping districts, and on highways, have been seen selling the same items—typically candy or mangoes—in nearly identical setups. The candy is always the same, and the way the children present it remains uniform, suggesting an organized operation at play. This points to something larger: a potentially organized trafficking or forced labor scheme operating across various parts of the city. Police sources have also confirmed to Viral News NYC that a similar system appears to be in place with some of the migrants who sell mangoes on the street. In those cases, individuals—often mothers with young children—are allegedly forced to work and then turn over money to an overseer. Some victims have reportedly had their documents taken and are working under threat of violence or deportation. Mayor Eric Adams recently acknowledged that certain migrant gang members have been targeting innocent migrants—confiscating their documents and forcing them into exploitative labor conditions. Multiple sources also stated that a group known as TDA is connected to these operations. Migrants I’ve spoken to in the past have told me they’re scared to death of these gangs. The fear I once saw on the face of a mother and child was horrifying. When I asked if bad people were bothering them or taking advantage of them, they quietly pointed to a group of Venezuelan men who appeared to be gang members. The mother looked me in the eye, said “bad people,” began to cry—and then she and her child ran away from me. That moment has never left me. “This isn’t just about kids trying to make money,” a local source said. “This looks like a system—an organized setup forcing vulnerable people to work under control.” As this secret continues to unfold on one of Manhattan’s busiest commercial streets, many are left wondering: how long has this been happening, and how many more children are being used this way right under the city’s nose? By Leeroy Johnson For licensing email [email protected]

Viral News NYC

58,881 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

And another great documentary by ARTE. This two-part ARTE investigation is a brutal reality check for anyone still clinging to the fantasy that Russia is somehow “isolated” or “running out of steam.” What the films show, methodically and with receipts, is that Russia’s war against Ukraine is not being sustained despite sanctions, but through a deliberately constructed global system designed to bypass them. This is not improvisation. It is industrialized, coordinated, and openly contemptuous of Western enforcement. The first part dismantles the myth of Russian military self-sufficiency. Yes, the Kremlin is still drawing heavily on vast Soviet-era stockpiles, tens of thousands of tanks, missiles, and artillery shells inherited from the USSR. But that is only the foundation. On top of it, Russia has layered a modern weapons program that depends almost entirely on foreign technology. Hypersonic missiles like Kinzhal are paraded as symbols of invincibility, yet their real story is failure, interception, and paranoia. When these “wonder weapons” underperform against Western air defense, Putin does not adapt policy, he purges people. Scientists and engineers are arrested, publicly humiliated, or die in custody, not because they betrayed secrets, but because the regime cannot tolerate reality contradicting propaganda. Fear is not a side effect of the system, it is the system. At the same time, the documentary exposes how sanctions are systematically hollowed out. Investigators trace Western-made microelectronics inside Russian missiles and drones, parts manufactured in the EU, the US, and Japan. These components do not magically appear. They travel through shell companies, fake transit routes, and permissive jurisdictions, especially via Central Asia and Turkey. Thousands of front companies exist for one purpose only: to keep Russian weapons flying. Sanctions increase cost and friction, but they do not stop the flow, because enforcement is fragmented, slow, and politically timid. The result is grotesque: European technology embedded in weapons that are leveling Ukrainian cities. The second part widens the scope and shows that Russia is no longer acting alone at all. Iran is not just supplying drones, it has effectively exported a full weapons industry into Russia. The documentary reveals a secret drone factory on Russian soil, built with Iranian expertise, producing hundreds of Shahed-type drones per day. Even more damning is how this factory is staffed. Young women from Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Mali are recruited under false pretenses, trafficked into a militarized industrial zone, forced to work in toxic conditions without protection, and kept silent through confiscated passports and constant surveillance. This is not just a war crime supply chain, it is human exploitation at scale, baked directly into Russia’s military production. North Korea completes another piece of the puzzle. The film documents, using satellite imagery and weapons forensics, how Pyongyang has supplied Russia with millions of artillery shells, ballistic missiles like the KN-23, and eventually troops. Tens of thousands of North Korean soldiers are effectively being used as disposable manpower to spare Russian urban elites from mobilization. In exchange, Moscow transfers military know-how and strategic technology. This is not desperation, it is strategic outsourcing of death. Then there is China, the quiet enabler holding the entire structure together. The documentary is careful and devastating here. China does not send soldiers. It does not openly ship weapons. Instead, it allows Russia to survive. Roughly 60 percent of components found in Russian weapons now transit through China or Hong Kong. Chinese companies, often newly created or repurposed, move massive volumes of dual-use goods that keep Russian factories running. Without this permissive Chinese role, the film makes clear, the Russian war machine would stall. Beijing does not need to fire a shot to reshape the battlefield. It simply keeps the taps open. Overlay all of this with Western political drift and internal division, and the warning becomes impossible to ignore. The documentary shows how Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China are not united by ideology so much as by shared hostility toward democratic constraint. They cooperate because none of them are accountable to voters, courts, or parliaments. The goal goes far beyond Ukraine. It is about forcefully rewriting the international order, proving that borders can be changed by violence, that sanctions can be mocked, and that democratic hesitation is a strategic weakness to be exploited. Taken together, these films do something most coverage still fails to do. They stop pretending this is a regional conflict or a temporary crisis. They show it for what it is: a coordinated authoritarian war economy facing a fragmented democratic response. The conclusion is uncomfortable but unavoidable. If Europe and its allies do not close loopholes, enforce their own rules, and act like this is a systemic threat, not a talking point, then this axis will keep pushing until something breaks.
5:00

And another great documentary by ARTE. This two-part ARTE investigation is a brutal reality check for anyone still clinging to the fantasy that Russia is somehow “isolated” or “running out of steam.” What the films show, methodically and with receipts, is that Russia’s war against Ukraine is not being sustained despite sanctions, but through a deliberately constructed global system designed to bypass them. This is not improvisation. It is industrialized, coordinated, and openly contemptuous of Western enforcement. The first part dismantles the myth of Russian military self-sufficiency. Yes, the Kremlin is still drawing heavily on vast Soviet-era stockpiles, tens of thousands of tanks, missiles, and artillery shells inherited from the USSR. But that is only the foundation. On top of it, Russia has layered a modern weapons program that depends almost entirely on foreign technology. Hypersonic missiles like Kinzhal are paraded as symbols of invincibility, yet their real story is failure, interception, and paranoia. When these “wonder weapons” underperform against Western air defense, Putin does not adapt policy, he purges people. Scientists and engineers are arrested, publicly humiliated, or die in custody, not because they betrayed secrets, but because the regime cannot tolerate reality contradicting propaganda. Fear is not a side effect of the system, it is the system. At the same time, the documentary exposes how sanctions are systematically hollowed out. Investigators trace Western-made microelectronics inside Russian missiles and drones, parts manufactured in the EU, the US, and Japan. These components do not magically appear. They travel through shell companies, fake transit routes, and permissive jurisdictions, especially via Central Asia and Turkey. Thousands of front companies exist for one purpose only: to keep Russian weapons flying. Sanctions increase cost and friction, but they do not stop the flow, because enforcement is fragmented, slow, and politically timid. The result is grotesque: European technology embedded in weapons that are leveling Ukrainian cities. The second part widens the scope and shows that Russia is no longer acting alone at all. Iran is not just supplying drones, it has effectively exported a full weapons industry into Russia. The documentary reveals a secret drone factory on Russian soil, built with Iranian expertise, producing hundreds of Shahed-type drones per day. Even more damning is how this factory is staffed. Young women from Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Mali are recruited under false pretenses, trafficked into a militarized industrial zone, forced to work in toxic conditions without protection, and kept silent through confiscated passports and constant surveillance. This is not just a war crime supply chain, it is human exploitation at scale, baked directly into Russia’s military production. North Korea completes another piece of the puzzle. The film documents, using satellite imagery and weapons forensics, how Pyongyang has supplied Russia with millions of artillery shells, ballistic missiles like the KN-23, and eventually troops. Tens of thousands of North Korean soldiers are effectively being used as disposable manpower to spare Russian urban elites from mobilization. In exchange, Moscow transfers military know-how and strategic technology. This is not desperation, it is strategic outsourcing of death. Then there is China, the quiet enabler holding the entire structure together. The documentary is careful and devastating here. China does not send soldiers. It does not openly ship weapons. Instead, it allows Russia to survive. Roughly 60 percent of components found in Russian weapons now transit through China or Hong Kong. Chinese companies, often newly created or repurposed, move massive volumes of dual-use goods that keep Russian factories running. Without this permissive Chinese role, the film makes clear, the Russian war machine would stall. Beijing does not need to fire a shot to reshape the battlefield. It simply keeps the taps open. Overlay all of this with Western political drift and internal division, and the warning becomes impossible to ignore. The documentary shows how Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China are not united by ideology so much as by shared hostility toward democratic constraint. They cooperate because none of them are accountable to voters, courts, or parliaments. The goal goes far beyond Ukraine. It is about forcefully rewriting the international order, proving that borders can be changed by violence, that sanctions can be mocked, and that democratic hesitation is a strategic weakness to be exploited. Taken together, these films do something most coverage still fails to do. They stop pretending this is a regional conflict or a temporary crisis. They show it for what it is: a coordinated authoritarian war economy facing a fragmented democratic response. The conclusion is uncomfortable but unavoidable. If Europe and its allies do not close loopholes, enforce their own rules, and act like this is a systemic threat, not a talking point, then this axis will keep pushing until something breaks.

Pete

156,999 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

"I've been trying to say this to Jewish people, and to Americans, and to everybody, there's an enemy within. I think we all know that and what are we going to do about it?" "The vaccines were tested on Jewish people in Israel. Is this a captive population that the owners of the world think they can use as lab rats? again and again and again, even in their own state? I mean is it that big? Is it that horrible? And I kinda think, yeah it is" - Roseanne Barr This is the entire perspective I've been trying to get across to everyone since the Hamas attack on Israel, and why I've been speaking so strongly against the people pounding on us for war and not questioning the government. Before the attacks, it felt like we were finally starting to see a movement of people who were unified against that enemy within. We didn't agree on everything and there was still discussion to be had on issues, but we largely shared the sentiment in that we knew basically every government across the world was captured and apart of the same anti-human agenda, we knew they were willfully harming and killing people with the vaccine and other measures, and we knew they were lying to us constantly throughout. After the attack, 9/11 brain has stricken many and we're back to arguing over what narratives we trust, what people we should listen to, which authority is the good guy and the bad guy, and who we should support in enacting revenge on the perpetrators of the Hamas attack, instead of asking the obvious questions like "How did Israel fail to protect it's people exactly?" "Who does this benefit in the end?" "What could this be distracting us from?" How was Hamas was able to ride into the country on bulldozers, boats, paragliders, and trucks, spend several hours killing civilians and capturing them as hostages, to then drive out of the country with said hostages with no contact from the Israeli military? Does no one notice how absurd this sounds? It's one of the best militaries in the world with the world super power of the United States behind it, and somehow they dropped the ball this badly and allowed their people to be killed? The exact same questions were asked on 9/11, and we were met with the same ridicule for asking them, to only find out years later they knew the attack was coming and let it happen for the war plans that made long in advance. Roseanne also brought up a very important point with the vaccine that it seems like everyone has already forgotten and completely removed from the context of the current situation with Israel, the US, or any other government saying "it's a tragedy" about Hamas murdering babies and civilians. News flash, governments have been experimenting on it's citizens and murdering babies with vaccines for decades. We have 6 month old infants getting the COVID vaccine as we speak, with every single death being attributed to something else to protect criminal pharma corporations. The governments know this, and yet they're not outraged. Why? Do you remember when the Israeli government used their own citizens as guinea pigs for the COVID vaccine? Remember when they forced them to get it to keep their jobs or exist in society? Remember when they were the first country to implement the WHO/WEF vaccine passport system? How can you possibly argue that the Israeli government actually cares about it's citizens with this reality in mind? It's absurd cognitive dissonance with gold medal tier mental gymnastics and hypocrisy. The enemy has always been within, and that enemy is now trying to push us to war with Iran for more death, destruction, and depopulation.
12:23

"I've been trying to say this to Jewish people, and to Americans, and to everybody, there's an enemy within. I think we all know that and what are we going to do about it?" "The vaccines were tested on Jewish people in Israel. Is this a captive population that the owners of the world think they can use as lab rats? again and again and again, even in their own state? I mean is it that big? Is it that horrible? And I kinda think, yeah it is" - Roseanne Barr This is the entire perspective I've been trying to get across to everyone since the Hamas attack on Israel, and why I've been speaking so strongly against the people pounding on us for war and not questioning the government. Before the attacks, it felt like we were finally starting to see a movement of people who were unified against that enemy within. We didn't agree on everything and there was still discussion to be had on issues, but we largely shared the sentiment in that we knew basically every government across the world was captured and apart of the same anti-human agenda, we knew they were willfully harming and killing people with the vaccine and other measures, and we knew they were lying to us constantly throughout. After the attack, 9/11 brain has stricken many and we're back to arguing over what narratives we trust, what people we should listen to, which authority is the good guy and the bad guy, and who we should support in enacting revenge on the perpetrators of the Hamas attack, instead of asking the obvious questions like "How did Israel fail to protect it's people exactly?" "Who does this benefit in the end?" "What could this be distracting us from?" How was Hamas was able to ride into the country on bulldozers, boats, paragliders, and trucks, spend several hours killing civilians and capturing them as hostages, to then drive out of the country with said hostages with no contact from the Israeli military? Does no one notice how absurd this sounds? It's one of the best militaries in the world with the world super power of the United States behind it, and somehow they dropped the ball this badly and allowed their people to be killed? The exact same questions were asked on 9/11, and we were met with the same ridicule for asking them, to only find out years later they knew the attack was coming and let it happen for the war plans that made long in advance. Roseanne also brought up a very important point with the vaccine that it seems like everyone has already forgotten and completely removed from the context of the current situation with Israel, the US, or any other government saying "it's a tragedy" about Hamas murdering babies and civilians. News flash, governments have been experimenting on it's citizens and murdering babies with vaccines for decades. We have 6 month old infants getting the COVID vaccine as we speak, with every single death being attributed to something else to protect criminal pharma corporations. The governments know this, and yet they're not outraged. Why? Do you remember when the Israeli government used their own citizens as guinea pigs for the COVID vaccine? Remember when they forced them to get it to keep their jobs or exist in society? Remember when they were the first country to implement the WHO/WEF vaccine passport system? How can you possibly argue that the Israeli government actually cares about it's citizens with this reality in mind? It's absurd cognitive dissonance with gold medal tier mental gymnastics and hypocrisy. The enemy has always been within, and that enemy is now trying to push us to war with Iran for more death, destruction, and depopulation.

Inversionism

1,679,719 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Kids Sold and Raped for Power While the Old and Aging Argue Markets and Pensions by: E.M. Burlingame - a brief 🧵 The kids are boiling alive in their own skin, see, crammed into roach-shit apartments and beat up vans down by the river, with nothing but a six-pack of warm regret and a view of the goddamn dumpster fire this place has become; no fat bank accounts whispering lies, no shiny future dangling like a carrot they'll never reach, no warm body beside 'em in the cold sheets except maybe the ghost of last night's cheap buzz. They stare at screens showing palaces built on their bones, while down the street, their friends, their people, get chewed up and spat out by the silk-suited jackals running the meat grinder – trafficked, used, discarded like greasy napkins. And the punchline? The same fat cats slopping at the trough want these hollowed-out kids to pick up a rifle, stand on some foreign dirt, and bleed out screaming for the privilege of defending this? And all the while old men do nothing but argue about how their world is gone and how unhappy that makes them. All the while the high priests, the educated elite, preach more, more, more, we just need to buy in more, fuck them kids. This stinking, rigged human devouring carnival where the only prize left is an early grave? Rushed into preferably at your own hand. Yeah, the rage ain't just building, pal. It's a goddamn pressure cooker rattling on a busted stove, smelling like cordite and stale beer, waiting for the lid to blow sky-high and scorch the whole rotten mess down to cinders. Why the fuck would the young fight for a system would rather rape than protect them? That ain’t a society, a civilization, that’s nothing but slavery. The young, they got nothing to lose but the chains, two trillion in student loans debts they'll never earn on shit education, and the chains are starting to chafe real bad. They're being asked to die for the right to starve politely. Screw that. The only thing worth defending with their blood is the chance to spit in the eye of the whole damned, dying beast. Revolution’s coming, the moment the young realize that to save their own, power must be taken, through force. Or the old will continue to argue and do nothing while even more kids are sold at the block as sex slaves to keep those markets high and pensions paid. Tommy Carrigan in this short clip from his longer conversation, very much stated the reality of the younger generations. A reality I hear not a one of the older pundits even remotely talking about, and when it comes up, they brush it aside as if it’s a small matter. But it isn’t. It is THE MATTER. Everyone’s talking about immigration, about markets, about elections, godlike tech, or fucking manmade weather. Everything but the the reality that the young are being preyed upon and the old are doing fuck all about it. Yes, there are efforts to counter trafficking, and I know some who are in this space. May all the old gods bless and support them in these efforts. All the while nothing is being done about those of power who have been and are on the receiving end of this trafficking, the ones trafficked to, the ones enslaving all and driving the world to nuclear war. If you can’t and don’t protect the young, the young will get to a point where they will no longer protect you, the aging and old, nor your regime which is also rapidly crumbling and will without the full buy in from the young. Not only will the young no longer buy in. Not only will they not protect you. Soon, if we continue just but a little more on this path, they’ll burn you out of your comfortable lives for sport. We're not there yet and there are WWIII preventing things MUST BE DONE before we take on this fight. But make no mistake, we’re rapidly approaching the LET THEM EAT CAKE moment of our time!
3:07

Kids Sold and Raped for Power While the Old and Aging Argue Markets and Pensions by: E.M. Burlingame - a brief 🧵 The kids are boiling alive in their own skin, see, crammed into roach-shit apartments and beat up vans down by the river, with nothing but a six-pack of warm regret and a view of the goddamn dumpster fire this place has become; no fat bank accounts whispering lies, no shiny future dangling like a carrot they'll never reach, no warm body beside 'em in the cold sheets except maybe the ghost of last night's cheap buzz. They stare at screens showing palaces built on their bones, while down the street, their friends, their people, get chewed up and spat out by the silk-suited jackals running the meat grinder – trafficked, used, discarded like greasy napkins. And the punchline? The same fat cats slopping at the trough want these hollowed-out kids to pick up a rifle, stand on some foreign dirt, and bleed out screaming for the privilege of defending this? And all the while old men do nothing but argue about how their world is gone and how unhappy that makes them. All the while the high priests, the educated elite, preach more, more, more, we just need to buy in more, fuck them kids. This stinking, rigged human devouring carnival where the only prize left is an early grave? Rushed into preferably at your own hand. Yeah, the rage ain't just building, pal. It's a goddamn pressure cooker rattling on a busted stove, smelling like cordite and stale beer, waiting for the lid to blow sky-high and scorch the whole rotten mess down to cinders. Why the fuck would the young fight for a system would rather rape than protect them? That ain’t a society, a civilization, that’s nothing but slavery. The young, they got nothing to lose but the chains, two trillion in student loans debts they'll never earn on shit education, and the chains are starting to chafe real bad. They're being asked to die for the right to starve politely. Screw that. The only thing worth defending with their blood is the chance to spit in the eye of the whole damned, dying beast. Revolution’s coming, the moment the young realize that to save their own, power must be taken, through force. Or the old will continue to argue and do nothing while even more kids are sold at the block as sex slaves to keep those markets high and pensions paid. Tommy Carrigan in this short clip from his longer conversation, very much stated the reality of the younger generations. A reality I hear not a one of the older pundits even remotely talking about, and when it comes up, they brush it aside as if it’s a small matter. But it isn’t. It is THE MATTER. Everyone’s talking about immigration, about markets, about elections, godlike tech, or fucking manmade weather. Everything but the the reality that the young are being preyed upon and the old are doing fuck all about it. Yes, there are efforts to counter trafficking, and I know some who are in this space. May all the old gods bless and support them in these efforts. All the while nothing is being done about those of power who have been and are on the receiving end of this trafficking, the ones trafficked to, the ones enslaving all and driving the world to nuclear war. If you can’t and don’t protect the young, the young will get to a point where they will no longer protect you, the aging and old, nor your regime which is also rapidly crumbling and will without the full buy in from the young. Not only will the young no longer buy in. Not only will they not protect you. Soon, if we continue just but a little more on this path, they’ll burn you out of your comfortable lives for sport. We're not there yet and there are WWIII preventing things MUST BE DONE before we take on this fight. But make no mistake, we’re rapidly approaching the LET THEM EAT CAKE moment of our time!

EM Burlingame - 蒲 奕 言

35,208 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

D'Souza Exposes Nihilistic Intent in the GOP! Carlson aims "to cow JD Vance into submission," by leveraging personal ties." ~ Dinesh D'Souza In a candid discussion on Chicks on the Right, Dinesh D'Souza dissected the provocative tactics of far-right figure Nick Fuentes, portraying him as a calculated performer whose rhetoric fuels division within the Republican Party. "Nick basically, you know, puts on his little narrow tie and his navy blazer," D'Souza observed, likening Fuentes' style to "a certain type of performance artistry." D'Souza acknowledged the malice behind it, stating unequivocally, "Is it malevolent? Yes. Is he an anti-Semite? Yes." Yet D'Souza urged a deeper understanding of the appeal: Fuentes' words resonate with "basement dwellers" harboring "nihilistic" resentment toward an "establishment that runs both parties," where "elites have put everybody at the top of the list and they are at the bottom." This "performance politics," as D'Souza called it, thrives on such "fumes," drawing in disillusioned followers who see the system as rigged against them. Pressed on Fuentes' ultimate aim, D'Souza described it as harnessing "a certain type of dark energy" that Fuentes wields to "skirt the edge" without fully crossing into irrelevance. "Essentially what he's doing is he's trying to burn it all down, which is what all nihilists try to do," D'Souza explained. Far from seeking organized reform, Fuentes engages in "a kind of pyromania," politically igniting chaos in hopes that "out of the ashes your side will emerge stronger." Co-host Mock probed whether this was deliberate sabotage: "Do you think that he is just some sort of an agent to sow discord and like chaos in the Republican Party?" D'Souza affirmed the destructive intent, contrasting it with Tucker Carlson's more strategic maneuvering, which he hinted plays out differently but with equal peril. Shifting to Carlson, D'Souza painted a picture of calculated influence over emerging GOP leaders like JD Vance. "I think the game that Tucker's playing is not whether he votes Republican. I don't think he cares about that," he said. Instead, Carlson aims "to cow JD Vance into submission," by leveraging personal ties. "He thinks Vance is in his back pocket. He thinks Vance owes him because Tucker put Vance into the Senate," D'Souza noted, adding that while he's given up on Trump, Carlson "bets that the future of the Republican Party belongs to him because he controls JD Vance." Though D'Souza praised Vance as "a really smart guy" and unlikely to embrace full bigotry, he warned of the "very malevolent game" and its "serious consequences" for the party's direction.'' The conversation turned to Vance's recent appearance at an Ohio State University Turning Point event, where "groyper infiltrators" seemed to dominate the Q&A. "It did seem like some of the audience members were groper infiltrators, right? The way that they were framing their questions," Mock said, expressing concern over Vance's diplomatic responses and the mounting pressure from figures like Carlson and Fuentes. D'Souza empathized, sensing Vance's internal struggle amid a generation feeling the "American dream has eluded them." These young people, he argued, have absorbed narratives of a "deep state" from conservatives like himself, only for pipers like Carlson and Candace Owens to twist it into anti-Semitic conspiracy: "This whole entire system is being puppeteered by the elite of the elites, namely that's the Jews." Post-COVID disillusionment with Fauci, the FBI, and academia has made them vulnerable, D'Souza said. They are not "entirely bad people," but prey to those "leading them to the precipice." The real challenge for Vance, and the broader right, isn't blunt denunciation, which could backfire into the hands of provocateurs, but redirection: "How do we lead them away from the precipice instead of to the precipice?"
5:21

D'Souza Exposes Nihilistic Intent in the GOP! Carlson aims "to cow JD Vance into submission," by leveraging personal ties." ~ Dinesh D'Souza In a candid discussion on Chicks on the Right, Dinesh D'Souza dissected the provocative tactics of far-right figure Nick Fuentes, portraying him as a calculated performer whose rhetoric fuels division within the Republican Party. "Nick basically, you know, puts on his little narrow tie and his navy blazer," D'Souza observed, likening Fuentes' style to "a certain type of performance artistry." D'Souza acknowledged the malice behind it, stating unequivocally, "Is it malevolent? Yes. Is he an anti-Semite? Yes." Yet D'Souza urged a deeper understanding of the appeal: Fuentes' words resonate with "basement dwellers" harboring "nihilistic" resentment toward an "establishment that runs both parties," where "elites have put everybody at the top of the list and they are at the bottom." This "performance politics," as D'Souza called it, thrives on such "fumes," drawing in disillusioned followers who see the system as rigged against them. Pressed on Fuentes' ultimate aim, D'Souza described it as harnessing "a certain type of dark energy" that Fuentes wields to "skirt the edge" without fully crossing into irrelevance. "Essentially what he's doing is he's trying to burn it all down, which is what all nihilists try to do," D'Souza explained. Far from seeking organized reform, Fuentes engages in "a kind of pyromania," politically igniting chaos in hopes that "out of the ashes your side will emerge stronger." Co-host Mock probed whether this was deliberate sabotage: "Do you think that he is just some sort of an agent to sow discord and like chaos in the Republican Party?" D'Souza affirmed the destructive intent, contrasting it with Tucker Carlson's more strategic maneuvering, which he hinted plays out differently but with equal peril. Shifting to Carlson, D'Souza painted a picture of calculated influence over emerging GOP leaders like JD Vance. "I think the game that Tucker's playing is not whether he votes Republican. I don't think he cares about that," he said. Instead, Carlson aims "to cow JD Vance into submission," by leveraging personal ties. "He thinks Vance is in his back pocket. He thinks Vance owes him because Tucker put Vance into the Senate," D'Souza noted, adding that while he's given up on Trump, Carlson "bets that the future of the Republican Party belongs to him because he controls JD Vance." Though D'Souza praised Vance as "a really smart guy" and unlikely to embrace full bigotry, he warned of the "very malevolent game" and its "serious consequences" for the party's direction.'' The conversation turned to Vance's recent appearance at an Ohio State University Turning Point event, where "groyper infiltrators" seemed to dominate the Q&A. "It did seem like some of the audience members were groper infiltrators, right? The way that they were framing their questions," Mock said, expressing concern over Vance's diplomatic responses and the mounting pressure from figures like Carlson and Fuentes. D'Souza empathized, sensing Vance's internal struggle amid a generation feeling the "American dream has eluded them." These young people, he argued, have absorbed narratives of a "deep state" from conservatives like himself, only for pipers like Carlson and Candace Owens to twist it into anti-Semitic conspiracy: "This whole entire system is being puppeteered by the elite of the elites, namely that's the Jews." Post-COVID disillusionment with Fauci, the FBI, and academia has made them vulnerable, D'Souza said. They are not "entirely bad people," but prey to those "leading them to the precipice." The real challenge for Vance, and the broader right, isn't blunt denunciation, which could backfire into the hands of provocateurs, but redirection: "How do we lead them away from the precipice instead of to the precipice?"

Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior

77,681 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

MoistCr1TiKaL dropped a follow up response to his Ethan iDubbbz lawsuit video where he addressed those such as MikeFromPA calling into question his explanation as to why he waited so long to cover Klein In the video he denies avoiding the topic, reaffirms his disavowal of the lawsuits, and touches on Denims's tentative victory "Had a feeling it was going to a pretty poisonous topic..I treat this channel like a diary, I just blabber about things that I feel like talking on..I did as much as research on it as I could..watched iDubbbz stream, watched h3h3 stream..and I talked to both parties..then I just gave u my view" "Ur always welcome to disagree with me..I value differences of opinion..I made the mistake..of taking a peak of what the discussion was..on Reddit and Twitter..there was some very valid critiques and some information..but boy howdy there was a lot of hoopla that I couldn't have even imagined would have been a controversial thing" "There were ppl that were proudly stating they didn't watch the video and then getting angry at things they assumed I might have said..it just feels f'in useless to engage in the topic in that case" "Just me mentioning that I'm not online as much as I used to be was a highly debated topic..when I was talking about the defamation lawsuits..I also mentioned that Ethan has other active lawsuits against other creators and I called him the Nintendo of YouTubers..didn't dive in bc I didn't know much about them..everyone assumes I'm terminally online like I used to be 2-3 years ago" "U can look at my Twitter page and see that I have 2 tweets in like the last 2 years..or on IG I make a post every month and a half and a lot them are just me hanging out with my farm animals..u can check my streaming history..not streaming with the same frequency..I just don't see everything that happens online..can't believe..that's so unbelievable" "Throughout my entire time on YT..I think I have made it beyond crystal clear how much I dislike this litigious approach to online discourse..this excessive use of the legal system for strong arming or silencing" "After learning more about those other lawsuits..guess what, I don't agree with those either..obviously I don't know the nitty gritty around all the lawsuits..from everything I've seen, there's nothing in there that makes me think this is the right way of doing things..or this is different than other times in the past where creators have sued each other over disputes..maybe he has some strong cases..one of the streamers it did seem like they were uninterrupted playing the video without even an attempt to transform it" "I really think if the targets were different..the response would be very different..rn a lot of ppl celebrate them bc they just hate the ppl that Ethan is suing so they go yee haw for it but these individuals..they are a fraction of the size of Ethan so to me, it's a hard case that he was genuinely losing eyeballs bc of them streaming it on their twitch..ya big a hole thing to do but it's not hurting u, it's just u don't like them and they don't like u" "U already won against that kind of behavior..the internet from what I can tell..no one was really on the side of the streamers that were just blatantly streaming it without any kind of transformation..u already won, what's the point in continuing this further just so u can also financially hurt them” "Big one I spent the most time looking into is the Denims case..I don't know what a tentative loss really means bc it's not an official loss..still an ongoing lawsuit but the judge had like a very seemingly stern view on it that even cited Ethan Klein's previous fair use victory against him"
10:22

MoistCr1TiKaL dropped a follow up response to his Ethan iDubbbz lawsuit video where he addressed those such as MikeFromPA calling into question his explanation as to why he waited so long to cover Klein In the video he denies avoiding the topic, reaffirms his disavowal of the lawsuits, and touches on Denims's tentative victory "Had a feeling it was going to a pretty poisonous topic..I treat this channel like a diary, I just blabber about things that I feel like talking on..I did as much as research on it as I could..watched iDubbbz stream, watched h3h3 stream..and I talked to both parties..then I just gave u my view" "Ur always welcome to disagree with me..I value differences of opinion..I made the mistake..of taking a peak of what the discussion was..on Reddit and Twitter..there was some very valid critiques and some information..but boy howdy there was a lot of hoopla that I couldn't have even imagined would have been a controversial thing" "There were ppl that were proudly stating they didn't watch the video and then getting angry at things they assumed I might have said..it just feels f'in useless to engage in the topic in that case" "Just me mentioning that I'm not online as much as I used to be was a highly debated topic..when I was talking about the defamation lawsuits..I also mentioned that Ethan has other active lawsuits against other creators and I called him the Nintendo of YouTubers..didn't dive in bc I didn't know much about them..everyone assumes I'm terminally online like I used to be 2-3 years ago" "U can look at my Twitter page and see that I have 2 tweets in like the last 2 years..or on IG I make a post every month and a half and a lot them are just me hanging out with my farm animals..u can check my streaming history..not streaming with the same frequency..I just don't see everything that happens online..can't believe..that's so unbelievable" "Throughout my entire time on YT..I think I have made it beyond crystal clear how much I dislike this litigious approach to online discourse..this excessive use of the legal system for strong arming or silencing" "After learning more about those other lawsuits..guess what, I don't agree with those either..obviously I don't know the nitty gritty around all the lawsuits..from everything I've seen, there's nothing in there that makes me think this is the right way of doing things..or this is different than other times in the past where creators have sued each other over disputes..maybe he has some strong cases..one of the streamers it did seem like they were uninterrupted playing the video without even an attempt to transform it" "I really think if the targets were different..the response would be very different..rn a lot of ppl celebrate them bc they just hate the ppl that Ethan is suing so they go yee haw for it but these individuals..they are a fraction of the size of Ethan so to me, it's a hard case that he was genuinely losing eyeballs bc of them streaming it on their twitch..ya big a hole thing to do but it's not hurting u, it's just u don't like them and they don't like u" "U already won against that kind of behavior..the internet from what I can tell..no one was really on the side of the streamers that were just blatantly streaming it without any kind of transformation..u already won, what's the point in continuing this further just so u can also financially hurt them” "Big one I spent the most time looking into is the Denims case..I don't know what a tentative loss really means bc it's not an official loss..still an ongoing lawsuit but the judge had like a very seemingly stern view on it that even cited Ethan Klein's previous fair use victory against him"

yeet

112,306 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Not true. Pete Hegseth's clothes are custom-made. A few years ago, my friend and I had a debate about whether you can spot custom tailoring. This friend has more than 30 years of experience working with some of London's best bespoke tailors. He believes that an educated eye can spot the difference between a custom and an off-the-rack suit. I don't think you can, assuming certain conditions (too detailed to get into here). Ultimately, we agreed on one thing: you can spot custom tailoring when the clothes are so ugly that no designer would ever make them. This explains a lot of the clothing you see nowadays. On a television segment aired long ago, Pete Hegseth said he used a company called Book a Tailor. And in the recent email hack, it was revealed that Kash Patel's email address was linked to this online clothing review, indicating he uses Rocky's HK Fashions. Long ago, Gavin McInness also talked about his tailor. They all share one thing: they wear clothes that were made in low-wage East Asian countries. I should note at the outset that there's nothing inherently wrong with East Asian tailoring. In fact, some of the world's best tailoring is done there, including at firms such as WW Chan (Hong Kong) and Atelier BRIO (Beijing). I would stake my reputation on saying that some of the best East Asian tailoring today rivals that of Savile Row. Seoul is also a tremendous hub for quality custom tailors (e.g., Assisi, The Finery Company, B&Tailor, Hamin Kim, among others). However, these people are not using such firms. Instead, they are relying on a new system developed sometime in the late 20th century that has since taken off with the development of digital information technology. In this system, someone with little experience in the clothing industry will set up a custom clothing company. For the sake of discussion, let's call this person Mark and the company "Custom Threads." Mark doesn't know much about tailoring, but he likes suits and wants to make money. So he contacts one of these factories in East Asia and sets up a partnership. Mark meets with clients in the US. Since he's wearing a suit and has a tape measurer around his neck, customers assume he knows what he's doing (some may even refer to him as a "tailor," even if he's not one). He takes detailed measurements of these clients, jots down their fabric choice, and sends the information to his partners in East Asian. The garment is then made by adjusting the block pattern, sewn straight to finish, and delivered to Mark, who presents it to the customer for a fitting. Small adjustments are made here and there — maybe taking up the sleeve or nipping the waist. But since Mark is not actually a technically trained cutter, he may miss things, such as a wrongly placed neckpoint that makes the jacket scissor in or out. If the customer is very far off from the block pattern, it may not fit him at all. But Mark is not in a good position to address these matters — he neither has the skills nor the margins to put this customer in a proper garment. If Mark is not very well educated on tailoring, then his customers are even less so. Thus, the customer is just happy with the crude hallmarks of custom-made goods, such as the monogram he asked for. Or the contrast colored buttonhole that he believes makes him stand out in a good way. The customer doesn't know how to check for more meaningful issues, such as front-back balance, so it's the blind leading the blind. This system is very different from the system of your grandfather's generation. If a man wanted a custom suit, he would have gone to a custom tailoring shop, which may have been owned by someone who wasn't a cutter, but the cutter would have seen you in person and thus been able to address technical issues. At the very least, the person running the "front of house" would have had more experience in the clothing trade (e.g., Tommy Nutter). Last year, The Wall Street Journal did an article about a pastor-turned-tailor. He, too, relies on this system: he measures customers and sends the info to an overseas factory, where the clothes are made in China, Thailand, and Vietnam. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with Chinese or Thai tailoring. But when the starting price is $300 for a suit ($500 after Trump imposed his tariffs), you can be sure he's not using the best shops. This is why Hegseth's suits look the way they do. He got his clothes from someone with little experience in the clothing trade and has no technical tailoring skills. Thus, both he and the company owner are easily led by stale trends (e.g., short jackets, tight pants, low-rise, etc.). Hegseth has little experience with custom tailoring and a low level of personal taste, so he checks every possible custom option — funky lining, contrast buttonhole, etc. This is why I often tell people that they should try ready-to-wear first. Custom tailoring is not a guarantee of quality tailoring, especially not in this new system where people with no experience or technical skills are just sending measurements to a distant factory. Hegseth also demonstrates the one bit of common ground I found with my friend during our debate: you can tell clothes are custom-made when they are so ugly, no designer would ever make such a thing.
0:26

Not true. Pete Hegseth's clothes are custom-made. A few years ago, my friend and I had a debate about whether you can spot custom tailoring. This friend has more than 30 years of experience working with some of London's best bespoke tailors. He believes that an educated eye can spot the difference between a custom and an off-the-rack suit. I don't think you can, assuming certain conditions (too detailed to get into here). Ultimately, we agreed on one thing: you can spot custom tailoring when the clothes are so ugly that no designer would ever make them. This explains a lot of the clothing you see nowadays. On a television segment aired long ago, Pete Hegseth said he used a company called Book a Tailor. And in the recent email hack, it was revealed that Kash Patel's email address was linked to this online clothing review, indicating he uses Rocky's HK Fashions. Long ago, Gavin McInness also talked about his tailor. They all share one thing: they wear clothes that were made in low-wage East Asian countries. I should note at the outset that there's nothing inherently wrong with East Asian tailoring. In fact, some of the world's best tailoring is done there, including at firms such as WW Chan (Hong Kong) and Atelier BRIO (Beijing). I would stake my reputation on saying that some of the best East Asian tailoring today rivals that of Savile Row. Seoul is also a tremendous hub for quality custom tailors (e.g., Assisi, The Finery Company, B&Tailor, Hamin Kim, among others). However, these people are not using such firms. Instead, they are relying on a new system developed sometime in the late 20th century that has since taken off with the development of digital information technology. In this system, someone with little experience in the clothing industry will set up a custom clothing company. For the sake of discussion, let's call this person Mark and the company "Custom Threads." Mark doesn't know much about tailoring, but he likes suits and wants to make money. So he contacts one of these factories in East Asia and sets up a partnership. Mark meets with clients in the US. Since he's wearing a suit and has a tape measurer around his neck, customers assume he knows what he's doing (some may even refer to him as a "tailor," even if he's not one). He takes detailed measurements of these clients, jots down their fabric choice, and sends the information to his partners in East Asian. The garment is then made by adjusting the block pattern, sewn straight to finish, and delivered to Mark, who presents it to the customer for a fitting. Small adjustments are made here and there — maybe taking up the sleeve or nipping the waist. But since Mark is not actually a technically trained cutter, he may miss things, such as a wrongly placed neckpoint that makes the jacket scissor in or out. If the customer is very far off from the block pattern, it may not fit him at all. But Mark is not in a good position to address these matters — he neither has the skills nor the margins to put this customer in a proper garment. If Mark is not very well educated on tailoring, then his customers are even less so. Thus, the customer is just happy with the crude hallmarks of custom-made goods, such as the monogram he asked for. Or the contrast colored buttonhole that he believes makes him stand out in a good way. The customer doesn't know how to check for more meaningful issues, such as front-back balance, so it's the blind leading the blind. This system is very different from the system of your grandfather's generation. If a man wanted a custom suit, he would have gone to a custom tailoring shop, which may have been owned by someone who wasn't a cutter, but the cutter would have seen you in person and thus been able to address technical issues. At the very least, the person running the "front of house" would have had more experience in the clothing trade (e.g., Tommy Nutter). Last year, The Wall Street Journal did an article about a pastor-turned-tailor. He, too, relies on this system: he measures customers and sends the info to an overseas factory, where the clothes are made in China, Thailand, and Vietnam. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with Chinese or Thai tailoring. But when the starting price is $300 for a suit ($500 after Trump imposed his tariffs), you can be sure he's not using the best shops. This is why Hegseth's suits look the way they do. He got his clothes from someone with little experience in the clothing trade and has no technical tailoring skills. Thus, both he and the company owner are easily led by stale trends (e.g., short jackets, tight pants, low-rise, etc.). Hegseth has little experience with custom tailoring and a low level of personal taste, so he checks every possible custom option — funky lining, contrast buttonhole, etc. This is why I often tell people that they should try ready-to-wear first. Custom tailoring is not a guarantee of quality tailoring, especially not in this new system where people with no experience or technical skills are just sending measurements to a distant factory. Hegseth also demonstrates the one bit of common ground I found with my friend during our debate: you can tell clothes are custom-made when they are so ugly, no designer would ever make such a thing.

derek guy

819,919 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The more you see Nigeria, the less any of it makes sense. There was a time when honesty & honor meant something, that country is long gone, but we can dream again. Nigerians are incarcerated. In prison, people gravitate toward the person that people have the most respect for. You cultivate friendships that will protect you. That is the case in Nigeria, everyone is looking for sanctuary. But the good thing about miracles is that they do happen. One day, Nigerians will finally get the focused leadership they deserve. People love a good story, & everyone is looking for heroes, someone to believe in. I got too much experience with pain. The last election was a battle, & I was deeply attached. I am proud that I was part of it. It changed me though. Nigeria can make you feel so big, yet so small. Your country has changed, & generally for the worse. But I will continue to fight for all the good stuff. I don’t think the Agbados are humans, no one made a medical examination. They are like hyenas in the wild, hyenas have this characteristic foolishness that slap. "The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him." Niccolo Machiavelli told me this..” They will pay one of us to kill one of us, just to say it was one of us." Malcolm X was the little bird. Nothing was ever handed to people on a platter. You have to reach out & grab it. The French did, Russians did. Germans, the Chinese, Austro-Hungarians, the Serbs. All around the world, the proletariat rose from the ashes to demand for their rights. People grew tired of the system & they acted with one voice. Fear makes bad decisions, stick to the plan. And when they come for you, fight back. Cowering makes it even worse. Know that no one is coming to save you. Only Nigerians will love Nigeria enough to save it. As for Peter Obi, he gave Nigerians a reason to smile & be beautiful again. He’s got his own sound, there is a ring to it. Obi is our fiduciary, more like a father. We are the legatees of his great promise. When you promise to take care of someone, you become their father. But it's not easy to repeat success. 2023 was great, but winning was better. That year was WOW! A gastronomic extravaganza. The triumph of good over evil. We were tired of waiting at the table, so we built our own. What a way to make a name for ourselves. Now our courage is around back, we have to get it back. The other camp act like A students, but a lot can happen in 2027. Between the A & E students, the most dangerous are the B. Near to greatness, but not enough great to reach it. Destined to be number two. But A students become comfortable, they relax. Pride is their first sin. That election is still fresh on our mind. There was this loud triumphal tone to it. A sort of trumpety-relentlessness & surging-uplifting energy, you could almost feel the echo. We’ve played the heroes for so long, sometimes we forget we are kids. We are the true definition of Nigerian heroes. We sipped into the consciousness of everyone who dared to listen. We know how to conjure up & orchestrate heroic melodies. Our music is young, we somehow know how to put it together. We burst into the scene & everything changed. Suddenly, everyone was listening to our sound. Nigerians started to notice us in 2022. We took an already existing camaraderie & sort of reconfigured it to our style. Our melody was subtle yet loud, it’s heard to this day even. We are creating the vibes that have the touch of patriotism & heroism. Our motifs are very evocative & sublime, in a very moody way. And that is the versatility of our movement. The ability to take on anything & weave it into something larger than it appears. Obidients are like lilies. “A flower may die, the best of bloom in the meadows may be no more. But although dirt is thrown at them & water falls on them, still they rise beautifully & defiant with bright colors to dazzle your dreams.” A New Nigeria is POsssible. 😭💪
1:44

The more you see Nigeria, the less any of it makes sense. There was a time when honesty & honor meant something, that country is long gone, but we can dream again. Nigerians are incarcerated. In prison, people gravitate toward the person that people have the most respect for. You cultivate friendships that will protect you. That is the case in Nigeria, everyone is looking for sanctuary. But the good thing about miracles is that they do happen. One day, Nigerians will finally get the focused leadership they deserve. People love a good story, & everyone is looking for heroes, someone to believe in. I got too much experience with pain. The last election was a battle, & I was deeply attached. I am proud that I was part of it. It changed me though. Nigeria can make you feel so big, yet so small. Your country has changed, & generally for the worse. But I will continue to fight for all the good stuff. I don’t think the Agbados are humans, no one made a medical examination. They are like hyenas in the wild, hyenas have this characteristic foolishness that slap. "The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him." Niccolo Machiavelli told me this..” They will pay one of us to kill one of us, just to say it was one of us." Malcolm X was the little bird. Nothing was ever handed to people on a platter. You have to reach out & grab it. The French did, Russians did. Germans, the Chinese, Austro-Hungarians, the Serbs. All around the world, the proletariat rose from the ashes to demand for their rights. People grew tired of the system & they acted with one voice. Fear makes bad decisions, stick to the plan. And when they come for you, fight back. Cowering makes it even worse. Know that no one is coming to save you. Only Nigerians will love Nigeria enough to save it. As for Peter Obi, he gave Nigerians a reason to smile & be beautiful again. He’s got his own sound, there is a ring to it. Obi is our fiduciary, more like a father. We are the legatees of his great promise. When you promise to take care of someone, you become their father. But it's not easy to repeat success. 2023 was great, but winning was better. That year was WOW! A gastronomic extravaganza. The triumph of good over evil. We were tired of waiting at the table, so we built our own. What a way to make a name for ourselves. Now our courage is around back, we have to get it back. The other camp act like A students, but a lot can happen in 2027. Between the A & E students, the most dangerous are the B. Near to greatness, but not enough great to reach it. Destined to be number two. But A students become comfortable, they relax. Pride is their first sin. That election is still fresh on our mind. There was this loud triumphal tone to it. A sort of trumpety-relentlessness & surging-uplifting energy, you could almost feel the echo. We’ve played the heroes for so long, sometimes we forget we are kids. We are the true definition of Nigerian heroes. We sipped into the consciousness of everyone who dared to listen. We know how to conjure up & orchestrate heroic melodies. Our music is young, we somehow know how to put it together. We burst into the scene & everything changed. Suddenly, everyone was listening to our sound. Nigerians started to notice us in 2022. We took an already existing camaraderie & sort of reconfigured it to our style. Our melody was subtle yet loud, it’s heard to this day even. We are creating the vibes that have the touch of patriotism & heroism. Our motifs are very evocative & sublime, in a very moody way. And that is the versatility of our movement. The ability to take on anything & weave it into something larger than it appears. Obidients are like lilies. “A flower may die, the best of bloom in the meadows may be no more. But although dirt is thrown at them & water falls on them, still they rise beautifully & defiant with bright colors to dazzle your dreams.” A New Nigeria is POsssible. 😭💪

NEFERTITI

18,272 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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 5 Monaten