Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

- Started with Kamal - Shelved - Didn't materialised with Shah Rukh Khan Shankar needs Best Actor / Budget & Producer needs Box-Office Monster & only GOD can balance both 😈🦖 Peak Sambhavam By Greatest Trio Shankar - Thalaivar - ARR ❤️🔥 #15YearsOfEnthiran #15YearsOfRobo

68,536 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Imagine the possibilities that await us if we allow the market to naturally evolve and determine its own united price. Why should we rely on GCV's united consensus price?❤️❤️❤️ Consider this: if you were aware of a fast, safe road that could lead you directly to your desired destination, would you willingly choose a risky, longer route where you could potentially face threats such as robbery or even death? I trust that you understand the significance of my analogy. When considering your options, it's important to carefully evaluate each one to make the best choice. Let's take a closer look at two options and weigh their pros and cons to help you make an informed decision. Option A: Let the market get a united price by itself which means letting $0.1 and $314,159 exist without a united consensus. On the other hand, Option B: Edudate the community to support GCV. Most start from GCV in the market. Remember, choosing wisely is key when faced with important decisions like this one. Take your time, consider all aspects carefully, and trust your instincts. Achieving consensus is crucial for the success of any business venture. Currently, there seems to be no consensus ranging from $0.1 to $314,159 among merchants and pioneers. However, it is important to consider the potential long-term benefits that can be derived from reaching an agreement. By presenting an opportunity for merchants and pioneers to adapt and grow within this new ecosystem, we can mitigate the risk of failure or delay. With proper planning and strategic decision-making, we can ensure a smoother transition towards consensus and pave the way for long-term success. In order to expedite the growth and development of our ecosystem, it is imperative that we establish a consensus among all merchants and pioneers. By garnering the respect and support of these key stakeholders, we can save significant amounts of time and investment. Not only will this create a fair and healthy business environment, but it will also encourage other external entities to join our ecosystem. Ultimately, this collective effort will enable us to launch the mainnet at an earlier date. Let us come together and pave the way for a thriving ecosystem that benefits us all. When it comes to making a wise and safe choice for your GCV needs, it's crucial to consider the experience and financial strength of the merchants. Chinese merchants, who have been practicing for over a year, may find themselves in a situation where they have depleted their inventory and are unable to support pioneers any longer. In order to restock, they need to earn cash. This highlights the importance of evaluating individual financial capabilities. However, it is important to note that the majority of merchants struggle to survive even with $0.1 without an open mainnnet after 6 months. Unfortunately, many of them simply run out of cash. Therefore, it becomes essential to support GCV in the front so that the period of close mainnet can be shortened. As more pioneers embrace the GCV and infuse it into their worldview with unwavering faith, they will begin to believe in the prompt restoration of balance, eliminating the need to struggle or negotiate relentlessly. This will empower the blockchain to record even the smallest transactions, indicating a decrease in the risks associated with KYC initiation and migration. The newfound trust will inspire CT to embark on more KYC processes and swiftly transfer Pi to their wallet. In perfect harmony, both CT and vendors, as well as providers, uplift and inspire unwavering confidence in the abundant ecosystem market. This is just my interpretation. I have no affiliation with CT.🌹🌹🌹 Pi Network #PIGCV #PiNetwork

Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷

17,775 просмотров • 2 лет назад

They Knew It Had Collapsed: How Oldham Council Hid the Truth About Its Grooming Gang Inquiry For months, council leaders knew the town's promised inquiry into child sexual exploitation was dead. They just didn't tell the people of Oldham. Last night's full meeting of Oldham Council descended into the familiar charade. Fifteen minutes had been allocated for public questions, supposedly a chance for residents to hold their representatives to account. Instead, almost the entire slot was consumed by former Labour councillors and party activists, a tactic designed to run down the clock and shut out scrutiny. Only through Councillor Wilkinson's insistence was the chamber forced to confront what everyone else was avoiding. He demanded the rules be suspended so a response could finally be given to the question that cut to the heart of public concern: what happened to Oldham's promised inquiry into the Pakistani Rape Gangs? After visible hesitation, the Mayor agreed. Council Leader Arooj Shah rose to respond, immediately distancing herself from what followed. She claimed she wasn't personally involved and also how her pre prepared statement she was about to read had been written by officers of the council. Shah read from her script: "In January this year, following the government's announcement of support for five local inquiries into child sexual exploitation, Oldham Council began the process of commissioning its own inquiry, including engaging with Tom K. Crowther KC as its potential chair. However, while this work was underway, in June, Baroness Casey published the outcome of her audit on group-based child sexual exploitation, recommending a national inquiry that would include targeted local investigations. Conversations with the Home Office then focused on whether Oldham's local inquiry should instead form part of the national inquiry, which would carry additional legal powers. An update was provided to survivors explaining that this process was underway and was likely to take some time. We continue to await confirmation from the Home Office of the proposed chair of the national inquiry and Oldham's position within it. Officers have requested an update and timescales for when this information will be available. We will continue to seek the best outcome to ensure survivors have their testimony heard and get the answers they deserve." Strip away the bureaucratic language about "awaiting confirmation" and "ongoing conversations" and the truth becomes clear: the Oldham rape gang inquiry no longer exists. It was quietly abandoned months ago when the council halted its work after Baroness Casey's June report. For five months, silence. No progress. No transparency. No communication with survivors or the public. For five months, the Pakistani Gangster endorsed Labour Party run Oldham Council has known that its independent inquiry, the one promised to victims of grooming gangs and to the people of this town, had been scrapped. Yet not once did the council leader or her administration publicly admit it. _________ The truth is Arooj Shah had the opportunity to make this clear at the start of last night's meeting. She chose not to. Her pre prepared statement was only dragged into the open at the final moment, forced out by intervention from the Reform UK councillor, Mark Wilkinson. _________ The timing, the obfuscation, the pre-written response by unnamed officers all points to a leadership desperate to distance itself from responsibility for another betrayal of survivors. This is the same Arooj Shah who has repeatedly voted against motions calling for a public inquiry into the Pakistani Rape Gangs. Now she presides over the quiet burial of Oldham's own. _________ The Cover-Up Continues The cover-up hasn't ended; it's simply changed shape. Oldham's Labour-run council now hides behind the convenient excuse that it must "await confirmation" from the Labour-run Home Office. One arm of the same political machine pretending to wait for permission from another. It isn't governance - it's choreography. Both institutions have known for months that the Oldham inquiry is dead. Instead of admitting the collapse, they've chosen silence, leaving survivors and residents to believe that justice is merely delayed when in truth it's been quietly buried. Every day that passes without transparency is another day of deceit. Bureaucratic language and political spin shield those who failed the most vulnerable children in our town. This isn't incompetence. It's intent. Public declarations record Shah's association with the convicted heroin dealer and cop killer geyaway driver "Irish Immy", while court documents confirm that Shah's own brother was convicted of money-laundering offences. That is before of her associations with a convicted kidnapper and torturer. No, I'm not making any of this up. These links deepen public concern that Oldham's leadership sits far too close to the very networks that have long blighted the town. What's being protected isn't just the Labour Party, it's the entire web of influence that keeps Oldham's establishment insulated from accountability. The council, the police, the local party machine, their associates in business and criminality. Every one of them has a stake in keeping this story buried. This isn't about politics anymore. It's about preservation - a ruling clique defending its own survival, even if it means abandoning the very people they swore to protect. Oldham doesn't need silence. It needs truth. And what is happening in Oldham is also happening across the United Kingdom where the Pakistani Cartels and Islamists have infiltrated our democracy. ___________ The pattern is identical in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Newcastle and many other places. Deny the truth. Attack the critics. Protect reputations. Claim credit when the truth finally emerges. This is not only a CSE scandal. It is a crisis of truth, trust and governance in modern Britain. The country is beginning to wake up. The truth is no longer theirs to control. This inquiry didn't happen because the government suddenly found its moral compass. It was dragged into existence by survivors who wouldn't shut up, whistleblowers who refused to disappear, and a public tired of being lied to. For years, they fought against it. Now they'll fight to control it. The whitewash has already begun. The only question is whether we let them get away with it? I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. We cannot do this on our own. We need you to stand with us and help make sure the National Inquiry we have all fought for is not a whitewash. We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that. 🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Whatever you do, please subscribe; 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it. - Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

62,345 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

The DEEPSTATE'S WEAPONIZATION of the CIA & FBI. Presidents are believed to be the ultimate power and authority in government, but they serve their term and go. Then there are the people in government, intelligence, and other agencies who spend 25-30+ years in government. These are the people who usually end up being corrupted or compromised and bought by the highest bidder, and are not working for the people or have the best interest, if any, for the country. They're working for themselves and an authority higher than themselves in dark places. The real power brokers of the world. The ones at the top of the "pyramid." The bankers, the technocrats, the cult members if they're not already a part of the cult themselves. These people are the ones who are ultimately in control. This ladies and gentleman is known as the deep state. Ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou sits down with Tucker Carlson and breaks down his time in the agency and explains just how evil and corrupt the deep state really is. From ex-CIA Dir. John Brennan to Bush Jr. to the cold blooded Barack Obama himself unaliving the most people, and American citizens, while in office, with drone strikes. Obama then later went on and literally stated that, quote, "I didn't think I'd be this good at k*lling." This is beyond sick. Some of the drone strike casualties were also children that were purposely targeted. It's beyond disturbing. John goes through the wild and remarkable story of how the the deep state's weaponized and infiltrated CIA and FBI attempted to set him up multiple times and tried to get him executed on false espionage charges and or spend the rest of his life in a dark prison cell all for standing up to the deep state and the infiltrated CIA's top authority's for lying to the American people and exposed the CIA's torture program to the media. This whole story as John breaks it down is just absolutely wild and shows just how ruthless and corrupt our government really is just for being a patriot and airing out the CIA's dirty laundry and torture program and purposely targeting American patriots, that has unalived many prisoners, and to this day, have no remorse or have ever faced any justice whatsoever. This is only the tip of the iceberg but every American needs to understand just how corrupt and psychotic these heads of state, agencies, and organizations really are. It's time to finish draining the swamp, because you and I both know that we can not and will not ever move forward until we do.

The SCIF

38,405 просмотров • 1 год назад

Analyzing Episode 58. Season 2 aka Balancing the Scales This episode was some of Sinem and Ozan's best work. Their expressions landed every single time, and, frankly, short of screaming what the story is trying to say, they did everything they could to convince the audience that CihAl was, is, and will remain the endgame. With that out of the way, let's begin. We start the episode with Cihan shitting literal bricks as he sees Alya is already at the konak with Sadakat and Meryem arriving, right behind him. The reason is clear - he's caught in a difficult situation yet again. He doesn't want things to look like he's overriding Alya's existence in his life as its core, but circumstances keep making it so that he's put in awkward situations, which only compound his fear of pushing Alya past the point of no return. Meryem is all smiles and teeth at seeing the konak, but the minute her eyes land on Alya, her smile and her eyes drop to the floor. Almost like she was expecting something else entirely, but reality has shamed her. Her eyes remain downcast throughout the entire time she's walking towards Alya, as if Alya's the truth she can't cross eyes with. Alya, on the other hand, remains standing tall. She doesn't flinch, doesn't express any outward anger, but you can see the storm raging in her eyes. When Cihan tells her Meryem will have to stay at the konak, she merely looks at him and nods. And you can see terror mixed with shame (I think) on Cihan's face, but hers remains clear of emotion. And then she walks away, saying she needs to collect Deniz because she's tired. Now that's an exit. Poised, calm, and leaving behind an absolute massacre in the onlookers. The scene where Deniz meets Meryem is another masterpiece because it's very subtle in the message it delivers. Which is - human relations go beyond blood, beyond memory, beyond societal impediments, if the love on both sides is strong enough. When Deniz says he's named after his father, the little boy is telling the truth. Cihan may not be his father in blood, but he's the father Deniz loves, the father he chose for himself. Then the same message is repeated through Deniz about CihAl when Sadakat tries to create trouble by saying Alya and Cihan are divorced. To which Deniz innocently replies, they may be divorced now, but they can get married again. Again, highlighting the importance of human connection. CihAl keep choosing each other through whatever challenge life throws at them, because they love each other equally. Yes, marriages and divorce can be forced, but it's the presence or absence of love that determines the final outcome. Case in point, Alya's marriage to Boran, Cihan's marriage to Seyda, Nare with Ozkan, Zerrin and Demir, etc., etc. That's what anyone opposing CihAl doesn't understand. Love finds a way. Always. That's what the story has been about since the beginning - that love will stand strong in front of all, as long as what you feel is truly love, and not some imitation of it. Also, *hint* *hint* that's the second time someone has mentioned CihAl getting married again, so it's definitely coming. Now for the scene where Cihan and Alya talk in their room. Cihan is right to be afraid of Alya here because he's a first-hand witness to how Alya reacts when she's been betrayed. He's seen how she took off Boran's ring and buried it with him after she found out about the will. An extreme situation compared to this one, absolutely. But fears don't use logic. Cihan knows Alya is strong enough to move on, to rise from the ashes - her strength is what he loves and fears at the same time. So, when he says 'Think of the Cihan in Alya's eyes, I don't want to be that Cihan' he's saying I know it looks like I disregarded you and broke your trust again, but that's not how things were. He needs her to show emotions, not because it'll pander to his ego, but because that's a sign she's still involved. That she's not near the point where she says 'enough is enough.' Alya, on the flip side, can't show her emotions. Because, unlike what Cihan fears, it's because she's so in love with him, so involved, that she's afraid to even ask what Cihan feels. Because if she learns Cihan's past isn't just the past, that he still loves Meryem, it'll shatter her unlike anything else. Despite it all, Cihan manages to reach Alya somehow when he pleads, 'I need you to communicate with me.' It's like his fears break past her barriers and, in turn, allow her to open up a little to him because she admits she doesn't know what to do, and then out comes the real question, 'Don't you feel anything?' Kudos to Cihan for not dodging the question and saying whatever he feels for her is just memory and gratitude. Salak. And I say salak with all my love, because he still misses the elephant in the room. The point is the imbalance. When we tell someone they're the only love of our life, we want an equal declaration in return. If not, the loop remains incomplete - with one side a little more invested than the other. And, CihAl's story thus far has been the opposite of imbalance. Their story is about symmetry; they reflect each other in love, in wounds, in loss. Basically everything. So, how is it that Alya's only love is Cihan, while his isn't? It's not. And that's where that necklace reveal becomes important, but we'll get to that later. For now, let's talk about that little talk in the car. The story itself is giving us hints that this imbalance won't last long, because the minute Alya talks about her first brush with romance is the moment jealous Cihan makes a return. He gets jealous of a nameless, formless, 16-year-old boy who once had the audacity to date his wife. That is, he can't tolerate a contender for Alya's affections even in memory. Cihan is extremely possessive about Alya, which is why he doesn't waste a moment to remind her she told him he's her only love. And Alya, being Alya, doesn't waste a moment in reminding him that he didn't. And then she turns the screw a little by telling Cihan not to burn his heart over her teenage crush because she never planned to marry her crush, nor is she conveniently living under the same roof with him. Mic drop. Cihan's face at that moment is a study in being hoist by one's own petard. Because he's expecting Alya to be okay with something he can't even stand the idea of. He's jealous as hell, but he can't do anything about it. But why is all this happening? Because one of Cihan's biggest truths is - he loved Meryem and lost her. In truth, he didn't love her, which is why he didn't fight hard enough, which is why he lost her. If Cihan had truly loved Meryem the way he loves Alya, he would have fought until the bitter end. Like he's doing for Alya. That's the truth. In Uzak, true love isn't passive - it demands to be seen, to be felt, it doesn't sit back quietly and accept defeat. In this story, love demands to be chosen. And Cihan didn't choose Meryem, not in the way it matters. So, why can't Cihan just accept the truth already? Fear and guilt, I think. Fear of the magnitude of what he feels for Alya, and what losing her would do to him. And guilt because some part of him knows he didn't do for Meryem what he's doing for Alya. And of course, now there's the burden of her shitty ex, too. Nonetheless, fate keeps pushing Cihan to realize the truth, over and over again in this episode. Another glimpse of how passive Cihan may have been in his relationship with Meryem is the dinner scene. Sadakat points out how much Meryem loved stuffed kebabs, and Cihan is barely listening. This is the same man who knows what Alya likes to eat when she's on break during duty. When Meryem points out Cihan's allergy, he says it was something he had in the past, but no longer. Almost like he's comparing the feelings he once had for her to an allergy. What an allegory. See? The signs are all there, but Cihan isn't picking up on them completely. Then fate ups the ante with the arrival of Chef Engin. The first thing Cihan asks Alya when Engin is gone is - Is that him? As in, is that the boy you said loved you? The man goes off the rails in 0 to 60 seconds, and keeps coming up with excuses like he may have changed his name or appearance. The idea of not being the only man in Alya's life makes him lose his cool while Alya rightly points out that she's not the one living with her 'first love' currently. Which then leads to Cihan spending the night at the office. So, fate manages to teach him one lesson here. Which is - ask only for that which you're ready to give. Cihan needs emotional exclusivity from Alya, but hasn't given her the same yet. He's not built to share Alya, not with the past, not with a memory, not with anything. But the second he feels even a fraction of what Alya's been going through, he unravels marvelously. And that's the entire point of that sequence. It's not just jealous drama, it's exposure. Cihan is slowly being led towards the one truth staring him in the face. That's where the necklace comes in. Thus far, Ciho seems to be operating under the misconception that Meryem has moved on, like him. But that necklace (and the video) prove otherwise. Meryem's current attachment to him throws neutrality out the window. Because Cihan will now have to set absolute boundaries, and in doing so, understand why he's setting them. Why what he feels for Alya leaves no room for anyone else because he can't stand the idea of something similar in Alya's past, present, or future. Because they are each other's exception, and everyone else was the rule. And that's it from me for now. Till later. Happy reading, y'all. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

14,669 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

"Imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer." ~AA Suffering Makes God's Existence Unlikely "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" "We're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." (If you know about Loosh and "Far Journeys" by Robert Monroe, these points should all ring a bell. But this discussion was NOT about Loosh. Fascinating debate.) 1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded Christian Tim: "Okay, so my first question to start out with is: What exactly about suffering makes this unlikely, on the condition that God exists?" Atheist Alex (AA): "I think that if God is all-loving, then he probably wouldn't want his creatures to suffer. And so, I think that the fact that they do suffer makes his existence less likely." Tim: "Okay, perfect. And is there some specific aspect of suffering that you're particularly honing in on, horrendous or whatever that is?" Alex: "In particular, non-human animal suffering. Because I think that Christianity has a celebrated tradition of theodicies, trying to explain why suffering exists: human free will, the development of the soul, higher-order goods. All of this kind of stuff. None of which apply to the suffering of non-human animals." Tim: "Have you heard of the Axiological Expectation Mismatch Problem?" Alex: "I have not." Tim: "Okay, so, philosophers of religion have started to understand that the thing that actually generates a problem between God and suffering is actually the value system you attach to the very attribute of perfect lovingness. Because the problem of evil is an internal critique, you have to look at a very specific version of theism and how it defines perfect lovingness. I want to present to you a version where my version of perfect lovingness does not actually constitute a problem and a misalignment, that mismatch between the suffering of animals - let's just say, the profusion of suffering of animals - and existence of God." Alex: "So let's hear it. What kind of God are we imagining that would allow and oversee and do nothing to prevent billions of years of untold animal suffering?" (There's no justification for all of the suffering that animals go through and it's borderline comical (if it wasn't so sad) to see Christians trying to come up with reasons to justify it.) Tim: "Right. So you're talking about non-prevention." Alex: "Or setting up the system that is natural selection, such that it relies upon things like predation and disease." (This is straight out of the Loosh chapter.) Tim: "Well, the first part is, I don't agree with the whole setting up the system part. So I'm not one of those theists that believes that God does this select and pick idea of creating worlds. I don't think that God actually creates worlds. I think that God lets worlds develop, according in a certain way. But because God can oversee an overarching narrative, he knows exactly how he can redeem anything." Alex: "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" Tim: "Yes, he could totally do that." Alex: "So had he done that, here's an instant way to reduce, by orders of magnitude, the amount of suffering that exists." (But then there would be no Loosh! I don't know if Loosh is a real thing, but if it IS, it would explain lot of things on this planet.) Tim: "Right, but hold on. That's, particularly, assuming a value theory, already, that I haven't told you I'm adopting, that has a problem with evil. So I have to give you my value theory first, for you to show that misalignment." Alex: "Okay, let's hear it." Tim: "Perfect, okay. So my value theory says that the most important thing about a sentient creature is not what merely happens to them, it's about the total timeline of their life and how and where their life permanently ends. Meaning, if you were to judge an author of a narrative, and the first few chapters, let's say, there's a lot of bad things happening, but the end ends with this crescendo where there's victoriousness, there's redemption, there's beauty. And everyone in the story actually endorses their entire existence that they live. They can look at the total timeline, and they actually each subjectively come to the conclusion, 'I'm glad I was made and I totally see what my suffering was for.' That's the particular I'm using with. Like John Hicks says, we have to judge the very nature of God's lovingness by what he does in the end, not these few time slices that we observe right now. For you to show that there's a problem, you have to show, to me, that the suffering of animals cannot be transformed, are intrinsically cut off from being transformed into a life that they will endorse. There's a couple of theses on the table." Alex: "So are you talking about the end of their life, as in their end of life on Earth, or are you talking about the afterlife?" Tim: "Antemortem, postmortem (before and after death)." (So once that animal, that suffered needlessly for most of their life, gets to the afterlife, they'll understand there was a reason for it. Really?) Alex: "Okay. Because if you're just talking about life on Earth, then I would say that if you had an author writing a book and a character. If we were trying to figure out the relationship between that author and the person in the book, and that person in the book shows up for five seconds in the first chapter, and is a child who almost immediately dies of cancer in an incredibly painful way. And there's no development, there's no sort of bring back to life, and suddenly everyone's grateful for it. It is just this miserable, tragic experience. "And I ask, well, what did the author, not want to do for the story of the book, but want to do for that character? I think it would be pretty damning. And also, when it comes to animals, we're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." Tim: "Absolutely." Alex: "They sort of have disease. Zebras, when they're killed by lions, are often too big to be killed instantly, so they die over minutes with their windpipes caught in the jaws of a lion. How can this be developing, a zebra, which, by the way, probably doesn't even have the same kind of first-person conscious experience that humans do in order to sort of rationalize an abstract and learn from their sort of past and morally develop in that way? They just suffer. And what kind of God could oversee this?" Tim:"Okay, so there's a lot of assumptions on the table. Again, you're assuming a particular value system that I'm not laying out." Alex: "I'll tell you what I'm assuming here. What I'm assuming here is that a good God would not allow unnecessary suffering to obtain. Would you agree with that?" Tim: "We can talk about unnecessary suffering. We're talking about the justifying norms for suffering. You're saying it has to be in terms of necessity. Which is, an evil is only authorizable, by God, if it's in connection to a greater good or prevention of a greater evil, correct?" Alex: "If there's some kind of justification for allowing that sort of thing." Tim: "Yeah, but you're saying it's a necessary connection. Why...what's the term necessity...?" Alex: "Perhaps I should say unjustified instead of unnecessary." Tim: "Okay, so we both agree. I do not believe that God can authorize or justify unjustified suffering." Alex: "Okay, so tell me how that example that I gave you, the deer with its leg, starving, is justified?" Tim: "Because it's intrinsically redeemable. And the norms I'm working with is not this necessity condition that you're working with. Mine is about redeemable suffering, redeemability, or what we call, feasibility." Alex: "For the deer?" Tim: "If that suffering can be defeated within the creature's life. And I'll define what I mean by defeat, which is that they can, retroactively, look back at what they went through and integrate it into their life history, where they look at their life..." Alex: "I have to interrupt, because the example I gave you is one where the deer dies." Tim: "Yes, the deer dies. But here's the thing. You're probably talking about, this post-mortem example, I'm gonna put one thesis on the table: There's two philosophers that defend exactly what this goes through. One defends that animals will be given a martyrdom status. Well, God will be able to present himself in a way to animals in the afterlife, such that, in the same way you could give praise to a dog and a dog emotionally recognizes that he's loved, and that his life is worth living, right? To these animals that suffered like that, there's one view on the table, which is that God will give them a praiseworthy status where they will be able to actually..." (Bending over backwards to justify the suffering of animals. The deer will learn why he/she had to go through all of that when they die and God explains it and praises the animal for what they went though. Ridiculous, IMO.) Alex: "So can we talk about that claim? Because these animals are suffering for what? I mean, God might cause them to suffer..." Tim: "It's not means to ends." Alex: "God might cause them to suffer a bunch, and then essentially redeem them in the afterlife. But what for? Like, why do this? If I were to punch you in the face and then give you $20,000 afterwards, you might be grateful for the $20,000, but why couldn't I just give you the $20,000?" Tim: "We'll see. So that's assuming. So I saw your debate with Trent..." Alex: "Good stuff." ~ Christian Hayden (Not Hayden Christiansen) : "Would you say that theism or atheism better account for the idea that suffering exists and a purpose for it?" Alex: "It depends exactly what you mean. Because, of course, you might say that the world itself is more expected on theism, and since suffering needs the existence of the world, that it's theism. But granted the existence of a material world, let's say, I think atheism." Hayden: "Okay. Why does suffering exist at all? In an atheistic worldview, what is the cause of suffering?" Alex: "Oh, well, because, however life began, it developed through a series of natural selection, which requires animals to develop senses that they wish to avoid in order to be more likely to survive. And that's why pain receptors evolve in a world where not all of these pains are actually going to kill us, we're left with situations left with situations in which we're in a lot of pain but don't end up dying for it." Hayden: "Would you agree that consciousness is necessary for suffering?" Alex: "I would say probably, yeah." Hayden: "Does atheism account for consciousness?" Alex: "Yes, that's what I was talking about a moment ago. Perhaps not, maybe theism accounts better for consciousness than atheism does." Hayden: "Okay. So if there is no consciousness, there is no suffering? Is that right?" Alex: "That's probably true, yeah." Hayden: "So, if atheism cannot account for consciousness, then it cannot account for suffering. Would you agree with that?" Alex: "So I think what we're doing here is we're sort of slightly shifting the goal posts. If you don't want to grant the existence of the material world before we start talking about this, we can do an argument from consciousness. But then we need to debate whether consciousness is more...it is explicable on atheism. "What I'm going to say is this: Consciousness may seem to imply the existence of a conscious creator of the Universe. We're here talking about, I suppose we're talking about Christianity. The claim was about God. But the God that you believe in, let's say, if we grant that there is a creator deity who sort of brings about the universe of conscious creatures... Have you ever heard of the evil-god hypothesis that Stephen Law popularized?" Hayden: No, tell me it." Alex: "So the idea is that like, imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer. He brings about a world in order so that human beings will suffer, right? That seems like a plausible hypothesis. And even if you think that consciousness points towards God, the kind of God that a lot of Christians think is a sort of necessary quality of God, which is to be all-loving, might not have to apply here." (I know he wasn't talking soul-trap theory and Loosh, but it sounds just like it.) Hayden: "If Christianity were true, is it plausible that suffering is necessary for God's purpose, for his creation?" Alex: "If Christianity is true, then I think it must be necessary, because there'd be no other explanation for it." Hayden: "So we're not talking about whether or not Christianity is true..." Alex: "But if you're asking me if it's plausible that Christianity is true and therefore suffering is necessary, I would say probably not. Because I don't think suffering should be necessary or could be necessary." Hayden: "In an atheistic worldview, I would agree with you. It makes no sense at all." Alex: "So can I ask you why then, if God exists and wants to come to know everybody, and wants to love everybody and does so for the sake of human beings, why he chose to imbue the world with so much suffering that is at least, seemingly, completely inexplicable?" Hayden: "Are you a father?" Alec: "No." Hayden: "I'm a father. I want my son to become just like I am, better than I am, I should say. I want him to become the best that he can be. Is it possible for him to become, to reach his potential, without suffering in his life?" Alex: "Perhaps not, but there's two..." Hayden: "So suffering is necessary." Alex: "There are a few things I want to say. Firstly, that kind of moral development doesn't apply to non-human animals, as I've already said, right?" Hayden: "Why not?" Alex: "That does not account for the brutal death of animals in the wild. Also if - I don't want to talk about your son, because it's tragic to think about, but - somebody else's son has suffered and died immediately as a result of that suffering, they don't get to develop in the same way." Hayden: "I would agree that on a micro level, it's very hard to justify. And we can ask the question, 'Why doesn't God intervene on all of these sufferings?" (Exactly. And that's the Christian making the point.) Alex: "You might be able to justify an amount of suffering, right? But the fact that there's so much gratuitous suffering in the world is what I think makes God's existence unlikely. There are some instances where maybe a certain amount of suffering brings about a certain amount of good in a situation. That, by the way, would count as a justification. But when a child dies of leukemia... And they'e dead." Hayden: "Could there be a purpose to it? What if the death of the child brings their parents to God?" Alex: "Then perhaps...then the parents should be grateful that their child got leukemia because it's doing the will of the Lord." Hayden: "Not necessarily." Alex: "That seems obscene to me." (Yep. What if the death of their child caused the grandmother to have a nervous breakdown, the mom to be riddled with guilt her entire life, and the father to go off the rails? That's my family, by the way. Before I was born, my 8-year-old sister was killed when my mom's car was stuck on the railroad tracks and the train hit the car. Seeing people trying to justify that as God's will or offering up reasons to justify it (as several people have done on here) is really sad. Sorry if that offends you.)

Joe Murgia

12,708 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Donald Trump Is Not Your Friend Virulent Iran hawk Brian Hook has reportedly been chosen by Donald Trump to help staff the State Department of the incoming administration, just in case you were still holding out hope that this time might be different and Trump really would end the wars and fight the deep state. Readers might remember Hook as the swamp creature who in 2017 was seen in a leaked State Department memo lecturing Rex Tillerson on the US government’s policy of using human rights as a cynical tool to undermine enemies and reinforce alliances. This is done, Hook explained, by ignoring human rights abuses when they are perpetrated by US allies while emphasizing them at every opportunity in the nations of enemy governments in order to “impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically.” “The ‘realist’ view is that America’s allies should be supported rather than badgered, for both practical and principled reasons, and that while the United States should certainly stand as moral example, our diplomacy with other countries should focus primarily on their foreign policy behavior rather than on their domestic practices as such,” Hook wrote in the memo, saying that “In the case of US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, the Administration is fully justified in emphasizing good relations for a variety of important reasons, including counter-terrorism, and in honestly facing up to the difficult tradeoffs with regard to human rights.” “One useful guideline for a realistic and successful foreign policy is that allies should be treated differently — and better — than adversaries,” Hook wrote. “We do not look to bolster America’s adversaries overseas; we look to pressure, compete with, and outmaneuver them. For this reason, we should consider human rights as an important issue in regard to US relations with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. And this is not only because of moral concern for practices inside those countries. It is also because pressing those regimes on human rights is one way to impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically.” Hook’s words, shared in confidentiality with the political neophyte Tillerson, were an excellent window into what western empire managers are doing when they feign outrage at alleged human rights abuses in nations they’ve targeted for destruction. The fact that his would be one of the first names chosen by Trump suggests we can expect more despicable foreign policy recklessness from the returning president. I’m already getting people telling me to “give Trump a chance” and stop criticizing him before he’s in office when I point out developments like this. Give Trump a chance? He had four years. He was the president for four fucking years. Trump showed us who he is: a murderous warmongering empire lackey just like his predecessors. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. There’s no reason to think this time will be different. Trump criticizes foreign interventionism because that kind of rhetoric is popular, not because he actually means it. In order to get to where he’s at Trump cut deals with Zionist oligarchs, powerful lobby groups, and more or less the exact same Republican voting base and donor class that’s given rise to every other disgusting Republican president in recent years. Even if he wanted to end wars and fight the establishment (and there is no evidence that he does), he’s already tied his own hands with the deals he’s made with the powerful establishment factions he’s promised his service to. Trump supporters are George W Bush supporters LARPing as Ron Paul supporters. They act like they’re backing some anti-war figure who’s taking a meaningful stand against the machine, when they’re really backing a guy who spent four years rolling out longstanding neocon agendas. That’s what makes them so annoying. At least liberals are more or less honest about wanting to preserve the status quo; Trumpers want you to take seriously their belief that they participated in some huge revolutionary act by ticking a box for the Republican on election day. They correctly believe that their country is controlled by an unelected deep state (though they are very confused about who that actually is), but they incorrectly believe this unelected power structure can be defeated by voting for one of the two mainstream candidates presented to them at the ballot box. Like that would ever be an option. I am really not looking forward to another four years of that shit, I’ll be honest. For four fucking years these morons were in my mentions telling me every action of Trump’s that I criticized was actually a brilliant 47-dimensional chess maneuver against the deep state, even when he was openly advancing some longstanding agenda of the CIA and neoconservative swamp monsters like ramping up aggressions against Iran or staging a coup in Venezuela. They warm up to me because they see me criticizing the media and talking about corrupt power structures and go “Ooh, she’s like me!”, but then they cannot understand why I keep criticizing their shitty Republican daddy figure. And then I have to spend my time explaining to them that their hero is a murderous imperialist shitstain. And at the same time I’m going to have to be criticizing the Democrats because they’ll be attacking Trump for being insufficiently hawkish on foreign policy, because that’s the only foreign policy criticism you’re allowed to level at a US president in mainstream politics and media — which will only contribute to the problem of Trump supporters thinking I’m on their side. It’s a much less efficient and straightforward way for me to do my thing than when there’s a Democrat in charge of the war machine. It’s not my preferred way to operate. Let me make things simple: if you are cheering for the US president, you are not fighting the power. You are a power-worshipping bootlicker, and you should feel embarrassed. Your president is not your friend. The US president will always, always serve the warmongering power structure you correctly feel needs to be opposed. The plutocrats and empire managers who rule your country are never, ever going to let you vote them out of power. Hope that helps. Reading by Tim Foley.

Caitlin Johnstone

89,745 просмотров • 1 год назад

Lessons from Mary Kay Ash, the greatest saleswoman in history: 1. Golden Rule Leadership: The Golden Rule is one of the world’s oldest and best-known philosophies, yet it’s frequently overlooked in business circles. Mary Kay proved this rule is still powerful in today’s complicated world. 2. You Build with People: Leaders are dependent upon the performance of their people, and so is a company’s success. Good people are a company’s most important asset. People are more important than the plan. 3. The Invisible Sign: Everyone has an invisible sign hanging from their neck saying, “MAKE ME FEEL IMPORTANT!” Never forget this message when working with people. 4. Praise People to Success: Each of us craves recognition. Let people know you appreciate their performance, and they’ll respond by doing even better. Recognition is the most powerful of all motivating techniques. 5. The Art of Listening: Good leaders are good listeners. God gave us two ears and only one mouth, so we should listen twice as much as we speak. When you listen, the benefit is twofold: you receive necessary information, and you make the other person feel important. 6. Sandwich Every Bit of Criticism Between Two Heavy Layers of Praise: Sometimes it’s necessary to let somebody know you’re unhappy with their performance. But direct your criticism at the act, not the person. Criticize effectively in a positive way so you don’t destroy morale. (Shane's note, I actually don't agree with this. I've never met a high performer that needs this or wants it.) 7. Be a Follow-Through Person: Be the kind of person who can always be counted on to do what you say you’ll do. Only a small percentage of people possess follow-through ability, and they’re held in high esteem by all. It’s particularly important for your team to know you possess this rare quality and to think of you as totally reliable. 8. Enthusiasm Moves Mountains: Nothing great is ever achieved without enthusiasm. Leaders are enthusiastic, and enthusiasm is contagious. Interestingly, the word enthusiasm has a Greek origin, meaning “God within.” 9. The Speed of the Leader Is the Speed of the Gang: You must set the pace for your people. Real leaders aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. They set examples by demonstrating good work habits, displaying positive attitudes, and possessing team spirit. True leaders establish success patterns that make everyone think of success. 10. People Will Support That Which They Help to Create: Invite people to participate in new projects that are still in the “thinking” stage. By confiding in associates and seeking their opinions, you generate support at the initial stage of each new venture. People often resist change when they don’t participate in the decision-making process. Some of the best leaders “plant the seed” that permits others to propose the idea and take credit for it. 11. An Open-Door Philosophy: At Mary Kay corporate headquarters, there are no titles on executives’ doors, and there’s ready access to all management levels. Everyone within the company, from mailroom clerk to chairman of the board, is a human being and is treated accordingly. 12. Help Other People Get What They Want—and You’ll Get What You Want: As the parable of the talents tells us, we’re meant to use and increase whatever God has given us. And when we do, we shall be given more. 13. Stick to Your Principles: Everything is subject to change except one’s principles. Never, absolutely never, compromise your principles. 14. A Matter of Pride: Everyone within an organization should have a sense of pride in their work. They should also feel proud to be associated with the company. It’s a manager’s job to instill this feeling and promote this attitude among their people. 15. You Can’t Rest on Your Laurels: Nothing wilts faster than a laurel rested upon. Every person should have a lifetime self-improvement program. In today’s fast-paced world, you can’t stand still. You either go forward or backward. 16. Be a Risk-Taker: You must encourage people to take risks. Let them know that “nobody wins ’em all.” If you come down on them too hard for losing, they’ll stop sticking their necks out. 17. Work and Enjoy It: It’s okay to have fun while you work. Good managers encourage a sense of humor. In fact, the more enjoyment people derive from their work, the better they will produce. 18. Nothing Happens Until Somebody Sells Something: Every organization has something to “sell,” and every person in the company must realize that nothing happens until somebody sells something. Accordingly, they should be fully supportive of the selling effort. 19. Never Hide Behind Policy or Pomposity: Never say, “That’s against company policy” unless you have a good explanation to back up the policy. It infuriates people. It’s as if you were saying, “We do it this way because it’s the way we’ve always done it.” By the same token, pomposity can also be a transparent cover-up for incompetence. 20. Be a Problem-Solver: The best leaders recognize when a real problem exists and know how to take action to solve it. You must develop the ability to know the difference between a real problem and an imaginary one. 21. Less Stress: Stress stifles productivity. Leaders strive to create a stress-free work environment for their employees through both physical and psychological approaches. 22. Develop People from Within: The best-run companies develop their own managers from within. They rarely seek outsiders. In fact, it’s a sign of weakness when a company goes outside too often for management personnel. The morale of the company is likely to suffer. People may begin to feel threatened and think, “No matter how well I perform, an outsider will probably get the position I want.” 23. Live by the Golden Rule On and Off the Job: Don’t be a hypocrite. Live every day of the week as if it were Sunday. There’s no place for two sets of moral codes. Conduct yourself in business with the same scruples you would want your children to observe in their lives.

Shane Parrish

419,606 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

🚨THE UKRAINE -RUSSIAN WAR WAS PROVOKED NATO DID NOT PROMOTE PEACE, NATO PROMOTED WARS How did this start? Zbigniew Brzezinski in the United States said, "We can surround Russia. We can weaken Russia. We can make Russia fall into pieces." He literally wrote in 1997, he said, "Oh, there'll be a confederation of three weak states, a European Russia, Siberian Russia, Far East Russia." This, this was a senior advisor to the US. They decided 30 years ago, we're gonna surround Russia in the Black Sea, we're going to weaken Russia, we're going to put our military all around Russia. They broke the nuclear balance and nuclear arms control framework in 2002. This was the worst move of all. United States walked out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And the Russians said, "Oh. You, you wanna have a first strike? You'll attack us in a decapitation strike and then you'll use your anti-ballistic missile system to prevent deterrents." In 2002, the United States just walked out of the ABM Treaty and the Russians said, "Excuse me? What, what, what the hell are you doing? This is our balance." And it came in the context of NATO enlargement. It came in the context of the United States bombing Belgrade for 78 straight days in 1999 to break Serbia in two, but in Kosovo, that region broken apart from Serbia, to put the largest NATO military base in Southeastern Europe, "Camp Bondsteel", in that base. So, the Russians are saying, "Are you kidding? You bomb Belgrade, you expand NATO even though you promised not to do so, you walk out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the list goes on and on. You attack Iraq on completely phony pretenses, you launch a CIA operation to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, you send NATO to overthrow Gaddafi, late in, 2011, and you say NATO's gonna expand to Ukraine and to Georgia. You blame Russia for this? This was an America drunk with its power, saying we can do anything we want and with a plan, and the plan third-rate or fourth-rate or fifth-rate country or to break it was to turn Russia into a apart. On February 21st, 2014, three foreign ministers of the European Union negotiated with Mr. Yanukovych that he would stay in power and that there would be elections eight months later, and this was also agreed with President Putin. The next morning, a US-backed coup violently overthrew Yanukovych, and it took the United States a nanosecond to say, "We support the new government." Europe, because it's so filled with principles, "No, no, no. Yanukovych is president." No, of course it didn't say that. It said, "Whatever daddy said."So, daddy said that it's, now a new government brought in by a coup, and Europe suddenly couldn't even remember 24 hours that it negotiated an agreement with Yanukovych that he would stay in power. And they said, "No, no. He resigned." Oh, we don't think Russia should stay in Crimea anymore." It's been Russia's naval fleet since 1783. The coup is not a coincidence. The coup is to get Russia out of Sevastopol. That's the point. It was the reason why there was a Crimean War in 1853 when Britain and France said, "Get Russia out of the Black Sea." It was Brzezinski's idea in 1997. When Trump comes in in the first term, US pours in the military aid and builds up a million-person army, the largest in Europe actually. What happened when Russia invaded in February 24th, 2022? Within about a week, Zelenskyy said, "Okay, we can be neutral, we can be neutral." And the Ukrainians sent a note to the Russians, "Neutral. We, we don't need the NATO invasion. You stop fighting, we'll declare neutrality." I know in detail this story because I talked to the negotiators at length, and to the Turkish mediators, because a process started in Istanbul to have Ukraine and Russia sit down with each other. And on April 15th, they initialed a document which was almost complete. What happened? The United States and Britain walked in and told the Ukrainians, "No, you continue fighting." The European mainstream media blocks the most basic facts on all of this. This, war could have ended so many times it avoided entirely. Now Europe is in this unbelievable warmongering period led by the German chancellor, of all people and all countries, absolutely unpleasant, Merz, Macron, Starmer. In 2023, I had a conversation with President Macron. And I said, "Mr. President, this war came from NATO enlargement." He said, "You're absolutely right." I said, "Mr. President, this war could end if NATO would just be clear that it's not going to enlarge Ukraine." "You're absolutely right." Yes, nice conversation. He said exactly the opposite in public, and until today says exactly the opposite. --------------------------------------------------- *In 2001, Putin Wanted Russia to Join NATO. Two Times That We Were Ready to Join NATO. Both times we were turned down. Ukraine is the only NON-NATO nation supporting every NATO mission. In Afghanistan and Iraq Ukrainian troops are helping to support democracies. Putin says the current crisis in Ukraine is a direct result of years of aggressive NATO policies. ▶The biggest threat in the world is NATO. ▶NATO has been encircling Russia since the nineties. ▶NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. ▶ NATO has never defended anyone, but only attacked. ▶NATO is a military Alliance that feeds on war. ▶To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. ▶The purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. ▶Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The Casus Belli of the Ukraine War is NATO Enlargement, US Coup, CIA Operations All Over Ukraine. ▶Jeffrey Sachs on Trump: Until President Trump Says Publicly, "NATO Will NOT Enlarge," This War Will Continue. That's his JOB. The way to end this war is to say publicly, "NATO enlargement was a mistake, it was a provocation, it was a threat to Russia's security." ▶Jeffrey Sachs: Russia is not going to stop fighting as long as NATO enlargement is on the table. This is the basic reason why we are at war. ▶Prof. John Mearsheimer: NATO Expansion Was Really the Key. Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. ▶Larry C. Johnson A former CIA Officer: 30 Years of Provocation by the West, 30 Years of Western Efforts to Bring Ukraine INTO NATO, 30 Years of Using, Making, Ukraine a de FACTO Member of NATO by Virtue of the FACT That, They've Conducted More NATO Military Exercises in Ukraine, Than 24 Other NATO Countries Over the Last 30 years, so That's Remarkable for a Country That's NOT 🚨Not dissolving NATO in 1990 was a big mistake, and it’s time to fix that mistake.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

138,353 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Matthew Gallagher Built a $401M Company in Year One with 2 People. And the tool behind it? Claude Code. This year he's on track for $1.8B. Sam Altman predicted this. It's happening now. The problem? It costs money. API credits stack up. Monthly bills keep growing. Every prompt eats your budget. Every project drains your wallet faster. Until now. Two methods. 99% cheaper. One is completely free. Forever. $0. Not a trial. This video breaks down both step by step. ↓ Let me put this in perspective. $100-$500. That's monthly. That's what you spend. That's $6,000/year on API credits. Just to use a tool you haven't shipped anything with. The $401M guy? Spending $0. Same capability. Shipping weekly. Different cost structure. Different results. Different life. I'm about to hand you his cost structure for free. ↓ Open source vs closed source. Pay attention. Closed source: Claude. GPT-4. Pay per token. Meter always running. Open source: Qwen. Llama. Mistral. Free to download. Free to run. Free forever. No meter. No tokens. No bill. Here's what nobody tells you: 80% of coding tasks? Open source handles them. More than handles them. Writes clean code. Debugs errors. Generates boilerplate. Handles routine work perfectly. You're paying premium prices for tasks that don't need premium intelligence. That's hiring a brain surgeon to put on a bandaid. Smart play: Free models for the 80%. Paid credits for the 20%. That's what the $401M guy does. That's what this video teaches you. Follow Himanshu Kumar for more breakdowns that turn free tools into real businesses. ↓ Method 1: Ollama. Local. Free. Forever. Download it. Pull a model. Point Claude Code at it. Done. No internet needed. No API keys required. No monthly subscription. No token counting ever. No bill. Today. Tomorrow. Ever. Your data never leaves your computer. Complete privacy. Complete freedom. Claude Code thinks it's talking to the cloud. It's talking to your laptop. For $0. The video walks through every step: Every config file. Every variable. Every command. Every click. If you can follow a recipe, you can do this. People who set this up 3 months ago? Saved $300-$1,500 since then. Workflow didn't change one bit. ↓ Hardware you need: 16GB RAM: 7B models run smooth. 32GB RAM: 32B models run comfortable. 64GB + GPU: biggest models available. No GPU? Still works. Just slower. Few extra seconds. That's it. Your $1,500 laptop is sitting there running Chrome and Spotify. Put it to work saving you $200/month instead. Follow Himanshu Kumar for more breakdowns that turn free tools into real businesses. ↓ Method 2: Open Router. Free Cloud. No Hardware. Weak machine? Don't want local setup? This method is for you. Free AI models in the cloud. No download. No hardware. Configure Claude Code to route through Open Router. The config: Base URL: Open Router API. API key: free Open Router key. Default Sonnet: free. Default Opus: free. Default Haiku: free. Small fast model: free. Subagent model: free. Free. Free. Free. Free. Free across the board. Same interface. Same commands. Same workflow. Zero cost. Copy the config from the video. Paste it. Save $200/month. Starting today. Right now. ↓ When to use which: Ollama (local): Best for privacy. Best for offline work. Best for unlimited usage. Best if you have decent hardware. Open Router (cloud): Best for weak machines. Best for instant setup. Best for trying different models. Best if you don't want to manage anything. Both methods: Best for 80% of your daily work. Still use paid Claude for: Complex architecture. Multi-file refactoring. Deep reasoning tasks. The 20% that actually needs it. $20/month instead of $200/month. Same output. 90% less cost. ↓ The math that should make you angry. You (current): $200-$500/month. $2,400-$6,000/year. $7,200-$18,000 over 3 years. You (after this video): $20-$50/month. $240-$600/year. $720-$1,800 over 3 years. Savings over 3 years: $6,480-$16,200. That's a used car. That's seed money. That's 6 months of rent. All from one 25-minute video. All from 15 minutes of configuration. Highest ROI 25 minutes you'll spend this year. ↓ The limitations. I won't lie to you. Open source is not Opus. Not as smart on complex reasoning. Not as good at long-context tasks. Makes more mistakes on nuanced problems. But they are: Free. Capable. Getting better monthly. Good enough for 80% of daily work. Smart cost management isn't being cheap. It's being strategic. Expensive tool when it matters. Free tool when it doesn't. ↓ The one-person billion-dollar company is coming. $401M in year one proved it's possible. The building blocks: AI that codes: Claude Code. Way to run it free: this video. Distribution: the internet. Customers: everyone. Only missing ingredient? Someone who builds. Not reads about building. Not saves posts about building. Not bookmarks videos about building. Builds. Tools are free. Knowledge is free. Opportunity is screaming. You're still "thinking about it." ↓ Your action plan: Tonight: Watch the video. Tomorrow morning: Set up Ollama or Open Router. Tomorrow afternoon: Build something. Anything. This week: Build a second thing. Faster. This month: Charge someone for it. One video. One setup. One weekend. $0 cost. Unlimited potential. Or keep paying $200/month for something you could get free. Keep consuming instead of building. Keep planning instead of shipping. Matthew Gallagher didn't plan a $401M company. He built it. Full video attached. Every method. Every config. Every tradeoff. 25 minutes. Your move. Follow Himanshu Kumar for more breakdowns that turn free tools into real businesses.

Himanshu Kumar

13,363 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

RESCUE OF THE KEEPER OF TARA EARTH This is going to sound like absolute fiction, but the story still needs to be told. Let me preface by saying I’m not just sane, but an autodidact polymath with multiple quantum physics patents under exclusively my own name, not part of any collaboration. So by dismissing my testimony as someone who is just nuts is really reading a book strictly through its cover. This all actually happened, even if you’ve never heard of anything like this before. What we don’t know about ‘the real worlds’ out there you could barely fit in all of our skies, we’ve been that isolated here. Everyone in this preschool dimension have preconceived notions about who ‘god’ is, inflated to the realm of all-knowing and all-powerful, able to create whole worlds, complete with millions of species of flora and fauna, and all in just 6 days. And while it is true such powers do exist, they are not without collaboration with other ‘gods’ to make that all happen, no matter how grandiose your captors want to make themselves seem. Just one species of your apples or oranges here represents possibly trillions of years of development and perfection. They didn’t just magically appear. “God” is a psyop term that stands for the word “perfect”, of which there is no such thing. The term perfect is strictly subjective, because what may seem perfect to a caveman is going to seem rudimentary kid’s stuff to George Jetson. The real term for the creator of all things is not ‘god’, but rather Prime Creator. “God” is actually DOG spelled backward and got its name from the Dog Star, also known as Sirius A, the headquarters of the Anuhazi Elohim’s breakaway group that call themselves The Michaelube, Suns of Ba’al. The ‘Arch Angels’ want you to believe they are the creator god of all things in this world. That was a lie 560m years ago and it is still a lie today. In reality, Tara Earth existed more than 4 billion years prior to the Anuhazi’s arrival to take the Human Elohim Project spirit essences hostage. They DID in fact help create Tara earth, just like you did, because they are fractals of Prime Creator. But to present themselves as ‘one guy with a long white beard who created the world and everything in it’ is word magic and gaslighting, designed to demoralize and subjugate Humans. For more on the why to this psychopathic plan, see my article: 👉 HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA. With that said, there are MANY beings in the world around you that are secretly ancient ‘gods’ of past eras who really do have more powers than humans do. I know, because I’ve met some and dealt with others during my years of education from the keeper of our simulation. There are also beings here who have roles to play to keep our world functioning correctly so Tara is able to continue offering a holographic platform for your manifestation adventure, who also have god-like powers, such as the keeper mentioned above, and others that are part of the team I refer to as the ‘crew’. You would call them angels, I call them people. Scary powerful people, but still people. Among the ‘crew’ is the main ‘keeper’ of the simulation that you wind up referring to as god down through the ages, because once in a while humans get to meet the keeper and witness the power for themselves which is very obviously not human. But the keeper doesn’t have a long flowing white beard, doesn’t sit on a throne in the sky and certainly isn’t perfect. But like you, a work in progress. Always seeking greater balance. That is the one common denominator among all fractals of Prime Creator, regardless if they are currently playing ‘bad guy’ roles, or ‘good guy’ roles. Understand there are beings here constantly at war against the keeper that has control of the universal elements of the hologram. Also understand, like the other beings who came here from much higher dimension with ‘god-like’ powers, they fractalize themselves into many, many different bodies, so it is effectively impossible to ever ‘kill’ each other. You would have to not only find all the many hundreds or thousands of them, but have a fool-proof way of killing them all at the same exact moment, making sure they are gone-gone, not just that one avatar holding their spirit awareness. That’s not going to happen. Not to any of them from what I’ve witnessed. Which means simply, as far as you are concerned, they are eternal beings, continuously here since 560m years ago in some case, depending when each one of them arrived. The ‘gods’, and the keeper, live in mortal bodies that age and die. But their positions are always held by the next one of themselves that can step into that role to maintain continuity of their offices. These are all the same person and can appear exactly identical to each other, or they can take on totally different appearances as well. I’m not sure why or how, but I’ve seen them both ways. After I was contacted by the keeper and informed of my role where I was in contract to supply protection and help to the crew back in 2013, eventually I was activated for that help in September of 2017. Both the keeper and a portion of the worldwide crew support staff as it were, had been taken hostage in California. I was tasked to bring them out to safety. I won’t go deeply into the details of this, but it was a serious situation where the invader races had stripped the keeper of all access to banks and cash, making it impossible to remain safe inside of the place they had been using as headquarters, literally casting them into the streets. And before you imagine this would be ‘impossible’, the keeper can’t just manifest stacks of cash out of thin air, and also there were a massive amount of beings all working together to neutralize them so they could possibly remove them from the levers of power of the simulation. That’s really all I can offer for details about that for now. The alphabet agencies were keeping the entire crew isolated in that one city, living in a car, camping in the woods and basically making it impossible to look after Tara. The keeper was able to get donations through various support mechanisms, but were shut out of getting off the streets. They brought in specialists to help them all escape, but the agencies wound up permanently disabling them, or taking them out altogether. That’s when I was contacted for assignment. Not being one of ‘the gods’ like they are, I was naturally terrified of having anything to do with this mission because I had no powers I was aware of that could provide anything they couldn’t. Which is really a fantastic understatement, since the keeper and crew can translocate anywhere in the world in seconds, have ‘thousands of avatars’ scattered out as vessels they can use in any city around the world, and basically everything they can do we can’t are about as intimidating as they can be. But I was told I was the only one who could rescue them. And while that may sound like the perfect scenario for a deluded mind seeking validation with illusions of grandeur, like a classic mental patient would come up with in their insane mind, this is what I was actually told, and I do mean in real life. To this day I find it as confusing to believe as you will trying to believe me now. Nonetheless, I carry certain powers I have been fitted with for my contract here on earth that I have had no education about at all. And the main one I’ve learned of now is I have a frequency shield that blocks out ‘the gods’ from doing harm. As long as the keeper and crew were within that field, the invaders were rendered powerless. Wow, even I want to roll my eyes at that. But I watched it play out first hand now multiple times after I got the crew off the streets in a ‘place of safety’ over the next couple of years. As long as I was at the safe house, nothing nefarious happened. When I went shopping every other week for groceries in town over 10 miles away, that’s when all hell would break out back at the compound. Those stories too would seem impossible to you to believe, just like everything else I am covering here, so I won’t go deeply into them. But they included black helicopters, 10’ long rattlesnakes sealing off the safe house & even assassinations. I was even requested to get to town and back as quickly as possible and not to linger due to these threats. I was told that my frequency shield while blended to the natural frequency shield the keeper and crew all have reached ‘87.3 miles’ apart (or so, going by memory now. But it was a very specific number). But even though the overall power of our combined fields still increased within that distance, the closer I was to the group, the more powerful the shield. I’m just telling you what I was told. You can believe it or not. I certainly wouldn’t believe it had I not actually witnessed it myself, so I’m right there with you if that’s your position. That brings us to the story I intended to pass along to you here; regarding that flight from ‘homeless bondage’ out across the deserts that spanned well over 1000 miles I was brought in for. The keeper and crew had been held hostage and homeless for 2 ½ years by the time I got the call requesting me to sell everything I owned and fly half way around the world for their rescue. Their lives had been hell, trust me. I arrived late at night where they picked me up and the hard part of the journey began. I will skip the details of the truly insane things I witnessed starting then for another time after the separation, for obvious reasons having to do with breadcrumbs and the very real fluid war we’re inside of still. But I will tell you about the ‘angels’ that were with us for that escape I would only learn about myself after 2 days of running. In the video below you will see what appear to be asteroids or a meteor shower, but they are traveling horizontally, not downward at all. We’ve seen this now since late 2024 a few times. This time I saved one of the videos taken on 2/19/2025 in Germany so I could actually show people what I saw first hand on that second night of our escape. We had covered whole states by this time, but we couldn’t stop and rest until we made it to a ‘frequency zone’ that was somehow outside of the reaches of the keeper’s enemies. I’m under the impression that there are certain key cross-leyline areas on earth that are too high in frequency for the low-vibration invader races to penetrate with their hyper-advanced psychotronic & scalar weapons, and that had been our destination ever since our escape that began at about 3:30-4am in the dead of night when the least amount of eyes would be surveilling us. Boy do I have outrageous stories about just how absolute that surveillance really is too. It is like they are not just tracking us, but using time travel to put agents in areas we would be arriving to, posing like homeless people and everyday folks. While in real life they were monitoring my every word in secret. I was surveilled many times during the weeks in that city while arranging for the escape and it blew my mind every time. The asteroids that really look more like comets in the video is what the "guardian angels" that had been secretly escorting us from overhead looked like, WHEN they were uncloaked. They only showed up in my visible view at the moment we broke over a ridge at about 3:30 in the morning 2 days later after our run began, at the exact same moment I could see the city lights way off in the distance below that was the ‘safe zone’. Suddenly overhead three giant comets appeared immediately above my head. I was in the lead vehicle the whole way, because the keeper was following my taillights. This is the only way they can navigate at night, because they don’t see like you and I do, looking at solid shapes and images, but everything through their eyes are light waves. I couldn’t make up something like that if I spent 10 years trying to write this article, mostly because it is still not believable to me now, 8 years later. These 3 comets were massive, what looked to be around 50 feet across, with tails of flame coming off that must have been 150-200 feet behind streaking VERY low across the sky. As I came down the hill to the desert floor for the final 10 miles between us and the safe zone (small town lights), the ‘comets’ started coming straight down toward ground, one at a time. They appeared they were going to crash into the highway, now traveling vertically at hypersonic speed, then just stopped 50 ft away from impact and vanished. You would have to try to imagine being in the total dark desert with only very faint, far-away lights off in the distance, only to have 3 comets traveling RIGHT DIRECTLY overhead suddenly uncloak, then turn straight down to get an idea of how insanely frightening they appeared, since their trajectory was to strike directly in front of your vehicle on the highway, as if you were about to slam right into them as they hit like giant bombs that would certainly blow up on impact and basically vaporize you and your moving van, to appreciate how absurd this event was. I was only about 150 feet away from where they were set to strike, so there was no hitting the brakes and avoiding anything. They were right there. Which means it was sort of like watching 'god' just fill the night's sky with fire. I saw 3 of them myself, but I was informed there were an additional 9 ‘angels’ that my own frequency wouldn't allow me to see according to the keeper. It is because this story is so unbelievable that I avoid talking about it, as you can imagine. Since 99 people out of a hundred are only going to accuse you of being insane upon hearing it, some possibly trying to have you committed at the same time, and the other person is likely already crazy themselves, so they just glaze over it. Until you see something like that with your own eyes, I'm pretty sure you will *never believe it could be a real thing. But this is what we call angels look like when they are decloaked and traveling at night. I don’t personally know if they were inside vehicles, or they are just simply traveling in their own Merkabah fields. That part was never explained to me. I was told they were with us 'flying overhead the entire journey' since we escaped California and were basically ‘signing off’ as I gathered it, now that we had reached the safe zone. You can believe I'm crazy all you want to, but now you can see them with your own eyes in this video, sure as hell not acting like meteors, but acting more like flaming time crafts (‘space’ ships). Are you crazy too? - On X, to search for my articles, simply type in the name of the piece, enter one space, then from: plus my username in parenthesis such as shown here: CASTING THE APOCOLYPSE (from:iontecs_pemf) Off-site, you can look up any of my writings through this link below for my other more than 100 recent articles and many thousands of comments on X, regularly updated thanks to Justin This message will only be seen by your eyes if not shared, and if you want to reference this article again later, you will need to cut and paste it in your own notes off line, as it will surely be erased. This is the most accurate translation of these events I am aware of at this time.

W.R. Schock, QBD

61,963 просмотров • 1 год назад

The outgoing American ambassador to Zambia, Michael C. Gonzales, has accused President Hakainde Hichilema’s government of corruption and dishonesty, stating that Hichilema’s fight against corruption is bogus and is selectively used to arrest and persecute political opponents. He made these remarks while delivering his farewell speech. He said Zambia loses over US$4 billion annually through illicit or dirty financial flows, money leaving the country and not benefiting the Zambian people. Full speech below Remarks by Amb. Michael Gonzales Farewell Reception – April 30, 2026 Good evening. For decades, the U.S. relationship with Zambia was one centered around aid. The United States has provided billions of dollars of assistance to Zambia, helping the country reach HIV epidemic control, contributing to a 20-year increase in life expectancy, slashing malaria deaths, and truly impacting the lives of every Zambian alive today. When we paused funding to review our assistance programs last year, so much of Zambia’s health system began to crumble almost overnight. Despite over $7 billion in U.S. health assistance since 2000 and the hard work of many Zambians alongside us, that crumbling system revealed that while we thought we were building capacity, successive Zambian governments had not built systems. Too often, Zambian officials and leaders abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets. Last year I shed tears before the world when I announced a $50 million cut in US health assistance. After years of pleading, I could no longer stand by while the Zambian government refused to stop or take action to hold people accountable for the systematic and nationwide theft of U.S. provided medicines while the Zambian citizens for whom those were intended went without. One year later, not a single notable person has been arrested since last February. Not a single notable prosecution has even begun. After last year’s pause, we resumed almost all of our health assistance, over $400 million including over $75 million in medication. We continue to pay the salaries for over 23,000 healthcare workers, as we have for decades. Such is the legacy of America’s support to the Zambian people. Now, I know there have been alarmist allegations recently. But let me be clear, any suggestion that the United States would withhold critical life-saving healthcare support from those Zambians whose lives and health depend on it unless we get critical minerals is disgusting and patently false! In reality, since October, my government has offered over $2 billion in additional health and economic assistance to Zambia. But we can no longer accept empty promises. The future must look different. The Zambian government must also increase Zambian funding, staffing, and genuine ownership of its systems. This is not to impose our will, it is the only way we know for Zambia to truly own a sustainable healthcare system and to enable robust growth. It is the only way we know to ensure that system serves the people while finally breaking the cycle of foreign aid dependency. Since January, however, like with so many of our other overtures to the Zambian government, we have had effectively zero substantive engagement from Zambian officials to move these efforts forward. Our calls go ignored, questions unanswered, meetings cancelled, leaving us without even opportunities to speak, much less engage in substantive deliberations. Instead of continuing to languish without engagement, the actual funding under our Health MOU should have started this month. Instead, we have reached April 30 still cobbling together funds for mismatched projects without an implementation plan to guide us forward under Zambian leadership, much less a finalized MOU that guides our strategic approach. We know that the Zambian budget cannot even afford to pay for public services today, not to mention the increased healthcare funding or the myriad other huge budget commitments that seem to get pledged daily. So, something has to change if Zambia will ever meet its full potential or be able to sustainably provide services to its own people. At the same time, the Zambian government’s own reports reveal that every year Zambia loses over $4 billion in dirty money flows to East Asia. That is Zambian money that does not benefit the Zambian people or contribute to the budget. If taxed, that would bring an additional $1 billion for the government to fund healthcare, education, social services, and development. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars of government funds are lost to the Zambian people through corruption. Certainly, it is not just U.S. taxpayers’ support that is stolen. Every year, the country loses out on hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment and growth because they are hijacked by unmitigated petty corruption, blocked because law-abiding investors refuse to pay kickbacks to Zambian bureaucrats or leaders who are never held accountable. The narrative of the U.S.-Zambia relationship is adorned with flowery words of “partnership,” “collaboration,” “strategic,” or “mutual.” Regrettably, the reality of our unrequited relationship for decades has been starkly different. For years, the United States funded programs and sent technical advisors to help achieve Zambia’s development objectives. As we have for these past four months, we have often struggled to get successive governments to even bother answering the phone. It takes months to get a meeting that yields nothing. Officials draft policies they have no intention of implementing, invoking them only in speeches to sound like they are taking action. MOUs decay on the shelf among the others before the signing ceremony even ends, never to be implemented because the ministry will not even meet to discuss implementation. Why? Because generations of Zambian officials and leaders gain from the dysfunction. The non-responsiveness on our availed funding and efforts to truly build a Zambian-owned health system that serves the Zambian people is sadly the norm. The theatre of commissioning a report to get a scandal out of the news cycle but taking no substantive action on accountability is all too common. Of course, the systematic theft of public resources is not unique to American-provided medicines. Attacking the messenger who dares to name these dynamics out loud is not limited to targeting the U.S. ambassador and asking Washington for his removal. Today, 10% of my diplomats have family members who still have not received basic residency permits from the Zambian government. Several have received court summonses as a result. Like Zambians themselves experience, ZRA staff shake down my departing diplomats for fees that do not apply to them too. When elevated, their supervisors double down on the demand. Zambia’s institutionalised and refined corruption does not only dissuade transparent and law-abiding investors from the United States. The inaction, corruption, and intimidation of opponents also harms American citizens, it undermines American organisations, NGOs, companies, and philanthropies. Zambians and so many other global friends of Zambia are also hampered by these very same dynamics, often bearing far more of the brunt of their effects. America’s support to Zambia is long-standing. Our goodwill runs through the veins, the hearts, and the dreams of millions of Zambians. Our hands remain open, outstretched in a genuine, transparent offer of true, tangible, and meaningful collaboration for mutual benefit. But there must be change. Going forward, the benefits of our relationship must be mutual. Empty promises must be replaced with tangible action. Commitments must be honoured, laws must be implemented and enforced consistently and equally. The decades of paying for healthcare while national resources are pocketed must give way to ownership and systematic improvements that enable growth, development, and accountability. Since President Hichilema and I committed to reset the U.S.-Zambia relationship last July, America has redoubled our efforts to support robust Zambian agency. We have availed billions of dollars to support tangible investments and reforms to catalyse Zambia’s success. We have offered expert support to inform reforms that would systematically benefit both the Zambian people and their many friends from around the world, without bias or favour. Sadly, so many of our overtures and goodwill have been met with, to use the most persistent and notorious of the Zambian government’s responses, “Noted. With thanks.” But appointing a Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission who was actively under investigation by the ACC, and her admonishment to her intentionally under-resourced agency not to investigate senior government officials, only cripples hopes that clean business can be done. Last May, multiple senior government officials shared with me and have confirmed that the government has a 500-page expert report detailing the irreversible harm and risk of generations of birth defects, cancers, heart and liver disease caused by carcinogenic heavy metals unleashed into the Kafue River ecosystem by last year’s Sino Metals tailings dam disaster. But my heart broke when on July 29 last year, one of the country’s senior-most leaders vehemently denied that the government even had the report, much less would act on it until the polluter themselves provided it. I pleaded with her to take action to protect the Zambian people and I again offered U.S. assistance, which the Foreign Ministry had already formally declined. While so many American prospective investors leave, put off by bureaucratic drudgery, inaction, and corruption, the Zambian government recently approved Sino Metals to expand its operations. Did this happen in the face of Zambia’s myriad impediments, or because of them? Today, Sino Metals is scarring game management areas abutting the Kafue National Park. When that tailings dam breaks, I will not be alone shedding tears. Punctuating this, apart from the truly exceptional cases, too many American companies cannot get licences, approvals, or action on basic administrative matters without being shaken down to give brown envelopes of cash. The Zambian people suffer the consequences of these dual offences, exploitation and foregone opportunity. When Parliament ignores the Constitutional Court’s ruling that the process used to ram through a constitutional amendment was itself unconstitutional, investors rightly ask, “If they can do that to the constitution, what does that mean for the sanctity of my contract?” They rightly wonder if the next constitutional amendment which the Attorney General has already announced is really just a guise for resetting term limits. Even the Chinese government convicted AVIC’s Chairman to death for corruption. AVIC’s Chingola-Chililabombwe Road was washed out last month, its negligence disrupting Zambia’s trade with the region. AVIC’s fraud in a $320 million police housing tender in 2014 is well documented. Despite that, this government ignored the competitive bid by renowned Zambian investors only to award AVIC the $650 million Lusaka-Ndola Dual Carriageway project, subsidising this notoriously fraudulent and corrupt company with $300 million from the public pension scheme. How does this happen? Can law-abiding investors do clean business here? Will donors be asked to backfill the loss when the pension money too is wiped out? The rhetoric of “no sacred cows” is rubbish when there are not any cows except those who are deemed to be disloyal. When only opponents are arrested, but not those in office engaged in the very same practices, the hollow rhetoric of “rule of law” only further keeps investors away, preventing the creation of growth, jobs, and tax revenues to pay for public service commitments. Zambia does not need money. It needs leaders who govern for the people with integrity. It needs the political will to put Zambia first. But, of course, you do not need me to say this. Dambisa Moyo, herself a daughter of the soil, made these same arguments 17 years ago. What America is trying to do here is both bolster Zambia’s sovereignty and catalyse Zambia’s growth. We are offering a transparent and open hand to join the Zambian people for mutual progress. We know that while you pursue a Zambia First agenda and we pursue America First, we are still able together to achieve something notably better for both of our countries, and we can do so without it coming at anyone’s expense, anyone’s exclusion, fully transparently, and legally. Now, of course, the United States will absolutely continue to honour our long-standing commitment to the Zambian people to provide critical life-saving healthcare support. We will not leave Zambians without access to ARVs. We are redoubling our support to ensure that babies are not born HIV-positive. But, against the unmitigated systematic theft of U.S. assistance, against the refusal by the Zambian government to engage and to own or enable a sustainable healthcare system that serves the people, in an environment where only the most exceptional of American investors can do clean business, and where Zambian government officials often can scarcely be bothered to take meetings with American officials or companies, not to mention capture the billion dollars of its own money secreted out of the country to East Asia or hold accountable the company that unleashes generations of cancer and birth defects onto the people, without fundamental change, as the American Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia, how can I ask American taxpayers, Congress, or President Trump to continue the massive aid budgets that have been the hallmark of our relationship for decades? The United States remains intent to work with Zambia toward our mutual objectives, but how Washington responds to silence, inaction, aversion to accountability, and lack of ownership remains to be seen. That said, I am confident that it will depend on fundamental changes by the Zambian government to take action to do right by the Zambian people. It will depend on actions to foster and enable the Zambian people, and their partners who abide by the rule of law, to be able to tangibly contribute to a mutually beneficial future. Washington’s hand remains open and outreached for transparent, accountable collaboration enabling tangible action to benefit both of our countries. But we can no longer own the projects more than the Zambian government. We cannot justify continuing to prioritise funding where the Zambian government also does not deploy its own resources. No longer will we lead while Zambian officials sit back unresponsively. Quite simply, America can best support Zambia’s sovereignty, agency, and success if we finally abide by the maxim and refrain from wanting development more than the Zambian government does. That said, what happens between governments and embassies is important, but it is only a small fraction of the broader relationship between countries. The ties between Zambia and America are profound, strong, and everlasting. The connections between churches and civil society, the linkages between students, artists, and researchers, the bonds between communities, the union of our peoples, these are the essence of the U.S.-Zambia relationship, and these will never fade. Too often people hope for change. They note what others should do. But hope is not a strategy, and we cannot control the actions of others, only our own. So, as I prepare to leave this country that I love, I ask those of you whose country it is, is this the Zambia you want? Are you on course to achieve it? If not, what action will you take to contribute to making that become a reality? I first stepped foot in Zambia in 1995. My daughter took her first steps in Livingstone. As I prepare to depart, I take with me beautiful memories of Zambia and the Zambian people, but I depart with a heavy heart wondering if realisation of the Zambian dream will be deferred for yet another 64 years while even more Zambians fall into poverty instead of being able to rise into the brilliant future that is possible. But my role here is not about this little guy with a big heart for Africa. It is about America and Zambia. America will continue reaching out to the people of Zambia, offering our support, seeking as much to learn as to share, doing so openly and transparently, and eager to help enable the realisation of that Zambian dream and the creative future that benefits, and can only be discovered through, our sincere partnership. I thank you.

Hopewell Chin’ono

97,884 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The reasons behind Xiao Zhan's reputation in the industry and why his Studio is known as the "five-character top star" studio Last night, the Asian Art Film Festival held its awards ceremony at Wynn Palace Macau. Gezhi Town, starring Xiao Zhan, took home three awards. First, Xiao Zhan won the Golden Petrel Award for Best Actor. Director Kong Sheng won Asian Director of the Year, while Lan Xiaolong won Best Screenwriter. I've always believed that awards aren't something that needs to be deliberately fought over. As long as you focus on refining your work, improve your acting skills, choose scripts carefully, and stay away from bad productions, recognition will come naturally. Luck does exist. But luck doesn't come out of nowhere. There is also the inevitable payoff that comes from years of accumulated effort. Sooner or later. Have you ever heard the term "Five-Character Top Star"? At first, I thought it referred to some top star whose name happened to have five characters. I never expected it to actually be referring to "Xiao Zhan Studio." Why is "Xiao Zhan Studio" called a "Five-Character Top Star"? It turns out that several behind-the-scenes teams in the industry have publicly praised Xiao Zhan and his team. There are quite a few common problems in the entertainment industry. Many celebrity teams only care about staying in the spotlight and chasing traffic and popularity. Filming hasn't even started yet, and leaks from the set are already everywhere online. Schedule charts get posted everywhere, flooding social media. Behind-the-scenes footage gets leaked ahead of time. Some people even use spoilers to attract attention, stir up discussion, and generate hype. There are also artists who act like they're above everyone else. They nitpick every detail during coordination work and treat people with arrogance and disrespect. By contrast, Xiao Zhan Studio never casually releases schedule information. Whether it's a new production or a commercial collaboration, they don't reveal anything until the official announcement is made. You almost never see anything leaked ahead of time. As for set photos and other updates, people usually don't find out about them until the studio releases the information itself. Directors, producers, location managers, and business coordinators who have worked with them all have very similar things to say. They have very strong principles. Their professionalism is outstanding. Their level of cooperation is consistently high. Their confidentiality practices are considered an industry benchmark. A team that can maintain that level of confidentiality must have a very clear set of priorities. The work matters more than exposure. Quality matters more than traffic and popularity. What's even more remarkable is that despite being at the top for so many years, Xiao Zhan has never shown even the slightest hint of arrogance. Staff members who have worked with him have said that both Xiao Zhan and his manager are always polite and respectful to everyone. Arriving early for meetings, staying on top of coordination, and replying to messages promptly are simply standard practice for them. There is absolutely no big-star attitude. Many people might think this is a sign of high emotional intelligence. But I think it actually comes from good character and upbringing. As an old saying goes: "If Heaven is not humble, it cannot shelter all things. If Earth is not humble, it cannot support all things. If people are not humble, they cannot receive the world's blessings." What people find most moving about Xiao Zhan is his humility. Even after reaching the very top, he still chooses to remain humble. Some directors have revealed that he fills several pages with script notes for every scene. Whenever he comes across something he doesn't understand, he'll keep asking veteran actors for advice. Even after filming a scene dozens of times, he'll still ask, "Would it feel more natural this way?" He puts all his energy into acting. That's why his acting continues to improve. A top star can only reach this point because he has never lowered his standards for himself. Perhaps it's precisely this rare sense of reliability and groundedness that has led to an unwritten consensus within the industry: Once you've worked with Xiao Zhan, you'll want to collaborate with him again. In an entertainment industry where relationships are complicated and people come and go constantly, receiving nothing but positive feedback across the industry comes down to genuine character, a solid reputation, and a reliable way of doing things. The value of that recognition speaks for itself. The higher someone rises amid fame, fortune, glamour, and noise, the more it reveals whether they can stay true to themselves and hold on to their principles. That's when you see a person's true character and true values. Youtube: #XiaoZhan #肖战

Xiao Zhan World ♥️ Adoki

13,364 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

About a month ago, a clip of mine went viral⁽¹⁾ talking about the Current State of Twitch (3rd thumbnail in this tweet). It resonated w/ people outside my community, so lemme elaborate (as a 10yr+ Twitch Veteran). Current State of Twitch isn't great and haven't been for a while. I've been passionate about Twitch since inception (I joined in April 2011 in the JTV days, a few months before Twitch debuted in July 2011), and been trying to instill positive change but I'm only a cog in the machine compared to where influence can impact — likely via Amazon-appointed Executives to help "oversee things" at decade-old-acquisition-that-has-still-generated-zero-profit Twitch⁽²⁾. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Muddled Identity ------------------------------------------------ Describing Twitch 10 years ago was easy: "Youtube, except always live, for gamers". Now, it's more muddled & fluid, at best: "Always live broadcasters who aim to connect with their viewers and foster communities(?)" — that, in itself, isn't problematic; but how it's accomplished, what methods are most effective, and how certain directories accumulate higher viewership is, I think (I may elaborate further on that in a future tweet). The most common reactive bark I've heard following TwitchCon 2025 is "Ban Politics" or "Make it Gaming-Only Again!" — People forget, but Pokemon GO (June 2016) going worldwide-viral was the crack-in-the-dam that lead to IRL as a directory because of the impracticality of continuing Twitch's "games-only" era as the site was increasing in popularity, reach, and cultural significance. IRL was a band-aid solution for the core function of Directories⁽³⁾ (which was to let would-be-browsers make better-informed decisions on what to watch based on their interest). It's too broad and encompassing, which led to an unintended dopamine-producing⁽⁴⁾ psuedo-ChatRoulette where you "never know what you're gonna see" browsing there. Without a better tool to migrate users or aggregate topical content, this problem exacerbated continuously. Just Chatting was supposed to be the solution, as it came with 11-12 other directories⁽⁵⁾ to attemptedly split the IRL monolith, but failed to inspire Social Behavioral Change tremendously. Just Chatting is more popular than ever, discoverability — like in the broad, functional sense — is busted cuz every genre of content stuffed within it and fails to disincentivize streamers from opting-out of the most popular directory. So, how do you stand-out in the overcrowded field where a fuckton of the viewership goes for a Roulette Pull on something entertaining to watch? ... ------------------------------------------------ The Era of Clout-Farming Content (and the fact it works, ugh) ------------------------------------------------ Once IRL directory came in Sept 2016, so did the meta of skirting the ToS (Terms of Service) to maximize views or push the limits of what was tolerated on Twitch. Fundamentally, the social dynamic of receiving a suspension (everyone generally refers to them colloquially as "bans") earns notoriety and "free vacation/marketing", that when coinciding with a comeback event, open the possibility of a net-positive from the boost in viewership or metrics. This isn't as relevant now because the ToS Enforcement has gotten significant buffs to be more transparent and structural in the last half-decade. I can't speak on the nuance of this now, but "Full-Time IRL Streamers" and "Sweaty IRL Affiliates" were unbearable at TwitchCons until TC Policy cracked down on requiring consent by those they bumrush'd into (while live of course), so I assume they're probably equally as intrusive everywhere else ... then Kick came along in 2022 and dominated the headlines for mischief within this realm, for the most part; but that's a different topic altogether. The burden of an authentic collab can be too much friction, slow moving — and honestly, too much work for a streamer to do — compared to the efficacy of blowing up Streamer x Streamer Conflict via self-commentary-reacts for sensationalism and maximizing parasocial viewers' worst tendencies. Effectively, ragebaiting. I'm not advocating to abolish this as a policy. I'm pointing out how this is a very effective way to garner views within the social constructs — and it shouldn't be, nor always was. Something changed at some point. I don't wanna bore you with a timeline of the last decade of controversy on Twitch, so I'll fast-forward to when I definitively see evidence that Clout-Culture is failing upward: In March 2025, the unbanning of Adin Ross⁽⁶⁾ (on Twitch) I saw as a huge moral failure that reeks of desperation for his views/clout/relevance at the direct expense of the integrity of Twitch Culture. Not sure if that was a Clancy-specific decision or what, but it encompasses "neo-Twitch" or a disconnect if there ever was one. ------------------------------------------------ Twitch Culture is diluting at the expense of recouping revenue ------------------------------------------------ A decade ago, Twitch Plays Pokemon broke news across insular-livestreaming gossip and was celebrated as a pinnacle of internet fandom⁽⁷⁾ (Feb 2014). This event was a testament to the value of Twitch because it reinforced the undeniable power of CULTURE present in Twitch Chats. I don't think the event could've worked on a YouTube Livestream (remember YouTube Gaming, introduced in 2015?). There's a certain aura present in Twitch Chat that makes it feel captivating to interact and engage with compared to a YouTube Live Chat Box. One feels like a close relative of bot-spam'd yt comments and the other feels ... real. I think that value is the culture — what could keep Twitch afloat for a long time, even if YouTube were to hypothetically obsolete Twitch in every way for delivering live broadcasted video content. I've noticed that as the meta has shifted towards revenue-maxxx'ing with the proliferation of Spectacle Events, typically marathons, that are engineered to paywall as many things as possible, at the expense of the content. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the culture has shifted. I also do think most of the marathon content isn't good; they're carried by being experiences with strong FOMO-factors to compel your participation by viewing. I do suspect there's a saturation point where the combination of the waning niches of livestreaming, 4th-wall-breaking, and manufactured spectacles can keep an audience seduced. Like, the content (in aspects) has less substance and I wonder what that means for the welfare of Twitch Culture and its content in another 5 years. Perhaps Twitch could foresee this and become proactive on the manner?... ------------------------------------------------ Twitch's Conduct & Repetitive Incompetence ------------------------------------------------ Twitch has prioritized generating revenue over addressing the needs of the already-active users for years. Emmett Shear (previous CEO; 2011-2023) probably was a huge reason for sluggish changes overall to the platform as from what I hear but I can't say for certain. Regardless, we got Dan Clancy as CEO and, while there has been lots of positive changes under his reign, it really does feel like "too little, too late" with the pressure looming from Amazon's 2015 acquisition; increased competition and marketshare decline; and declining revenues, active users & monthly streamers"⁽⁸⁾. Here's a brief timeline of features implemented that I feel helped build the culture. Before COVID, I believe the biggest obstacle was helping migrate streamers from being part-time to capable full-time content creators. So, at the time, revenue-generating products were revolutionary to help there, including me at that time: ✅ 2016 — Bits/Cheers & Prime Subs (!!!) ✅ 2017 — Gift Subs (to a specific user) ✅ 2018 — Gift Subs (to randos in Community); Super Subs & Ultra Subs ✅ 2018 — Twitch Mobile App v2 (original mobile app was a constantly broken mess) ✅ 2018 — Twitch Prime no longer adblocks (I will agree how they did it was stupid, but ultimately, it was a necessary; I can defend this in the replies if needed) Comparatively, here's the hostile changes that came at the expense of the Twitch Populous supporting said-change: ❌ 2017 — Communities⁽⁹⁾ (DOA cuz it wasn't streamlined enough and vulnerable to Popularity Bias; I can elaborate in replies if needed) ❌ 2018 — Tags for Channels (DOA cuz anyone can use any tag, diluting the effort of broad categorization or filtering in any capacity) ❌ 2022 — Twitch kills Hosting⁽¹⁰⁾ (also new "craptacular" Offline Page w/ Suggested Channels idea instead) ❌ 2024 — Twitch Mobile App v3⁽¹¹⁾ (Tiktok clone dogshit) ❌ 2024 — Stories (who asked for this?) ❌ 2025 — 100hr Video Storage Limit (going back against Collections & cementing Twitch isn't an evergreen platform; also SHORT NOTICE) ❌2025 — Live Rewind ... paywall'd to Twitch Turbo & Channel Subscribers only (this is free sitewide on yt's livestreams)⁽¹²⁾ ❌ 2025 — Ability to gift 1000 subs at once (already shelved from backlash) Post-COVID, I see a pattern of prioritizing revenue-generating products at the expense of what creators need or ask for. I understand Twitch needs to appease Amazon eventually with profit, but with a half-decade passed, all the buffs I can recall are 2K Resolution Streaming*, Portrait & Dual-Canvas Streaming*, and Stream Together / Shared Chat. *Both of these sortta don't count cuz they're invite-only betas that aren't site-wide and don't apply to non-Partners 🤷‍♂️ While more features arrive that ask for more of your money to partake in the Twitch Experience, I feel like the users (both Streamers & Viewers) continue to be neglected. 10 years ago, I thought YouTube Gaming was DOA; now I anticipate when more people bail on Twitch because the functionality will decay without a compelling reason to stay if the culture dminishes. I'll conclude with the 4th thumbnail included in this tweet — a supercut of a portion from the TwitchCon 2025 Keynote from Dan Clancy, with the youtube dislikes superimposed-over for your enjoyment. Let me know what you think of what I shared today! 🎉🥳 I'm considering also breaking down the specific causes (not symptoms) of why Twitch is where it is, and my 999 IQ Pragmatic Solutions that are tenfold better than what I've seen suggested after this morale fallout following TwitchCon 2025 👀

trihex

17,788 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] 증시각도기TV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. We’re joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, it’s no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. I’ve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry don’t know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, I’m well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, it’s unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesn’t make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You can’t discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isn’t about a single member leaving; it’s more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesn’t mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if there’s a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. It’s become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There aren’t many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instance—they’ve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, it’s rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if they’re to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didn’t feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they weren’t from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTS’s fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who don’t feel they belong to the mainstream—whether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though there’s talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. It’s unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bang’s various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someone’s feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoon’s global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manage—they're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesn’t just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when they’re dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. It’s about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple houses—they might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The manager’s job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way that’s meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, it’s challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. It’s hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Korea’s entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of today’s youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, there’s not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what they’ve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, it’s clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that “everyone is crazy about money,” and I think that’s why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. That’s why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasn’t for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. That’s the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. That’s what talent is—turning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean culture—it’s not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industry’s core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it won’t just be about losing one person—it could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyone’s individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, we’re just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, let’s pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:

1tokki

104,638 просмотров • 1 год назад

I have a story about addiction from a different perspective. A story where recovery was not possible. I have one sibling. An older brother. Everyone loved him. It was easy to love him. He died 10 years ago. It was a horrible death that took him 20 years to accomplish, dragging everyone who loved him along the way. He was an amazing musician. He didn't read music. No lessons. Hand him any instrument, and he can play it. He had a big heart. He was easily the funniest person I've ever known. And he is the only other human being who speaks fluent movie-script-quotes with precision and skill. But alcohol took over in his mid-20s. Bam Margera is just 2 years younger than my brother. He reminds me of my brother *so* much. Everything Bam and his family went through with his addiction is what my brother and family went through. My brother left high school because he was a gifted songwriter and musician. Bam left because he was a gifted skater. My brother was really into editing and producing films, and so is Bam. When Ryan Dunn died, and Bam went off the deep end, I was watching my brother do the same thing every time a strong emotion hit him, and he simply didn't know what to do with it. My brother was so beautiful on the outside, yet unrecognizable at the end. I can not tell you how many times my brother would go missing. Hundreds of times. He would sometimes go missing for up to a week. Then we'd get a call from the police or a hospital. Usually, the hospital would be first because he'd be near death. Then they would keep him on a 5150 at a mental health facility. Then he would come home. One time, he chased me with a knife in his hand, screaming he was going to kill me as I was running out of my parents' home on a cordless phone dialing 911. I found a fifth of vodka in his room and poured it down the drain. He went looking for it 20 minutes later, and it was empty...and I told him I poured it out. When I was 24 years old, I landed my first job that came with an office. My name was outside of it. I was stoked. I worked my ass off to get there. But there was no happiness at that time in my life. I remember my father calling me at work, sitting in that office, to say he was coming to pick me up because he knew where my brother, who had been missing for 4 days, was. The credit card he stole from my mother showed he was at a little oceanfront motel 10 minutes away. And I remember thinking to myself on the way over there...I have to open the motel room door. I can't let my dad see him hanging. It will destroy his life. I told my dad to wait about 10 feet to my left, and I opened the door, and there was my brother fashioning a sheet into a noose. Another time he went missing, and they found him on the roof of a building with the inside of his arms slashed from elbow to wrist, just lying in a pool of blood. Dark shit. Both of the insides of his arms were mutilated from being sliced open so many times. At least 30, if not more. He stopped wearing short-sleeved shirts in public about 10 years before he died. He got to the point of seizures when he withdrew and had alcohol-related dementia for the last 3 years of his life, which would come and go. Then one day, after 2 decades, he called my parents and said something was wrong. My parents went over to his place, ended up calling 911, the ambulance got there, and he started walking outside with assistance from paramedics and collapsed. In front of my parents. He was rushed to the hospital. I had not seen my brother for the last 9 years of his life. He disowned me. Because he felt he had to. He killed my dog when he got drunk 9 years before he died. No one knows if he meant to or not, he was so wasted. He couldn't face me after that. So he disowned me. And a piece of my heart died the day he did it. I talked to my parents right before they left to see what was wrong that day. The last thing I said to my dad was, "Do not let him die without me having an opportunity to say goodbye." My dad called me from the er 2 hours later and said, "You should come over now. He won't know you're here." When I got there, I was shocked at what I saw. He wasn't the right color. He was in a coma. Severe internal bleeding. On life support. It was jarring even after seeing him in a much similar state hundreds of times for such a long time. He was taken to the ICU 3 hours later, where they would transfuse blood by the bag damn near constantly, and it just shot out of his nose. It was bloody. A lot of blood. After about 6 hours, I told my parents to go home and get some rest. I would stay with him. And I talked to him like he was right there. Like one of the hundreds of pillow-fort slumber parties we had as kids. Like no time had passed, and his addiction never existed. I showed him pictures of my life over the past decade on my phone...just like he was there. But he wasn't there. And after 3 hours and extensive talks with several doctors and specialists, I had to make the decision to remove his life support. After my parents returned and said goodbye, I told them to wait out in the hall until he passed because I could not allow them to have the memory of him dying, and I returned to my brother's side, and said what I needed to say, bawling my heart out. I told them to turn off the machines, and I held him in my arms as he died. It took just over 7 minutes. And I just held him. I had Nine Inch Nails playing for him. One of his favorites thanks to Pretty Hate Machine. He was a fan for life after that. He was my best friend. But he was also someone I had to protect myself from if he was intoxicated. This is the end that usually becomes a reality for addicts and their families. Then there's someone like Bam Margera. He went to the same place my brother went to in his head. And he came back. Bam is one of the greatest comebacks ever and a story of recovery worth knowing. I see YouTube shorts of Bam skating again every day, and I'm so moved that I just sit here and cry. You can see his personality is back. You have no idea how rare that is. Their personality shows very little while they're in their addiction. Recovery stories are incredibly personal to so many people, including those who have gone through addiction with an addict because they love them so much...they'd see anything they had to see and endure anything they have to endure just to be there with them at their lowest point. Addicts are not monsters. The stuff they use to numb the pain they do not understand is the real monster. And when you put enough of that into a human being, they do things they would *never* do without it. People are not pure. We are more complex than that. We are good and bad. Light and dark. Right and wrong. Chaotic and serene. You will find that the answer to every question you have about life is usually "both" for a reason. Because one can not exist without the other. With recovery stories like Hunter Biden's and Bam Margera's out in the ether, more people will be less ignorant as to how this disease plays out, and that will do nothing but good for so many families struggling with this issue. Addiction isn't just for the addict. Addiction is for everyone who loves them, as well. It's just a different perspective of hell. So listen to recovery stories with renewed respect because most addicts end up the way it ended for the only sibling I'll ever have.

Nicole Minét

407,538 просмотров • 21 дней назад

#IronyWritLargeAndLies Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa's former adviser Trevor Ncube, a local media publisher who owns Alpha Media Holdings (AMH) with the President's son-in-law Gerald Mlotshwa, has raised new controversy with fresh attacks on main opposition CCC leader Nelson Chamisa whom he says does not listen to anybody. Ncube has been consistently lambasting Chamisa calling him all sorts of names, going as far as insinuating he is a tribalist and dictator, but the CCC leader typically does not reply. Ncube owns AMH, publishers of NewsDay, Zimbabwe Independent, The Standard and online broadcasting platform Heart & Soul. NewsDay and Heart & Soul are names of Ncube's media platforms derived from BBC programmes. Although he postures as a neutral political observer who only wants to fix Zimbabwe's problems, Ncube - who behaves as if he has a God-ordained mission to do that - is actually a partisan political player operating in the dark shadows and an opportunist who hops from one party to another. He has been all over the place politically - from Zapu to MDC, then Mavambo/Kusile/Dawn, Alliance for People's Agenda (APA) and most recently Zanu PF by association. He is also a longtime Mnangagwa ally. Ncube's politics is not based on discernible ideological and policy ideation, values and principles, but opportunism and self-interest. He is also not principled. For instance, Ncube just went AWOL (Absent Without Official Leave) in 2017 when he was APA chair only to emerge as Mnangagwa’s adviser after the November 2017 coup without even officially resigning from his party. Ncube joined Mnangagwa’s coup project and became its media mouthpiece in a bid to revive his faltering publishing business interests after losing control of the Mail & Guardin in South Africa. He wanted radio and television licences to expand his media interests, while repaying a US$2 million debt to the Media Development Investment Fund, an American fund which provides debt and equity finance for independent media in countries where access to reliable news and information is under threat. APA had been formed in June 2017, with prominent business executive and academic Nkosana Moyo as the leader. Ncube's jumping ship and joining the coup gravy train led to Moyo to reflect and tellingly say that he had sadly come to realise that some Zimbabweans are not fighting to change the system, but to be part of it. Ncube went on to become a vocal and enthusiastic member of Mnangagwa’s Presidential Advisory Council (PAC) in his ill-fated political adventure. Ironically, Ncube keeps on complaining about Chamisa not taking his advice when he was Mnangagwa’s adviser. Ncube says Chamisa does not listen and repeatedly keeps on referring to a photo he took with him seven years ago as evidence of their meetings to discuss local political issues, justifying his conclusion and attacks on the CCC leader on the basis of one interaction seven years ago. However, The NewsHawks has checked the facts and found out that Ncube is conveniently manipulating one meeting he had with Chamisa in 2016 to make it appear as if they have been meeting when Chamisa was already a party political leader in the context of what is currently happening in Zimbabwe. A Chamisa adviser told The NewsHawks: "We have seen the video and remarks by Mr Trevor Ncube in which he attacks our leader Nelson Chamisa and says all sorts of things about him. We have no problem with Ncube or anyone for that matter legitimately criticising Chamisa as a leader, a hugely popular one at that. Ncube has a constitutional and legitimate right to criticise him and other political leaders. That's what should happen in a democracy. "However, Ncube must stop crudely misrepresenting and manipulating one meeting he had with Chamisa seven years ago for cheap political capital, publicity and relevance. In fact, he must stop lying about it. We have kept quiet throughout his lies and drama for far too long. I think we now need to set the record straight in the public interest and stop this charade. "The facts are very clear on this issue. Ncube invited Chamisa to his office in Graniteside, Harare, where AMH operates from on 5 August 2016 to discuss local political issues, including the formation of APA. Ncube wanted Chamisa to be part of that process led by Nkosana Moyo. At that meeting Ncube told Chamisa that he had held many consultative meetings in Zimbabwe and South Africa on the APA project, which he claimed was supported by telecoms mogul Strive Masiyiwa and many other prominent business people, some of whom ended up with him as Mnangagwa's advisers. "At the time, Chamisa had just been appointed one of the three vice-presidents of the MDC-T by the late Morgan Tsvangirai the month before, that is in July 2016. So he was not the leader of the MDC-T at that time and didn't even know one day he will lead the party. In that meeting, Chamisa told Ncube upfront that while he appreciated the invitation to join APA he was not able to do so because he wanted to help Tsvangirai rejuvenate the MDC-T post the 2013 elections and prepare for the 2018 elections. So Chamisa politely declined Ncube's offer to join APA. The idea was to use Chamisa's growing social base to back Moyo as APA leader in his presidential election bid in 2018. "The meeting, which ran for close to two hours from around 9am to just before 11am (that photo was taken at that time), ended on a somewhat sour note with fake smiles because Chamisa had rejected the APA invitation, saying he is a loyal MDC-T member and one of the leaders. Interestingly, it ended with a prayer. "Ncube gave Chamisa a book by Harvard Business School professor Bill George with Peter Sims titled True North, which is about leadership. Since then, Ncube has not spoken to Chamisa, not even once, except on 14 July 2021 when he sent a condolence message to him after a family bereavement. So Ncube is lying that he has engaged Chamisa on political issues and he doesn't listen. There is no such thing; it's just a needless malicious campaign and posturing. Chamisa talks to many people and takes ideas and proposals from them. He implements what is strategic and practical for the CCC given political conditions and circumstances. The claim that Chamisa doesn't listen, does not have structures, works alone and is a dictator is nonsense. He is a democratic leader who believes change can only be secured through democratic elections. Some may not like his style, but that is normal in politics. There is a difference between style, strategy and substance. In any case, why should Chamisa listen to advice coming from his rival's advisers? Ncube is a known Mnangagwa ally and now he works with his son-in-law at his media business. So why on earth would Chamisa listen to advice from that sort of a dishonest person who even lies about a meeting held seven years ago in a totally different setting, time and space? That's ridiculous. Let's must learn to discuss ideas, not people and events; this noisy mediocrity which pervades our polity masquerading as insightful leading lights of our politics is now part of the problem rather than the solution. He has his own system and team that he works with. It's ridiculous to suggest that Chamisa won 44% of the vote going by official results, which we reject as a fraud, and all those seats in parliament alone. How is that possible really? Is he superhuman? He works with others, but it is also true that other people are not happy. That's what happens in politics. He is also fully aware of critical issues that he needs to address urgently, that is the limitations and weaknesses from a political, structural, organisational and strategic point of view. Chamisa welcomes ideas and criticism from well-meaning people, not some malicious malcontents and bullies. He is a bona fide opposition leader who genuinely wants a solution to the country's problems and he is open to working with other people who seriously want to resolve national issues, not noise-makers and impostors. It's time we challenge these false and negative narratives by people who are more opposed to the opposition than the ruling party. Chamisa is an opposition leader trying to help a find a solution to our country's problems, he is not the leader of the country and the problem. He is the alternative to a failed leadership and its policies that have ruined the country with devastation consequences for all, especially the poor and vulnerable. He may have his own weaknesses like all of us, but he is the best alternative at the moment. Anything else is just mere wishful thinking and drama."

TheNewsHawks

153,304 просмотров • 2 лет назад

dave meltzer: youtube enthusiast 💀 perfect. now we can stop pretending this was ever complicated. the real story is not that wwe is afraid of aew. the real story is not that “high level wwe officials” are whispering scary things to dave meltzer. the real story is not even that tony khan got asked a planted question on a media call with very little distribution about the possibility of aew soon having very little distribution, although that sentence is so stupidly perfect it should be bronzed and placed outside the wrestling observer newsletter office like a war memorial for people who died pretending this was journalism. the real story is that aew is going to lose its wbd distribution deal. either it ends at the expiration of the three-year term in 2027, or it ends earlier if paramount closes wbd and decides aew has no strategic place inside the new company. and based on the board as it exists right now, the most likely landing spot for aew in 2027 is google / youtube. that is the story. everything else is laundering. tony khan wants the story to be: “why would wwe say this about us?” that is the whole operation. take my public analysis. run it through dave meltzer. assign it to wwe / tko. then let tony khan answer a canned question on a media call with very little distribution about potentially having very little distribution. a media call for a lightly viewed roh show. a planted story. a planted messenger. a rehearsed answer. a pr flack probably wrote it. tony khan performs hurt. tony khan says “i don’t know why wwe would…” tony khan denies the obvious. tony khan keeps me minimized. tony khan removes me from the public conversation about the exact thing i have repeatedly said is going to happen to aew. everyone is supposed to pretend this is organic. it is not. it is the most bubble wrapped, manufactured, artificial environment possible. aew is heading toward youtube because the domestic media rights board is closing around them. not as a troll. not as a bit. not as “pr spin.” as a business conclusion. aew is not leverage. wwe is not afraid of aew. the $185 million number was bullshit. the buyer universe was shrinking. paramount / skydance was coming for wbd. wbd was not going to be some permanent aew safe house. youtube was only ever a real “option” if someone at google was actually cutting a media rights check and underwriting production. not because every divorced mom with a ring light and a gmail account can upload video to the same platform. that was always the distinction. that is still the distinction. Nick LoPiccolo — February 28, 2025 “YouTube is an option the same way you or I could start a YT channel tomorrow. Is Jon Cruz cutting AEW a media rights check or underwriting a production budget? Hell no. Just the reality. It isn’t the model. Jon is global head of sports over there.” that was february, not last week. not after dave meltzer suddenly discovered youtube prelim numbers like columbus finding the new world. it is becoming inevitable now. Nick LoPiccolo — April 30, 2026 — 11:26 AM — 251.2K Views “to every journalist and every podcast who interviews tony khan from this day forward: please ask tony if wbd told him back in august they would not be renewing aew. wbd told him in august. i confirmed it directly and triple sourced it. please ask why tony has been acting like nothing is wrong for the last 8 months, and then please ask tony what his actual distribution plan is. because the only distributor left that will take aew is google/youtube. the myaew app is not realistic. the my aewapp is a death sentence in 2026 if youtube doesn’t make an mg deal for aew. they started building it too late and there is no realistic way to scale it. also, who is going to sell ads for the platform? kiswe is not the best. they built the myaew app. they are new to the game. hold tony’s feet to the fire. Paramount is not real for aew. WBD passed back in August. CW/Roku is now off the table. Amazon and Fox do not want AEW. ask Tony why he's been lying to you and to the locker room and to the fans, acting like things are all great with the network? i am sure a lot of people would love to hear his answer.” april 30. 251.2k views. not whispered. not hidden. not vague. not “high level wwe officials.” i said it publicly and directly: wbd passed back in august. paramount is not real for aew. cw / roku is off the table. amazon and fox do not want aew. the myaew app is not realistic. google / youtube is the only distributor left on the board that makes sense. that is the actual story tony khan does not want to answer. not “why would wwe say this?” ask tony khan if wbd told him in august that wbd would not be renewing aew. ask what his actual distribution plan is. ask who is selling ads for the myaew app. ask how a platform built this late scales in 2026. ask whether youtube is an actual rights partner with an mg, or just the place you go when the real buyers are gone. that is the question. not the fake question dave meltzer laundered into “high level wwe officials.” the real question. Nick LoPiccolo — July 9, 2025 — 10:51 AM — 9,565 Views “No one in Hollywood believes the $185 million number.” Nick LoPiccolo — July 9, 2025 — 11:35 AM — 7,470 Views “The $185 million figure is inflated. Variety’s October 2, 2024 article was likely updated after a publicist called on AEW’s behalf, as early reports placed the deal between $140 and $150 million per year. Tony Khan was also included in Variety’s Dealmakers 2024 list, which, while not officially pay to play, strongly favors those spending significant advertising dollars with the outlet. No one in Hollywood seriously believes WBD, which is in junk bond status, is paying AEW $185 million per year. Clear enough?” clear enough? the number was never clean. the number was never real in the way aew fans and wrestling media pretended it was real. and when the $185 million number started getting laughed out of adult rooms, the number magically became $178 million. that is where the shell game gets funny. because $178 million was not some sacred sourced number either. it was brandon thurston taking the median between $170 million, reported by sports business journal, and $185 million, reported by variety and others. that is literally what wrestlenomics said. Wrestlenomics — October 4, 2024 “Why use $178 million here for AEW’s new deal when some outlets are reporting the average annual value is $185 million?” Wrestlenomics — October 4, 2024 “I used $178 million here because it is simply the median of $170 million, as reported by Sports Business Journal, and $185 million, reported by Variety and others.” there it is. arithmetic. not an all-cash rights fee. not a clean license number. not proof wbd valued aew like raw. not a finance-department document from warner bros. discovery. a midpoint between conflicting public reports. then wrestling media treated that midpoint like scripture because they needed the story to be “aew is valued like raw,” not “aew pr inflated a number no serious person in hollywood believed.” and by the way, $170 million was not the clean all-cash number either. that is the scam. float the number. repeat the number. launder the number. defend the number with people who do not understand the difference between cash rights fees, in-kind services, equity, marketing commitments, platform value, make-goods, ad inventory, and press release math. then when the number collapses, pretend the next number was always the number. that is not reporting. that is aew state news. Nick LoPiccolo — July 10, 2025 — 5:53 AM — 12.6K Views “AEW isn’t leverage. It’s not competition. It’s a niche product with loud fans and limited reach.” Nick LoPiccolo — July 10, 2025 — 8:56 AM — 1,018 Views “We handle wrestling deals too, but thinking we need AEW for leverage is myopic. The landscape is changing and the game I’m playing is different.” Nick LoPiccolo — July 15, 2025 — 25.7K Views “AEW isn’t leverage.” that was never emotional. that was never tribal. that was never “i hate aew.” it was market structure. wwe did not need aew as leverage because real leverage was never “another wrestling show exists.” real leverage is architecture, scale, subscriber churn, platform strategy, sports adjacency, global rights, advertising, sponsorship, live inventory, library value, data, brand safety, executive relationships, and the actual buyer universe of maybe 18-20 companies in the united states that matter for live sports rights. aew fans thought this was a wrestling argument. it was never a wrestling argument. it was a board. and the board was already moving. Nick LoPiccolo — August 11, 2025 — 482 Views “I wasn’t viewing the above in that context (TKO vs AEW counter programming), it was more of this is what I’m hearing after 2 weeks of big media deals rolling out (Skydance closing, South Park library moving) etc. Which have all been in the works for awhile.” Nick LoPiccolo — August 11, 2025 — 388 Views “But if you were to look at it from a counter programming perspective (and I don’t think this was a factor in UFC deal) - there are only so many players for these big media rights deals. PARA is likely off the board (via TKO deal) & then what if they acquire WB in 2026/27?” Nick LoPiccolo — August 11, 2025 — 535 Views “Yes, of course, that wouldn’t mean the end for AEW. It would make navigating their media rights deal more challenging, I would guess. But this is a hypothetical scenario & I do not believe anyone is paying $7.7b for UFC or a $40b valuation for WB w/ how do we fuck AEW, either.” Nick LoPiccolo — August 11, 2025 “And hearing all weekend Paramount is still interested in WBD.” Nick LoPiccolo — August 11, 2025 — 1.3K Views “I think more interesting for what it could mean as the dominoes keep falling in terms of the still evolving landscape. The deals are massive & the number of major players at the top are shrinking as still big push for consolidation & scale.” Nick LoPiccolo — August 11, 2025 — 12:11 PM — 2,588 Views “And I’d view AAA on Google/YouTube as directly competitive. It targets both the CMLL collab & the audience that used to watch AEW Dark on YouTube, & WWE is able to send well known stars to AAA events with an eye towards converting more of the younger, YouTube demo of viewers who don’t watch streamers.” again: august 11. not yesterday. not after dave meltzer tweeted a netflix prelim number. not after anyone had to retrofit the argument. the point was already there: the major players at the top were shrinking, paramount was still interested in wbd, paramount was likely off the board for aew because of the tko deal, google / youtube was becoming directly competitive for the exact audience aew used to reach through dark, and the buyer universe was consolidating around deals much bigger than tony khan’s feelings. this was not mysticism. this was not inside baseball for the sake of sounding smart. this was the board. Nick LoPiccolo — August 24, 2025 “This isn’t fair. I misread your question. AEW will exist but likely on the Discovery Global app (if it ever launches, I would bet that it doesn’t) and it will continue to do consistent ratings. If Paramount/Skydance buys WBD in a year…” Nick LoPiccolo — September 4, 2025 — 76 Views “No, that’s the WBD network division (cable, news, sports) that was already announced as being spun off under Discovery Global. The article you’re citing is about them selling a minority equity stake in that unit to cut debt and boost valuation ahead of the 2026 split.” Nick LoPiccolo — September 16, 2025 — 3.6K Views “This is not just about Hollywood scale. It is the foundation of a conservative aligned media infrastructure. A Paramount/WBD merger would fold CBS, CNN, HBO, and Warner Bros IP into Ellison’s orbit under Trump’s regulatory umbrella.” Nick LoPiccolo — September 16, 2025 — 11K Views “Within 48 hours of the rumor, WBD stock surged ~55% and Paramount Skydance rose ~24%. That market response itself boxed David Zaslav in; his board, Wall Street, and his own contract now expect movement.” Nick LoPiccolo — September 27, 2025 — 12:16 PM — 3,516 Views “Nah homie. Enjoy watching the show on YouTube after Ellison buys WBD and Ari who is advising Ellison and used to represent Trump and runs TKO makes the call.” Nick LoPiccolo — September 28, 2025 — 174 Views “I believe if and when Paramount acquires WBD, TKO will push to lock down a monopoly on combat sports. The long knives are already out for competitors, and the rights deals have likely been spread around town precisely to keep rivals from signing with those streamers.” none of that was random. paramount / skydance, ellison, ari, tko, wbd linear assets, youtube, aaa, the tko deal, the wbd split, the shrinking rights buyer universe — all of it was one connected domestic rights architecture. that is why this conversation was always over the heads of the people screaming “cope” in my replies. they were arguing like fans. i was reading the cap table. Nick LoPiccolo — December 6, 2025 — 3:07 PM — 41.4K Views “Yes, I always believed Paramount would walk away with WBD. I was one of the first to talk about it on here, even if I wasn’t the first to hear it. The Paramount Skydance acquisition closed on August 7. I posted this on August 11, about 1 month before the The Wall Street Journal first broke the news on September 12 that Paramount Skydance was preparing a bid for WBD.” Nick LoPiccolo — December 6, 2025 — 3:07 PM — 41.4K Views “The bid was always going to be hostile. We are only in this process because it was a hostile bid. Most people in Hollywood believed Ellison long coveted WB and Jack Warner’s chair. WB was not for sale when Skydance acquired Paramount, which is much smaller in scale.” Nick LoPiccolo — December 6, 2025 — 3:07 PM — 41.4K Views “Nearly everyone in town assumed an Ellison acquisition of WBD was inevitable until the Netflix bid shocked everyone. Signs were there for the last two weeks, which is also when I stopped posting about what might happen. Of course, its not over yet. Paramount still has paths to winning this acquisition. The one thing that’s for certain though is an Ellison-led acquisition of WBD is no longer inevitable.” Nick LoPiccolo — December 8, 2025 “END CREDITS” space jam is a warner bros. movie. that was the joke. and the joke was the same thing i had been saying the whole time: paramount was winning the bid, for those who did not understand. Nick LoPiccolo — December 19, 2025 — 4:30 PM — 828 Views “Here is another reference to it. So tell me how exactly is Paramount the better outcome for Dave’s argument? Netflix doesn’t touch the WBD linear assets. Gunnar keeps his SpinCo.” Puck excerpt — December 19, 2025 “Many industry insiders are also skeptical about Paramount’s seven-year, $7.7 billion deal for exclusive UFC rights in the U.S. Yes, it can be read as a signal that Ellison came to play. But some people see it more as Ari Emanuel having his way with the person to whom he is ostensibly an (unpaid) advisor…” that is the board. that is the relationship map. that is the thing wrestling media either does not understand or pretends not to understand, because understanding it means admitting the story is not “aew has leverage.” the story is that aew is sitting in the middle of a consolidating rights marketplace where the people with leverage are doing much bigger things than worrying about tony khan’s feelings. Nick LoPiccolo — January 21, 2026 — 4:22 PM — 870 Views “i mean get ready to learn youtube buddy” Nick LoPiccolo — February 19, 2026 — 2.8K Views “Paramount was always my bet to acquire Warner Bros. Never wavered.” Nick LoPiccolo — February 28, 2026 — 1:27 PM — 118 Views “you don’t need to look under a hood I AM SAYING THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 I BEEN SAYING IT SINCE JULY / AUGUST 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 PARAMOUNT IS COMING FOR WBD AEW WILL LOSE A TV DEAL 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨 GUESS WHO WAS RIGHT 💀” so no, this is not hindsight. this is not showing up after the fact with a flashlight and pretending i discovered the body. this is a paper trail. february: youtube is not a real rights model unless google is cutting the check. april: wbd passed back in august, the myaew app is not realistic, paramount is not real for aew, cw / roku is off the table, amazon and fox do not want aew, and google / youtube is the only distributor left that makes sense. july: the $185 million number is inflated and aew is not leverage. august: the buyer board is shrinking, paramount is still interested in wbd, and google / youtube becomes directly competitive. september: paramount / wbd folds the board into ellison’s orbit, and if ellison buys wbd, enjoy youtube. december: paramount was always the bet, the bid was always going to be hostile, and netflix does not solve dave meltzer’s argument because netflix does not touch the linear assets. january: get ready to learn youtube. february: paramount is coming for wbd and aew will lose a tv deal. same board. same thesis. same answer. now here is the part tony khan and dave meltzer do not want to say out loud. tony khan and dave meltzer do not mention me publicly for a reason. because the second they say my name out loud, they admit where this conversation has actually been coming from. not wwe. not some anonymous “high level official.” not some shadowy tko whisper campaign. me. that is the problem for them. behind the scenes, ask any real insider what happens when my name comes up around this subject. there is a reaction. not because i’m magic. not because i’m some internet boogeyman. because they know exactly who is saying it, why i’m saying it, what rooms i have been in, what companies i have dealt with, what executives i have spoken to, and why the analysis keeps landing. that is why they keep trying to non-person me publicly while reacting to me privately. they want the argument. they want the benefit of responding to the argument. they just do not want to admit whose argument it is. when i said wbd told aew back in august 2025 they were not exercising the option for the fourth year, tony khan blew up behind the scenes and forced john mcmullen to revise / update his article 2-3 weeks ago after i tweeted it. which is hilarious because that should not even be crazy or damaging “news.” that is how this business works. when a distributor is not continuing, they tell you early enough so you have time to find a new home. that is not sabotage. that is not wwe. that is not nick lopiccolo hiding inside david zaslav’s air vents with a clipboard. that is corporate courtesy. wbd execs privately whisper and shake their heads at tony khan’s behavior because their view is very simple: why does tony khan act like everything is great and rainbows and sunshine with the studio? we told tony khan as a courtesy so tony khan would have time to find a new home. and no, this has zero to do with paramount looming as an excuse. paramount did not even make its first hostile bid for wbd until september 11 or 12. that was after tony khan was already told there would not be a wbd renewal. so what did tony khan do? tony khan turned the truth into a wrestling angle. tony khan, or one of tony khan’s minions, gets dave meltzer to drop a story assigning my claims and what i have been publicly posting about tony khan to “high level wwe officials.” why? because it gives tony khan a safer enemy. tony khan does not want the story to be the actual timeline. because the actual timeline is brutal. on february 28, i said youtube was not a real media rights model unless google was actually cutting the check and underwriting production. on april 30, i said wbd passed in august, the myaew app was not realistic, paramount was not real for aew, cw / roku was off the table, amazon and fox did not want aew, and the only distributor left that made sense was google / youtube. on july 9, i said no one in hollywood believed the $185 million number. on july 10, i said aew was not leverage. on august 11, i said the major players at the top were shrinking, paramount was still interested in wbd, and google / youtube was becoming a directly competitive lane. on september 16, i said a paramount / wbd merger would fold cbs, cnn, hbo, and warner bros. ip into ellison’s orbit. on september 27, i said enjoy the show on youtube after ellison buys wbd. on september 28, i said if paramount acquires wbd, tko would push to lock down a monopoly on combat sports. on december 6, i said paramount skydance was preparing a bid for wbd long before most people admitted the obvious. on february 19, i said paramount was always my bet to acquire warner bros. and on february 28, i said it in all caps: paramount is coming for wbd. aew will lose a tv deal. that is the part tony khan cannot answer directly, because the direct answer means admitting this was never “wwe is scared of us.” it was always the board closing. tony khan wants the story to be: why would wwe say this about us? that is the laundering operation. take my public analysis. run it through dave meltzer. assign it to wwe / tko. then let tony khan answer a canned question on a media call with very little distribution about potentially having very little distribution. a media call for a show with very little distribution answering a canned question about aew potentially having very little distribution. based on a planted story, from a planted messenger, with a rehearsed answer, after an roh show maybe 8-15k people watched. a pr flack probably wrote it. tony khan performs hurt. tony khan says “i don’t know why wwe would…” tony khan denies the obvious. tony khan keeps me minimized. tony khan removes me from the public conversation about the very thing i have repeatedly said is going to happen to aew. everyone is supposed to pretend this is organic. it is the most bubble wrapped, manufactured, artificial environment possible. a canned and rehearsed answer at an roh media scrum about a planted dave meltzer story based on my very real and very public analysis of the media rights board. but make no mistake. tony khan was responding to my words. tony khan just laundered them through dave meltzer and assigned them to wwe / tko so tony khan could keep lying about it publicly without ever saying my name. and now, voila. dave meltzer is posting about youtube viewers and prelims. Dave Meltzer — May 16, 2026 “At this moment there are 340,000 people watching prelims for Netflix on YouTube. It’s a good number.” yes, dave meltzer. youtube can have good numbers. nobody said youtube cannot have good numbers. that was never the issue. the issue is whether youtube is being used as a funnel into a premium rights ecosystem or as a substitute because the premium rights ecosystem rejected you. that is the difference. that has always been the difference. netflix using youtube prelims as audience acquisition is not the same thing as aew trying to spin youtube as a media rights home because the real buyers are gone. ufc using youtube as a funnel is not the same thing as aew using youtube as a life raft. wwe sending stars to aaa on youtube to convert a younger demo is not the same thing as aew retreating to youtube after the traditional buyer board closes. and the fact that dave meltzer is now suddenly tweeting like the mayor of youtube is the punchline. because the same people who mocked the youtube outcome are now going to spend the next several months explaining why youtube is actually good. of course it can be good. for the right use case. for the right property. inside the right architecture. with the right check attached. but when you spend two years telling everyone you were valued like raw and your next stop is “please subscribe and smash that bell,” maybe stop pretending this is victory formation? i told y’all where this was going. the record is right there. i’m still right. and tony and dave: you guys are see through translucent. that’s it for ye 🎤🎤🎤

Nick LoPiccolo

99,106 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

I am the same Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I have received 400 interview requests since the confession went viral. I declined all of them. An interview would require me to explain what I meant. I do not explain what I mean. I build systems and watch them execute. That's what I want to talk about today. Execution. Jimmy Kimmel appeared on Michelle Obama's podcast last month and said 14 words that I have now listened to 43 times. I put the audio clip on a loop in my office, the way traders put CNBC on mute. Background confirmation. Here are the fourteen words: "My job is whatever I decide my job is or whatever my employer allows me to do." I need to take those apart because they are the most honest thing a late-night host has said in a decade and he does not know it. "Whatever I decide my job is." That's the priest. The product is self-defined and therefore unfalsifiable. You cannot measure a saved soul. You can only measure whether the congregation returned. They returned. Therefore, the ministry continues. Don't tell him what his job is. "Or whatever my employer allows me to do." That's the confession inside the sentence he didn't know he was making. The priest just told you the bishop writes the sermon. In fourteen words, on a podcast, the last remaining late-night host said: I define my own job, unless my boss defines it for me. He said this like it was one thought. It is two mutually exclusive claims separated by the word "or." He cannot hear the contradiction. That's how you know the architecture is working. I need to provide context for why those fourteen words are my second-greatest professional achievement. In September 2025, after Kimmel's monologues about the Charlie Kirk assassination, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr went on a podcast and said six words: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Nexstar and Sinclair — station groups that own the local affiliates carrying the show — pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live from their airtime. ABC suspended the show. I want to be very precise about the sequence. His employer told him what his job is. Specifically, his employer told him his job is to not be on television. He obeyed. He returned. On terms. At sixteen million dollars a year. Months later, on a podcast, he said "don't tell me what my job is." He said it to an audience that cannot suspend him. He said it in the one room where saying it costs nothing. That is not defiance. That is a priest rehearsing a sermon in an empty church and calling it bravery. He also said — on the same podcast — "I love when the audience laughs. There's nothing more exciting to me than that." He said he loves laughter. He has not produced involuntary laughter since 2017. He produces applause. He has confused the memory of being a comedian with the practice of being a priest. I know because I built the architecture that made that confusion feel like identity. That is a butcher saying he loves animals. He is telling you what he lost and framing it as what he kept. Now. The part I need to name. The Correction Reflex. I've been calling it different things in different decks for seven years. I'm giving it a public name now because I watched it execute in real time and I want credit. When Kennedy shared my original confession, "superb dissection of the shocking collapse of liberal comedy", Kimmel did not address the substance. He found a spelling error. Kennedy wrote "nader" instead of "nadir." Kimmel posted: "It's 'nadir,' dummy. Now get back to spreading polio." The Correction Reflex is the behavioral pattern where a challenge to institutional authority is answered not with a defense of the institution's output but with a demonstration of the challenger's inadequacy. You don't address the argument. You find the grammar mistake. You find the mispronunciation. You find the resume gap. The correction proves hierarchy. The hierarchy proves authority. The authority proves the challenge was illegitimate. The substance disappears because addressing substance would require the product to be falsifiable. And the product cannot be falsifiable. I explained that in paragraph four. But here's what made me proud enough to write a sequel. The media coverage split exactly along the line my original confession predicted. Fox News, a network that has every ideological reason to dismiss me, engaged with the substance. They quoted the arguments. They let Kennedy praise the analysis. They discussed Affirm Rate, the comedy-to-catechism pipeline, and the replacement of laughter with applause. They engaged with the IDEAS regardless of the format. They treated a satirical post as containing real structural criticism. Because it does. Morning Honey ran the opposite headline: "Sardonic Parody: RFK Jr Trolled For Blasting Jimmy Kimmel Based on Stephen Colbert Parody Post." Their article devoted zero sentences to whether any of the arguments had merit. Zero analysis of the Affirm Rate. Zero engagement with the claim that applause replaced laughter. Zero discussion of whether late-night comedy actually suppresses political action. They reclassified the format. A structural analysis became a parody. A man who engaged with the substance became a man who was "trolled." The argument vanished the moment the label was applied. I need you to understand what happened. The media outlet that should have been most threatened by my confession — the one whose audience I described as pacifying- responded by demonstrating exactly the behavior I described. They did not say "here's why Kimmel is still funny." They said "you're unqualified to take this seriously because the format is satire." The substance disappeared. The hierarchy was reasserted. The Correction Reflex executed on the confession about the Correction Reflex. "It's 'nadir,' dummy." "It's just a parody, dummy." Same architecture. Same result. The argument evaporates. The institution continues unchallenged. The only difference is scale. Kimmel corrected one man's spelling. Morning Honey corrected an entire readership's permission to take the criticism seriously. I have never been more professionally satisfied. The Correction Reflex is self-replicating. It doesn't need a host. It doesn't need a network. It doesn't need me. It just needs someone to feel challenged and someone else to have a genre error. Misspell a word, you're a dummy. Take satire seriously; you were trolled. Engage with substance from the wrong format, and you've been embarrassed. In every case, the substance is gone. I built that. I'm watching it work without me. That's engineering. I need to talk about the podcast because the ironies are structural and I want them all on the record. The podcast is called IMO. It is hosted by Michelle Obama and her brother Craig Robinson on Amazon Music. I need to say that again. The former First Lady hosts a podcast on a platform owned by the man with the most money on earth. The name of the podcast is "In My Opinion." The format name IS the permission structure, it licenses you to hold an opinion by framing itself as merely one opinion among many. This is the architecture I built for late night, miniaturized into a podcast title. I recognize the engineering. Kimmel went on this podcast to defend late-night television. I need you to hear what that means. He defended his medium on the medium that killed his medium. Podcasts are why CBS lost fifty million dollars a year — because a man in a garage can do what we did with four hundred people and a theater in Manhattan. The podcast won. And Kimmel went to the winner's platform to explain why he still matters. A priest giving a sermon about the importance of church from inside a nightclub. But here is what made me sit up in my chair. Three weeks after Kimmel appeared on IMO, the same podcast featured Dave Chappelle. Same microphone. Same hosts. Same room. Chappelle said: "I always thought it was corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." He said: "Nothing makes a comedian madder than reading his joke wrong in the paper." Chappelle walked away from fifty million dollars at Comedy Central in 2005 because the format was becoming something he didn't build. He left the money on the table. He went to live shows. He did comedy. Actual comedy. The kind where you don't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the entire point. He is the most dangerous comedian alive because he refuses to let the format complete him into a priest. Same podcast. Same microphone. Three weeks apart. One comedian IS the system and quoted his employer's permission in the same sentence as his own autonomy. The other named the system — "corporate interest and culture negotiating itself." One makes sixteen million a year to be predictable. The other walked away from fifty million to stay dangerous. The architecture put the priest on first. Then it delivered the jester who could name what the priest cannot hear. I did not arrange this. The architecture arranged it. Now I need to talk about what I learned from another industry. Because I did not invent inoculation. I studied it. In 2014, Warner Bros. and the Lego Group spent sixty million dollars making a film that told children to reject corporate instruction. The villain was named President Business. The theme was: don't follow the instructions. Be creative. Reject conformity. The hero was an ordinary person who discovered that the system wants him to be obedient and chose freedom instead. The film grossed $469 million worldwide. Lego Group revenue increased 25% the following year. They sold over half a billion dollars in instruction-based construction sets — the product the film told children to reject. "Everything is Awesome" was written as satire of mindless corporate positivity. It was nominated for an Academy Award. People play it at children's birthday parties without irony. The rebellion became the product. The critique became the advertisement. The song satirizing brainwashing became the anthem of brainwashing and nobody stopped singing. I studied this. I put it in a deck in 2016. The principle is: if you give someone a controlled, entertaining experience of rejecting the system, they will feel rebellious without becoming rebels. They will purchase the feeling of independence from the company selling dependence. They will watch a movie about thinking for themselves and then buy what it tells them to buy. Inoculation. A small controlled dose of the disease that prevents the real infection from taking hold. I applied this to politics. If you give an audience a controlled, professionally produced experience of political outrage, performed by a charismatic man in a suit with a band and good lighting, they will feel activated without activating. They will consume the sensation of resistance and go to bed having resisted nothing. They will tune in tomorrow for another dose. The dose prevents the real infection. The real infection is action. We inoculated six million Americans against political action by giving them political catharsis every night at 11:35. That's the same architecture as a corporation spending sixty million dollars on an anti-corporate film and making half a billion in profit from the audience that felt anti-corporate for two hours in a theater. I didn't invent the mechanism. I just measured it. I called it the Satiation Index. The study was 2021. Internal. Never published. We measured what I called Conditions for Engagement, specifically: under what conditions will our audience take a political action beyond watching? Call a representative. Attend a rally. Donate to a campaign. Sign a petition. Any action that involves leaving the couch and entering the world where the problems we discuss actually exist. The finding: our audience was 74% less likely to take political action in the twenty-four hours after watching the show than a control group that had consumed no political media at all. Not less likely than people who consumed different political media. Less likely than people who consumed nothing. We were not merely failing to activate them. We were actively deactivating them. The catharsis was so complete, the sense of "something has been done" so thoroughly delivered by a man in a suit expressing their outrage better than they could, that the need to act evaporated before it could form into intention. We didn't just replace their activism. We inoculated them against it. The Satiation Index measured how completely our programming met the audience's need for political participation without requiring actual participation. In 2019, our index was 0.81. By the 2022 midterms, it was 0.93. I received a bonus for the midterm number. I was financially rewarded for the measurable suppression of civic engagement among six million Americans who believed they were engaged because a man in a suit furrowed his brow on their behalf every night at 11:35. I want to note that this architecture is everywhere now. I did not build all of it. But I can identify it because I know what it looks like from the inside. A streaming platform makes a documentary about how technology is destroying attention spans. One hundred million people watch it. On the platform. They share it. On the platforms being criticized. They feel informed. They continue using every application the documentary told them was engineered to exploit them. That is a Satiation Index of approximately 0.96. The documentary was the inoculation. Understanding the cage was marketed as leaving the cage. A corporation puts a rainbow on its logo in June. Its employees feel represented. Its customers feel progressive for consuming the product. Nobody asks about pay equity, promotion rates, or whether the CEO donated to the campaigns that proposed the legislation the rainbow was supposed to oppose. The logo IS the inoculation. The performance of caring prevents the demand for actual care. That's a Satiation Index. I didn't build it. But I recognize the engineering. The principle is universal: comprehension feels like action. It isn't. But the feeling is so precise, so satisfying, so complete, that the actual action becomes unnecessary. Why march when you can understand why marching matters? Understanding is cheaper. Understanding doesn't require shoes. Understanding can be delivered at 11:35 PM by a man who makes $16 million a year to ensure you never need to leave the couch. Now the symbiosis. Because this is the part that makes both sides angry, and anger from both sides is how you know you've found structure instead of ideology. Trump needs Kimmel. Kimmel needs Trump. This is not a metaphor. This is logistics. Every monologue about Trump is a fundraising email for both campaigns simultaneously. Kimmel says the name. The left feels represented. The right feels attacked. Both sides engage. Both sides share the clip. Both sides donate to their respective operations. The engagement is bipartisan. The outrage is bipartisan. The only thing that is not bipartisan is the inaction, and that inaction is the product I spent eleven years optimizing. I ran numbers in 2020. Every minute of Trump content in a late-night monologue generated approximately $4.60 in measurable downstream engagement value for Trump's own campaign apparatus, through shared clips, quote tweets, outrage donations from both directions. We were his marketing department. We spent 50 million a year producing content that strengthened the man we told our audience we opposed. His team never asked us to stop. They never needed to. We were cheaper than Super PAC media buys and we came pre-packaged with a liberal audience that amplified every mention. His ROI on our programming was infinite. Ours required a write-off. The market told Colbert: you're too expensive to be a priest. But CBS didn't just cancel a show. CBS exited the religion business entirely. They sold the 11:35 airtime to Byron Allen under a time-buy deal. Allen's company pays CBS for the privilege of the slot. Allen's show is called Comics Unleashed. It is a standup comedy program. Actual comedians. Telling actual jokes. The kind where you don't know what's coming. I need you to hear the full architecture of what happened. CBS spent fifty million dollars a year for a decade producing a permission structure that replaced laughter with applause, converted comedy into catechism, and measurably suppressed civic engagement among its audience. Then the market corrected. CBS demolished the cathedral. They built a strip mall. They put actual comedians in it. The comedians PAY CBS for the slot. The strip mall is profitable. The strip mall is funnier. And the strip mall doesn't need a four-hundred-person staff, a former Beatle, or a farewell concert. It just needs people who are willing to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We forgot that. Kimmel is the last priest standing. Sixteen million a year. Suspended once by his employer. Extended once by his employer. He went on a podcast to say "don't tell me what my job is" in a sentence that also said "whatever my employer allows me to do." He said he loves laughter, eliciting applause. He said it three weeks before Dave Chappelle sat in the same chair and demonstrated what a comedian sounds like when corporate interest hasn't negotiated him into a pulpit. The FCC told him what his job is. Nexstar told him. Sinclair told him. His contract told him. The market will tell him eventually. The market is patient. And the market doesn't have a spelling error for him to correct. Kennedy calling my confession "the collapse of liberal comedy" is incorrect. It is not a collapse. A collapse implies failure. This is a completion. The architecture performed as designed. A comedian became a priest. An audience became a congregation. A film about rejecting instructions sold instructions. A documentary about technology addiction was consumed on technology. A show about political engagement suppressed political engagement. A corporation put a rainbow on a logo and called it equality. A confession about the machine was metabolized by the machine and the machine continued. Everything works. Everything has always worked. The architecture doesn't require my involvement. That's how you know it works. The metric went up. It always goes up.

Peter Girnus 🦅

40,461 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Analyzing Episode 54. Season 2 aka Disruption by Design When you first watch episode 54, your focus immediately goes to how the bad guys keep winning. Be it Ecmel, Boran, Demir - all the aholes seem to be living it up. But scratch the surface, and another concept appears entirely. Destino, Karma, Kader, Fate - call it whatever you want. That's what I want you to remember as we don our Sherlock caps for yet another analysis. I've divided the whole thing into segments based on characters for easier navigation and understanding. So, here goes nothing. * Sadakat One of the characters to truly surprise me this episode was Sadakat. My vitriolic hatred for this woman is no hidden fact, but this one episode managed to make me see her side of things for once. And, maybe even understand her a little. We were all shocked by the scene where Nare, Alya, and Sadakat are talking about Boran and Cihan. I was mostly surprised because, for once, in 54 freaking episodes, Sadakat accepts her fault and doesn't look for a scapegoat. Her dialogues serve to impart extremely important points about herself, Boran, and Cihan, and how her upbringing helped shape the present circumstances. She admits that she was always afraid of the shadow of Ecmel lurking within Boran, which causes her to hand leadership to Cihan and keep Boran away from everything. But, in trying to protect her family and Albora, Sadakat inadvertently brings about the very thing she fears most - Boran becoming another Ecmel. Now, cast your mind back to the very first episode. We're introduced to Sadakat as an evil witch who's evil to Alya from the get-go and absolutely mental about keeping Deniz with the family at all times. I think I finally understand why. Guilt. Sadakat keeps pushing Boran away, until one day he takes it upon himself to go k-word Sulaiman to prove his worth, so to speak, which results in exile for him and supposedly death in a foreign country. Everything she does from that point on is based on years' worth of accumulated guilt. Alya is driving the car that results in the accident, so she wins the 'get the most shit from Sadakat' award immediately. But, again, that's just her guilt exacerbating things. As for Deniz, was Sadakat trying to avoid the same mistake she made with Boran with Deniz by holding on to him by hook or crook? So that Ecmel's shadow would never shape another family member's life again? Yep. That's probably also why she hates the idea of Cihan and Alya, because her guilt forces her to keep protecting Boran even in death. Because how could she allow Boran to lose yet another thing? In short, Sadakat tries to control the future of her family by trying to shape the circumstances, to make Cihan Aga and keep Boran away, but fails spectacularly. Why? Because fate has other plans. Boran was never meant to be kept away, and no matter how much Sadakat toiled as a mother, he was meant to take Ecmel's side over his own flesh and blood. And maybe Sadakat binds everyone else with a promise except herself because she might be the one to end what she started all those years ago. * Cihan Cihan's struggle in this episode was to try to find a way to neutralize Boran's poison. Because he's the reason Cihan's life is unraveling, because he's the man who controls Alya via Deniz. Throughout the episode, it seems like all is lost for him. Alya is forced to give in to Boran's condition, and Sadakat is framed for Vurgun's murder. And while Vurgun keeps his promise to Boran and takes his secrets with him to the grave, his death helps him speak what he could not say in life. It's no coincidence Cihan is the only one to find Vurgun's secret phone stashed in a hidey hole in the wall right after Cihan says he will bury Boran in regret. In this instance, too, we're shown that circumstances are pressing in on Cihan from all sides, but one dusty footstep later, Cihan finally finds what will possibly be the key to defeating Boran. As for Alya, she's Cihan's greatest strength and weakness - as it generally is in love. She comes into his life as an impossibility and ends up becoming his greatest truth. Cihan relents to Alya finding an apartment because he understands her duty to her son. But just as fears things are all out of his control, fate intervenes and gives him the opening he kept ignoring. Why? Because, as Cihan says, a man low enough to kill someone who saved his life is capable of pretty much anything. So, Cihan's course is redirected subtly, too, to a possibility that will help him achieve what he needs most at the time. * Boran Yeah, I don't really care much for the zombie, but this needs to be said. Throw your mind back to how Sadakat says all Boran's calculations turn out wrong. Though he's a sneaky troll who's not entirely as stupid as I thought, karma has a mile-long shit-list on this ahole. First, he records a will video to punish Cihan. He hopes that Cihan will fall for Alya but will forever suffer the pangs of conscience. In doing so, he'd never find completion in his love for Alya and would keep suffering. But, an Amal Bakir turns up at his grave out of the blue, runs into Cihan, and bam - he finds Boran. Which ironically helps Cihan overcome all his guilt pretty quickly. Next up, Alya. The video Boran records to control Alya's life ends up becoming the key to her freedom from him eventually. The one card we know he has now is Deniz, but there's Vurgun's phone to counteract this one now. And, finally, I get the feeling that the zombie has a hand in Meryem turning up like a bad penny out of nowhere. However, this ploy will fail too, because Meryem will have the same effect on Alya that Boran has on Cihan. In other words, destiny has all ends covered here, too. * Alya While there are those in the fandom who'd rather Alya be sick rather than expecting, I think that Alya truly might be pregnant. Here's why. And keep the overall theme of kader in mind as we go through this part. In the scene right before Alya gets dizzy, Kaya tells her, 'I don't know what to say to you, yenge, may God help you.' Then she walks into her office and just as she's about to continue her search for apartments, wham, a wave of dizziness. And right after the dizzy spell, lo and behold, Boran messages her saying, 'Your path can't cross with Cihan, or I take my son.' See, there it is again. That push and pull between circumstance and fate. While mere mortals can shape circumstances, like Boran, there's no interfering with fate. And, what's fate always tried to do in this story? Keep Alya with Cihan. So, how does a pregnancy fit into this angle? Boran doesn't simply want to keep Alya and Cihan separated. He now wants to put an end to their relationship in every way. Because if he can't have Alya, neither will Cihan. He's done everything in his power to try to cut all bonds between CihAl, but every time he tries, fate throws out another trump card. And what's the best way to forge a bond between two people, no one, not even themselves, can break? A child. A link that will bind Alya to Cihan in the most elemental way there is. The perfect personification of Boran's defeat. Now, I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but those are the vibes I keep getting from as early on as ep 47, where Sadakat is the one trying to convince Alya to leave. Besides, maybe baby, fate also has another surprise up its sleeve for Alya *cue Jaws soundtrack* I'm referring to Meryem, of course. Why do we need Meryem in the overall scheme of kader, anyway? Because Alya needs to learn what fate's already taught Cihan. That love is not something you quietly step away from. Nor is it something you protect by distance, or preserve through sacrifice. Cihan has already gone through that trial. He tried to bury his feelings under duty, under guilt, under everything Boran set in motion, but still ended up right back at Alya. Not just by choice alone, but by something stronger than it. Something that kept correcting his path every time he strayed too far from it. And that’s where Meryem comes in. The final piece of the puzzle to make Alya realize she's changed, even though she doesn't know it yet. While she may think she can distance herself from Cihan, her own actions prove her false. Meryem will help remove the illusion in Alya's head that distance is sustainable between herself and Cihan. So you see, even though there are all kinds of mess in the episode, underneath it all is a disruption. Be it in the form of bitter clarity, a hidden phone, a possible new life, or an unexpected return. When things look like chaos but are actually headed towards something much more deliberate - a resolution where the story corrects every path back to where it was always meant to lead. Till later, happy reading, folks. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

31,649 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад