正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

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

3,867 subscribers

553,625 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

艺术喜剧新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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🦞

38,315 次观看 • 11 个月前

🚨 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

44,114 次观看 • 7 个月前

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 次观看 • 8 个月前

"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 次观看 • 8 个月前

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

1,002,025 次观看 • 2 年前

Jeffrey Sachs: a president stood at the UN and claimed the right to annihilate a civilization. Congress said nothing. That is the constitutional order collapsing in public. “I shuddered then, and I shudder now that a president of the United States can stand at the podium of the UN General Assembly speaking to world leaders in a language of annihilation of other countries and of sending them to hell. It was ghastly, unprecedented, totally disgusting, disgraceful for the United States. But I would also say a measure of how broken the constitutional order of the United States is. Trump basically said, like a madman, which I think arguably he is, that he and he alone will decide the survival of Iran. He said that he has a big, big choice to make. Maybe Iran will be a great country. Maybe Iran will be annihilated. Maybe Trump will send it to hell. And not only was the language vulgar in a way that I certainly could never in my lifetime have imagined coming from a president of the United States or anybody standing at the UN podium—because what Trump said was odious and completely in violation of every religious, moral, ethical, and legal standard that we have in this world—it was also a measure of the brazen collapse of our Constitution. Is there a political system where one man decides the fate of another civilization? Is that how the American system works? Of course the answer is no. The founding fathers who rebelled against a mad King George III were very explicit in the Declaration of Independence, celebrated this year 250 years after its issuance. We’re in the 250th anniversary, one that Trump says is about our freedom. It was explicitly that King George arrogated, took on the authority to put the military above civil rule. And when the founding fathers wrote the US Constitution, they assigned specifically the power to declare war not to the commander-in-chief, but solely and exclusively—and not by choice, not if they care about it or want to or want to delegate it or not, but solely—to the United States Congress. And Trump said yesterday he doesn’t care what the public thinks. He doesn’t care what the vote is. He says it doesn’t even cross my mind. And he said earlier this year, when he was asked, well, are there any limits on your power? He thought about it. He said Yes, my morality, but it’s my will. It’s what I want to do. Otherwise, no, there are no other limits. What did our Congress do on that occasion? I can tell you, as we know, that the majority party in both houses simply remained silent. That is a violation of their sacred oath of office, which is to uphold the Constitution. Trump yesterday said he’s going to have the difficult choice of whether to annihilate, by the way, one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, 5,000 years old, twenty times older than the United States of America. And what did our Speaker of the House say? Well, he said nothing, of course. What did our Senate majority leader say? He said, of course, nothing. What did all of the party of the president of the United States say, the members of Congress? They said, of course, nothing. This is worse than the Roman Empire. There was a Senate that actually still said something. Our Senate says nothing. We are so broken that not only do we have a madman in power, but there is no respect for our constitutional order. And the president can make statements as he made yesterday, unprecedented in the chamber of the General Assembly in front of the world leaders, speaking like the worst tyrant or gangster imaginable, and not a murmur from the Republican Party which dominates the House and the Senate. You know, I am not partisan. And a Democratic president who dared to be as absolutely mad and deranged as this president would probably find subservience in that party too. So I’m not even making a partisan point. I’m making a point about the collapse of our constitutional order. Have we come to a point where one man, who I happen to think is utterly incompetent, utterly sociopathic, actually—when people are killed under his order, not a moment of reflection or remorse when 150 schoolgirls are murdered, and he knows the truth. He says, yeah, the Iranians probably did it. We’ll find out. No, not any control at all in our system of government. So for me, you asked how I feel. I shudder at the last 24 hours, both at what the president said. It made my skin crawl. I was sitting there in the chamber listening to this madness. I mean it really, psychopathic madness, speaking in this way, with a vulgarity that is unimaginable. But then I’ve shuddered since then at the lack of response by the leaders, the majority leader of the US Senate, the Speaker of the House, Supreme Court justices, anybody to say no. In our system of government, it’s not one person who decides on the fate of another civilization. We are a country, we say, first of all, of representation, and the American people are aghast at this. They oppose it overwhelmingly. They do not support this war of Netanyahu and Trump, which is a two-person war of murder and destruction and assassination of leaders of another country. They do not support it. And the constitutional order is that we are a representative government, and our representatives have an oath of office that only they can declare war. So where are they standing up to say No, you don’t have a penny to spend on this? We control the power of the purse. The tens or hundreds of billions of dollars that Trump has wasted of American income in this flagrant war of whim. Where is Congress to say you have no authority whatsoever to spend that because only we can decide on the spending and only we can declare war. So this is the grim fact. It wasn’t just the awful statements. That was my first reaction. But then I thought, what have we come to when one person can make a statement like this and then remain essentially unchallenged in the United States system of government?” Annihilation is not diplomacy. Congressional silence is not restraint. A constitutional republic cannot survive if one man claims the power to decide whether another civilization lives or dies.
9:17

Jeffrey Sachs: a president stood at the UN and claimed the right to annihilate a civilization. Congress said nothing. That is the constitutional order collapsing in public. “I shuddered then, and I shudder now that a president of the United States can stand at the podium of the UN General Assembly speaking to world leaders in a language of annihilation of other countries and of sending them to hell. It was ghastly, unprecedented, totally disgusting, disgraceful for the United States. But I would also say a measure of how broken the constitutional order of the United States is. Trump basically said, like a madman, which I think arguably he is, that he and he alone will decide the survival of Iran. He said that he has a big, big choice to make. Maybe Iran will be a great country. Maybe Iran will be annihilated. Maybe Trump will send it to hell. And not only was the language vulgar in a way that I certainly could never in my lifetime have imagined coming from a president of the United States or anybody standing at the UN podium—because what Trump said was odious and completely in violation of every religious, moral, ethical, and legal standard that we have in this world—it was also a measure of the brazen collapse of our Constitution. Is there a political system where one man decides the fate of another civilization? Is that how the American system works? Of course the answer is no. The founding fathers who rebelled against a mad King George III were very explicit in the Declaration of Independence, celebrated this year 250 years after its issuance. We’re in the 250th anniversary, one that Trump says is about our freedom. It was explicitly that King George arrogated, took on the authority to put the military above civil rule. And when the founding fathers wrote the US Constitution, they assigned specifically the power to declare war not to the commander-in-chief, but solely and exclusively—and not by choice, not if they care about it or want to or want to delegate it or not, but solely—to the United States Congress. And Trump said yesterday he doesn’t care what the public thinks. He doesn’t care what the vote is. He says it doesn’t even cross my mind. And he said earlier this year, when he was asked, well, are there any limits on your power? He thought about it. He said Yes, my morality, but it’s my will. It’s what I want to do. Otherwise, no, there are no other limits. What did our Congress do on that occasion? I can tell you, as we know, that the majority party in both houses simply remained silent. That is a violation of their sacred oath of office, which is to uphold the Constitution. Trump yesterday said he’s going to have the difficult choice of whether to annihilate, by the way, one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, 5,000 years old, twenty times older than the United States of America. And what did our Speaker of the House say? Well, he said nothing, of course. What did our Senate majority leader say? He said, of course, nothing. What did all of the party of the president of the United States say, the members of Congress? They said, of course, nothing. This is worse than the Roman Empire. There was a Senate that actually still said something. Our Senate says nothing. We are so broken that not only do we have a madman in power, but there is no respect for our constitutional order. And the president can make statements as he made yesterday, unprecedented in the chamber of the General Assembly in front of the world leaders, speaking like the worst tyrant or gangster imaginable, and not a murmur from the Republican Party which dominates the House and the Senate. You know, I am not partisan. And a Democratic president who dared to be as absolutely mad and deranged as this president would probably find subservience in that party too. So I’m not even making a partisan point. I’m making a point about the collapse of our constitutional order. Have we come to a point where one man, who I happen to think is utterly incompetent, utterly sociopathic, actually—when people are killed under his order, not a moment of reflection or remorse when 150 schoolgirls are murdered, and he knows the truth. He says, yeah, the Iranians probably did it. We’ll find out. No, not any control at all in our system of government. So for me, you asked how I feel. I shudder at the last 24 hours, both at what the president said. It made my skin crawl. I was sitting there in the chamber listening to this madness. I mean it really, psychopathic madness, speaking in this way, with a vulgarity that is unimaginable. But then I’ve shuddered since then at the lack of response by the leaders, the majority leader of the US Senate, the Speaker of the House, Supreme Court justices, anybody to say no. In our system of government, it’s not one person who decides on the fate of another civilization. We are a country, we say, first of all, of representation, and the American people are aghast at this. They oppose it overwhelmingly. They do not support this war of Netanyahu and Trump, which is a two-person war of murder and destruction and assassination of leaders of another country. They do not support it. And the constitutional order is that we are a representative government, and our representatives have an oath of office that only they can declare war. So where are they standing up to say No, you don’t have a penny to spend on this? We control the power of the purse. The tens or hundreds of billions of dollars that Trump has wasted of American income in this flagrant war of whim. Where is Congress to say you have no authority whatsoever to spend that because only we can decide on the spending and only we can declare war. So this is the grim fact. It wasn’t just the awful statements. That was my first reaction. But then I thought, what have we come to when one person can make a statement like this and then remain essentially unchallenged in the United States system of government?” Annihilation is not diplomacy. Congressional silence is not restraint. A constitutional republic cannot survive if one man claims the power to decide whether another civilization lives or dies.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

396,604 次观看 • 8 天前

This irony can happen only in India. Lawyer Mehmood Pracha whose pic once appeared on front page of ISIS magazine & who defends Pan-Islamists, is seeking resignation of HM Amit Shah , the man who smashed Maoists & played a key role in removal of A370 from J&K - acts for which even Sardar Patel would have patted him on his back. In this shocking video, Pracha says not just Amit Shah will go to jail & but PM Narendra Modi too will go to jail. Clearly, Pan-Islamists & divisive elements see the Cockroach Janta Party - CJP agitation as a golden opportunity to derail PM Modi & HM Amit Shah so that their own golden days could return when anti-nationals like hate preacher Zakir Naik could be patronised & 2008 Pak-sponsored Mumbai terror attack could be sold as an act of RSS . But destiny won’t allow it. Bharat is destined to become a great nation based on PM’s slogan ‘ Sab Ka Saath, Sab Ka Vishwas, Sab Ka Vishwas’. Muslims of Bharat , a large section of which wanted Pakistan, would get all the justice they deserve but not an inch more than that. They had enough of unjustifiable advantage in the first 60 after independence under Cong patronage. One of the major grouses of Pan-Islamists & Pan-Christians against Amit Shah is that he has stopped their foreign funds coming under FCRI which were being used for conversion activity & divisive, even anti-national activities. In case of Mehmood Pracha , his chicanery is of unimaginable level. He calls himself an Ambedkarite but is silent on Ambedkar complete condemnation of Muslim community in his book ‘ My thoughts on Pakistan’. While condemning HM for the action against agitators Pracha is silent on the large number of policemen who were seriously injured at the hands of riotous agitators. In the process the main issue of improving the examination system got blurred. Mr Pracha, gone are the days when the Majority failed to identify the speed breakers of Indian nationalism who performed the role as part of Al-Takia ( subterfuge). Bharat is not going to stop now. From the Right Wing i am one of those persons who believes that Bharat’s war is with ultra-Wahabis & not entire Muslim community. But what to do of Pan-Islamists who pose as moderates by doing Al- Takia ( subterfuge) . Attached here with are Mehmood Pracha’s video in which he says both PM & PM will go to jail & also the cover page of ISIS magazine named ‘ Voice of Hind ’ on which Pracha appears in the centre.
2:03

This irony can happen only in India. Lawyer Mehmood Pracha whose pic once appeared on front page of ISIS magazine & who defends Pan-Islamists, is seeking resignation of HM Amit Shah , the man who smashed Maoists & played a key role in removal of A370 from J&K - acts for which even Sardar Patel would have patted him on his back. In this shocking video, Pracha says not just Amit Shah will go to jail & but PM Narendra Modi too will go to jail. Clearly, Pan-Islamists & divisive elements see the Cockroach Janta Party - CJP agitation as a golden opportunity to derail PM Modi & HM Amit Shah so that their own golden days could return when anti-nationals like hate preacher Zakir Naik could be patronised & 2008 Pak-sponsored Mumbai terror attack could be sold as an act of RSS . But destiny won’t allow it. Bharat is destined to become a great nation based on PM’s slogan ‘ Sab Ka Saath, Sab Ka Vishwas, Sab Ka Vishwas’. Muslims of Bharat , a large section of which wanted Pakistan, would get all the justice they deserve but not an inch more than that. They had enough of unjustifiable advantage in the first 60 after independence under Cong patronage. One of the major grouses of Pan-Islamists & Pan-Christians against Amit Shah is that he has stopped their foreign funds coming under FCRI which were being used for conversion activity & divisive, even anti-national activities. In case of Mehmood Pracha , his chicanery is of unimaginable level. He calls himself an Ambedkarite but is silent on Ambedkar complete condemnation of Muslim community in his book ‘ My thoughts on Pakistan’. While condemning HM for the action against agitators Pracha is silent on the large number of policemen who were seriously injured at the hands of riotous agitators. In the process the main issue of improving the examination system got blurred. Mr Pracha, gone are the days when the Majority failed to identify the speed breakers of Indian nationalism who performed the role as part of Al-Takia ( subterfuge). Bharat is not going to stop now. From the Right Wing i am one of those persons who believes that Bharat’s war is with ultra-Wahabis & not entire Muslim community. But what to do of Pan-Islamists who pose as moderates by doing Al- Takia ( subterfuge) . Attached here with are Mehmood Pracha’s video in which he says both PM & PM will go to jail & also the cover page of ISIS magazine named ‘ Voice of Hind ’ on which Pracha appears in the centre.

Uday Mahurkar

64,959 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨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

63,754 次观看 • 1 年前

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

157,441 次观看 • 8 个月前

I love and respect dhh as much as any other young programmer who is inspired by his love for computers. But I can't help but imagine that, as a black person, he would not want to see me living in Denmark or the larger Europe, regardless of my contribution to the country. He would prefer Europe to look like it did in the 80s, or to be as homogeneous as Japan, as he said on the Lex pod. He mentions having a positive contribution to the society, but after listening to him more, it seems to me that he cares far less about that than about whether the immigrant looks more like him. That means, even if I contribute to their economy, pay my taxes, raise my family there, and integrate into the culture, he would not really want to see me move there with my immediate black family, because I would be disturbing their homogeneity. I thought for days about what that actually means. It means no matter what I do, no matter how much I give, the door will always come with an asterisk. "You're welcome, but only if you physically blend in." I lived in London and Amsterdam. I contributed positively to their economies, that's why they let me in, in the first place. And I like to think I am well assimilated into the society and culture. But because I do not look like what Britain looked like 100 years ago, nor does my immediate family, dhh would rather not have me live in Europe, or even marry there!? By that logic, would you also tell Jude Bellingham he doesn't belong? Or Sir Lewis Hamilton? Or Marcus Rashford, who fed millions of British children during the pandemic when the government wouldn't? If dhh's version of Europe has no room for people who look like them, then what he is really saying is that contribution doesn't matter. Appearance does. And I get that not everyone assimilates equally, and that it is okay to have standards for who you want in your turf. Every nation has a right to shape its immigration policy. That is not what I am arguing against. But why do it in a way that clearly shows favour and discrimination in equal measure based on how a person looks? Why not simply judge from person to person, instead of categorizing whole groups and communities? Europe immensely benefited from Africa and its resources. They went to Africa and laid the entire continent to siege, extracting minerals, labour, and wealth for centuries. My country is still reeling from those effects to date, having gained independence only about half a century ago. And yet, merely 50 years later, Europe is so harsh to Africans that they do not want them, even legally, accessing opportunities in Europe? There is something deeply contradictory about benefiting from a continent for centuries and then shutting its people out when they come seeking the same prosperity your ancestors built on their backs. Britain has a huge healthcare crisis and a massive shortage of healthcare workers. Guess who is the backbone of that? Immigrants, most of them African and South Asian. They work night shifts, they hold the system together, and they do it quietly. Isn't it irresponsible to walk into a hospital and say, "I do not like the demographics of this hospital. I would have preferred if it looked like it did in the 80s"? I used to think people had a problem with illegal immigration. But no, it is not illegal immigration they oppose. They simply do not want immigration from certain parts of the world. God forbid if you are just a good human being from that part of the world yearning for better opportunities. You can have a PhD, speak the language fluently, pay more in taxes than most locals, and still be told you don't belong, simply because you don't look the part. Why won't we just vet individuals and give everyone a fair chance? Judge the person, not the group. Character, not colour. Contribution, not complexion. I beleive this is not a radical idea, it is the bare minimum of fairness. To dhh, please don't block me for asking this 😅, and I really do hope I am wrong and that you clarify this. Would you happily let me and my black family become your neighbours in Copenhagen, if I don't have a problem with assimilation? Do you feel the same about the USA? I am genuinely asking these questions and I welcome discourse here bc I really do want to believe dhh is a good person and he does not have a problem with people who are not white. And if the answer is no, then what we are really saying is that there is no amount of effort that makes someone like me acceptable. And that is a huge problem for all of us. I hope I am wrong. Kaka.
1:16

I love and respect dhh as much as any other young programmer who is inspired by his love for computers. But I can't help but imagine that, as a black person, he would not want to see me living in Denmark or the larger Europe, regardless of my contribution to the country. He would prefer Europe to look like it did in the 80s, or to be as homogeneous as Japan, as he said on the Lex pod. He mentions having a positive contribution to the society, but after listening to him more, it seems to me that he cares far less about that than about whether the immigrant looks more like him. That means, even if I contribute to their economy, pay my taxes, raise my family there, and integrate into the culture, he would not really want to see me move there with my immediate black family, because I would be disturbing their homogeneity. I thought for days about what that actually means. It means no matter what I do, no matter how much I give, the door will always come with an asterisk. "You're welcome, but only if you physically blend in." I lived in London and Amsterdam. I contributed positively to their economies, that's why they let me in, in the first place. And I like to think I am well assimilated into the society and culture. But because I do not look like what Britain looked like 100 years ago, nor does my immediate family, dhh would rather not have me live in Europe, or even marry there!? By that logic, would you also tell Jude Bellingham he doesn't belong? Or Sir Lewis Hamilton? Or Marcus Rashford, who fed millions of British children during the pandemic when the government wouldn't? If dhh's version of Europe has no room for people who look like them, then what he is really saying is that contribution doesn't matter. Appearance does. And I get that not everyone assimilates equally, and that it is okay to have standards for who you want in your turf. Every nation has a right to shape its immigration policy. That is not what I am arguing against. But why do it in a way that clearly shows favour and discrimination in equal measure based on how a person looks? Why not simply judge from person to person, instead of categorizing whole groups and communities? Europe immensely benefited from Africa and its resources. They went to Africa and laid the entire continent to siege, extracting minerals, labour, and wealth for centuries. My country is still reeling from those effects to date, having gained independence only about half a century ago. And yet, merely 50 years later, Europe is so harsh to Africans that they do not want them, even legally, accessing opportunities in Europe? There is something deeply contradictory about benefiting from a continent for centuries and then shutting its people out when they come seeking the same prosperity your ancestors built on their backs. Britain has a huge healthcare crisis and a massive shortage of healthcare workers. Guess who is the backbone of that? Immigrants, most of them African and South Asian. They work night shifts, they hold the system together, and they do it quietly. Isn't it irresponsible to walk into a hospital and say, "I do not like the demographics of this hospital. I would have preferred if it looked like it did in the 80s"? I used to think people had a problem with illegal immigration. But no, it is not illegal immigration they oppose. They simply do not want immigration from certain parts of the world. God forbid if you are just a good human being from that part of the world yearning for better opportunities. You can have a PhD, speak the language fluently, pay more in taxes than most locals, and still be told you don't belong, simply because you don't look the part. Why won't we just vet individuals and give everyone a fair chance? Judge the person, not the group. Character, not colour. Contribution, not complexion. I beleive this is not a radical idea, it is the bare minimum of fairness. To dhh, please don't block me for asking this 😅, and I really do hope I am wrong and that you clarify this. Would you happily let me and my black family become your neighbours in Copenhagen, if I don't have a problem with assimilation? Do you feel the same about the USA? I am genuinely asking these questions and I welcome discourse here bc I really do want to believe dhh is a good person and he does not have a problem with people who are not white. And if the answer is no, then what we are really saying is that there is no amount of effort that makes someone like me acceptable. And that is a huge problem for all of us. I hope I am wrong. Kaka.

Kaka Ruto

536,540 次观看 • 5 天前

"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

1,679,874 次观看 • 3 年前

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

112,921 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

822,303 次观看 • 6 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 年前