Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

102,684 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Andrew Huberman gives a fascinating neuroscientific take on breaking bad habits: Once neural pathways form (especially early in life), they're never truly erased—like "never forget how to ride a bike." He cites Eric Knudsen's classic owl experiments at Stanford: Early-learned sensory maps in the brain remain permanently, even if suppressed for years—you can reactivate them later with the right cues. For bad habits? They're often tied to hypothalamic drives (the seven deadly sins map roughly to extremes of hypothalamic function: rage, lust, gluttony, etc.—consummatory behaviors gone wild). Envy stands out as the outlier: the only "sin" that never feels good, even in small doses. Huberman (echoing Paul Conti): Envy is the enemy of personal development. When something good happens to someone else, your immediate gut reaction reveals everything—genuine happiness vs. that sting of "why not me?" People who succeed transmute envy into self-support and creation; others spiral into self-destruction or resentment. The key to overcoming bad habits: Top-down prefrontal control—the brain's "don't do the thing" circuit suppresses those subcortical urges ("No, don't reach for the cookie"). With consistent practice, that control becomes automatic—no constant willpower needed—unless you slip and reactivate the old pathway. Clip from this 4:55 Modern Wisdom convo—deep dive into why habits stick and how to rewire them without illusion. Does this "pathways are forever, but control can become effortless" idea change how you approach breaking habits? What's the hardest one you've rewired? Your experience—share below.

Camus

45,939 views • 5 months ago

1/ THE VIETNAM WAR WAS A JЕWISH PLOT, PART 3: "JFK" THE MOVIE. Memorial Day Rage Edition. People are starting to become aware that the movie "JFK" was a sophisticated piece of propaganda that deflected blame for the assassination of JFK away from israel and onto the CIA, the DOD & the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Pretty much anyone who wasn't israel or jеws. It was produced by the israeli spy & nuclear weapons smuggler Arnon Milchan, Directed by Oliver Stone (jеw), written by Zachary Sklar (jеw), and promoted by RFK's press secretary Frank Mankiewicz (jеwish member of the ADL, responsible for directing RFK into the pantry where Sirhan Sirhan was waiting in June 1968). The movie famously covers up israel's quest for nuclear weapons & JFK's desire to stop it, his efforts to register the jеwish lobby as a foreign agent under FARA, and his promotion of UN Resolution 194 calling for Palestinian Right Of Return. Finally, while it mentions that JFK wanted to exit Vietnam, it omits that he also didn't want to pursue any extensive arms buildup for israel, denying it all offensive weapons and missiles. LBJ reversed all of those policies almost immediately after the assassination--including JFK's planned exit from Vietnam. But the movie also covers up something else through another "limited hangout": that one of the strategic purposes of the Vietnam War wasn't just to make money for the American war machine, but to also build up the war machine to be able to supply israel with the intelligence, armaments & other military capabilities sufficient to overcome its enemies. Without the intelligence, armaments & weapons America supplied to israel throughout the course of the Vietnam War (1964-1973), it's possible israel wouldn't have prevailed in the 1967 6-Day War and absolutely certain it wouldn't have survived the 1973 Yom Kippur War. And without the defense buildup of the American war industry stemming from the Vietnam War, America wouldn't have the capacity to supply israel with those necessary armaments to win. In this way, israel was the top beneficiary of the Vietnam War--just like the War On Terror! Vietnam didn't benefit. America didn't benefit. But israel did. Funny how that keeps happening. This is the other secret agenda that the "JFK" movie obscured. You ever wonder why the Vietnam War wasn't fought to be won and why it just kept pointlessly grinding on? It's because the real point was to keep the War Machine at maximum capacity for israel while the US treaded water in the war effort. Watch this "conspiracy" scene from "JFK" now and see how clever & devious their propaganda is. Note how many truths it blends in with made-up bullsh*t to go along with the glaring omissions. My favorite part is where Donald Sutherland references the crucifixion! Was this a sly tip of the hand that the jеws were behind the assassination? Or maybe it was a nod to well-known jеwish propaganda that the Romans killed Christ--similar to how they allege the CIA killed JFK? Either way, it's eyebrow-raising. The final credits scene drives it all home: it suggests Vietnam was fought for the enrichment of the Military Industrial Complex--which is partially true, but it leaves out the part where that buildup was of crucial benefit and existential necessity to israel. Notably absent from the Vietnam angle in the movie is any mention of Arthur Goldberg, the jеwish UN ambassador who defended US intervention in Vietnam on the world stage; Walt Rostow, the jеwish National Security Advisor & architect of the war; and Eugene Rostow, the jеwish Undersecretary of State who championed the Vietnam war & defended its legal basis. Nor does it mention how Eugene conceived the Warren Commission or was responsible for getting the Mossad-compromised Allen Dulles onto it. Finally, it says nothing about how virtually the entire State Department was completely taken over by zionists. The fact is, a major motive behind the Vietnam War was to help supply israel. And that fact has remain hidden until now, partially due to propaganda like this. Try not to be enraged this Memorial Day as you realize our boys died in Vietnam for jеws & israel.

Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯

125,998 views • 1 year ago

I've been using FSD in my Tesla Model X for nearly a year. Here's the Good, the Bad and the Ugly on Tesla's FSD... The Good: - FSD is bar far, the most advanced driving technology I've ever experienced in any vehicle. - I use it every day, on every drive. Why? Because it reduces my driving work substantially. It keeps the car centered in the lane, keeps an appropriate following distance, stops for red lights and stop signs, turns where I need to turn and handles 99% of my driving tasks. - I think driving with FSD is FAR safer than driving without it because it reduces the "dumb" mistakes that drivers make that cause accidents. Mistakes like being distracted and missing the fact that the light is turning red or that the car in front of you just hit the breaks, or swerving out of your lane, or forgetting an exit or a turn and trying to make a heroic move to stay on course. All of these things are handled by FSD with grace and it likely is saving countless accidents. - Long drives and road trips are a pleasure with FSD because you are not fatigued with the many thousands of micro driving tasks, such as keeping the car centered in the lane or even worrying about where you're going. The car does all of that for you (and Navigate on Autopilot also does 95% of this for road trips). - When I use FSD, I have near-0 road rage, never speed up rapidly for no good reason and I am generally a more relaxed driver. The Bad: - Sometimes FSD has Schizophrenia, sees things that aren't there, slows for no reason, is indecisive on whether to go or stop which causes it to do extreme movements of the steering wheel, breaks and accelerator. In most of these circumstances, it's not unsafe, but as the driver sitting in the driver's seat, it is quite embarrassing, especially if you have passengers in the vehicle. - There are times when FSD makes a truly unsafe mistake, misses a red light (super rare) and tries to go when it should clearly stop, or slams on the break because it thinks a car might cross paths when the car was clearly not going to. In all these instances, it's super easy to take over and correct FSD's mistake. I don't even think twice about it...I quickly take over, correct the mistake, and put it back on FSD. The Ugly: - FSD is nearly useless in parking lots. It is surprisingly bad, especially since Elon Musk introduced the "Summon" feature long before FSD was released publicly. He said "just like humans, the AI also needs to learn driving by starting in the parking lot." 5 Years later, Summon still sucks and FSD has no idea how to drive in a parking lot. - Despite the many praises that a specific release often gets on Twitter, my personal experience has been that a new release could actually be worse than the previous version. For example, when my FSD upgraded from 10.69 to 11.3, it lost its ability to get in & out of HOV lanes on the freeway (I live in Scottsdale AZ). This simple loss of functionality (which returned with 11.4) caused numerous missed exits and route delays due to my over-reliance on FSD. - FSD makes some incredibly bad choices that are unexplainable, like certain lane changes, or last-second preparation to try and make a turn from 3 lanes away. These mistakes get better and worse with each release...it's a mixed bag as to what you're going to get with an update. - Your car's FSD never ever learns or improves by user input (not without an update). So it will make the exact same mistake in the exact same location, every, single, time. That can be super annoying. Conclusion: Despite the shortcomings, FSD is a technology marvel that I prefer not to live without. I don't see myself having a primary car that doesn't have Tesla-level FSD capabilities anytime in the future. Even the basic Autopilot features of Tesla are far superior to any other vehicle I've experienced. And despite what Elon says, the rate of improvement that I have experienced in the past year will not put it on a trajectory to be ready without a backup driver anytime in the next year or two. But with a backup driver, FSD is incredible, makes driving safer and I would highly recommend it to anyone!

Hamid

1,528,927 views • 3 years ago

Yoram Hazony, philosopher-king of the Woke Right—a marginal movement of cranks, bigots, and meatheads that wants to roll back the Enlightenment to the sweeter, gentler, more religious Middle Ages, and has probably already doomed the Republicans in 2028—came to the Combatting Antisemitism Conference this week to recite a humble apology. “James Lindsay was right. Obviously, in retrospect, trying to create a nationalist movement on the American right was inevitably going to descend into a mess of white nationalism and Jew-hate. Trying to undo the universalism and rationalism embedded in the American Constitution, in favour of religion and ‘tradition,’ risks everything that made America by far the greatest, freest, wealthiest nation the world has ever seen, and the safest place for Jews in their 2,600 years of exile. I was blinded by ego. It is now time to call out all the white nationalists and bigots on the right, overt and covert—the ones who attack Jews openly, but most of all those who run interference for them and provide them succour. If we on the right don’t defeat these wicked clowns, the right will be defeated by the far-left. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” But that is not what he said. Instead, in an angry and accusatory tone, he upbraided the audience for their failure to prove that Tucker Carlson was actually an antisemite. Why, he demanded, had the “Antisemitism Industrial Complex” not sent him packaged, edited dossiers of evidence for his consideration? “Incredible incompetence,” Hazony declared—this from a man who had nothing at all to say about his very competent friend Kevin Roberts, who managed to turn the Heritage Foundation from the core of conservative thought into a joke by repurposing its mission to support arch Jew-hater Tucker Carlson. Hazony lambasted the assembled activists and philanthropists, telling them what a terrible mistake they were making by not allying with “nationalists”—presumably people he believes are his people. He drew a distinction between the “alt-right,” whom he concedes are antisemites, and the “liberal Republicans” like Ted Cruz, who he says do not need courting because they are already pro-Jewish. The core bulk of the Republican coalition—the evangelicals—was simply magicked away by Hazony’s novel categories, which oh-so-conveniently allow him to play both the moderating force and the good cop to whom Jews should turn if they want to make a difference. It is a total fantasy. But Hazony has form here: he routinely defines categories tendentiously to shoehorn his arguments into reality. He once wrote a book in which, inter alia, he argued that the Third Reich wasn’t really nationalist at all. Why, oh why, won’t Jews just be friends with the “nationalists”? If only Jews could be persuaded to get on board with the post-liberal project—the true future of the Republican Party for the next generation, Hazony promises us. Never mind that this project amounts to unraveling the Constitution and imposing a national religion, like in lovely old Europe, from which the American colonists fled due to—well—religious persecution. Hazony claims these “nationalists” make up 65% of the Republican base, when in reality you could probably barely fill a room with people who truly believe in, understand, or want his kooky, impractical, and undesirable theories. Even Kevin Roberts likely doesn’t understand the plan—he’s more of a sports fan, after all. Who are these “nationalist” senators and congressmen? Marjorie Taylor Greene? Is this supposed legion Jack Posobiec’s Turning Point crowd? So who, exactly? Hazony perhaps hopes it is Vance—Tucker’s mentee and friend. Does he really believe that a man willing to throw his own wife and children under the bus before Nick Fuentes will advance his ideas? It’s all so silly. The good news is that if Vance does get nominated, he will lose—and in no small part because of his association with “nationalists,” which will be kryptonite to the median American voter. The Woke Right and the Woke Left share many of the same tactics—like infiltrating institutions and corrupting them—and many of the same outcomes, including hatred of existing power structures and, accidentally, Jews. They arrive there from the same starting point: the belief that the Enlightenment, and its most powerful product, the American Constitution, binds their hands and therefore must be unravelled to give them freer rein. Every Jew with a brain and the slightest smidgen of humility understands why this would be disastrous—not just for Jews, but for the American people, who are now celebrating 250 years of the greatest nation that has ever existed, a nation built on belief in—and willingness to die for—ideas, not merely kin, clan, and nation. Hazony saved his harshest words for his fellow right-wing Jews, whose actions he called a disgrace, accusing them of “misbehaving.” The insane Jew-hate on the right is mere “agitprop,” insufficiently condemned by his own “nationalist” allies only because Jews and “liberals” have failed to make their case—or because Jews are too shrill in their complaints: “And when they [the 'nationalists'] don’t [condemn right-wing Jew-haters], this drives liberal Republicans, both Jews and non-Jews, to start misbehaving. They lash out at nationalists, accusing them of antisemitism or of protecting antisemites. It’s a disgrace. If the goal is to persuade Trump’s nationalists to build an alliance with Jews on these and other issues, it’s also counterproductive.” In short, Hazony realised that Trump was as good as it was ever going to get on the right—but it wasn’t right enough for him. So he needed to push further, and that meant building a new coalition: evangelicals out, “nationalism” in. It is a hopeless idea—a mere wrecking ball that will come swinging in 2028. But the fact that he now seeks to browbeat the Jewish right into an alliance with nationalists under a post-liberal, pre-Enlightenment banner is honestly reprehensible. It is a total and ongoing failure, hence the rage and condescension. It is all so pitiable.

Saul Sadka

35,949 views • 6 months ago

The Daily Mail’s Royal Vendetta: A Month of Smears on William and Catherine, Followed by Crocodile Tears In the sweltering heat of August and September 2025, the Daily Mail unleashed a torrent of vitriol against Prince William, Catherine, the Princess of Wales, and even King Charles III. What began as whispers about a family home move quickly snowballed into a full-scale assault: accusations of “control freak” tendencies, “underwhelming” duties, a “dark past” tied to slavery, and hints of irreparable rifts. Collages of headlines tell the story — dozens of pieces from the Mail’s royal “hit squad,” peddling speculation as fact, while royal watchers cried “propaganda!” after every drop. This wasn’t journalism. It was SEO warfare dressed up as reporting, cynically timed to ride search trends like “William lazy,” “Kate health,” and “Charles succession,” while dangling glowing comparisons to bait Sussex fans. The Mail’s royal desk has turned itself into a digital sweatshop where outrage is the currency. Every article is deliberately contradictory — William is “too private” one day, “too performative” the next; Catherine is “influential but holding him back”; Charles is “weak but meddling.” Why? Because conflict sells. Rage-clicks fill MailOnline’s coffers. It’s the business model of chaos — and chaos is the coin of their grubby little realm. Now, in a twist worthy of their own soap-opera scripts, two of the Mail’s most prolific royal scribblers— Rebecca English and Richard Eden —have pivoted to pearl-clutching exposés about a “sinister plot” and “calculated wedge” undermining William and Catherine. It’s laughable. These aren’t brave whistleblowers; they’re architects of the very narrative they’re now decrying. The Daily Mail didn’t just report the hate—they manufactured it, weaponised it, monetised it, and now want to wash their hands as if they were bystanders. It’s the Fleet Street equivalent of throwing petrol on a bonfire, then sobbing that one’s eyebrows got singed. The Mail’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. For weeks, they ran columns dripping with Sussex apologia — Griffiths acting as Harry’s stenographer and Platell recycling Meghan’s grievances as “concerns,” and A.N. Wilson psychoanalysing William from his study like some amateur Freud-for-hire. All this while YouTube commenters and even their own readers blasted their Royals channel as “toxic propaganda.” But rather than adjust course, they doubled down — until subscribers fled and advertisers grew squeamish. Only then did the pivot to victimhood begin. One could almost hear the gnashing of teeth in Kensington High Street. Let’s expose the rot at the heart of this tabloid machine — how they orchestrated the smears, gamed the algorithms, amplified Sussex narratives, twisted facts into weapons, and how their financial decline drives the cruelty. The curtain must be pulled back, and the stagehands caught red-handed, script in one hand, calculator in the other. The Hit Parade: A Catalogue of Calculated Cruelty From 1 August to 27 September 2025, the Daily Mail’s royal desk became a factory for anti-Wales ammunition, deploying a multi-pronged strategy: recycle old grudges into fresh headlines, cherry-pick data to misrepresent workloads, sensationalise historical trivia, and frame every decision as evidence of impending royal collapse. The trigger? William and Catherine’s pragmatic decision to relocate from Adelaide Cottage to Forest Lodge on the Sandringham estate — a “forever home” for family stability amid Catherine’s cancer recovery and global threats. What should have been a non-story morphed into “proof” of William’s fatal flaws: too private, too lazy, too “woke,” too everything. In short, too damned convenient for the Mail’s search engine tinkering. This was not random. The Mail runs on click-chains: one “exclusive” generates spinoffs, which are then linked in sidebars, ensuring readers never escape the outrage cycle. Eviction headlines lead into slavery history “revelations,” which link to workload hit pieces, which in turn promote YouTube debate clips. It is algorithmic entrapment sold as news — a kind of journalistic mousetrap baited with bile. Here’s the rogue’s gallery of the worst offenders, their pieces dripping with pro-Sussex favoritism and wild conjecture, broken down by tactic: • Amanda Platell (Columnist): On 20 August, Platell sneered at William’s “puny” 71 engagements, cherry-picking incomplete 2024 figures and ignoring health crises in the family. She compared him unfavourably to Princess Anne and accused him of making the Firm “pure vanilla.” Platell’s column was SEO-stuffed with phrases like “workshy heir” and “royal crisis” — all designed to trend on Google and bait shares. Her follow-ups even recycled Meghan’s old “baby brain” anecdote as if it were fresh ammunition. This isn’t journalism; it’s content farming — and farming in barren soil at that. • Christopher Wilson (Historian/Columnist): On 23 August, Wilson exhumed Forest Lodge’s “dark past,” weaponising obscure history to frame William and Catherine as morally negligent. The piece was algorithmically tied to MailOnline’s “slavery legacy” tag — the same tag used to cover Netflix’s colonial dramas. It wasn’t about informing readers; it was about capturing traffic off unrelated cultural debates. Like a ghoul rifling through parish records for sport. • A.N. Wilson (Royal Author): On 19 September, he declared William “angry and unhappy,” citing outdated stats and palace whispers. But more insidious was the Mail’s packaging: push alerts framed it as a “shock diagnosis,” with sidebars linking to Sussex puff pieces. William’s Earthshot success was buried, Harry’s “fun scamp” antics headlined. Manipulation by design, as brazen as a conjurer’s sleight of hand. • Charlotte Griffiths (Royal Correspondent): On 13 September, Griffiths painted William as the villain blocking Harry’s reconciliation. Her reliance on “anonymous sources” was classic Mail — unverifiable quotes crafted to fuel fan wars online. Each story was cross-promoted under MailOnline’s “Sussex comeback” hub, ensuring clicks from both sides of the aisle. Division is profitable, and she is its clerk of works. • Liz Jones (Columnist): On 5 September, Jones targeted Kate’s “bronde” hair during a visit to the Natural History Museum gardens, mixing sharp critique with grudging praise. Trolls called the lighter shade “washed out” or a “wig,” but Jones framed it as smart and empowering, signalling Kate’s post-cancer confidence. Her long history of nitpicking Kate’s hair — from 2012 bangs to post-2024 hospital styles — fits the pattern: personal opinion masquerading as insight, always driving clicks. She also recently editorialised against William as a future king, questioning his temperament and charisma, further stoking debate and subtly undermining the heir apparent. • Tina Brown (via Mail amplification): Brown’s Vanity Fair critiques were sliced into fragments and drip-fed as “Mail exclusives.” This is another trick: repackaging syndicated content as fresh scoops, maximising monetisation while disguising the recycling. In Fleet Street terms, it’s reheated cabbage passed off as coq au vin. • Rebecca English & Richard Eden: Even before their pivot, both poured fuel on the fire. English questioned the Forest Lodge move as a “taxpayer gamble” (24 September). Eden mocked it as indecisiveness (18 September). Both columns carried DailyMailPlus paywall teasers, designed to convert outrage into subscriptions. This wasn’t reporting. It was a coordinated content strategy: anonymous sourcing (cheap and unverifiable), data manipulation (engagement cherry-picking), and emotional framing (slavery, evictions, family rifts) — all calculated to maximise page dwell-time and comments. It’s the cynical mechanics of Fleet Street turned up to eleven, all brass band and no tune. The Asinine Pivot: From Smear-Mongers to Victimhood By late September, the Mail faced a problem: the narrative it had stoked was now boomeranging. Readers began calling out bias, subscribers fled, and Palace Confidential was haemorrhaging viewers. Cue the pivot. • On 25 September, Eden wailed about a “sinister plot.” • On 26 September, English warned of a “wedge between Charles and William.” Both pieces were smoke and mirrors. They rehashed earlier reporting — their own reporting — while pretending to be alarmed that anti-Wales narratives were spreading. Classic Mail: start the fire, then play the firefighter. They build the echo chamber, harvest the clicks, and when the backlash hits, shrug and blame “external forces.” It is not just hypocrisy — it is fraud. Fraud against readers, against journalism, against public trust. A betrayal wrapped in bunting. YouTube Implosion: Palace Confidential’s Monarchy Meltdown The nadir came mid-September when the Mail’s Palace Confidential channel speculated if William’s reign would “end the monarchy.” The video was a montage of the very print smears their own desk had churned out — workload cherry-picking, rift whispers, Forest Lodge doom-mongering. Within days, subscribers plummeted by the thousands. Comment sections filled with accusations of “hateful propaganda.” Forensic look at the analytics shows watch-time collapsing, click-through rates nosediving. Why? Because even Mail loyalists saw through the con. They were watching for the same reheated slop, dressed up as “exclusive debate.” According to VidIQ data, the Daily Mail Royals YouTube channel currently shows around 482,000 subscribers and has amassed over 313 million total video views. While those are nontrivial numbers, the channel’s estimated monthly earnings do not vindicate the hours of content churn — often in the modest range of £14,580–44,550 depending on viewership and ad engagement. In other words, the editorial excess is not being rewarded by proportionate audience loyalty or monetisation growth — the metrics are flat or weakening under scrutiny. Tubics data earlier in 2025 had placed the Daily Mail Royals subscriber count at ~464,000 with a view count ~292 million, indicating very slow growth — a channel in stagnation rather than ascendancy. This wasn’t content collapse; it was audience striking back. The vox populi spoke — and it said, enough. Follow the Money: The Mail’s Financial Desperation To understand why the Daily Mail behaves this way, you must follow the money. The pathology of smear campaigns is fed by urgent financial pressure. • Print decline: As of June 2025, the Daily Mail’s audited daily circulation stood at ~631,191 copies. That figure reflects a dramatic shrinkage over years — the paper, once selling well into multiple hundreds of thousands more, is now hollowed out. • Yearly comparisons: In 2024, ABC audit figures showed the Daily Mail had a daily circulation of 706,839 — meaning circulation has dropped by over 10% in roughly a year. • Advertiser exodus: In January 2025, the Mail announced it would merge its print and online teams and initiate cost-cutting, as major advertisers increasingly balk at brand adjacency with toxic, polarising content. The memo revealed that Mail+ (the paywall arm) had achieved 100,000 paying subscribers since its launch — a modest number given the scale of MailOnline’s reach. • Staff cuts as symptom: This internal restructuring is not optional — it is a forced retreat. Under the integration plan, job losses are anticipated. • Parent group pressure: DMG Media, the Mail’s owner, has made it clear that the print-online integration is about survival in a hostile advertising environment and declining print returns. In short, the Mail is bleeding. These royal smear campaigns aren’t just editorial cynicism — they’re a press outlet in full panic, scrabbling for clicks, subscriptions, and relevance by flogging scandal, outrage, and division. It’s the frantic thrashing of a swimmer who knows the tide has turned against them. Dirty Hands, No Excuses: Time to Hold the Mail Accountable The Daily Mail’s hands aren’t just dirty — they’re smeared, ink-stained with the fingerprints of manipulation. This wasn’t an accident, not a slip of the editorial pen. It was deliberate. They gamed algorithms like card sharks stacking a deck, pitted fandoms against one another like gladiators in the Coliseum, and weaponised history, health, and grief as if they were trinkets to be traded for clicks. CharlotteGriffiths , Amanda Platell, A.N. Wilson, Tina Brown, Liz Jones Goddess and the rest dutifully acted as stenographers for Sussex spin; Rebecca English and Richard Eden cried about “plots” they themselves had stoked; and editors signed off on every exaggeration, knowing that rage pays the bills. And now, when the wind shifts, they dare pivot to victimhood — as if they were the collateral and not the culprits. It’s theatre. Bad theatre. And the damage? It’s carved into public trust like graffiti on a listed building. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. William and Catherine ride out the storm with quiet resilience, their 74% approval proving that duty and dignity still matter. The monarchy carries on; the Mail only carries on as long as division sells. Readers aren’t fooled. Legacy media is collapsing under the weight of its own duplicity. Advertisers abandoned The Sun after Hillsborough. News of the World collapsed after phone hacking. And the Daily Mail — drunk on its own poison — is staggering toward the same graveyard. This was never “just gossip.” It was calculated sabotage dressed up in broadsheet clothing, a smear campaign masquerading as reportage, a racket that hollowed out the very idea of journalism. They didn’t just observe events; they made them happen. They didn’t reflect public opinion; they twisted it. They didn’t hold power to account; they abused it. The case is closed. The Waleses endure — proof that quiet service and real substance always outlast scandal. The Mail’s hit squad, by contrast, are done. History won’t remember them as kingmakers, only as mercenaries who confused clickbait for craft and outrage for insight, and in the process wrote their own obituaries. They won’t go down as journalists; they’ll go down as clickbait casualties — yesterday’s men and women, swept away by the very tide they tried to ride. #BoycottDailyMail #WeAreTheMediaNow #RoyalSmearCampaign #ExposeTheMail #MediaManipulation #StopTheSpin #TabloidTyranny #FakeNewsFactory #MonarchyVsMedia #FleetStreetFraud #TruthOverClickbait #InkStainedLies

༺𝐻𝑅𝐻 𝐿𝒶𝒹𝓎 𝒥༻ 👑

29,572 views • 10 months ago