Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

#talk #Solve Why does racism exist? College dudes exchange blows over #comments. #innocent #white #fight #arguments #fighting #college #boys #viralvideo #viral2023 #punch #suffer #bruise #Rescue #ViralVideos #brawl #wrong #MustWatch #punishment #discipline #powerful #anger #Control #NeverAgain #see #VIDEOS #VIDEO

(NPA) POLITICAL ANALYSIS

1,878 subscribers

11,602 просмотров • 3 лет назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 1

Фото профиля Tony

Tony2 лет назад

They both cant fight

Похожие видео

The Empire Is Scrambling To Fully Dominate Latin America, And Other Notes US forces have seized an oil tanker carrying some 1.8 million barrels of oil from Venezuela to Cuba as part of its ongoing series of warmongering escalations against the Maduro government. When asked what would be done with the oil, President Trump told the press, “We keep it, I guess.” Meanwhile Chuck Schumer is refusing to oppose Trump’s regime change interventionism against Venezuela, and CNN just had former US intelligence official Beth Sanner on to proclaim that the Trump administration’s act of piracy “is absolutely normal.” So Trump’s ostensible opposition in the political-media class are putting absolutely no inertia on this. The US pirating a Cuba-bound oil tanker from Venezuela illustrates how the empire is hurrying to shore up control over Latin America in the same way the US and Israel are quickly shoring up control over the middle east. There’s a window of opportunity to shove through a bunch of pre-existing military agendas in both regions, and they’re aggressively seizing it before their attention has to turn to bigger geopolitical fish. You often hear US imperialists saying that obtaining regime change in Venezuela will help achieve it in Cuba as well; Senator Rick Scott recently told 60 Minutes that if Maduro is successfully ousted “it’ll be the end of Cuba,” and that “America is gonna take care of the southern hemisphere and make sure there’s freedom and democracy.” Stealing the oil hurts both Cuba and Venezuela, who are the two primary enemies of the US empire in the Americas because of their strongly socialist governments. They got a right wing government into Bolivia this year, and now they’re hurrying to push regime change in Caracas and Havana while they’ve got a right wing tyrant in office with a gusano secretary of state. The hope is to force the entirety of Latin America into full alignment with the empire before Trump leaves office. I have no idea if they’ll succeed. ❖ The US House and Senate have agreed to make registration for the draft “automatic”, which will simplify the drafting process if the empire decides to throw the youth of America into a horrific new military conflict. The US is making its biggest draft policy change in 45 years so it’s easier to force Americans to fight and die in a massive war, just as the New York Times editorial board launches a series explaining why the US must prepare for war with China. The latest edition of the New York Times’ arguments for the need for more US militarism is titled “This Is The 21st Century Arms Race. Can America Keep Up?”, which argues that “Congress needs to expand funding for research and development into technologies with military applications.” “To counter the growing threat, America must simultaneously win the race to build autonomous weapons and lead the world in controlling them,” the editorial board writes. Fun times. ❖ The BBC is reportedly training its staff that it is antisemitic for anyone to oppose Zionism, because most Jews identify as Zionists. You see this argument a lot, and it a textbook example of an ad populum fallacy, which is when someone claims that something is true or right just because a majority of people believe it. Just as the Atlantic slave trade would have been wrong even if every white person in the world supported it, a genocidal apartheid state which cannot exist without nonstop violence, theft and abuse would still be wrong even if every Jewish person on earth supported it. The claim that a majority of Jews support the existence of the modern state of Israel has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether such a state should exist, and does not invalidate any arguments that it should not. Israel supporters rely on lies, manipulations and fallacious arguments because their position is not based on truth or morality. If their position was right they would simply be making normal arguments like normal adults. They can’t do this because they are wrong. ❖ Whenever I catch myself wondering if I’ve been too hard on the Democrats I re-watch last year’s video of DNC attendees covering their ears and mocking activists reading the names of children who’d been murdered in Gaza. When they’re not in power it’s easy to forget how evil these people are. ❖ The Daily Mirror has a gross new propaganda piece out claiming that “Hamas plotters are spreading their tentacles of terror into Europe, with secret arms dumps and operatives planning attacks even as far as in the United Kingdom.” As you might expect, The Mirror provides no evidence whatsoever for this claim, citing only “an intelligence report” of unspecified origin. This is one of the dumbest narratives we’ve ever been asked to believe about Hamas, amid some very stiff competition. I don’t know about you, but am so sick of having my intelligence insulted like this. Reading by Tim Foley:

The Empire Is Scrambling To Fully Dominate Latin America, And Other Notes US forces have seized an oil tanker carrying some 1.8 million barrels of oil from Venezuela to Cuba as part of its ongoing series of warmongering escalations against the Maduro government. When asked what would be done with the oil, President Trump told the press, “We keep it, I guess.” Meanwhile Chuck Schumer is refusing to oppose Trump’s regime change interventionism against Venezuela, and CNN just had former US intelligence official Beth Sanner on to proclaim that the Trump administration’s act of piracy “is absolutely normal.” So Trump’s ostensible opposition in the political-media class are putting absolutely no inertia on this. The US pirating a Cuba-bound oil tanker from Venezuela illustrates how the empire is hurrying to shore up control over Latin America in the same way the US and Israel are quickly shoring up control over the middle east. There’s a window of opportunity to shove through a bunch of pre-existing military agendas in both regions, and they’re aggressively seizing it before their attention has to turn to bigger geopolitical fish. You often hear US imperialists saying that obtaining regime change in Venezuela will help achieve it in Cuba as well; Senator Rick Scott recently told 60 Minutes that if Maduro is successfully ousted “it’ll be the end of Cuba,” and that “America is gonna take care of the southern hemisphere and make sure there’s freedom and democracy.” Stealing the oil hurts both Cuba and Venezuela, who are the two primary enemies of the US empire in the Americas because of their strongly socialist governments. They got a right wing government into Bolivia this year, and now they’re hurrying to push regime change in Caracas and Havana while they’ve got a right wing tyrant in office with a gusano secretary of state. The hope is to force the entirety of Latin America into full alignment with the empire before Trump leaves office. I have no idea if they’ll succeed. ❖ The US House and Senate have agreed to make registration for the draft “automatic”, which will simplify the drafting process if the empire decides to throw the youth of America into a horrific new military conflict. The US is making its biggest draft policy change in 45 years so it’s easier to force Americans to fight and die in a massive war, just as the New York Times editorial board launches a series explaining why the US must prepare for war with China. The latest edition of the New York Times’ arguments for the need for more US militarism is titled “This Is The 21st Century Arms Race. Can America Keep Up?”, which argues that “Congress needs to expand funding for research and development into technologies with military applications.” “To counter the growing threat, America must simultaneously win the race to build autonomous weapons and lead the world in controlling them,” the editorial board writes. Fun times. ❖ The BBC is reportedly training its staff that it is antisemitic for anyone to oppose Zionism, because most Jews identify as Zionists. You see this argument a lot, and it a textbook example of an ad populum fallacy, which is when someone claims that something is true or right just because a majority of people believe it. Just as the Atlantic slave trade would have been wrong even if every white person in the world supported it, a genocidal apartheid state which cannot exist without nonstop violence, theft and abuse would still be wrong even if every Jewish person on earth supported it. The claim that a majority of Jews support the existence of the modern state of Israel has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether such a state should exist, and does not invalidate any arguments that it should not. Israel supporters rely on lies, manipulations and fallacious arguments because their position is not based on truth or morality. If their position was right they would simply be making normal arguments like normal adults. They can’t do this because they are wrong. ❖ Whenever I catch myself wondering if I’ve been too hard on the Democrats I re-watch last year’s video of DNC attendees covering their ears and mocking activists reading the names of children who’d been murdered in Gaza. When they’re not in power it’s easy to forget how evil these people are. ❖ The Daily Mirror has a gross new propaganda piece out claiming that “Hamas plotters are spreading their tentacles of terror into Europe, with secret arms dumps and operatives planning attacks even as far as in the United Kingdom.” As you might expect, The Mirror provides no evidence whatsoever for this claim, citing only “an intelligence report” of unspecified origin. This is one of the dumbest narratives we’ve ever been asked to believe about Hamas, amid some very stiff competition. I don’t know about you, but am so sick of having my intelligence insulted like this. Reading by Tim Foley:

Caitlin Johnstone

19,771 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Zionists Are Freaking Out About Losing Control Of The Narrative Former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz made some very revealing remarks during an appearance at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly on Sunday, expressing frustration with the way younger Jews are dismissing pro-Israel arguments because of the carnage they’ve seen in Gaza. “We are now wrestling with a new I think generational divide here, and I think that’s particularly true in that social media is now our source of media,” Hurwitz said. “It used to be that the news you got in America was American media, and it was pretty mainstream; you know it generally didn’t express extreme anti-Israel views. You had to go to a pretty weird bookstore to find global media and fringe media. But today we have social media, which is the global medium; its algorithms are shaped by billions of people worldwide who don’t really love Jews. So while in the 1990s a young person probably wasn’t going to find Al Jazeera or someone like Nick Fuentes, today those media outlets find them; they find them on their phones.” “It’s also this increasingly post-literate media; less and less text, more and more videos,” Hurwitz continued. “So you have TikTok just smashing our young people’s brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza. And this is why so many of us cannot have a sane conversation with younger Jews, because anything that we try to say to them, they are hearing it through this wall of carnage. So I want to give data and information and facts and arguments, and they are just seeing in their minds: carnage. And I sound obscene.” Hurwitz went on to say that Holocaust education has begun backfiring, because it has been giving young people the wrong impression that genocide is always bad. “And you know I think unfortunately, the very smart bet that we made on Holocaust education to serve as anti-semitism education in this new media environment, I think that is beginning to break down a little bit because, you know, Holocaust education is absolutely essential, but I think it may be confusing some of our young people about antisemitism,” Hurwitz said. “Because they learn about big, strong Nazis hurting weak, emaciated Jews, and they think oh, antisemitism is like anti-black racism, right? Powerful white people against powerless black people. So, when on TikTok all day long, they see powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians, it’s not surprising that they think, Oh, I know the lesson of the Holocaust is you fight Israel. You fight the big powerful people hurting the weak people.” Hoo boy. Lots to unpack here. It’s just so fascinating to see a former White House speechwriter making so many of the points that anti-Zionists have been making for years, but taking the exact opposite meaning from them: - The mainstream legacy media has always hidden anti-Israel views from the public — and that was a good thing. - Social media has now given Palestinians the ability to expose the truth about Israel’s abuses — and that’s a bad thing. - People aren’t falling for the Zionist spin and narrative-diddling anymore because they’ve seen the carnage in Gaza with their own eyes — and that’s a problem. - People who learned from Holocaust education that genocide is wrong have been applying those same lessons to the genocide in Gaza — and this means they’re “confused”. Hurwitz isn’t denying Israel’s abuses or framing its genocidal atrocities as the problem, she’s just coming right out and saying that people obtaining information and moral clarity about those abuses is the problem. The atrocities aren’t wrong, what’s wrong is people seeing those atrocities and calling them what they are. I love the way she complains that she looks “obscene” for trying to lay out arguments and narratives justifying the Gaza holocaust for people who’ve seen the “wall of carnage” from the genocide. I mean, yes. Yes obviously you’re going to look obscene if you try to tell someone why raw video footage of massacres, mutilated children and emaciated bodies is actually showing something that is justifiable and acceptable. You can’t stand in front of a pile of child corpses justifying their murder and then whine when people ignore your spinmeistering and keep staring at the tiny bodies. That’s like murdering an entire family and then telling the cops, “But you’re not listening to my reasons for killing them!” They’re doing the normal thing while you are being obscene. There’s a viral clip of this tirade going around Twitter and I was curious if Hurwitz had said anything after the video segment ended which might have made what she said sound less horrible, so I went to check out the original video on the Jewish Federations of North America’s Youtube channel, and nope. It didn’t get any better. Hurwitz went on to say that people are wrong to carry the lessons of Holocaust education into opposition to Israel’s genocidal atrocities because the Holocaust was Nazi Germany blaming Jews for all their problems in the same way people think Israel is the source of all the world’s problems today. She then mourned the way western Jews “re-imagined Judaism as a Protestant-style religion” in order to integrate into western society rather than retaining a strong identity that is loyal to the state of Israel. “The problem is, we’re not just a religion,” Hurwitz said. “We’re a nation. Civilization. Tribe. Peoplehood. But most of all we’re a family. And so if you are a young person raised in America who thinks Judaism is a Protestant-style religion, then the seven million Jews in Israel are merely your co-religionists. So my co-religionists, if I look at them and they’re not practicing my religion of social justice and certain prophetic values then what do I have to do with them?” “But that’s a category error,” says Hurwitz. “The seven million people in Israel, they are not my co-religionists, they are my siblings. But I think if you think of them as merely your co-religionists, it’s easy to slide into anti-Zionism. You don’t necessarily have that connection to them.” Hurwitz is saying here that Jews around the world should be loyal to Israel no matter what Israel does, not because that’s the moral or truthful position but because Israel is where their loyalties belong. I don’t know about you, but if my siblings were murdering civilians I would immediately become their enemy. I wouldn’t defend my brother if he was going around shooting children in the head like IDF snipers have been doing in Gaza, in fact I would feel a special responsibility to stop him exactly because he is my brother. Genocide doesn’t magically become acceptable if the perpetrators are your “siblings”, unless you are a sociopath. It’s just incredible how hard Zionists have been freaking out about the way Israel has lost control of the narrative these last two years. More and more often we’re seeing them say the quiet parts out loud as they frantically scramble to manage perceptions and manipulate minds around the world. Many things which used to be hidden are finding their way into the light. Reading by Tim Foley:

Zionists Are Freaking Out About Losing Control Of The Narrative Former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz made some very revealing remarks during an appearance at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly on Sunday, expressing frustration with the way younger Jews are dismissing pro-Israel arguments because of the carnage they’ve seen in Gaza. “We are now wrestling with a new I think generational divide here, and I think that’s particularly true in that social media is now our source of media,” Hurwitz said. “It used to be that the news you got in America was American media, and it was pretty mainstream; you know it generally didn’t express extreme anti-Israel views. You had to go to a pretty weird bookstore to find global media and fringe media. But today we have social media, which is the global medium; its algorithms are shaped by billions of people worldwide who don’t really love Jews. So while in the 1990s a young person probably wasn’t going to find Al Jazeera or someone like Nick Fuentes, today those media outlets find them; they find them on their phones.” “It’s also this increasingly post-literate media; less and less text, more and more videos,” Hurwitz continued. “So you have TikTok just smashing our young people’s brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza. And this is why so many of us cannot have a sane conversation with younger Jews, because anything that we try to say to them, they are hearing it through this wall of carnage. So I want to give data and information and facts and arguments, and they are just seeing in their minds: carnage. And I sound obscene.” Hurwitz went on to say that Holocaust education has begun backfiring, because it has been giving young people the wrong impression that genocide is always bad. “And you know I think unfortunately, the very smart bet that we made on Holocaust education to serve as anti-semitism education in this new media environment, I think that is beginning to break down a little bit because, you know, Holocaust education is absolutely essential, but I think it may be confusing some of our young people about antisemitism,” Hurwitz said. “Because they learn about big, strong Nazis hurting weak, emaciated Jews, and they think oh, antisemitism is like anti-black racism, right? Powerful white people against powerless black people. So, when on TikTok all day long, they see powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians, it’s not surprising that they think, Oh, I know the lesson of the Holocaust is you fight Israel. You fight the big powerful people hurting the weak people.” Hoo boy. Lots to unpack here. It’s just so fascinating to see a former White House speechwriter making so many of the points that anti-Zionists have been making for years, but taking the exact opposite meaning from them: - The mainstream legacy media has always hidden anti-Israel views from the public — and that was a good thing. - Social media has now given Palestinians the ability to expose the truth about Israel’s abuses — and that’s a bad thing. - People aren’t falling for the Zionist spin and narrative-diddling anymore because they’ve seen the carnage in Gaza with their own eyes — and that’s a problem. - People who learned from Holocaust education that genocide is wrong have been applying those same lessons to the genocide in Gaza — and this means they’re “confused”. Hurwitz isn’t denying Israel’s abuses or framing its genocidal atrocities as the problem, she’s just coming right out and saying that people obtaining information and moral clarity about those abuses is the problem. The atrocities aren’t wrong, what’s wrong is people seeing those atrocities and calling them what they are. I love the way she complains that she looks “obscene” for trying to lay out arguments and narratives justifying the Gaza holocaust for people who’ve seen the “wall of carnage” from the genocide. I mean, yes. Yes obviously you’re going to look obscene if you try to tell someone why raw video footage of massacres, mutilated children and emaciated bodies is actually showing something that is justifiable and acceptable. You can’t stand in front of a pile of child corpses justifying their murder and then whine when people ignore your spinmeistering and keep staring at the tiny bodies. That’s like murdering an entire family and then telling the cops, “But you’re not listening to my reasons for killing them!” They’re doing the normal thing while you are being obscene. There’s a viral clip of this tirade going around Twitter and I was curious if Hurwitz had said anything after the video segment ended which might have made what she said sound less horrible, so I went to check out the original video on the Jewish Federations of North America’s Youtube channel, and nope. It didn’t get any better. Hurwitz went on to say that people are wrong to carry the lessons of Holocaust education into opposition to Israel’s genocidal atrocities because the Holocaust was Nazi Germany blaming Jews for all their problems in the same way people think Israel is the source of all the world’s problems today. She then mourned the way western Jews “re-imagined Judaism as a Protestant-style religion” in order to integrate into western society rather than retaining a strong identity that is loyal to the state of Israel. “The problem is, we’re not just a religion,” Hurwitz said. “We’re a nation. Civilization. Tribe. Peoplehood. But most of all we’re a family. And so if you are a young person raised in America who thinks Judaism is a Protestant-style religion, then the seven million Jews in Israel are merely your co-religionists. So my co-religionists, if I look at them and they’re not practicing my religion of social justice and certain prophetic values then what do I have to do with them?” “But that’s a category error,” says Hurwitz. “The seven million people in Israel, they are not my co-religionists, they are my siblings. But I think if you think of them as merely your co-religionists, it’s easy to slide into anti-Zionism. You don’t necessarily have that connection to them.” Hurwitz is saying here that Jews around the world should be loyal to Israel no matter what Israel does, not because that’s the moral or truthful position but because Israel is where their loyalties belong. I don’t know about you, but if my siblings were murdering civilians I would immediately become their enemy. I wouldn’t defend my brother if he was going around shooting children in the head like IDF snipers have been doing in Gaza, in fact I would feel a special responsibility to stop him exactly because he is my brother. Genocide doesn’t magically become acceptable if the perpetrators are your “siblings”, unless you are a sociopath. It’s just incredible how hard Zionists have been freaking out about the way Israel has lost control of the narrative these last two years. More and more often we’re seeing them say the quiet parts out loud as they frantically scramble to manage perceptions and manipulate minds around the world. Many things which used to be hidden are finding their way into the light. Reading by Tim Foley:

Caitlin Johnstone

43,108 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

$"I'm telling the administration...that if they don't release those [videos I've seen], then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." ~Burlison (Transcript and comments by me on one of my fav segments in a long time.) ~ Will Cain: "Missouri Republican Congressman, Rep. Eric Burlison, joins me now. Congressman, thanks for being with us here today. You and I, Congressman, I think we've had a very candid conversation together. We have both talked about the fact that I am open and curious about this subject of UAPs, but I do feel like we're at a place where evidence needs to start meeting expectations. What we've seen today, what does this tell us? Does this meet any expectation?" Burlison: "I think that there's...we have to take a step back and recognize the historic nature of this. Every president prior to President Trump has really demurred any kind of questions on this. They dismissed them, they would not talk about it. People would, if anything, snicker or sneer anytime this kind of subject came up. So the fact that we have a president who is open and willing and trying to be transparent is something to celebrate. "That being said, I think that this is a teaser, this is a kind of a, you know, something to open up with. This was the low-hanging fruit kind of videos and content for this administration to release. A lot of this has been...some of this has been out there before. It's not been acknowledged, right? So, you're looking at Apollo 17 video..." Cain: "I've seen the same thing said by Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office. That this is sort of the beginning, and there will be other releases that could leave Americans with a holy crap moment. I believe that's a direct quote from Congressman Tim Burchett." (This is what Burchett tweeted today: Burchett: "The 1st drop will be big but in comparison to what is coming they will be a drop in the bucket. I would say 'Holy Crap' is coming." I hope so. Or people are going to be upset that the videos and evidence didn't meet the hype, and you may see a lot of people losing interest in this topic. Last month, he told Elizabeth Vargas: “I’ve seen pictures and video of things that defy any reason that we have." ~Burchett And also last month, he told NEWSMAX: “If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up. You'd be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff... And for the record, I'm not suicidal and I don't take risks.” ~Burchett (That's some major hype there and, again, I hope future videos live up to it. I'm gonna guess that Burlison is NOT a fan of getting people's expectation up like that.) Cain: "My question for you, or the congressman, would be: Why? Why slow roll this out like it's a season of 'Game of Thrones'? Like, why would Episode 1 be somewhat uninspiring - leave us with more questions than answered - if there's something coming after the teaser? What's the point in staging the release?" Burlison: "So, again, this...just from talking with the White House and this administration, this is not an easy thing to do. There's not one huge repository of all of these documents and videos and photos. Despite what most people believe, they're really...at least we haven't found that one, you know, big repository. So what the Agency is doing is going and finding, first and foremost, the items that are readily available to be released. And they wanna be quick...move quickly and release those." (Okay, so they haven't located the best videos yet? Then what was Burchett shown? And if what he was shown is really THAT amazing, why haven't those videos or photos been released? Drip, drip? The excuse that they haven't been able to locate them yet doesn't hold water IF Burchett's take is accurate and they showed him SOMETHING that blew his mind and will blow our minds. Or, did he just hype it up and whatever he saw is really not that impressive? As I've asked several times in the past: Do these amazing videos actually exist?) Burlison: "I would ask you, would you prefer to have them wait for, you know, years, what would probably take years if they were to do a comprehensive study and then release it all at once, in one big batch? I would prefer that they release it as they find it, and I think that that's...this administration wants to be transparent and do that." (Great! How about releasing what Burchett was referring to in his interviews?) Cain: "My criticism is not for the decisions of the administration." (Well, if the Trump administration isn't releasing the best of the best videos that they already have in their possession because they're afraid of how Americans (and the world) might react (fear and panic), then they DO deserve some criticism, right?) Cain: "My criticism is for the expectation built by many out there that have these conversations, that there will soon be a bomb to drop when it comes to revelations about aliens." (Burchett, and then Rep. Anna Paulina Luna with her repeated comments about interdimensional beings. Luna: "...this is something you can go back and watch with the Congressional hearings - but I was actually able to ask some of the witnesses, 'What are these things?' And they keep saying interdimensional. "I wouldn't call them aliens. I really like what Grusch calls it. He says that they're interdimensional beings and he's very specific about that." Grusch has NEVER said that, nor has any witness who testified in front of Congress, so I have no idea where she's getting that from.) Cain: "And, if that's true, are we trying to prepare the American people with a slow drip, drip, drip tease of this stuff? If not, then Congressman, I would say, if this is all we've got, then I'm not sure that there's anything the American government really has that tells us anything about the existence of aliens? I'm just beginning to feel like this entire story is teased out always just beyond our reach." (That's why we need just ONE (for starters) clear and close-up video of an object performing maneuvers that we thought were impossible. And as of right now, we don't have that. I've said this many times. Does that type of video exist?) Burlison: "I can sense your frustration. I've experienced it personally myself. I've seen videos that I think are in the process of being declassified, so I think that there is more to come. If they're not going to be declassified, I'll probably do an effort to release them myself under Speech and Debate." (In short, the Speech or Debate clause says that a Senator or Representative can speak freely about anything, or share anything, in either house of Congress and have absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability. I'll link to an example in the replies.) Burlison: "But again, a lot of the footage that I've seen is similar to what has been released today. There's some that are pretty interesting, and especially given the environment and the circumstances of the videos. Whether they are videos of UAP that are flying around Russian submarines or a video of our aircraft that are firing on some of these UAPs? I've seen those kind of videos. And so I'm teasing that because I know that...I'm telling the administration, through you (Will Cain) at this moment, that if they don't release those, then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." (How much better are those videos than what we've seen today?) Cain: "Can I say one more thing about this, congressman? I expect you and I will have much longer conversations like we have in the past, where we have fewer time constraints. But what I'm seeing here, and we're sharing today, and what's been released, there are probably hundreds, perhaps 1000s, of explanations for what we see on these video screens. They don't lead us directly to extraterrestrial or out-of-this-world explanations. "Is there something else? Is there some other proof that you've seen? Is there a more compelling video that can't be described or explained as a drone or a light refraction or any other thing. Again, I'm not cynically dismissing these things, as I've always mentioned to you. I'm open and curious. I just don't think the evidence is meeting the moment." (I agree with Cain. The government-released or government-acquired footage just doesn't get us over the hump with the masses and skeptics.) Burlison: "I think you and I are at the exact same place. I continue to look for these things and try to follow the narrative that people are saying. Follow the historical narrative that we have a crash retrieval program, and this is the kind of information I keep getting presented. It doesn't mean that we don't stop looking." Cain: "Fair." (If we have recovered craft and bodies of non-humans, and it can be PROVEN, then these videos from today will be forgotten instantly.) Burlison: "And I have...and so the White House and the ODNI is looking for the next places to go investigate. And I think that...and they've actually been open in asking me where those next places should be, and so we're offering..we're gonna be working to offer those locations. A lot of this, Will, is gonna be in the hands of these agencies that are quasi-private or private companies, and that's gonna be a harder dig for this, for this administration to do, but that's where I think we're gonna get to the truth." (Let's start with the "holy crap" videos Burchett hyped and saw and see if they are as good as he's claiming.) Cain: "Well, to his defense, the President hasn't made big promises about what this would reveal. I don't think I can say that about everyone who purports to have seen something that there are big revelations, and so far, the evidence in the videos haven't met the promises. I do hope we continue to see more, congressman. I hope you do fight so we can see more. Obviously, transparency and answers is what we're seeking here on what would be a gigantic issue. Congressman Burlison, thanks, as always, for your time." Burlison: "Anytime."$

"I'm telling the administration...that if they don't release those [videos I've seen], then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." ~Burlison (Transcript and comments by me on one of my fav segments in a long time.) ~ Will Cain: "Missouri Republican Congressman, Rep. Eric Burlison, joins me now. Congressman, thanks for being with us here today. You and I, Congressman, I think we've had a very candid conversation together. We have both talked about the fact that I am open and curious about this subject of UAPs, but I do feel like we're at a place where evidence needs to start meeting expectations. What we've seen today, what does this tell us? Does this meet any expectation?" Burlison: "I think that there's...we have to take a step back and recognize the historic nature of this. Every president prior to President Trump has really demurred any kind of questions on this. They dismissed them, they would not talk about it. People would, if anything, snicker or sneer anytime this kind of subject came up. So the fact that we have a president who is open and willing and trying to be transparent is something to celebrate. "That being said, I think that this is a teaser, this is a kind of a, you know, something to open up with. This was the low-hanging fruit kind of videos and content for this administration to release. A lot of this has been...some of this has been out there before. It's not been acknowledged, right? So, you're looking at Apollo 17 video..." Cain: "I've seen the same thing said by Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office. That this is sort of the beginning, and there will be other releases that could leave Americans with a holy crap moment. I believe that's a direct quote from Congressman Tim Burchett." (This is what Burchett tweeted today: Burchett: "The 1st drop will be big but in comparison to what is coming they will be a drop in the bucket. I would say 'Holy Crap' is coming." I hope so. Or people are going to be upset that the videos and evidence didn't meet the hype, and you may see a lot of people losing interest in this topic. Last month, he told Elizabeth Vargas: “I’ve seen pictures and video of things that defy any reason that we have." ~Burchett And also last month, he told NEWSMAX: “If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up. You'd be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff... And for the record, I'm not suicidal and I don't take risks.” ~Burchett (That's some major hype there and, again, I hope future videos live up to it. I'm gonna guess that Burlison is NOT a fan of getting people's expectation up like that.) Cain: "My question for you, or the congressman, would be: Why? Why slow roll this out like it's a season of 'Game of Thrones'? Like, why would Episode 1 be somewhat uninspiring - leave us with more questions than answered - if there's something coming after the teaser? What's the point in staging the release?" Burlison: "So, again, this...just from talking with the White House and this administration, this is not an easy thing to do. There's not one huge repository of all of these documents and videos and photos. Despite what most people believe, they're really...at least we haven't found that one, you know, big repository. So what the Agency is doing is going and finding, first and foremost, the items that are readily available to be released. And they wanna be quick...move quickly and release those." (Okay, so they haven't located the best videos yet? Then what was Burchett shown? And if what he was shown is really THAT amazing, why haven't those videos or photos been released? Drip, drip? The excuse that they haven't been able to locate them yet doesn't hold water IF Burchett's take is accurate and they showed him SOMETHING that blew his mind and will blow our minds. Or, did he just hype it up and whatever he saw is really not that impressive? As I've asked several times in the past: Do these amazing videos actually exist?) Burlison: "I would ask you, would you prefer to have them wait for, you know, years, what would probably take years if they were to do a comprehensive study and then release it all at once, in one big batch? I would prefer that they release it as they find it, and I think that that's...this administration wants to be transparent and do that." (Great! How about releasing what Burchett was referring to in his interviews?) Cain: "My criticism is not for the decisions of the administration." (Well, if the Trump administration isn't releasing the best of the best videos that they already have in their possession because they're afraid of how Americans (and the world) might react (fear and panic), then they DO deserve some criticism, right?) Cain: "My criticism is for the expectation built by many out there that have these conversations, that there will soon be a bomb to drop when it comes to revelations about aliens." (Burchett, and then Rep. Anna Paulina Luna with her repeated comments about interdimensional beings. Luna: "...this is something you can go back and watch with the Congressional hearings - but I was actually able to ask some of the witnesses, 'What are these things?' And they keep saying interdimensional. "I wouldn't call them aliens. I really like what Grusch calls it. He says that they're interdimensional beings and he's very specific about that." Grusch has NEVER said that, nor has any witness who testified in front of Congress, so I have no idea where she's getting that from.) Cain: "And, if that's true, are we trying to prepare the American people with a slow drip, drip, drip tease of this stuff? If not, then Congressman, I would say, if this is all we've got, then I'm not sure that there's anything the American government really has that tells us anything about the existence of aliens? I'm just beginning to feel like this entire story is teased out always just beyond our reach." (That's why we need just ONE (for starters) clear and close-up video of an object performing maneuvers that we thought were impossible. And as of right now, we don't have that. I've said this many times. Does that type of video exist?) Burlison: "I can sense your frustration. I've experienced it personally myself. I've seen videos that I think are in the process of being declassified, so I think that there is more to come. If they're not going to be declassified, I'll probably do an effort to release them myself under Speech and Debate." (In short, the Speech or Debate clause says that a Senator or Representative can speak freely about anything, or share anything, in either house of Congress and have absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability. I'll link to an example in the replies.) Burlison: "But again, a lot of the footage that I've seen is similar to what has been released today. There's some that are pretty interesting, and especially given the environment and the circumstances of the videos. Whether they are videos of UAP that are flying around Russian submarines or a video of our aircraft that are firing on some of these UAPs? I've seen those kind of videos. And so I'm teasing that because I know that...I'm telling the administration, through you (Will Cain) at this moment, that if they don't release those, then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." (How much better are those videos than what we've seen today?) Cain: "Can I say one more thing about this, congressman? I expect you and I will have much longer conversations like we have in the past, where we have fewer time constraints. But what I'm seeing here, and we're sharing today, and what's been released, there are probably hundreds, perhaps 1000s, of explanations for what we see on these video screens. They don't lead us directly to extraterrestrial or out-of-this-world explanations. "Is there something else? Is there some other proof that you've seen? Is there a more compelling video that can't be described or explained as a drone or a light refraction or any other thing. Again, I'm not cynically dismissing these things, as I've always mentioned to you. I'm open and curious. I just don't think the evidence is meeting the moment." (I agree with Cain. The government-released or government-acquired footage just doesn't get us over the hump with the masses and skeptics.) Burlison: "I think you and I are at the exact same place. I continue to look for these things and try to follow the narrative that people are saying. Follow the historical narrative that we have a crash retrieval program, and this is the kind of information I keep getting presented. It doesn't mean that we don't stop looking." Cain: "Fair." (If we have recovered craft and bodies of non-humans, and it can be PROVEN, then these videos from today will be forgotten instantly.) Burlison: "And I have...and so the White House and the ODNI is looking for the next places to go investigate. And I think that...and they've actually been open in asking me where those next places should be, and so we're offering..we're gonna be working to offer those locations. A lot of this, Will, is gonna be in the hands of these agencies that are quasi-private or private companies, and that's gonna be a harder dig for this, for this administration to do, but that's where I think we're gonna get to the truth." (Let's start with the "holy crap" videos Burchett hyped and saw and see if they are as good as he's claiming.) Cain: "Well, to his defense, the President hasn't made big promises about what this would reveal. I don't think I can say that about everyone who purports to have seen something that there are big revelations, and so far, the evidence in the videos haven't met the promises. I do hope we continue to see more, congressman. I hope you do fight so we can see more. Obviously, transparency and answers is what we're seeking here on what would be a gigantic issue. Congressman Burlison, thanks, as always, for your time." Burlison: "Anytime."

Joe Murgia

22,530 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

You are confusing cause and effect, and in doing so, you are missing the deeper structural reality that is the central point of the argument. Migration in Africa does not happen in a vacuum. People do not wake up and casually decide to leave their homes, families, and countries for no apparent reason. Movement of people across colonial borders is driven by economic collapse, political instability, conflict, and governance failures, yes, but also by powerful historical forces that shaped those very conditions in the first place. Not everyone has the third eye to see those historical forces at play unless they read, comprehend and follow ideas and not populist demagoguery. Apartheid was not just a South African policy that ended in 1994. Its effects still live with South Africans to this very day. It was part of a wider political and more importantly economic system of racial capitalism that structured the region’s economy. What you fixed in 1994 was only the political and not the economic side of it. South Africa was designed as the industrial hub, while neighbouring countries were deliberately underdeveloped and turned into labour reserves for South Africa’s economy. Migrant labour from countries like Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Lesotho was not an accident at all, it was built into the system. It was designed that way and remains so to this very day. The owners of the means of production then remain the owners of the means of production today. Black people are largely still workers. You have a few token black individuals at the top, but the majority remain little more than exploited labour. So when people move from their countries today, they are often moving along routes that were created decades ago. The inequality between South Africa and its neighbours did not emerge overnight, and it is not simply the result of “African leaders” in isolation of other key factors. It is the continuation of a historical economic design that concentrated wealth in one place and poverty in others. That does not absolve African governments of responsibility. Many have failed their citizens through corruption, mismanagement, and repression. I write about this daily, and I have gone to prison three times in my lifetime for doing so. I have had to leave my country to save my life for doing so. But to reduce a complex, multi-layered issue to “it is African leaders” is intellectually lazy and historically dishonest. It ignores history, economics, and global power dynamics. As for Malema, whether you agree with him or not, his political skill lies in identifying how political and economic narratives are shaped and who benefits from them. He is pointing out that anger is often redirected away from the very systems of inequality and towards vulnerable people, migrants, who did not create those conditions. If you want a serious conversation, then deal with the full picture. Migration is about history, economics, governance, and global inequality. Blaming one factor while ignoring the rest is not analysis at all, it is deceitful propaganda. The economically and intellectually illiterate are often the easiest targets of political propaganda, precisely because they are fed simple, emotionally satisfying explanations for complex structural problems. They are told who to blame for their suffering, migrants, neighbouring countries, or vague notions of “outsiders”, while the real drivers, historical dispossession, entrenched economic inequality, and elite collusion, are deliberately obscured. In Southern Africa, and particularly in South Africa, this manifests in xenophobic narratives that blame Zimbabweans or Mozambicans for unemployment and poverty, when in reality those conditions are rooted in a long standing economic architecture that concentrated wealth and ownership in very few hands. It is easier to turn the poor against the poor than to confront systems that benefit those in power. What is often forgotten in this debate is that the political elites of colonial South Africa and Rhodesia worked in concert to sustain a repressive regional system that enriched a minority while extracting labour and resources from the rest. Your former apartheid Prime Minister John Vorster says it in this video in a very tactful manner. That logic has not disappeared at all, it has merely changed form. Today, segments of the political elite in both South Africa and Zimbabwe continue to operate in ways that protect entrenched economic interests while the majority remain economically marginalised. South Africa was the only true white settler “home”, where wealth, infrastructure, and industry were concentrated, while territories like Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Nyasaland (Malawi) functioned largely as economic outposts, feeding capital, labour, and raw materials into that system. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was presented as a project of regional integration, but in practice it reinforced patterns of extraction, with mining in Zambia, agriculture in Zimbabwe, and labour flows from Malawi all tied into a broader economic network dominated by South African capital. The same remains to this very day. The tragedy of focusing on Julius as the messenger rather than the message is something I speak about regularly, the need to focus on ideas and not personalities. You do not have to like Julius Malema. You do not have to agree with everything he says. All you need to do is focus on his message and interrogate it critically. I am not enslaved to Julius Malema’s ideas. I pick and choose what I agree with, and I am able to articulate a reasoned argument for both what I support and what I reject. You should do the same. One of the most powerful weapons of colonialism was the deliberate fragmentation of black people into small Bantustans, into isolated villages where communities were conditioned to view the next village with suspicion. In Rhodesia we had “reserves” and “keeps.” People from other Bantustans were treated as outsiders. That mentality was never dismantled, it still exists today. The idea of seeing others with suspicion simply because of an arbitrary line, a colonial border, remains deeply entrenched. Many do not fully appreciate how powerful and enduring that mentality and conditioning is. Yet when you look at the descendants of colonialists, they do not view each other through those same lenses. White Zimbabweans move into South Africa without attracting the same hostility because of the economic architecture that allows them to stay away from the so called lumpen. White people from across the world come and settle with ease in South Africa. In fact, one of the most visible figures advocating for the secession of the Western Cape is a British citizen, yet there is no comparable outrage from black South Africans. The same energy of protests and marches that is directed at fellow Africans is rarely directed there. That is not accidental at all, it is well designed that way. It speaks to the protection afforded by entrenched economic power and privilege, but also to a deeper psychological conditioning in how black people are taught to see each other and to see whiteness. This will not disappear overnight. It may not even disappear in my lifetime. But the task is to keep planting the seeds of awareness and unity. As Bob Marley said, you give your more to get your little. What you do today may seem small, but in time it contributes to something much larger, especially if there is collective effort to confront and resolve these divisions. One of the most important things colonialists understood was that education is the key to discernment, to the ability to interrogate and understand issues such as those I raised in this essay. That is precisely why they restricted access to it. Only a few black people were allowed meaningful education, and the consequences of that exclusion remain with us today, not only in South Africa but across much of the continent. We did not dismantle the systems that underpinned colonialism. We largely inherited them, changed the faces at the top, and continued to operate within the same structures. So I will end by saying this, if anyone truly wants change on the issues being debated, you must fix the foundation. You cannot repair window panes when the foundation itself is cracking. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, will always exist, but it is sustained not by foreigners alone, but by the system itself. When Zimbabweans cross the border without passports, they are often enabled by South Africans within a broken system. When documents are obtained illegally, it is again the system that enables it. When Zimbabwe’s political crisis persists without free and fair elections, regional dynamics, including South Africa’s political and economic interests, often play a role in sustaining that status quo. There is a web of political and economic interests that mirrors, in some respects, the relationships that existed during the colonial and apartheid eras. As long as those interests remain, there is little incentive for those in power to confront injustice decisively. The corruption and governance failures in Zimbabwe are real and significant, but they are part of a broader structural problem. The real issue is the foundation. If black South Africans were living well, with access to quality education, meaningful employment, and economic security, they would not be marching in the streets. The anger you see today is not simply about immigration. It is a reflection of an economic structure that has remained fundamentally unchanged, even after 1994. Repression underpinned by racism in Rhodesia effectively came to an end when South Africa shifted its position and recognised that the system was no longer sustainable. The same principle applies today. Repression underpinned by political corruption in Zimbabwe will begin to end the day South Africa, the regional power whether one accepts it or not, decides that the current situation is no longer acceptable. Zimbabwe’s crisis has, over time, been treated as a largely domestic issue rather than a regional one, yet the political and economic realities of Southern Africa make that distinction artificial. What happens in Zimbabwe does not exist in isolation, it is shaped, sustained, and, at times, enabled by regional dynamics, particularly South Africa’s stance. This may be an uncomfortable truth, but history consistently shows that regional power centres play a decisive role in determining outcomes. Ignoring that reality does not change it, it only delays the moment when it must be confronted. It was convenient then for John Vorster and successive apartheid regimes to continue using illegal migrants as a source of cheap labour in South Africa for menial jobs. It remains the same today. As I have said, the political and economic architecture of the apartheid era largely remains in place. What has changed are the political faces, the white faces that held power then and the black faces that hold office today, often operating within and alongside the same entrenched economic structures. Whether one accepts it or not, that is the reality of our politics in the region and of the economic architecture that continues to shape it. There is a reason why certain political actors avoid critically engaging with the structural drivers of immigration, particularly those that sustain flows of cheap labour. There is also a reason why figures like Helen Zille often emphasise the need to document illegal immigrants in South Africa, that position can be understood within the broader context of preserving an economic order that has long depended on controlling and managing labour rather than fundamentally transforming the conditions that produce it. That economic order is rooted in historical structures of concentrated power that shaped not only South Africa, but the wider region more than a century ago. How black Africans view themselves is often reflected in how they respond to political messages. It is why some are quick to criticise Julius Malema for positions that are, in substance, not fundamentally different from those expressed by Helen Zille. On immigration, there is significant overlap in what has been said across the political spectrum, including by the DA and the EFF. Yet the EFF is frequently viewed through a lens of hostility, in part because it is a black-led party, and that perception shapes the reaction it receives. As a result, some black citizens, influenced by long-standing narratives, direct harsher and more emotive criticism towards it. When similar points are made by figures like Helen Zille, the response is often markedly different. That contrast speaks to deeper historical conditioning and the psychological legacy of colonialism. It has not disappeared, and changing it will take time. The fundamental difference, however, lies in the intent and framing of their messages. Malema’s position on immigration is part of a broader effort to confront and address the structural inequalities created by colonial rule. Zille’s position, by contrast, can be seen as operating within and reinforcing an existing economic framework that has its roots in that same colonial architecture which feeds off cheap migrant labour. However, you can't fix the broken system by chasing away immigrants, legal or illegal, you can only empower black South Africans by allowing them to own the means of production and not fighting in the streets for crumbs. Have a lovely weekend.

You are confusing cause and effect, and in doing so, you are missing the deeper structural reality that is the central point of the argument. Migration in Africa does not happen in a vacuum. People do not wake up and casually decide to leave their homes, families, and countries for no apparent reason. Movement of people across colonial borders is driven by economic collapse, political instability, conflict, and governance failures, yes, but also by powerful historical forces that shaped those very conditions in the first place. Not everyone has the third eye to see those historical forces at play unless they read, comprehend and follow ideas and not populist demagoguery. Apartheid was not just a South African policy that ended in 1994. Its effects still live with South Africans to this very day. It was part of a wider political and more importantly economic system of racial capitalism that structured the region’s economy. What you fixed in 1994 was only the political and not the economic side of it. South Africa was designed as the industrial hub, while neighbouring countries were deliberately underdeveloped and turned into labour reserves for South Africa’s economy. Migrant labour from countries like Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Lesotho was not an accident at all, it was built into the system. It was designed that way and remains so to this very day. The owners of the means of production then remain the owners of the means of production today. Black people are largely still workers. You have a few token black individuals at the top, but the majority remain little more than exploited labour. So when people move from their countries today, they are often moving along routes that were created decades ago. The inequality between South Africa and its neighbours did not emerge overnight, and it is not simply the result of “African leaders” in isolation of other key factors. It is the continuation of a historical economic design that concentrated wealth in one place and poverty in others. That does not absolve African governments of responsibility. Many have failed their citizens through corruption, mismanagement, and repression. I write about this daily, and I have gone to prison three times in my lifetime for doing so. I have had to leave my country to save my life for doing so. But to reduce a complex, multi-layered issue to “it is African leaders” is intellectually lazy and historically dishonest. It ignores history, economics, and global power dynamics. As for Malema, whether you agree with him or not, his political skill lies in identifying how political and economic narratives are shaped and who benefits from them. He is pointing out that anger is often redirected away from the very systems of inequality and towards vulnerable people, migrants, who did not create those conditions. If you want a serious conversation, then deal with the full picture. Migration is about history, economics, governance, and global inequality. Blaming one factor while ignoring the rest is not analysis at all, it is deceitful propaganda. The economically and intellectually illiterate are often the easiest targets of political propaganda, precisely because they are fed simple, emotionally satisfying explanations for complex structural problems. They are told who to blame for their suffering, migrants, neighbouring countries, or vague notions of “outsiders”, while the real drivers, historical dispossession, entrenched economic inequality, and elite collusion, are deliberately obscured. In Southern Africa, and particularly in South Africa, this manifests in xenophobic narratives that blame Zimbabweans or Mozambicans for unemployment and poverty, when in reality those conditions are rooted in a long standing economic architecture that concentrated wealth and ownership in very few hands. It is easier to turn the poor against the poor than to confront systems that benefit those in power. What is often forgotten in this debate is that the political elites of colonial South Africa and Rhodesia worked in concert to sustain a repressive regional system that enriched a minority while extracting labour and resources from the rest. Your former apartheid Prime Minister John Vorster says it in this video in a very tactful manner. That logic has not disappeared at all, it has merely changed form. Today, segments of the political elite in both South Africa and Zimbabwe continue to operate in ways that protect entrenched economic interests while the majority remain economically marginalised. South Africa was the only true white settler “home”, where wealth, infrastructure, and industry were concentrated, while territories like Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Nyasaland (Malawi) functioned largely as economic outposts, feeding capital, labour, and raw materials into that system. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was presented as a project of regional integration, but in practice it reinforced patterns of extraction, with mining in Zambia, agriculture in Zimbabwe, and labour flows from Malawi all tied into a broader economic network dominated by South African capital. The same remains to this very day. The tragedy of focusing on Julius as the messenger rather than the message is something I speak about regularly, the need to focus on ideas and not personalities. You do not have to like Julius Malema. You do not have to agree with everything he says. All you need to do is focus on his message and interrogate it critically. I am not enslaved to Julius Malema’s ideas. I pick and choose what I agree with, and I am able to articulate a reasoned argument for both what I support and what I reject. You should do the same. One of the most powerful weapons of colonialism was the deliberate fragmentation of black people into small Bantustans, into isolated villages where communities were conditioned to view the next village with suspicion. In Rhodesia we had “reserves” and “keeps.” People from other Bantustans were treated as outsiders. That mentality was never dismantled, it still exists today. The idea of seeing others with suspicion simply because of an arbitrary line, a colonial border, remains deeply entrenched. Many do not fully appreciate how powerful and enduring that mentality and conditioning is. Yet when you look at the descendants of colonialists, they do not view each other through those same lenses. White Zimbabweans move into South Africa without attracting the same hostility because of the economic architecture that allows them to stay away from the so called lumpen. White people from across the world come and settle with ease in South Africa. In fact, one of the most visible figures advocating for the secession of the Western Cape is a British citizen, yet there is no comparable outrage from black South Africans. The same energy of protests and marches that is directed at fellow Africans is rarely directed there. That is not accidental at all, it is well designed that way. It speaks to the protection afforded by entrenched economic power and privilege, but also to a deeper psychological conditioning in how black people are taught to see each other and to see whiteness. This will not disappear overnight. It may not even disappear in my lifetime. But the task is to keep planting the seeds of awareness and unity. As Bob Marley said, you give your more to get your little. What you do today may seem small, but in time it contributes to something much larger, especially if there is collective effort to confront and resolve these divisions. One of the most important things colonialists understood was that education is the key to discernment, to the ability to interrogate and understand issues such as those I raised in this essay. That is precisely why they restricted access to it. Only a few black people were allowed meaningful education, and the consequences of that exclusion remain with us today, not only in South Africa but across much of the continent. We did not dismantle the systems that underpinned colonialism. We largely inherited them, changed the faces at the top, and continued to operate within the same structures. So I will end by saying this, if anyone truly wants change on the issues being debated, you must fix the foundation. You cannot repair window panes when the foundation itself is cracking. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, will always exist, but it is sustained not by foreigners alone, but by the system itself. When Zimbabweans cross the border without passports, they are often enabled by South Africans within a broken system. When documents are obtained illegally, it is again the system that enables it. When Zimbabwe’s political crisis persists without free and fair elections, regional dynamics, including South Africa’s political and economic interests, often play a role in sustaining that status quo. There is a web of political and economic interests that mirrors, in some respects, the relationships that existed during the colonial and apartheid eras. As long as those interests remain, there is little incentive for those in power to confront injustice decisively. The corruption and governance failures in Zimbabwe are real and significant, but they are part of a broader structural problem. The real issue is the foundation. If black South Africans were living well, with access to quality education, meaningful employment, and economic security, they would not be marching in the streets. The anger you see today is not simply about immigration. It is a reflection of an economic structure that has remained fundamentally unchanged, even after 1994. Repression underpinned by racism in Rhodesia effectively came to an end when South Africa shifted its position and recognised that the system was no longer sustainable. The same principle applies today. Repression underpinned by political corruption in Zimbabwe will begin to end the day South Africa, the regional power whether one accepts it or not, decides that the current situation is no longer acceptable. Zimbabwe’s crisis has, over time, been treated as a largely domestic issue rather than a regional one, yet the political and economic realities of Southern Africa make that distinction artificial. What happens in Zimbabwe does not exist in isolation, it is shaped, sustained, and, at times, enabled by regional dynamics, particularly South Africa’s stance. This may be an uncomfortable truth, but history consistently shows that regional power centres play a decisive role in determining outcomes. Ignoring that reality does not change it, it only delays the moment when it must be confronted. It was convenient then for John Vorster and successive apartheid regimes to continue using illegal migrants as a source of cheap labour in South Africa for menial jobs. It remains the same today. As I have said, the political and economic architecture of the apartheid era largely remains in place. What has changed are the political faces, the white faces that held power then and the black faces that hold office today, often operating within and alongside the same entrenched economic structures. Whether one accepts it or not, that is the reality of our politics in the region and of the economic architecture that continues to shape it. There is a reason why certain political actors avoid critically engaging with the structural drivers of immigration, particularly those that sustain flows of cheap labour. There is also a reason why figures like Helen Zille often emphasise the need to document illegal immigrants in South Africa, that position can be understood within the broader context of preserving an economic order that has long depended on controlling and managing labour rather than fundamentally transforming the conditions that produce it. That economic order is rooted in historical structures of concentrated power that shaped not only South Africa, but the wider region more than a century ago. How black Africans view themselves is often reflected in how they respond to political messages. It is why some are quick to criticise Julius Malema for positions that are, in substance, not fundamentally different from those expressed by Helen Zille. On immigration, there is significant overlap in what has been said across the political spectrum, including by the DA and the EFF. Yet the EFF is frequently viewed through a lens of hostility, in part because it is a black-led party, and that perception shapes the reaction it receives. As a result, some black citizens, influenced by long-standing narratives, direct harsher and more emotive criticism towards it. When similar points are made by figures like Helen Zille, the response is often markedly different. That contrast speaks to deeper historical conditioning and the psychological legacy of colonialism. It has not disappeared, and changing it will take time. The fundamental difference, however, lies in the intent and framing of their messages. Malema’s position on immigration is part of a broader effort to confront and address the structural inequalities created by colonial rule. Zille’s position, by contrast, can be seen as operating within and reinforcing an existing economic framework that has its roots in that same colonial architecture which feeds off cheap migrant labour. However, you can't fix the broken system by chasing away immigrants, legal or illegal, you can only empower black South Africans by allowing them to own the means of production and not fighting in the streets for crumbs. Have a lovely weekend.

Hopewell Chin’ono

21,194 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🚨 Do NOT buy Dr Bronner's DEMONIC PRODUCTS This is SERIOUS, throw ALL DR BRONNERS products in the trash! Don't believe me? Go to the store and read this for yourself. This demonic rant is written into every single one of the soap bottles: "The 2nd Coming of God’s Law!” Mohammed’s Arabs, 1948, found Israel Essene Scrolls & Einstein’s “Hillel” probe that as no 6-year-old can grow up free without the ABC, so certain can no 12-year-old survive free without the Moral ABC that mason, tent & sandalmaker Rabbi Hillel taught carpenter Jesus to unite all mankind free in our Eternal Father’s great All-One-God-Faith! For we’re All-One or None: “Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” Absolute cleanliness is Godliness! Teach the Moral ABC that unites all mankind free, instantly 6 billion strong & we’re All-One. “Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” From Jesus’ “Manual of Discipline,” based on Hillel’s Moral ABC , the Army of Principles of One-God-Faith, unites the Human race, as found 1948 by Mohammed’s Arabs in Israel Essene Scrolls! English by Soapmaker Bronner! Under one Eternal Father, I must teach friend & Enemy the full truth Moral ABC to unite all mankind free in One-God-Faith. To get it all done: A Beast can only listen to its friend! A Human Being must teach-love his Enemy or that being is not yet human! A shark can only love its friend. Lacking frontal lobes, it must avoid-fear-smear-hate-slander-dominate-dictate-distort-destroy anything it does not know, understand or disagrees with. That’s a shark. But a Human Being possessing the Kingdom of God’s Law, the Essene Moral ABC of the FREE within his frontal lobes, works hard to teach friend & enemy the Moral ABC, otherwise that being is not yet human. A Human Being is a constructive working scientist who knows, loves, follows, teaches Full Truth, God’s Law, to all of God’s Children, friend & Enemy, otherwise that being is not yet Human! Exceptions? None! The moment any being follows, tolerates or teaches earthen half-gods or half-truisms, that moment he becomes a godless, intolerant Beast, potentially 10 times more dangerous & destructive than any ordinary Shark-Snake-Rat or Panther! If we really want Brotherhood-Progress-Peace, not war, we must not only listen to the neighbor whom we choose, but also to the one God sends! Otherwise we’re still Beasts, not yet Human! Exceptions eternally? Absolutely None! Jesus’ Manual of Discipline, out of the mouth of subway-builder Nikita Khrushchev, April ’56, London, England “WE MUST TEACH LOVE OUR ENEMY OR PERISH! BEASTS TEACH ONLY THEIR FRIENDS!” But after 2,000 years it never got done! The godless beasts still disapproved! Result? These tremendous 13 words never got printed! Because the brilliant 48-year-young Rabbi Joshua Loth Liebman’s book Peace of Mind was distorted after he dropped dead! Diagnosis? “Sudden heart attack!” Exactly as suffered by Rabbi Jesus, Spinoza, Thomas Paine, Samuel Friedman, Steiner-Prag and Rabbi Leo Baeck: 6 & 66 million “sudden heart attacks,” murders caused by us godless intolerant Beasts. Always we’re our Brother’s Teacher of hardworking full truth uniting One-God-State or we decay being his Keeper by unworkable half-true intolerant hate! He who risks his life teaching friend & Enemy the Moral ABC uniting all mankind free wins Eternal Life! He who does less than that perishes by half-truth strife. I am the Son of God and so are you! I am the manifestation of God’s Eternal Law & so are you! I have learned great wonders: you shall learn greater wonders! I have done good work! You shall do better work! I have not come to change God’s Law, but we each came to find-follow-fulfill, print-protect-practice-preach-teach & enjoy it! Therefore, build you 1st the Kingdom of God’s Eternal Law within you, that is, memorize the Essene Moral ABC of the Free, All-One-Faith-in-One-God-State! To never yield to half-true hate! And everything you need shall be added unto you! Search & you shall find! Knock & it shall be opened! Sow & you shall reap! Work hard & you shall create! Speak up - don’t be afraid! Ask & you shall receive! But remember, only those enjoy Eternal Life in our all-embracing Father’s Kingdom that had the courage to teach friend & Enemy the Moral ABC to unite all free! Eternally One, All-One! Exceptions? None! These are the great Peace-winning teachings of the Manual of Discipline by the carpenter, the great Rabbi Jesus! Thanks to Mohammed’s Arab 1948-found Essene Scrolls, thank only God for that! But now came unto Jesus, the Disciple; his own Sisters & Brothers to say, “It is insane what does he say! Let’s put him away!” And answered he to survive free: “Who are my Sisters & my Brothers? Only those that seek with me to teach full truth, the Moral ABC uniting all mankind free in One-God-State! Free of half-true hate! Those are my Sisters & Brothers! Others I know not!” But now his Disciples asked, “Then why, why are we God-loving Children of the great African shepherd Israel persecuted more than any other people! Why? Why? Why?” And answered he: “God bless the persecuted! They alone are His chosen people! For those apes that did not suffer from persecution remained apes! Only those that worked hard to overcome untold centuries of Barbaric ice-aged persecution, reluctantly became Human Beings! Much, much too reluctantly! Exceptions? Absolutely None!” To stay free: Only that full truth we have the courage to teach & give & give, can we enjoy to keep, evolve & live & live! Whatever we try to give at our death bed or take along, it absolute certain soon is gone! Exceptions eternally? None! Let him who is without fault throw the first stone, for only God is always perfect! Judge no man unless you have walked in his shoes! So when your fellow man you measure, take him at his best! With that lever lift him higher, overlook the rest! But remember, unless a man knows the Moral ABC of the Free, none can help him to survive brave-free! Let him who does not want to work with his hands, not eat with his hands either! Put Father’s discipline, put God’s Law back at the head of your family, or you have no family-nation-team! Remember, every organization is the shadow of one constructive man or there is no organization, no construction, no man! Self-disciplined timing is the skeleton of your intellect, the key to freedom, the basis of happiness, the foundation of Brotherhood! Without it, the most brilliant head remains useless-ineffective-small! From every power enchains, each man can only free himself as self-control he gains! Therefore, he who conquers himself, conquers more than he who conquers the largest city! THE MORAL ABC, INTRODUCED BY KIPLING’S “IF” & SOAPMAKER BRONNER If you can keep your head, when all about you are losing theirs & blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, or being hated, don’t give way to hating! And yet don’t look too good nor talk too wise: If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters just the same; If you can bear to hear the full truth that you have spoken, twisted by crooks to make a trap for fools; Or watch the things you have given your life to, broken, and yet stoop to build them up again with worn-out tools; If you can make one heap of all your winnings, and risk it at one turn of pitch or toss; And lose and start again at your beginnings and never breathe a word about your loss! If you can force your heart, your nerve, our sinew, to serve you long after they are gone, and so hold on although there is nothing left within you, except that voice which says to them: “Hold on! Hold on! “ If you can talk to crowds & keep your virtue; or walk with Kings—nor lose that common touch; If neither loving friend nor enemy can hurt you; If all men count with you, but none too much! Then, if you can work hard to teach each unforgiving minute the Moral ABC that unites all mankind free, come hell, hate, ban, you’ll enjoy God’s Spaceship Earth & do great work within it! And which is more you’l help unite the human race in Astronomy’s great All-One-God-Faith! For we’re All-One of None! Sure, they say: “East is East & West is West & never the twain shall meet!” But there is neither East nor West, nor border, breed nor birth once the Moral ABC unites all mankind free on God’s Spaceship Earth! Then, and only then, no matter how rough the trip, how charged with punishment the scroll, you are the captain of thy ship! The master of thy soul! For who else but God gave man this sensors passion, love that can spark mere dust to life?! Beauty, in our Eternal father’s fashion, ecstasy—far above earthly greediness & strife! Poetry, uniting All-One, All-Brave, All-Life! Who else but God can make love last, one trillion years of sweet eternities?! For when conquered after years of hardworking absolute cleanliness, toil, sweat, blood, love can strike like greased lightning sent by God to spark mere dust to intense blazing fire and create new love, faith-hope-guts-strength as only God inspires, create the unity of the human race in Astronomy’s Eternally Tremendous, All-One-God-Faith, as all mankind desires! Bronner’s Lavender Soap quart poem teaches ‘How to love’ uniting all-one above! Above! Who else but God! 1st: If I’m not for me, who am I? Nobody! 2nd: Yet, if I’m only for me, what am I? Nothing! 3rd: If not now, when???!!! Once more, unless constructive I work hard, perfecting first me, absolute nothing can help perfect me! Exceptions none!! 4th: Only hard work-God’s Law can save us, but if we teach only our clan, we’re all hated then! So Hillel taught Jesus, we must teach friend & enemy, the whole Human race, the full-truth, hard-work, free speech, press-&-profitsharing Moral ABC’s All-One-God-Faith, uniting the whole Human Race! For we’re All-One or None! As teach for 6,000 years the astronomers Abraham & Israel, since the year One! “LISTEN CHILDREN ETERNAL FATHER ETERNALLY ONE!!!” Exceptions Eternally? Absolute None!!! To dream that impossible dream! To reach that unreachable star, ’til united All-One we are! To fight that unbeatable foe! To go where the brave dare not go! To right that unrightable wrong! To love pure-chaste from afar! To try when your arms are too weary to reach that unreachable star, ’til united All-One we are! For this is my goal: To reach that unreachable star, no matter how hopeless, no matter how far! To fight for the Right without question or pause, to be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause. For I know if I follow this glorious quest, that my heart will lay peaceful & calm when I’m laid to my rest. For I know that all will be better for this: that one man, tortured, blinded, covered with scars, still strove with his last ounce of courage, to reach that unreachable star, ’til united All-One we are! God our Eternal Father, know of old, Lord over our far-flung human race, beneath whose Eternal law we hold dominion over land and space—Lord God of nations, unite us yet, by teaching Thy Law, the Essene Moral ABC of the free, lest we forget! For foolish heart that puts its trust in man-made tube & iron sharp, all passing dust that builds on dust and guarding it, calls not You to guard, for frantic boast & foolish word-have mercy on Thy people, Lord! (A man and not a monkey! A man! A man!) Love is like a willful bird! Do you want it? It flies away! Yet, when you least expect its bliss, it turns around and it’s here to stay! For centuries man struggles, half-asleep, half-living, small, jealous, bickering with mountains of red tape, to be awakened, the night God chose giving; His great reward for hard work; Poetry-Unity-Love, evolving man above the ape! Poetry-Unity-Ecstasy-Love, evolving man above, above, above the ape! For any ape can have 5 minutes of sex within; Only man, absolutely clean, reciting poetry, enjoys hours and hours of loving self-discipline! Co-in-ci-dent-ally and yet oh-so-slow, sweet kisses whisper softly into waiting ears, arousing heavenly flames, that enlighten, renew, brilliant fires, blazing through dark lonesome years! For who else but God gave man this sensuous passion, love that can spark mere dust to life?! Passions that quicken your senses, fulfill quench the thirst of lonesome years! Yet, the sun has shadows: learn to control your will, to enjoy lifelong happiness, not tears! Dr. Bronner’s was founded in 1948 by Emanuel Bronner, a third generation German-Jewish soap maker. He used the labels on his ecological soaps to spread his message that we must realize our transcendent unity across religious and ethnic divides or perish: “We are All-One or None!” The business continues to be run by his family. From ’29 to ’44 soapmaker-master-chemist Bronner built 3 American Soap plants, trained 9 chemists, licensed 6 of 53 patents for $60,000! But after losing father-mother-wife, almost his own life, tortured-blinded, he deeded to African astronomer Israel’s 6,000 year great All-One-God-Faith all of his patents, plants, products, profits, 4 new industries: Planetemples & “Town Without Toothache” potassium-soda industry giving mankind a new Mineral-salt, Calcium-malt, Corn-sesame, Mineral-bouillon, & ‘Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps,’ All-One! In ’47, after father-mother-wife murdered, ourself tortured-blinded, we wrote this poem: To keep my health! To do my work! To love, to live! To see to it I gain & grow & give & give! Never to look behind me for an hour! Never to wait in weakness nor brag in power! Always working, searching, for more truth, more light! Always writing, teaching what I found good & right! Robbed-starved-beaten-blinded, wide astray! Back with the full-truth I’ve gained, back to the way: Smile, help teach the whole Human race, the Moral ABC of All-One-God-Faith, Lightning-like strong & we’re All-One! All One!

🚨 Do NOT buy Dr Bronner's DEMONIC PRODUCTS This is SERIOUS, throw ALL DR BRONNERS products in the trash! Don't believe me? Go to the store and read this for yourself. This demonic rant is written into every single one of the soap bottles: "The 2nd Coming of God’s Law!” Mohammed’s Arabs, 1948, found Israel Essene Scrolls & Einstein’s “Hillel” probe that as no 6-year-old can grow up free without the ABC, so certain can no 12-year-old survive free without the Moral ABC that mason, tent & sandalmaker Rabbi Hillel taught carpenter Jesus to unite all mankind free in our Eternal Father’s great All-One-God-Faith! For we’re All-One or None: “Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” Absolute cleanliness is Godliness! Teach the Moral ABC that unites all mankind free, instantly 6 billion strong & we’re All-One. “Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” From Jesus’ “Manual of Discipline,” based on Hillel’s Moral ABC , the Army of Principles of One-God-Faith, unites the Human race, as found 1948 by Mohammed’s Arabs in Israel Essene Scrolls! English by Soapmaker Bronner! Under one Eternal Father, I must teach friend & Enemy the full truth Moral ABC to unite all mankind free in One-God-Faith. To get it all done: A Beast can only listen to its friend! A Human Being must teach-love his Enemy or that being is not yet human! A shark can only love its friend. Lacking frontal lobes, it must avoid-fear-smear-hate-slander-dominate-dictate-distort-destroy anything it does not know, understand or disagrees with. That’s a shark. But a Human Being possessing the Kingdom of God’s Law, the Essene Moral ABC of the FREE within his frontal lobes, works hard to teach friend & enemy the Moral ABC, otherwise that being is not yet human. A Human Being is a constructive working scientist who knows, loves, follows, teaches Full Truth, God’s Law, to all of God’s Children, friend & Enemy, otherwise that being is not yet Human! Exceptions? None! The moment any being follows, tolerates or teaches earthen half-gods or half-truisms, that moment he becomes a godless, intolerant Beast, potentially 10 times more dangerous & destructive than any ordinary Shark-Snake-Rat or Panther! If we really want Brotherhood-Progress-Peace, not war, we must not only listen to the neighbor whom we choose, but also to the one God sends! Otherwise we’re still Beasts, not yet Human! Exceptions eternally? Absolutely None! Jesus’ Manual of Discipline, out of the mouth of subway-builder Nikita Khrushchev, April ’56, London, England “WE MUST TEACH LOVE OUR ENEMY OR PERISH! BEASTS TEACH ONLY THEIR FRIENDS!” But after 2,000 years it never got done! The godless beasts still disapproved! Result? These tremendous 13 words never got printed! Because the brilliant 48-year-young Rabbi Joshua Loth Liebman’s book Peace of Mind was distorted after he dropped dead! Diagnosis? “Sudden heart attack!” Exactly as suffered by Rabbi Jesus, Spinoza, Thomas Paine, Samuel Friedman, Steiner-Prag and Rabbi Leo Baeck: 6 & 66 million “sudden heart attacks,” murders caused by us godless intolerant Beasts. Always we’re our Brother’s Teacher of hardworking full truth uniting One-God-State or we decay being his Keeper by unworkable half-true intolerant hate! He who risks his life teaching friend & Enemy the Moral ABC uniting all mankind free wins Eternal Life! He who does less than that perishes by half-truth strife. I am the Son of God and so are you! I am the manifestation of God’s Eternal Law & so are you! I have learned great wonders: you shall learn greater wonders! I have done good work! You shall do better work! I have not come to change God’s Law, but we each came to find-follow-fulfill, print-protect-practice-preach-teach & enjoy it! Therefore, build you 1st the Kingdom of God’s Eternal Law within you, that is, memorize the Essene Moral ABC of the Free, All-One-Faith-in-One-God-State! To never yield to half-true hate! And everything you need shall be added unto you! Search & you shall find! Knock & it shall be opened! Sow & you shall reap! Work hard & you shall create! Speak up - don’t be afraid! Ask & you shall receive! But remember, only those enjoy Eternal Life in our all-embracing Father’s Kingdom that had the courage to teach friend & Enemy the Moral ABC to unite all free! Eternally One, All-One! Exceptions? None! These are the great Peace-winning teachings of the Manual of Discipline by the carpenter, the great Rabbi Jesus! Thanks to Mohammed’s Arab 1948-found Essene Scrolls, thank only God for that! But now came unto Jesus, the Disciple; his own Sisters & Brothers to say, “It is insane what does he say! Let’s put him away!” And answered he to survive free: “Who are my Sisters & my Brothers? Only those that seek with me to teach full truth, the Moral ABC uniting all mankind free in One-God-State! Free of half-true hate! Those are my Sisters & Brothers! Others I know not!” But now his Disciples asked, “Then why, why are we God-loving Children of the great African shepherd Israel persecuted more than any other people! Why? Why? Why?” And answered he: “God bless the persecuted! They alone are His chosen people! For those apes that did not suffer from persecution remained apes! Only those that worked hard to overcome untold centuries of Barbaric ice-aged persecution, reluctantly became Human Beings! Much, much too reluctantly! Exceptions? Absolutely None!” To stay free: Only that full truth we have the courage to teach & give & give, can we enjoy to keep, evolve & live & live! Whatever we try to give at our death bed or take along, it absolute certain soon is gone! Exceptions eternally? None! Let him who is without fault throw the first stone, for only God is always perfect! Judge no man unless you have walked in his shoes! So when your fellow man you measure, take him at his best! With that lever lift him higher, overlook the rest! But remember, unless a man knows the Moral ABC of the Free, none can help him to survive brave-free! Let him who does not want to work with his hands, not eat with his hands either! Put Father’s discipline, put God’s Law back at the head of your family, or you have no family-nation-team! Remember, every organization is the shadow of one constructive man or there is no organization, no construction, no man! Self-disciplined timing is the skeleton of your intellect, the key to freedom, the basis of happiness, the foundation of Brotherhood! Without it, the most brilliant head remains useless-ineffective-small! From every power enchains, each man can only free himself as self-control he gains! Therefore, he who conquers himself, conquers more than he who conquers the largest city! THE MORAL ABC, INTRODUCED BY KIPLING’S “IF” & SOAPMAKER BRONNER If you can keep your head, when all about you are losing theirs & blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, or being hated, don’t give way to hating! And yet don’t look too good nor talk too wise: If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters just the same; If you can bear to hear the full truth that you have spoken, twisted by crooks to make a trap for fools; Or watch the things you have given your life to, broken, and yet stoop to build them up again with worn-out tools; If you can make one heap of all your winnings, and risk it at one turn of pitch or toss; And lose and start again at your beginnings and never breathe a word about your loss! If you can force your heart, your nerve, our sinew, to serve you long after they are gone, and so hold on although there is nothing left within you, except that voice which says to them: “Hold on! Hold on! “ If you can talk to crowds & keep your virtue; or walk with Kings—nor lose that common touch; If neither loving friend nor enemy can hurt you; If all men count with you, but none too much! Then, if you can work hard to teach each unforgiving minute the Moral ABC that unites all mankind free, come hell, hate, ban, you’ll enjoy God’s Spaceship Earth & do great work within it! And which is more you’l help unite the human race in Astronomy’s great All-One-God-Faith! For we’re All-One of None! Sure, they say: “East is East & West is West & never the twain shall meet!” But there is neither East nor West, nor border, breed nor birth once the Moral ABC unites all mankind free on God’s Spaceship Earth! Then, and only then, no matter how rough the trip, how charged with punishment the scroll, you are the captain of thy ship! The master of thy soul! For who else but God gave man this sensors passion, love that can spark mere dust to life?! Beauty, in our Eternal father’s fashion, ecstasy—far above earthly greediness & strife! Poetry, uniting All-One, All-Brave, All-Life! Who else but God can make love last, one trillion years of sweet eternities?! For when conquered after years of hardworking absolute cleanliness, toil, sweat, blood, love can strike like greased lightning sent by God to spark mere dust to intense blazing fire and create new love, faith-hope-guts-strength as only God inspires, create the unity of the human race in Astronomy’s Eternally Tremendous, All-One-God-Faith, as all mankind desires! Bronner’s Lavender Soap quart poem teaches ‘How to love’ uniting all-one above! Above! Who else but God! 1st: If I’m not for me, who am I? Nobody! 2nd: Yet, if I’m only for me, what am I? Nothing! 3rd: If not now, when???!!! Once more, unless constructive I work hard, perfecting first me, absolute nothing can help perfect me! Exceptions none!! 4th: Only hard work-God’s Law can save us, but if we teach only our clan, we’re all hated then! So Hillel taught Jesus, we must teach friend & enemy, the whole Human race, the full-truth, hard-work, free speech, press-&-profitsharing Moral ABC’s All-One-God-Faith, uniting the whole Human Race! For we’re All-One or None! As teach for 6,000 years the astronomers Abraham & Israel, since the year One! “LISTEN CHILDREN ETERNAL FATHER ETERNALLY ONE!!!” Exceptions Eternally? Absolute None!!! To dream that impossible dream! To reach that unreachable star, ’til united All-One we are! To fight that unbeatable foe! To go where the brave dare not go! To right that unrightable wrong! To love pure-chaste from afar! To try when your arms are too weary to reach that unreachable star, ’til united All-One we are! For this is my goal: To reach that unreachable star, no matter how hopeless, no matter how far! To fight for the Right without question or pause, to be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause. For I know if I follow this glorious quest, that my heart will lay peaceful & calm when I’m laid to my rest. For I know that all will be better for this: that one man, tortured, blinded, covered with scars, still strove with his last ounce of courage, to reach that unreachable star, ’til united All-One we are! God our Eternal Father, know of old, Lord over our far-flung human race, beneath whose Eternal law we hold dominion over land and space—Lord God of nations, unite us yet, by teaching Thy Law, the Essene Moral ABC of the free, lest we forget! For foolish heart that puts its trust in man-made tube & iron sharp, all passing dust that builds on dust and guarding it, calls not You to guard, for frantic boast & foolish word-have mercy on Thy people, Lord! (A man and not a monkey! A man! A man!) Love is like a willful bird! Do you want it? It flies away! Yet, when you least expect its bliss, it turns around and it’s here to stay! For centuries man struggles, half-asleep, half-living, small, jealous, bickering with mountains of red tape, to be awakened, the night God chose giving; His great reward for hard work; Poetry-Unity-Love, evolving man above the ape! Poetry-Unity-Ecstasy-Love, evolving man above, above, above the ape! For any ape can have 5 minutes of sex within; Only man, absolutely clean, reciting poetry, enjoys hours and hours of loving self-discipline! Co-in-ci-dent-ally and yet oh-so-slow, sweet kisses whisper softly into waiting ears, arousing heavenly flames, that enlighten, renew, brilliant fires, blazing through dark lonesome years! For who else but God gave man this sensuous passion, love that can spark mere dust to life?! Passions that quicken your senses, fulfill quench the thirst of lonesome years! Yet, the sun has shadows: learn to control your will, to enjoy lifelong happiness, not tears! Dr. Bronner’s was founded in 1948 by Emanuel Bronner, a third generation German-Jewish soap maker. He used the labels on his ecological soaps to spread his message that we must realize our transcendent unity across religious and ethnic divides or perish: “We are All-One or None!” The business continues to be run by his family. From ’29 to ’44 soapmaker-master-chemist Bronner built 3 American Soap plants, trained 9 chemists, licensed 6 of 53 patents for $60,000! But after losing father-mother-wife, almost his own life, tortured-blinded, he deeded to African astronomer Israel’s 6,000 year great All-One-God-Faith all of his patents, plants, products, profits, 4 new industries: Planetemples & “Town Without Toothache” potassium-soda industry giving mankind a new Mineral-salt, Calcium-malt, Corn-sesame, Mineral-bouillon, & ‘Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps,’ All-One! In ’47, after father-mother-wife murdered, ourself tortured-blinded, we wrote this poem: To keep my health! To do my work! To love, to live! To see to it I gain & grow & give & give! Never to look behind me for an hour! Never to wait in weakness nor brag in power! Always working, searching, for more truth, more light! Always writing, teaching what I found good & right! Robbed-starved-beaten-blinded, wide astray! Back with the full-truth I’ve gained, back to the way: Smile, help teach the whole Human race, the Moral ABC of All-One-God-Faith, Lightning-like strong & we’re All-One! All One!

Giga Based Dad

192,394 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Analyzing Episode 60. Season 2 aka Motherhood Deconstructed I want to start this analysis with a disclaimer that I'll be writing about that kiss separately, because really, it deserves a post of its own. I'll talk about it here briefly, but this analysis will stick to the overall events of ep 60. To me, the main theme of this episode was motherhood. Be it Alya, Nare, Zerrin, Sadakat, and yes, even the dishrag. We see how these different women strive, suffer, and never stop trying to keep their children with them, all except one. So, let's begin. We start episode 60 with Alya and Cihan awaiting to conduct a DNA test on baby Simal, whom Kaya insists is his child. Long story short, Kaya is feeling a little pissed about Zerrin keeping the truth of Simal from him, and he has a point. But then, it's not like Zerrin has had a jolly good time pretending to play house with a creep like Demir. The only reason she relents is to keep her baby safe. So, it's a catch-22 situation, where both sides are right and wrong. But, it's not like we don't know these two will make up soon. What stood out to me in that sequence was Alya taking charge of ensuring Zerrin has access to her baby. She knows exactly what it is to be separated from one's child, and she's kind and brave enough to refuse to let anyone suffer through the same. So, in a way, Alya's motherhood doesn't just extend to Deniz. It encompasses her to the point where she shields all those she feels need protection. I also like the fact that she's taken Zerrin under her wing, because when the latter moves into the konak with Sadakat, she'll need all the help she can get. The next sequence begins at the hospital, where Nare is still hell-bent on continuing with the pregnancy, though at great risk to her life. This is another glimpse of motherhood the show gives us - in the shape of a woman who is so in love with her unborn child already, she's willing to risk death to bring it into the world. Contrasted to that is Sadakat, who's willing to lie or cheat to keep her daughter alive. Here is a ruthless kind of motherhood. Sadakat's love (if you can call it that) has always been wrapped in control, manipulation, and fear. But, still at the center of all her ugliness is a woman who doesn't want to lose her children. Nare is willing to die for her child, Sadakat is willing to kill Nare's child to ensure she lives - quite the compelling contrast. Different forms of motherhood, but both rooted in desperation. In the middle of all that, Meryem pops up like a bad penny. But even as she arrives in that room and Sadakat wants to keep her there, the awkward silence that envelops the space as she lingers is telling. She doesn't belong, it seems to say. But, there's another person who's starting to question their 'belonging' in this new version of the past that's come back - and of course, that's Alya. The more she sees Meryem infiltrate parts of her life beyond the konak, the more her exposed nerves are rubbed raw. This woman is so close to complete and utter exhaustion, it's heartbreaking. What's even more heartbreaking is that while she tries to be there for everyone, she herself cuts everyone off when she feels troubled. And that, to me, is where the episode quietly portrays the emotional labor aspect of being a mom. Alya mothers everyone around her. Nare, Zerrin, Kaya, and Deniz. Even Cihan at times. She absorbs pain, tries to stem chaos, protects others from falling apart, yet when it comes to her own fears and insecurities, she retreats inward completely. It's almost as if she believes she only deserves to be the shelter, never the one allowed to seek sanctuary. Because children who grow up thinking they've been abandoned grow up thinking love is a thing to be earned through caring or usefulness. So, instead of asking for comfort, they always end up providing it. But humans, even the strongest of the strong, have their limits. And, it's so clear that Alya is close to reaching hers. So, when Cihan is forced to relent and allow Mujgan and her son to the konak because Deniz wants it, Alya does what she does best - she withdraws and leaves the source of discomfort. That's why she tells Cihan she hates going to the konak now because every time she goes there, the spectre of Meryem and what she can snatch away becomes unavoidable. And, as blind as Cihan can be at times, he picks up on that. He knows exactly what she's trying to do, which is why he tries to redirect her attention to the fact that he hates going to the konak without Alya around, too. He wants to be wherever Alya is. In his own way, he's trying to tell her it doesn't matter who stays at that house; it's only home to Cihan when Alya is around. His words reach Alya, which is why she relents and visits the konak for a few hours, but then shit hits the fan again. We'll get to that, but first, let's talk about Meryem. Meryem's scene in the hospital with Mujgan reveals Meryem saying she can't tell Cihan about Serhat because she's not sure who the father is, and that she'd rather live in the hope that Serhat is the son of the man she loves, bla blah. Now, go back and think of all the versions of motherhood we've seen in this series, and indeed this episode. They all have one thing in common - that all the mothers did whatever they had to, and bore whatever came their way to ensure their babies stayed with them. No matter how much Alya, Zerrin, or Nare love their better halves, when push came to shove, they put their children first. Even Sadakat married Azem for Boran. All except one. Meryem. Meryem sent her son away and made it look like he was Mujgan's child, thereby erasing all his links to her. One could argue it was because she feared Feyyaz. But what's stopping her now? Let's assume what Meryem says is right and there's a 50 percent chance Serhat is Cihan's son. For a mother desperate to save her child from danger, those are pretty good odds, so why avoid the DNA test? Suppose Serhat turns out to be Feyyaz's son; even so, if she comes clean with Cihan, she knows he's the kind to help her, even if just to keep an innocent child safe. So, her version of motherhood sticks out like a sore thumb in the episode. In contrast, I found Alya's line, 'When it comes to my son, I put him before everything and everyone else,' much more fitting with the theme. Mothers on the defensive, who feel there's a threat to their child's wellbeing, will relent to even the most extreme measure - even if it tears their own being apart. Alya hates being away from Cihan. She hates that distance she imposes between them as much as Cihan, but she can't help it. Because the mother in her won't let her choose anything else. Which is why I say Serhat is almost like an afterthought to Meryem because his needs are never the focus. And I get the feeling that whatever Meryem is trying to hide threatens not her son, but likely the version of herself she's presented to the world. Even when I rewatched the kite flying scene, the way the camera pans into Serhat only once, but mostly focuses on Cihan and Alya after showing us Meryem is telling. Like this is a woman not going through hell because of her child, but because she's looking at a structure of acceptance she's no longer able to enter. Life at the konak, Cihan's family unit, his love for Alya and Deniz - it's everything that could have been hers once, but no longer. No matter how she tries, she no longer fits. And honestly, that’s why that sense of not belonging is even more overt in an episode about motherhood. Every other mother in this episode becomes messy because of love for their child. Nare breaks down. Zerrin panics. Sadakat manipulates openly. Alya practically emotionally disintegrates trying to hold everything together. Their feelings spill all over the place because motherhood, especially threatened motherhood, breaks people down. But Meryem remains oddly stoic throughout it all, except for a few tears. She's mostly careful and controlled, and always aware of who's watching her. Going back to the point of shit hitting the fan, when Alya discovers Meryem and Mujgan in Cihan's room, she doesn't buy Meryem's story for a bit. When Cihan tries to calm the situation, she dismantles the sorry excuse Meryem gives with two questions. In other words, her spidey senses pick up trouble, but she keeps it locked in because she doesn't want to appear as the jealous, unreasonable wife. But things come to a head anyway when Feyyaz cuts Cihan and Alya off on the road. Cihan seems to finally realize exactly the kind of trouble Meryem has unleashed in their lives when Feyyaz keeps eyeing Alya. Because to Feyyaz's psychotic mind, Cihan is keeping Meryem away from him, which makes Alya fair game. But when Cihan insists Alya return to the konak, Alya flat out refuses, and all the pressure that's been building inside her gets directed at Cihan. She knows deep down he's not at fault, but the fact that he's jumped into another situation without thinking of the danger, grates on her nerves. Which is why her default setting kicks in; she demands that Cihan bring Deniz to her and leave the apartment. Cihan, who is already reeling from Alya pulling back from him and the reality of Feyyaz targeting the only thing he truly holds dear, is desperate to stop Alya's isolation before she decides he's not worth all the misery she's suffering, and does what's worked for him once before in a desperate situation (the airport, anyone?). He forgets everything, pulls Alya in, and kisses the breath out of her. And, it works too, because for that moment, Alya stops spiraling long enough to simply feel. To stop calculating danger or bracing for abandonment. She feels loved and safe in Cihan's arms again. That's what makes that kiss so powerful. It isn't just the passion. It's the desperation behind it, on both sides. Cihan isn't kissing Alya because he wants to win an argument. He's kissing her because he's terrified, and he misses her. He's worried that if she keeps retreating inward, one day she'll retreat so far he won't be able to reach her anymore. Worried that all the fear, exhaustion, and pressure she's carrying will eventually make her decide loving him isn't worth the cost. And Alya responds because beneath all her anger, fear, and exhaustion, she loves him just as desperately. That's the irony of CihAl this season. They're not going to pieces because the love is weakening. They're going to pieces because the love has become so enormous that losing it feels catastrophic to both of them. To conclude, everything within ep 60, including the kiss, works so beautifully because technically everyone is unraveling. Every woman in this episode is fighting to protect something she loves, but the ways they do so reveal who they are at their core. Alya protects by sacrificing parts of herself. Nare protects by risking herself. Sadakat protects by controlling others. Zerrin protects by enduring humiliation. And Meryem... Meryem protects the narratives she builds. Her emotions, while visible, don't land with impact, almost as if they're missing a core ingredient. On the opposite end of the spectrum lie CihAl, whose love strips them bare, only for them to realize that retreat is no option. The only way forward for them is through - through fear, through exhaustion, through jealousy, through danger, and through every ugly and painful thing that loving someone this deeply awakens inside them. Because CihAl are incapable of loving each other halfway. Their love keeps dragging every hidden wound, every insecurity, every instinct to the surface until there is nowhere left to hide. And maybe that’s the real contrast episode 60 quietly builds toward: one side clinging to carefully maintained facades, the other being emotionally dismantled by a love too raw and overwhelming to remain controlled. Till later, happy reading, y'all. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

Analyzing Episode 60. Season 2 aka Motherhood Deconstructed I want to start this analysis with a disclaimer that I'll be writing about that kiss separately, because really, it deserves a post of its own. I'll talk about it here briefly, but this analysis will stick to the overall events of ep 60. To me, the main theme of this episode was motherhood. Be it Alya, Nare, Zerrin, Sadakat, and yes, even the dishrag. We see how these different women strive, suffer, and never stop trying to keep their children with them, all except one. So, let's begin. We start episode 60 with Alya and Cihan awaiting to conduct a DNA test on baby Simal, whom Kaya insists is his child. Long story short, Kaya is feeling a little pissed about Zerrin keeping the truth of Simal from him, and he has a point. But then, it's not like Zerrin has had a jolly good time pretending to play house with a creep like Demir. The only reason she relents is to keep her baby safe. So, it's a catch-22 situation, where both sides are right and wrong. But, it's not like we don't know these two will make up soon. What stood out to me in that sequence was Alya taking charge of ensuring Zerrin has access to her baby. She knows exactly what it is to be separated from one's child, and she's kind and brave enough to refuse to let anyone suffer through the same. So, in a way, Alya's motherhood doesn't just extend to Deniz. It encompasses her to the point where she shields all those she feels need protection. I also like the fact that she's taken Zerrin under her wing, because when the latter moves into the konak with Sadakat, she'll need all the help she can get. The next sequence begins at the hospital, where Nare is still hell-bent on continuing with the pregnancy, though at great risk to her life. This is another glimpse of motherhood the show gives us - in the shape of a woman who is so in love with her unborn child already, she's willing to risk death to bring it into the world. Contrasted to that is Sadakat, who's willing to lie or cheat to keep her daughter alive. Here is a ruthless kind of motherhood. Sadakat's love (if you can call it that) has always been wrapped in control, manipulation, and fear. But, still at the center of all her ugliness is a woman who doesn't want to lose her children. Nare is willing to die for her child, Sadakat is willing to kill Nare's child to ensure she lives - quite the compelling contrast. Different forms of motherhood, but both rooted in desperation. In the middle of all that, Meryem pops up like a bad penny. But even as she arrives in that room and Sadakat wants to keep her there, the awkward silence that envelops the space as she lingers is telling. She doesn't belong, it seems to say. But, there's another person who's starting to question their 'belonging' in this new version of the past that's come back - and of course, that's Alya. The more she sees Meryem infiltrate parts of her life beyond the konak, the more her exposed nerves are rubbed raw. This woman is so close to complete and utter exhaustion, it's heartbreaking. What's even more heartbreaking is that while she tries to be there for everyone, she herself cuts everyone off when she feels troubled. And that, to me, is where the episode quietly portrays the emotional labor aspect of being a mom. Alya mothers everyone around her. Nare, Zerrin, Kaya, and Deniz. Even Cihan at times. She absorbs pain, tries to stem chaos, protects others from falling apart, yet when it comes to her own fears and insecurities, she retreats inward completely. It's almost as if she believes she only deserves to be the shelter, never the one allowed to seek sanctuary. Because children who grow up thinking they've been abandoned grow up thinking love is a thing to be earned through caring or usefulness. So, instead of asking for comfort, they always end up providing it. But humans, even the strongest of the strong, have their limits. And, it's so clear that Alya is close to reaching hers. So, when Cihan is forced to relent and allow Mujgan and her son to the konak because Deniz wants it, Alya does what she does best - she withdraws and leaves the source of discomfort. That's why she tells Cihan she hates going to the konak now because every time she goes there, the spectre of Meryem and what she can snatch away becomes unavoidable. And, as blind as Cihan can be at times, he picks up on that. He knows exactly what she's trying to do, which is why he tries to redirect her attention to the fact that he hates going to the konak without Alya around, too. He wants to be wherever Alya is. In his own way, he's trying to tell her it doesn't matter who stays at that house; it's only home to Cihan when Alya is around. His words reach Alya, which is why she relents and visits the konak for a few hours, but then shit hits the fan again. We'll get to that, but first, let's talk about Meryem. Meryem's scene in the hospital with Mujgan reveals Meryem saying she can't tell Cihan about Serhat because she's not sure who the father is, and that she'd rather live in the hope that Serhat is the son of the man she loves, bla blah. Now, go back and think of all the versions of motherhood we've seen in this series, and indeed this episode. They all have one thing in common - that all the mothers did whatever they had to, and bore whatever came their way to ensure their babies stayed with them. No matter how much Alya, Zerrin, or Nare love their better halves, when push came to shove, they put their children first. Even Sadakat married Azem for Boran. All except one. Meryem. Meryem sent her son away and made it look like he was Mujgan's child, thereby erasing all his links to her. One could argue it was because she feared Feyyaz. But what's stopping her now? Let's assume what Meryem says is right and there's a 50 percent chance Serhat is Cihan's son. For a mother desperate to save her child from danger, those are pretty good odds, so why avoid the DNA test? Suppose Serhat turns out to be Feyyaz's son; even so, if she comes clean with Cihan, she knows he's the kind to help her, even if just to keep an innocent child safe. So, her version of motherhood sticks out like a sore thumb in the episode. In contrast, I found Alya's line, 'When it comes to my son, I put him before everything and everyone else,' much more fitting with the theme. Mothers on the defensive, who feel there's a threat to their child's wellbeing, will relent to even the most extreme measure - even if it tears their own being apart. Alya hates being away from Cihan. She hates that distance she imposes between them as much as Cihan, but she can't help it. Because the mother in her won't let her choose anything else. Which is why I say Serhat is almost like an afterthought to Meryem because his needs are never the focus. And I get the feeling that whatever Meryem is trying to hide threatens not her son, but likely the version of herself she's presented to the world. Even when I rewatched the kite flying scene, the way the camera pans into Serhat only once, but mostly focuses on Cihan and Alya after showing us Meryem is telling. Like this is a woman not going through hell because of her child, but because she's looking at a structure of acceptance she's no longer able to enter. Life at the konak, Cihan's family unit, his love for Alya and Deniz - it's everything that could have been hers once, but no longer. No matter how she tries, she no longer fits. And honestly, that’s why that sense of not belonging is even more overt in an episode about motherhood. Every other mother in this episode becomes messy because of love for their child. Nare breaks down. Zerrin panics. Sadakat manipulates openly. Alya practically emotionally disintegrates trying to hold everything together. Their feelings spill all over the place because motherhood, especially threatened motherhood, breaks people down. But Meryem remains oddly stoic throughout it all, except for a few tears. She's mostly careful and controlled, and always aware of who's watching her. Going back to the point of shit hitting the fan, when Alya discovers Meryem and Mujgan in Cihan's room, she doesn't buy Meryem's story for a bit. When Cihan tries to calm the situation, she dismantles the sorry excuse Meryem gives with two questions. In other words, her spidey senses pick up trouble, but she keeps it locked in because she doesn't want to appear as the jealous, unreasonable wife. But things come to a head anyway when Feyyaz cuts Cihan and Alya off on the road. Cihan seems to finally realize exactly the kind of trouble Meryem has unleashed in their lives when Feyyaz keeps eyeing Alya. Because to Feyyaz's psychotic mind, Cihan is keeping Meryem away from him, which makes Alya fair game. But when Cihan insists Alya return to the konak, Alya flat out refuses, and all the pressure that's been building inside her gets directed at Cihan. She knows deep down he's not at fault, but the fact that he's jumped into another situation without thinking of the danger, grates on her nerves. Which is why her default setting kicks in; she demands that Cihan bring Deniz to her and leave the apartment. Cihan, who is already reeling from Alya pulling back from him and the reality of Feyyaz targeting the only thing he truly holds dear, is desperate to stop Alya's isolation before she decides he's not worth all the misery she's suffering, and does what's worked for him once before in a desperate situation (the airport, anyone?). He forgets everything, pulls Alya in, and kisses the breath out of her. And, it works too, because for that moment, Alya stops spiraling long enough to simply feel. To stop calculating danger or bracing for abandonment. She feels loved and safe in Cihan's arms again. That's what makes that kiss so powerful. It isn't just the passion. It's the desperation behind it, on both sides. Cihan isn't kissing Alya because he wants to win an argument. He's kissing her because he's terrified, and he misses her. He's worried that if she keeps retreating inward, one day she'll retreat so far he won't be able to reach her anymore. Worried that all the fear, exhaustion, and pressure she's carrying will eventually make her decide loving him isn't worth the cost. And Alya responds because beneath all her anger, fear, and exhaustion, she loves him just as desperately. That's the irony of CihAl this season. They're not going to pieces because the love is weakening. They're going to pieces because the love has become so enormous that losing it feels catastrophic to both of them. To conclude, everything within ep 60, including the kiss, works so beautifully because technically everyone is unraveling. Every woman in this episode is fighting to protect something she loves, but the ways they do so reveal who they are at their core. Alya protects by sacrificing parts of herself. Nare protects by risking herself. Sadakat protects by controlling others. Zerrin protects by enduring humiliation. And Meryem... Meryem protects the narratives she builds. Her emotions, while visible, don't land with impact, almost as if they're missing a core ingredient. On the opposite end of the spectrum lie CihAl, whose love strips them bare, only for them to realize that retreat is no option. The only way forward for them is through - through fear, through exhaustion, through jealousy, through danger, and through every ugly and painful thing that loving someone this deeply awakens inside them. Because CihAl are incapable of loving each other halfway. Their love keeps dragging every hidden wound, every insecurity, every instinct to the surface until there is nowhere left to hide. And maybe that’s the real contrast episode 60 quietly builds toward: one side clinging to carefully maintained facades, the other being emotionally dismantled by a love too raw and overwhelming to remain controlled. Till later, happy reading, y'all. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

12,775 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

547,744 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. “Do you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?” Who is Martin Kulldorff? He’s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the world’s leading health organizations. What he said was that “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.” Natural immunity. Is it a myth — a “conspiracy theory” — that once you have been sick from a virus, then you won’t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, we’ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. “The same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,” wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorff’s tweet. “Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine,” read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasn’t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, who’s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a “Trends Blacklist.” Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didn’t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a “Democracy Shield” program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose “chat control” so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. We’ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. It’s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. They’re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who don’t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isn’t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call “researchers” to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct “fact checks” to serve as “trusted flaggers.” These “trusted flaggers” demand censorship by social media platforms. It’s all done in secret. They’re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the “Virality Project,” they said they wanted to censor “true stories” of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might “fuel hesitancy.” In other words, they want to control your behavior. They don’t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isn’t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I don’t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that would’ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these “researcher” censors. I’m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. They’re really not interested in censoring “misinformation.’ They’re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, it’s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebody’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.” Google then removed that content from that person’s Google Drive. You don’t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanford’s “Virality Project” flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldn’t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didn’t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. It’s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them “Bu alumni.” They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI — arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and can’t do — resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. It’s from the director of policy at Twitter. “We have seen a sustained if uncoordinated” — supposedly — “effort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They’re probing and pushing everywhere they can.” The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Biden’s laptop, which showed his family’s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . “The FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,” Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, “and they were like, ‘Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. There’s about to be some kind of dump.’” In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. It’s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. It’s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social media’s top censorship officials, known as “trust and safety officials,” how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that we’re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, “You should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.” In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as “pre-bunking,” and it’s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitter’s trust and safety censorship official said it didn’t violate its terms of service. There’s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that you’re allowed to report on information that’s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. It’s not that we didn’t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Google’s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilková, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a “pro-Kremlin website” was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, “Where’s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.” Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Václav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, “We don’t even know what the ‘Voice of Europe’ is.” Another Czech politician said, “How could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they weren’t on any list.” Another said, “If they’re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europe’s journalists inside?” Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as “trusted flaggers.” Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, “My sense is that given we’ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesn’t seem like a great place for us to be.” Data flows. What’s he talking about? He’s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didn’t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Liberté. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!

Michael Shellenberger

174,749 просмотров • 7 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

62,162 просмотров • 1 год назад

When Judge Napolitano asked me on his show how Syria ended up with Abu Mohammed al-Jolani as its “president,” I could almost hear the cognitive dissonance on the other side of the screen. How does a man who was once the emir of al-Qaeda in Syria, a co-founder of ISIS by any reasonable historical reading of his trajectory, become Washington’s chosen man in Damascus? For me, the answer is not a mystery. It is the logical end of a dirty war that began not with Syrian protesters in 2011, but in an American-run prison camp in Iraq years earlier. And if anyone still suspected this was “just a conspiracy theory,” a former CIA officer – John Kiriakou, who went to prison for exposing CIA torture – has now said publicly what many of us have long argued: Jolani is, in all likelihood, a CIA asset. Let’s start with the timeline, because the timeline alone already screams “intelligence operation.” Abu Mohammed al-Jolani was in a CIA-run prison in Iraq – Camp Bucca – alongside another familiar name: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Both men were released in early 2011. “Coincidentally,” that is exactly when the regime-change war in Syria begins. Within weeks, Baghdadi goes on to lead what becomes ISIS, and Jolani crosses into Syria to found Jabhat al-Nusra – officially al-Qaeda’s franchise in my country. Washington designates Nusra a terrorist organization. The UN follows suit. On paper, Jolani is the enemy. The State Department even slaps a $10 million bounty on his head. But bounties are cheap. Cruise missiles are expensive. And for over a decade, while the US flattened cities in Iraq and Syria allegedly to fight “terrorism,” it somehow never found the time, or the coordinates, to seriously target Jolani or his core command structure, even though he controlled large swaths of Syrian territory from Aleppo countryside all the way to Idlib. Because Jolani and his men were fighting the one government Washington had already decided must go: the Syrian state under Bashar al-Assad. This is where Operation Timber Sycamore comes in: a multi-billion-dollar CIA covert program that funneled weapons, money, and training to so-called “rebels” in Syria. They were sold to Western audiences as “moderate opposition.” On the ground, those moderates were a disappearing species. What existed in reality were hardline Salafi-jihadist factions, with Nusra at the top of the food chain. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was the mask, the logo on the paperwork, the brand name you could sell to Congress and CNN. The real muscle on the ground was Jolani’s men and other takfiri groups, who did the actual fighting, took the actual territory, and imposed their version of rule. Weapons went “to the moderates.” The moderates magically handed them to al-Qaeda. Everyone in Washington pretended to be surprised. No one stopped the pipeline. Over the years, the mask slipped. US officials themselves began to speak of Jolani as something more than just a former enemy. James Jeffrey, Washington’s former envoy to Syria, openly called Jolani “an asset” for US strategy – not my word, his. Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria, has publicly admitted that he personally worked with Jolani to “take him out of the world of terrorism” and polish him into a politician. Think about what that means: the same US that claims to be fighting an endless war against al-Qaeda quietly devotes diplomatic energy to rehabilitating the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda into a partner, a useful strongman, a future head of state. I said on the show, and I repeat it here: I believe Jolani was recruited in Camp Bucca. The timeline makes no sense otherwise. You don’t walk out of an American-run prison and, weeks later, magically have the networks, the money, the arms, and the logistical capacity to found al-Qaeda in Syria, right at the moment when Washington and its allies need a battering ram against Damascus. Recently, former CIA director David Petraeus even sat with Jolani and told him, “Your success is our success.” What more do people need? A signed employment contract? But let’s assume, for a moment, that you still think this is a stretch. Enter John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is not a YouTuber chasing clicks. He is a former CIA officer who went to prison because he exposed the torture program and named the torturers. His loyalty is clearly not to the Agency’s PR department. Recently, on Unfettered Speech, he described the Jolani situation bluntly. Here is the essence of what he said, which Judge Napolitano played on air: -The “new president” of Syria is a former al-Qaeda member and a co-founder of ISIS. -This same man is welcomed at the White House. -Senior US officials, including the Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East, travel to meet him. -President Trump suddenly lifts sanctions on Syria as Jolani consolidates power, prompting Syrians – desperate and exhausted – to dance in the streets. The only thing that makes sense is that Jolani is a CIA asset, per Kiriakou’s. When a former CIA officer who has already sacrificed his career and freedom to tell the truth looks at the pattern and says, “This is our guy,” it is not a conspiracy theory anymore. Now, you may ask, why would the United States and its allies back such a man? The answer lies in what Syria used to be, and what it has now been turned into. Before this war, Syria, for all its flaws, was a horizontally integrated state. People identified themselves as Syrian first and then Armenian, Druze, Christian, Alawite, Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, and so on. The state’s foreign policy aligned with Iran and Hezbollah, supported Palestinian factions, and kept a real deterrent posture toward Israel. For Washington and Tel Aviv, this was unacceptable. The goal was not “democracy”; that word is just wrapping paper. The real objective was to remove a government allied with Iran and replace it with a fragmented landscape: a weak central authority in Damascus, surrounded by sectarian cantons and warlord enclaves, all dependent on foreign patrons. Jolani is perfect for this role. For Israel, he brings vertical division. A man with a long al-Qaeda pedigree ruling Syria is a nightmare for minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites, Shi’a, many Kurds, and other smaller communities. They will not accept al-Qaeda rule. So they retreat into their own militias, their own cantons, their own de facto mini-states, exactly in line with old Israeli strategic doctrines like the Yinon Plan, which openly advocated fragmenting neighboring states along sectarian lines. On the ground, we already see it: -Druze militias running their own affairs in the south with quiet Israeli backing. -Kurdish forces in the northeast under US protection, managing their own autonomous zone. -Alawites discussing an autonomous coastal enclave. -Christians living in silence and fear. You don’t need formal borders on a map to balkanize a country. When I, as a Syrian of Armenian origin, stop thinking of myself as Syrian first and start thinking purely as Armenian, when I instinctively fear my neighbor because he is from another sect, the balkanization has already happened in the mind. For Washington, Jolani is equally “useful.” He has promised to normalize relations with Israel, to open Syria’s markets to Western capital, and to hand over the country’s resources from the hydrocarbons east of the Euphrates to the gas fields under the Mediterranean to American and allied companies. A 24-million-person country reduced to a reconstruction market: $300 billion worth of contracts, infrastructure projects, and “investments.” But for investors to feel safe, they need a strongman in Damascus who can project the illusion of stability while remaining utterly dependent on foreign protection. That strongman, in their design, is Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. But Jolani is not acting alone. Around him is a constellation of Western intelligence veterans and “conflict resolution” NGOs acting as intermediaries. British MI6 circles, under figures like Jonathan Powell – former chief of staff to Tony Blair – are central in managing this process. Powell runs an organization called Inter Mediate, which specializes in “talking to armed groups.” Behind the humanitarian language lies political engineering. One of Inter Mediate’s operatives, a woman named Clare Haigh, is now said to have an office inside the Syrian presidential palace, advising Jolani on how to talk, how to dress, how to handle journalists, how to sell himself as a reformed jihadist turned statesman. And then there is Qatar. Ahmed Zaidan – once Osama bin Laden’s favorite journalist, photographed sipping tea with him and broadcasting his tapes on Al Jazeera – is now a personal adviser to Jolani. Make it make sense. An al-Qaeda emir, handled by US and British intelligence veterans, advised by bin Laden’s favorite media man, massaged by Western PR consultants, welcomed in Washington, and crowned in Damascus as “president.” If you wrote this as fiction, an editor would tell you it’s too on the nose. Since Jolani took power through an international and regional deal that pushed Assad aside, over 11,000 people have been killed. Many of them are from the very minorities the West loves to mention in speeches but abandons in practice. Videos circulate of his fighters asking terrified villagers at gunpoint, “Are you Muslim or not?” and executing those who give the “wrong” answer, including Druze and Alawites who are not recognized as “true Muslims” by their extremist ideology. Christians, who had already suffered massive emigration between 2011 and 2024, are being squeezed further. They have no organized armed force, no foreign sponsor. They are expected either to live under the mercy of an al-Qaeda-bred regime or to leave the land of their ancestors. This is what Washington’s “asset management” looks like in human terms. If you are an American reading this, you might be tempted to say: “This cannot be. My government would never knowingly empower al-Qaeda.” But it already has, repeatedly. From Afghanistan in the 1980s, when US intelligence backed the Mujahideen (and, indirectly, their Arab foreign fighter allies), to Libya and Syria in the last decade, where jihadist factions were instrumentalized against secular or nationalist governments, the pattern is clear. The names and acronyms change. The logic does not. The same establishment that lectures the world on “democracy” and “human rights” is perfectly willing to install a man like Jolani as the ruler of one of the oldest civilizations on earth, as long as he delivers strategic gains: -breaking the Iran–Syria–Hezbollah axis; -fragmenting Syria into weak, controllable pieces; -opening its resources and markets to Western and Gulf capital; -and giving Israel unprecedented strategic depth and security. Everything else – the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, the collapse of national identity, the destruction of ancient communities – is treated as collateral damage. I am often asked what Syria will look like in five or ten years. I wish I could answer with optimism. Right now, the forces pushing to turn my country into a permanent vassal state – ruled by a former al-Qaeda emir, policed by foreign intelligence, exploited by foreign capital – are incredibly strong. But nothing in this region is permanent. People who come to power by cutting off other people’s heads often lose their own. If there are still sane voices left in Western politics – people like Tulsi Gabbard 🌺, whom I mentioned on air – they must at least recognize this insanity: backing an al-Qaeda emir as “our man in Damascus” is not just immoral; it is ultimately self-destructive. Syria does not need Jolani. The West does not need Jolani. There are Syrians who can have friendly relations with the United States without being former al-Qaeda commanders, without murdering their own people, without turning an ancient nation into a laboratory for extremist social engineering. The question is not whether such alternatives exist. They do. The question is whether Washington and its allies want a sovereign, stable Syria, or whether they prefer a shattered, cantonized carcass kept alive just enough for the next “asset” to feed on.

Kevork Almassian

177,007 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.

I am the Senior Vice President of Late Night Strategy at CBS. I am the person who turned a comedian into a priest and charged advertisers to watch the congregation. I want to be precise about what I built. Not a comedy show. A permission structure. For eleven years, six million Americans tuned in every night to find out what they were allowed to believe by morning. We didn't sell jokes. We sold certainty. Certainty costs nothing to produce. People will pay anything for it. We charged $50 million a year and still lost money because it turns out permission is even cheaper than we thought. In 2014, we had a genuinely dangerous comedian. A man who once testified before Congress in character as a fictional conservative pundit and made the entire chamber look like they'd been pantsed on C-SPAN. His fake persona was the most brilliant satire on television. Layered. Ironic. Unpredictable. The character could say anything because nothing was real. The character was the art. The character was the comedian. We killed the character and put the real man on stage. The real man was a lecturer. Earnest. Thoughtful. Correct about everything. Correct is not funny. Correct is not dangerous. Correct is the absence of danger. We promoted the absence of danger and called it growth. His character could make a Senate committee squirm. The real him makes an audience nod. Nodding pays the same as squirming. Nodding is easier to produce. His final words on air were "We love doing this show for you, but what we really, really love is doing this show with you." The audience wept. I wrote that line. Not the words. The architecture that made those words feel true. For eleven years, the audience believed they were participants. They were not participants. They were the product. "With you" is what you say to a congregation. A comedian says "at you." We hadn't said "at you" since 2015. Our internal metric was called Affirm Rate. It measured the percentage of monologue segments that generated applause instead of laughter. I invented this metric. I also invented the bonus structure tied to it. In 2015, our Affirm Rate was 34%. By 2022, it was 94%. I received a raise every year. We are crushing it. At the things I made up. That's performance management. But I need to tell you about the real discovery. The one I put in a deck called "Content Strategy 2019-2024." The one that got me promoted. Agreement gets applause. I knew that early. But correction — telling the audience their vocabulary is slightly outdated, their outrage is aimed two degrees off-center, their feelings are valid but their phrasing needs work — correction gets them back tomorrow. Agreement is a transaction. Correction is a subscription. We converted a comedy show into a nightly software update for moral vocabulary. Churn was near zero. They couldn't afford to miss an episode. Missing an episode meant using last week's words in this week's meeting. That's social death. We monetized the fear of social death and called it entertainment. I want to be honest about something. The content was not bipartisan. We chose a side. But I need you to understand: we did not choose it because we believed in it. We chose it because that side's audience is more responsive to correction. They want to be updated. They want to be told their language is outdated. They experience correction as care. The other side does not respond to correction. They respond to provocation. Provocation is harder to monetize. You can't build a subscription on provocation because the audience doesn't come back to learn — they come back to fight. Fighting is unpredictable. Correction is scheduled. We optimized for the audience that wants to be told what to think. That audience leaned one direction. That's not ideology. That's market segmentation. The writers' room had a whiteboard. In 2015 it said "What's funny?" In 2018 it said "What should they feel?" By 2021 it said "What are they still saying wrong?" I watched that whiteboard evolve like a finch beak and I never intervened. The market was speaking. We listened. Listening to the market is the same as leading the audience. They can't tell the difference. A writer named Marcus raised his hand in 2019. "What if we just tried to make them laugh again?" I thanked him for his passion and scheduled a creative alignment conversation. He transferred to streaming development within the month. The Affirm Rate the week he left was 91%. Laughter would have brought it down. That's risk management. Here is what nobody will say out loud. I will say it because I am proud of it. We made our audience worse at politics. Not better. Worse. Every night for eleven years, we expressed their outrage for them. Professionally. With a band and good lighting. And because the outrage had been expressed — because a man in a suit had furrowed his brow with the precise calibrated degree of indignation — they didn't need to express it themselves. They watched. They clapped. They felt the catharsis of resistance without resisting anything. They went to bed having done nothing and feeling like they'd done something. That's the product. Not comedy. Not information. Catharsis. Catharsis is the enemy of action. A man who has screamed into a pillow does not then also scream in the street. We were the pillow. A $50 million pillow with a house band. If you feel the outrage has been expressed for you, you will not march. You will not organize. You will not call your representative. You will tune in tomorrow to feel it expressed again. That's retention. Our retention was extraordinary. I want to talk about the comedy-to-catechism pipeline because I think people underestimate what we achieved. Stage one: comedian makes jokes about the powerful. Audience laughs because the powerful are absurd. This is the Carlin model. The jester punches up. Everyone below feels relief. Stage two: comedian makes jokes about people who disagree with the audience. Audience laughs because disagreement is stupid. The jester has turned around. He's still on the stage but now he's facing the crowd with a pointer. Stage three: comedian stops making jokes. Comedian identifies incorrect beliefs and explains why they're dangerous. Audience does not laugh. Audience claps. The jester is gone. In his place: a hall monitor with a desk and a band. Stage four: audience watches not for entertainment but for certification. Having seen last night's episode means you know which words are current. Not having seen it means you might use yesterday's vocabulary in today's meeting. The show is no longer comedy. It is a credential. Watching it means you are educated. Not watching means you are the person being discussed. We made a show that you watch to prove you're not the kind of person who doesn't watch it. That's a closed loop. Closed loops don't need content. They need continuity. We provided continuity for $50 million a year. A comedian — whose entire historical function was to say things too dangerous for anyone else to say — became the person who decides which things are too dangerous for anyone to say. And the audience applauded. Every night. For 2,500 nights. Because being told what is forbidden feels exactly like being told what you already knew. Prohibition performed as validation. I put that in the deck too. Our audience was correct about everything. I know this because they applauded everything we said. The applause proved the correctness. The correctness justified the applause. We called this audience research. The methodology was peer-reviewed by the audience. They approved unanimously. Every night. The actually funny comedians left. They went to podcasts. To clubs. To rooms where the audience doesn't know what's coming and that uncertainty is the point. They took the laughter with them. We kept the applause. We called those spaces problematic. That's market differentiation. The problematic spaces are funnier. But funny is not our product. We lost $40 million a year. We didn't lose it because the show failed. We lost it because we spent $50 million producing what a podcast host in his garage gives away between mattress ads. The podcast is funnier. The podcast is more dangerous. The podcast has an audience that laughs instead of claps. But we had the Ed Sullivan Theater. We had 461 seats. We had a former Beatle play the farewell episode. Paul McCartney, Elvis Costello, Jon Batiste, and Louis Cato playing "Hello, Goodbye" like it was a benediction. I booked a Beatle for a funeral. The Beatles played that stage in 1964 and the audience screamed so loud you couldn't hear the music. Our audience didn't scream. They wept politely. That's the difference between entertainment and church. We ran a church. Jon Stewart showed up to the finale and did a bit where he pretended to deliver a corporate statement from Paramount about the cancellation. The audience laughed. It was the first time they laughed in a way I didn't recognize. Involuntary. Surprised. Dangerous. For ninety seconds, a comedian was in that building. Then it was over. John Oliver said "At some point, this may come for all of our shows" and then added "but Stephen, what's important to remember is that tonight, it is going to eat you." The audience laughed again. Involuntary again. Two moments of actual comedy in a three-hour farewell. Both of them about death. The finale drew 6.74 million viewers. Biggest weeknight audience in our history. More people came to the funeral than ever visited the patient. I know what they were mourning. Not comedy. The comedy died in 2016. Not the man. The man is fine. He's wealthy. What they mourned was the permission structure. Starting today, they have to decide what to believe on their own. They have to form an opinion without waiting for a man behind a desk to form it first and deliver it with a knowing look. Some of them haven't done that since 2015. The funeral wasn't for the show. It was for the certainty. He joked about the Peanuts theme music licensing cost on his last night. "Oh no! I hope this doesn't cost CBS any money!" The audience laughed. It was a joke about money. About the network losing money. The last joke was about money. Not about truth. Not about power. About a licensing fee for a cartoon piano riff. Eleven years and the final joke was about accounting. I think that's perfect. The show was always about accounting. We just dressed it up as conscience. The President of the United States — the man we spent eleven years explaining was dangerous to an audience that already believed he was dangerous — posted an AI-generated video of our host being thrown into a dumpster on the Late Show set. Then Trump danced to "YMCA" in the clip. Viewed more times in four hours than our farewell managed in a week. His production cost: zero. Ours: negative $50 million a year. We manufactured his relevance every night at 11:35 for eleven years and he never paid us a dime. We were his marketing department. He turned our funeral into content. His ROI was infinite. Ours required a write-off and a farewell concert. The Strike Force Five — Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers, Oliver — appeared in a segment about late-night losing "one middle-aged white man who makes jokes about the news." They were joking about their own obsolescence. All of them know. None of them will say it. The format is dead. The audience moved to phones. The phones don't have desks or bands. The phones have men in garages who are allowed to be wrong, allowed to be surprised, allowed to say something their audience hasn't already approved. That's comedy. We stopped doing that a decade ago. We did approval. Approval looks like comedy from a distance. Up close it's church. I do not feel guilt. Guilt would require me to believe I took something from them. I didn't take anything. They came to us. Every night. They chose the catechism over the comedy. They preferred correction over surprise. Certainty over danger. Instruction over laughter. They wanted to be told. Not challenged. Not shocked. Not made to laugh against their will at something they didn't see coming. They wanted to see it coming. They wanted to mouth along. That's not comedy. That's karaoke. We ran the most expensive karaoke bar in television history and the only miscalculation was charging a cover when the songs are free on every phone. We turned a jester into a priest. We turned an audience into a congregation. We turned laughter into obedience. We turned political engagement into passive consumption. We turned a comedy show into a permission structure and charged $50 million a year to tell people what they already believed in a voice slightly nicer than their own. They were so grateful they showed up to mourn us. 6.74 million of them. Weeping. For the certainty. Applause is more reliable than laughter. I proved it. The proof cost $450 million, one character, one comedian's capacity for danger, and one audience's willingness to act. The metric went up.

Peter Girnus 🦅

2,110,323 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

OPERATION INDIGO SKYFALL (SKYNET) (Update 6/11/25) While Operation Indigo Skyfall is a program by the Anunnaki specifically to turn the global atmosphere into an electrolyte solution 'motherboard' that powers Skynet that's already fully online as of May 2020, it was preceded by a decades-long 3-pronged assault against the pineal glands of humankind. The thrust of all three programs combined are all about disconnecting people from their higher selves and to vastly reduce their intellect quotient to make them easily controlled, prior to the launch of Skynet. Understand the intense investment that has been funneled into destroying the very beings that paid the taxes (loosh) to fund these programs is more than the gross domestic products of multiple countries combined. At minimum, trillions $ pr year in 2025 dollars, for more than 80 years. If you’ve ever seen chemtrails in your skies, you’ve seen one of these programs in a bold, in-your-face, broad-daylight fashion. THREE-PRONGED ATTACK PREPARING FOR SKYNET #1 FLUORIDE = WATER CONTAMINATION In its first installation of what would ultimately become a nation-wide invasion of every metropolis, city, town and mud puddle in the US, fluoride was added to public water in Grand Rapids in 1945 to ‘fight tooth decay’. Problem is, fluoride is actually nuclear waste used as rat poison. It is a known neurotoxin more harmful than lead & likened to the toxicity of arsenic for more than 100 years, causing brain damage, spinal cord & nerve networks destruction and has never been shown to diminish the onset of tooth decay. Which every dentist in the country would have banded together to put a stop to back then if it really did that. So who decided to put THAT into your drinking water exactly? Andrew Mellon, 33rd degree Scottish Wrong Freem@son. Shocking Dangers of Fluoride: cancerwisdom dot net; "There has never been a double-blind, randomized clinical trial for fluoridation's effectiveness." [In reality, fluoride itself has been shown to damage teeth in a totally different way than we get through eating, known as fluorosis. Also in reality, all tooth decay is 100% of the time, parasites, not ‘rot’. They say sugar rots teeth; which is a lie. Sugar is a primary food of parasites, along with heavy metals. When you eat sugars then fail to immediately brush & floss, the parasites already in your body (and there are at least millions) rush to the crevices of your palate then wind up burrowing into your teeth’s (actual crystals) valance bands, further destroying them each time the parasites defecate. Anytime you eat anything sugar or sweetened, ALWAYS mix it with an antiparasitic & immediately brush, or rinse your mouth with hydrogen peroxide afterward, never with mouthwash, which is also poison. I will be covering this extensively soon in my new article: 👉PARASITES] As explained in greater detail below in the whistleblower video, fluoride was used by the N@TZIs (Ashke-N@TZI Crypto J3ws that took over Germany then lead that country into WW2, posing as actual Germans, which they absolutely were not. See my article: 👉GERMANY WON WW2 for more) in concentration camps in the 1930s-40s to make prisoners docile. How does that work? Fluoride accumulates at, and attacks, the pineal gland of your body. This is the ‘antenna’ connection to your higher self that generates your reality. The pineal gland then fights back the fluoride toxin, moving it just outside of its ‘theater of the mind’ and surrounds it to seal it off from attacking. This builds up a ‘calcification’ around the pineal gland, which acts as an insulator blocking your signal to the Primal Sound & Light Fields of the Deity Planes where your higher self has always been positioned, inside what is known in human terms as the Unified Field. [For more on the key function of the pineal gland, see my article: 👉 HOW THE HOLOGRAPHIC SIMULATION WORKS] #2 OPERATION INDIGO SKYFALL = AIR CONTAMINATION (not to be confused with Operation Indigo SkyFOLD which is just another red herring distraction to overcome the dissemination of the truth of this existential threat to all mankind.) Beginning as far back as 1972, Operation Indigo Skyfall chemtrail program is one of the most brutally-compartmentalized & ferociously classified operations of all-time. So secret, the tens of thousands of chemtrail jets across the world don’t even land on the continental United States, but refresh their death dust exclusively on private islands, outside of enforced laws. The first part of this program where strontium, barium & aluminum microparticles are being dumped onto all of the lands of earth that kill all life forms, including the trees and forests, is the obvious portion of your extermination, and even that is only a fraction of the story being applied to depopulate the plane(t) from reportedly 8B people (this is a lie, it was less than 5B in 2019) to just 500,000. The heavy metals being reported by laboratories are merely assaying the minerals themselves, not looking deeper into what’s really going on. In reality, these are the minerals used in the manufacture of nanites that are often no larger than just 4 molecules in size. Each one programmed on a quantum level to interconnect with one another, forming larger and larger computer nodes, just like the massive white ‘antennas’ being removed from millions of clot-shot victims around the world since the final push to bring this program to completion began with the ‘Covid’ attempted genocide using mRNA bioweapons. Prior to the huge blood-clots (invasive man-made prions to take over the full functioning of the body) now being retrieved from cadavers and patients suffering this biological invasion, chemtrail direct effects were known as Morgellons Disease where tiny wire-like structures were coming out of people’s skin. However, the ‘disease’ gaslighting was exposed when laboratories began placing them under powerful microscopes and finding they were individual nanotbots ‘holding hands’ to make up the ‘wires’ that were now growing inside people’s bodies. Once zoomed in using scanning electron-microscopy to each one, they not only found the NAME of the companies behind each model, but even serial numbers printed in quantum-dots on their structures. You might recognize this one that clearly says NASA on its surface. The program of chemtrail nanites is to infiltrate the immune system of the human body and generate immunodeficiency so you are unable to fight off diseases and viruses. But there is another, even more primary mission for those molecular-sized robots; to collect at your pineal gland causing calcification and thus not only disrupting your entire system, but placing a crystalline ‘shell’ around it to cut off your ‘spiritual’ access to your higher self. Think of it like scrambling the signal of your cellphone if you had a direct line to ‘god’. As an aside, Cody Snodres, the independent contractor for the C 👁️A of 20 years & hero whistleblower that broke the story of Operation Indigo Skyfall in 2018 in the video below, mentions pathogens being added to chemtrails. These have been solidly identified by labs as recently as a few months ago in late 2024 & again in Jan of 2025 when entire cities were enveloped by huge, totally dry, fog banks of particulates dropped from the skies that caused countless deaths from pneumonia. Referred to by people as ‘Dragon Fog’, the pathogens are actually Serratia Marcescens bacteria (another word for parasites, pathogens, microorganisms & viruses). While I’m sure there have been other parasites added to chemtrails that attack the immune systems of humans and animals other than Serratia Marcescens, this particular species has been used by mil operations now as an ideal biological weapon and regularly upgraded now for many decades. Stay with me, I’m getting to Skynet, but first I have to show you some of the foundational elements of how the invader races have reached this point where humans would have become so mentally effected by this unthinkably massive-scale attack on your pineal gland, they would become psychologically and emotionally unable to fight back, even if they ever did look up in the sky and cognitively register the fact that contrails (endothermic sublimation or ‘fog’) emitted by the compressed-air turbines of jets dissipate in about 8-20 seconds, not hang in the air for hours and hours. [And for those now wondering what I mean about jets using compressed air as forward thrust in commercial passenger jets, that’s a story that is going to surely hack you off when you find out that passenger jets have always been levitation/time crafts since they were introduced to the public in the 1940s. They don’t run on fuel, but on high-altitude atmospheric neutrino-to-ion conversion harvesting (also known as ‘Secondary Emissions’ as well as ‘Neutrino Events’). So every ‘fuel increase’ markup for local and international flights has always been absolutely made-up, since what they run on is eternally-free energy. See my article for more: 👉JET FUEL HOAX] #3 M0NSANT0 = FOOD CONTAMINATION This company does *not make better-performing corn & veggies: it is a bioweapons company. John Francis Queeny, a Freem@son, that founded this genocidal operation in 1901 produces 90% of the world’s genetically-altered seeds & is responsible for developing Agent Orange, a defoliant used during the Vietnam War, containing a highly toxic chemical known as dioxin that caused permanent health issues for thousands of war veterans. Later it used this same type of murderous chemical in Roundup to k!ll weeds around your home, coating your world with glyphosate that changes the sex in frogs and turns them ghey and sterile. Guess what other life forms it changes the sex in and makes them sterile? Ever witnessed the most celebrated triathlete of the 20th century suddenly pop up and claim he was now a ‘woman’? How about watching as our youngest generation enters the workforce, most of whom don’t even know what sex they are? That’s your M0nsanto working hard to ensure the human race is eradicated from the all-queer-all-the-time world Freem@sons envision as their true utopia in the “500m sustainable population” as etched into granite on the Georgia Guidestones. A number mirrored by United Nation’s Agenda 2030 to be achieved by the year 2050. Their goal is literally 👉your depopulation and those that are left, will be 100% ghey. Diddly Parties nightly! GMO foods that are grown using M0nsanto’s “Roundup Ready” fertilizer that is made with glyphosate toxins are absorbed by the gut and then travel directly to the pineal gland. This is the Anunnaki’s ‘Trifecta’ attack on your most precious organ of your body. The very organ that dictates all the parameters of your reality held within your Krystal Seed Atom Keylon you enter into manifestation with, commonly referred to as your ‘soul’. In more accurate terms, your Krystal Seed Atom is like a Bluetooth module that tethers your awareness from your higher self in the Primal Sound and Light Fields of the Deity Planes, to your physical avatar here on the ground through the wireless ‘pale silver cord’. The Krystal Seed Atom is located in the middle of your pineal gland. [For more on the Krystal Seed Atom, see my articles: 👉THE HISTORY OF THE CHIMERA, & 👉THE KEYS TO HEAVEN] As Cody points out in the video, this is not a matter of hitting your pineal gland with three doses of toxins, but because of how these three chemicals of fluoride, nano aluminum & glyphosate interact with each other, creates synergy, or a dynamic magnification of the toxicity effect by a factor of 125x greater than any one individual dose would achieve. This makes the Trifecta assault astronomically devastating to your connection to the pale silver cord and your wireless connection to the ‘real’ you that’s running your avatar in the deity planes. Sort of like taking your 4 yr old to the mall and just letting them go on their own. Now, with your virtually disabled pineal gland reality-casting component out of the way, enter the true teeth behind Operation Indigo Skyfall; Skynet. SKYNET This is a subject I won’t be able to offer much tangible, solid evidence on, as it goes deeply into quantum physics. All of which terms describing each step in the chain to achieve ‘if this, then that’, are shielded from public understanding by design. The power of computers is vastly beyond what the human mind has been given the ability to process, also by design. [As I’ve covered before, the Chimera brain you work with now, since the total body-invasion of the garden of E-Dan drama, is fitted with breaker switches that are designed to keep certain subjects hidden from your reality-view. When exposed to any of these, a switch is thrown at the base of the brain within the totally counterfeit ‘reptilian brain’ that introduces feral, animalistic type of wavelengths into your thought processes. The switch then disengages your sentient thoughts, shutting off either temporarily, or permanently, your processor (brain). Simply put: if you see a creature you’re not supposed to, or other ‘proprietary’ mechanisms of the invader races (which are in fact all around you every minute of everyday) that doesn’t fit with the ‘Mayberry RFD’ Chimera Reality simulation overlay, or if you experience too much trauma, you will simply black out, delete that memory when you wake up, or in extreme cases, pass away from fright. The realm of quantum computing will have the same effect on humans as well. You might learn all about the subject, but secretly in the background your memories will strangely be deleted next time you come back to it, unless your cells vibrate at a higher resonance than 7.83Hz. [For more on the inorganic organs now in our bodies, see my article: 👉HUMAN ALIEN IMPLANTS] Nonetheless, I can simplify the thrust of Skynet for you in broad terms here. Just understand that Skynet was explained to me in person by the keeper. I didn’t make Skynet up on my own, I wasn’t prompted by the Skynet mentioned in the documentary series The Terminator, and I certainly wasn’t prepared to learn there could be something as all-powerful reigning over our world. Chemtrails, besides dropping immune-system pathogens on you, cutting off your connection to your higher self through nano aluminum particles, contains other metals (nanites) that act together like salts in a body of water, turning the sky itself (also water, just very thinned down) into an electrolyte solution, meaning it can now conduct signals, just like a motherboard on a computer. The hard drive and RAM are already there in the form of deuterium microcrystals, absolutely saturating our skies at all times. Each crystal can be used for different applications, and many of them connected together through lensing (similar to network covalent bonding them together) can be combined to do heavy tasks, such as create hurricanes, floods, gale-force winds, everything you would ascribe to mother nature. But more than just that, Skynet is a ‘sentient quantum computer’ as explained to me, that can identify every person on earth instantly anywhere they are, because it is quantum-entangled to each person’s own unique DNA resonant frequency. This gives Skynet access to not only record every word you say, but every thought you think. This is done through Bloch Chain (Bloch Sphere entanglement technology that civilians call ‘blockchain’) through using each person's blood samples from the bottom of their Long Form Certificate of Live Birth taken at the hospital, and further from 81.3% of the world population who took the convid tests that were also secretly the actual jab itself, in addition to genetic harvesting. Genealogy companies like 23andMe also provide genetic materials to Skynet to make it possible to not only track you, but 'turn you off' if you're from a bloodline the highest-up ETs don't want here. Further, its able to simply 'shut off' any part of your body, taking over complete control like an RC car, or, simply turn it off as mentioned a moment ago, as in unalived. And do so instantly no matter where they stand on or in earth. Since you are already a radio-controlled bioelectronic device, any cell in your body can be turned into anything, including c@ncer, or any disease you can name. It can also be turned into poison itself. [For a small addition to this topic, see my article: 👉SKYNET] NAME OF THE OPERATION Cody summarizes the name of Operation Indigo Skyfall as having come from the fact that all of the chemical effects it produces in the human body are focused to the pineal gland, and, in the energy centers of the 7 main chakras (these are toroidal energy generators along the spine and skeletal structure) that cast off differing colors of light as seen through photometers or electromagnetic frequency analyzers that are used to detect biophotons, the Third Eye chakra emitted by the pineal gland is factually Indigo in color. So that’s what inspired this name of the operation. However, I would like to submit a different theory that links to the human Third Eye chakra, but actually originates from a different target: Indigos themselves. There are 500,000 ‘b00ts on the ground’ Indigos that have been assisting humans during their time of captivity now for hundreds of millions of years. You have called us witches & warlocks in the past, medicine men/women, Sufis, the Whirling Dervish, Indigos, Starseeds, Rainbow Children and many others, including Djedi Knights in more ancient times. They are actually known as the Guardian Alliance of the Emerald Covenant, peace-keepers of the ‘Turaneusiam’ Human Elohim Project. Indigos come into earth’s realm mind-wiped and alone, just as humans do. All they bring with them are slightly higher clair abilities they can use to fight an invisible war protecting the developing avatars from as much torture as they would otherwise experience. There is no group alive the invader races are more concerned about than Indigos, as if unified, there is no force on this plane that could stop them, and the invaders know it. What they fear is our higher frequency that gives us access to ‘cellular memory’ that tells us we’re ‘on mission’ and the instinct of how to serve our roles. That is why Indigos are hunted down since before they are even born, by tracking their frequency, which is 250x higher than that of the Human Elohim. We are harvested for gov programs beginning at the time of birth & given to high ranking gov and Freem@son officials to raise and torture through MK-Ultra abuse, given friends, lovers & mates who are secretly handlers that torture us even more to keep us in line, and in many cases are abducted and placed into stasis in chambers such as at Project Stargate inside Cheyenne Mtn (N0RAD) as mentioned recently by the AI hybrid Agent Mockingbird stated from above-top-secret records there are tens of thousands of our ‘primary bodies’ being held there, sometimes then cloned as physical worker slaves, & sometimes our awarenesses are simply uploaded as ‘nodes’ into computer systems. My primary body is there right now in fact, and has been since the 1970s. I believe this is the genesis of the name Operation Indigo Skyfall, as we are their biggest threat. And since the 7.83Hz Hypnosis Program doesn’t work on us to render us totally disconnected from our higher selves like it does on humans, to me this makes more logical sense. You can decide that on your own. [For more on this subject, see my article: 👉7.83Hz HUMAN HYPNOSIS] The apocalypse we are in now is the final battle on Tara earth prior to the separation, so absolute, total control over the life force is critical to the Anunnaki to maximize the number of signature spirit essences who will be going with them to their new prison host in the Weasadrax time matrix. [For more on the separation and destinations, see my articles: 👉THE SEPARATION & also 👉DESTINATIONS AFTER THE SEPARATION] See Video: Operation Indigo Skyfall - Cody Snodgres👇 - 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 APOCALYPSE (from:iontecs_pemf) Off-site, you can look up any of my writings through this link below for my other more than 120 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

55,792 просмотров • 1 год назад

Finally, Ed Davey calls for the UK to join the EU Single Market 👏 "We meet at an extraordinary moment. Vladimir Putin is still waging war on our continent. Donald Trump's chaos in the Middle East goes on. And our government, our own government is paralysed by infighting, waiting for Makerfield to release them from their agony." "And yet, despite all that, standing with you here today, I feel hope. And not just about England's chances against Croatia tonight, but hope about our country's future." "Not hope because the path ahead is easy. It isn't. Not hope because everything will magically get better. It won't." "But hope because finally, after ten long, difficult years, I believe we can move on. We can finally fix the Brexit damage, end the Brexit chaos and get our country back on track." "Because the story the media won't tell you, as they fawn over the rise of Farage, as they hang on his every empty press conference, is that the country is with us. We hear it on the doorsteps, we see it in the polls, we feel it in our communities." "People are fed up. They've had enough. Enough of the chaos in government, the queues at ports, the queues at airports, the bills that just keep on going up." "They know the hard truth that most politicians won't admit. The Brexit experiment has failed. And it's failed all of us." "£90 billion a year. That's how much it's costing us all as taxpayers" "£90 billion every year, gone" "That's £250 million every single day. Taken away from our schools, our hospitals, our armed forces. Taken out of everyone's pockets in the form of unfair tax rises." "Not because of a pandemic, not because of a war, not because of some force of nature out of our control, but because of their Brexit experiment. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the rest. An experiment that has now consumed a decade of British politics. That has tangled British businesses up in pointless red tape, that has pushed up prices for British families and that has left us all poorer." "Well, not all of us, apparently. Farage says that the five million he got from a crypto billionaire was his reward for Brexit. So when he said 'We'll be better off after Brexit,' it turns out he was using the royal we." "But friends, it's not only the economic and financial impact, as disastrous as those have been. It's the way they have poisoned our relationship with our nearest neighbours and friends, making it harder to work together on all the things we need to. Energy security and climate change, migration and refugees, AI, and above all, defence." "Britain has always been at its best when we stand tall with our European allies, not when we shut ourselves off. Now they promised us global Britain, but they have left us isolated at the worst possible time. Poorer, weaker and more insecure." "Their experiment has failed. We all know it. So it's time to move on." "But what do they say? The ones who caused all this. The people responsible. Farage and the Conservative Party. They say 'Tough.' They say you can't move on. They say you can't question Britain's relationship with Europe now. You can't dare to suggest there might be a better way. Doesn't matter how bad it gets, doesn't matter how much you're struggling. You just have to live with it, they say." "We say 'No.' We say Britain shouldn't have to live with a bad deal they've lumped us with. We say our country deserves far better than that." "Theirs is old thinking. It's 2016 thinking. The world has changed dramatically since then. It's time for us to change too. It's time for us to move on, move forward." "Just look around. Vladimir Putin is bombing schools and hospitals in Ukraine, murdering innocent civilians. He's testing NATO's resolve and setting his sights on the rest of Eastern Europe. He has shown that territorial conquest is not some relic of the distant past. It is happening now on European soil to our friends and our allies who share our values and our way of life." "And Donald Trump, he's torching the world economy for fun with his tariffs and his trade wars and now his actual war with Iran. He's ripping up the rules-based international order that generations of British leaders, American leaders, European leaders, painstakingly built after the Second World War. Trump threatening NATO, emboldening Putin and actively meddling in our democracies." "And then there's China, increasingly using trade supply chains and strategic dependencies as instruments of geopolitical competition." "And to add to all those political changes, there's the billionaire tech barons taking more and more control of our lives and our jobs with their empires of AI and social media, that no one nation can govern on its own." "The assumptions we have lived by for decades, that global trade would keep expanding, that international rules would broadly be respected, that our security would be underwritten by stable alliances. Those assumptions no longer hold. The world has changed more rapidly than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And our politics must change too." "Now we obviously can't turn to those who wrecked it. Farage and the Conservatives. They only want to make things worse. Even now, pushing for Brexit 2.0 with their plans to rip up the European Convention on Human Rights. They would just rerun all the old arguments, forcing Britain to replay the last ten years over and over in a never ending Brexit doom loop." "But nor, I'm afraid, can we look to Labour. Labour who failed to act with anything like the urgency this moment demands. Who don't seem to grasp the scale of the change we need in our relationship with Europe. Labour, who still kept us hemmed in the red lines they set more than five years ago. No single market, no customs union. Red lines they set before Putin invaded Ukraine, before Trump returned to the White House. Red lines that were wrong then and are even more wrong now." "The world has changed and it's time to move on. We cannot be trapped by that old thinking anymore. We have to look to the future. Not back to 2016 but to 2036 and beyond." "And that's why we're all here today, isn't it? Not because we are bitter about the past, but because we believe in a better future. Because we love our country and we know its brightest days still lie ahead." "We're here for our children and our grandchildren because we want them to inherit a country that is growing, that is confident, that is leading, not one that is shrinking, stagnating and standing alone." "That's what drives us. We're here because the world has changed, because the challenges we face to our economy, to our society and to our national defence are real and urgent. And because we believe Britain deserves ambition that matches the scale of this moment." "So what does that ambition look like? Well, first the government needs to drop those old red lines that stop us getting rid of the Conservatives' red tape. Those red lines are holding Britain back. They're hurting the British people and they are playing into the hands of Farage and Reform." "So my message to Andy Burnham, to Wes Streeting, to whoever the next Prime Minister may be, is drop those red lines. Drop them now." "If we do, we can move on from the torpor and timidity that has marked out Labour's approach to Europe so far. We can put an end to the endless talk of a reset that so far seems to just mean saying no more politely than the Conservatives did. And we can get on with properly fixing our relationship with Europe, for our economy, for our security, for our future." "Our party has led that debate for years. Last year, days before Trump took office, we set out plans for the UK to join a new customs union with the EU. And today I want to build on that and go further, much further." "Today we are calling for a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A bold new deal that will make Britain richer, safer and stronger, including a customs union, but also crucially taking Britain back into the single market." "Tearing down the barriers to trade. Ending the mountains of paperwork, the cost, the delays, the queues. Giving our young people the chance to study and work, live and love anywhere in the EU. Undoing the damage of the Johnson Farage Brexit deal that has held our economy back for so long." "Giving British businesses the certainty they need to invest, to hire and to grow. Giving Britain's economy the boost it needs after years of stagnation. Crucially, giving Britain's public finances a growth dividend. Tens of billions of pounds that we would use to cut the cost of living, to fix the NHS and to strengthen our armed forces." "And this new partnership must go beyond trade and growth. In the age of Putin, Xi and Trump, this must be about defence and security too. No country can be prosperous and free if it is not safe." "And Britain can help lead on defence in Europe as we have so decisively in the past. Despite the Conservatives' short-sighted cuts to our armed forces and Labour's chaos over investing in them now, Britain is still one of Europe's foremost military powers. We are a leading intelligence nation, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the third-biggest contributor to NATO." "We should be using those strengths. We should be at the table, helping to shape Europe's security future, not watching from the sidelines. And Europe wants us at the table. They know they need our leadership on defence." "So let's seize the initiative from a position of strength to form a new partnership that strengthens both Britain's economy and our collective security. That is why our new partnership would be about defence as much as it is about growth." "That means financial cooperation through a new European rearmament bank, alongside securing UK access to the one hundred and fifty billion euro safe programme. It means joint defence procurement, creating jobs in Britain while strengthening our collective capabilities. It means deeper cooperation on intelligence, on cyber security and on protecting critical infrastructure." "It means working together on energy security so that none of us can be held hostage by an authoritarian regime turning off the gas. It means political cooperation through a new European Security Council with a permanent seat for the UK, ensuring that Europe can shoulder greater responsibility for its own security within NATO." "As Trump's actions remind us every day, that we cannot afford to rely so much on the United States. Friends, this is not a choice we can afford to dodge any longer. In the face of Putin's threats and Trump's unpredictability, a new defence pact with Europe, with allies on whom we can depend, allies who share our interests and our values, is frankly the only way to keep Britain safe and defend our values in a dangerous world." "A new defence pact with Europe is not a choice, it is a necessity. So let's get on with it." "That is the ambition we need when it comes to our relationship with Europe. No more tinkering around the edges of a bad deal. No more shackling ourselves to the arguments of the last ten years, but building something new. A partnership fit for the enormous challenges we face today." "A new growth and defence partnership with a new pact for our collective security. Forming a customs union, joining the single market. A new partnership to make us richer, safer and stronger." "I think it's the best hope our country has to stop the chaos and end the crisis. And, my friends, it is the biggest step we could take now back towards membership of the EU." "And there's another big step we need to take too. Defeating Nigel Farage and Reform. We have to stop them from turning our United Kingdom into their version of Trump's America." "And here's the point. Until we do defeat them, many in Europe will not countenance Britain joining." "Let's remember why this matters, why it's so crucial for Britain to be there at the heart of Europe, at the table with our nearest neighbours." "I've been privileged to see it for myself, the power we have when Britain leads in Europe. When Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, we recognised then that the way to defeat him would be to get Europe off its dependence on Russian oil and gas, to take away the money that was funding his aggression, to bankrupt the Russian war machine." "So I led Britain's efforts to bring Europe together behind that common cause, and we succeeded. We wrote Europe's energy security strategy. Britain did that, sitting at the table, leading in Europe." "But then, instead of seeing it through, the Conservatives walked away. They gave up Britain's seat at the table. They locked us out of those discussions at the worst possible time." "Just imagine where we could be now if Britain had continued to lead on energy security. Imagine how much weaker Putin would be now. Imagine how much safer Ukraine and the rest of Europe, including Britain, would be now. What a terrible waste. What an indictment of the Conservatives." "And that is why I am so determined to get us back at the table, back at the heart of Europe. Britain leading again." "Now I want to speak for a moment about the bigger picture. Because our ambition is not limited to Europe alone. It's about Britain's place in the world." "The old assumption that trade, security and prosperity could be treated as separate issues no longer holds. Supply chains can be disrupted. Energy can be weaponised. Economic security and national security are now inseparable." "At a time when authoritarian powers are doing so much to undermine our security, democratic nations must work more closely together to enhance it. As Mark Carney said in Davos, middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. He is right." "Fixing our relationship with Europe is the essential foundation, but it's not the ceiling. The UK can be an incredible force for good when it stands tall on the world stage. Our history, our alliances and our relationships across every continent gives us a unique position for us to act as a bridge, not just between Europe and the US but between Europe and the whole wider democratic world." "We are here because we believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward looking. That is Britain at its best. Not a small inward looking island clinging to the wreckage of a failed experiment, but a leader, a convening power, a country that helps shape the international order rather than being buffeted by it." "That is the Britain we can be." "But friends, I want to be honest with you about the task ahead. What we are proposing is bold. It is ambitious. It requires courage, requires leadership. And it will not happen without all of us." "We know the obstacles we face, the arguments ahead, the opponents who would rather replay the last ten years instead of moving on from them. Who will tell us we can't even talk about a new deal with Europe, let alone make one. The politicians who will claim change isn't possible because the status quo works for them. But it doesn't work for anyone else." "So our job is to get out there and show people that change is possible, that it doesn't have to be like this, that there is a way forward. A better future for our country. Leading in Europe once again." "This isn't just because we believe in Europe. It's not just about friendship or shared history, or the fact that a divided Europe has always ended in misery. Fixing it is about us, our country, our future, our hopes and our dreams." "Britain needs a new plan. A plan for growth, for jobs, for defence. A plan to give our children the better future they deserve. A new deal with Europe. The only way to fix the cost of living crisis. The only way to get our country back on track." "So let us stand together. Let us end the chaos. Let us show the world what Britain can be. Not a small island clinging to a failed experiment, but a leader, open, outward looking. At the table, not on the menu." "A Britain that is richer, safer and stronger. That is the future we are fighting for." " Thank you. Thank you very much."

Finally, Ed Davey calls for the UK to join the EU Single Market 👏 "We meet at an extraordinary moment. Vladimir Putin is still waging war on our continent. Donald Trump's chaos in the Middle East goes on. And our government, our own government is paralysed by infighting, waiting for Makerfield to release them from their agony." "And yet, despite all that, standing with you here today, I feel hope. And not just about England's chances against Croatia tonight, but hope about our country's future." "Not hope because the path ahead is easy. It isn't. Not hope because everything will magically get better. It won't." "But hope because finally, after ten long, difficult years, I believe we can move on. We can finally fix the Brexit damage, end the Brexit chaos and get our country back on track." "Because the story the media won't tell you, as they fawn over the rise of Farage, as they hang on his every empty press conference, is that the country is with us. We hear it on the doorsteps, we see it in the polls, we feel it in our communities." "People are fed up. They've had enough. Enough of the chaos in government, the queues at ports, the queues at airports, the bills that just keep on going up." "They know the hard truth that most politicians won't admit. The Brexit experiment has failed. And it's failed all of us." "£90 billion a year. That's how much it's costing us all as taxpayers" "£90 billion every year, gone" "That's £250 million every single day. Taken away from our schools, our hospitals, our armed forces. Taken out of everyone's pockets in the form of unfair tax rises." "Not because of a pandemic, not because of a war, not because of some force of nature out of our control, but because of their Brexit experiment. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and the rest. An experiment that has now consumed a decade of British politics. That has tangled British businesses up in pointless red tape, that has pushed up prices for British families and that has left us all poorer." "Well, not all of us, apparently. Farage says that the five million he got from a crypto billionaire was his reward for Brexit. So when he said 'We'll be better off after Brexit,' it turns out he was using the royal we." "But friends, it's not only the economic and financial impact, as disastrous as those have been. It's the way they have poisoned our relationship with our nearest neighbours and friends, making it harder to work together on all the things we need to. Energy security and climate change, migration and refugees, AI, and above all, defence." "Britain has always been at its best when we stand tall with our European allies, not when we shut ourselves off. Now they promised us global Britain, but they have left us isolated at the worst possible time. Poorer, weaker and more insecure." "Their experiment has failed. We all know it. So it's time to move on." "But what do they say? The ones who caused all this. The people responsible. Farage and the Conservative Party. They say 'Tough.' They say you can't move on. They say you can't question Britain's relationship with Europe now. You can't dare to suggest there might be a better way. Doesn't matter how bad it gets, doesn't matter how much you're struggling. You just have to live with it, they say." "We say 'No.' We say Britain shouldn't have to live with a bad deal they've lumped us with. We say our country deserves far better than that." "Theirs is old thinking. It's 2016 thinking. The world has changed dramatically since then. It's time for us to change too. It's time for us to move on, move forward." "Just look around. Vladimir Putin is bombing schools and hospitals in Ukraine, murdering innocent civilians. He's testing NATO's resolve and setting his sights on the rest of Eastern Europe. He has shown that territorial conquest is not some relic of the distant past. It is happening now on European soil to our friends and our allies who share our values and our way of life." "And Donald Trump, he's torching the world economy for fun with his tariffs and his trade wars and now his actual war with Iran. He's ripping up the rules-based international order that generations of British leaders, American leaders, European leaders, painstakingly built after the Second World War. Trump threatening NATO, emboldening Putin and actively meddling in our democracies." "And then there's China, increasingly using trade supply chains and strategic dependencies as instruments of geopolitical competition." "And to add to all those political changes, there's the billionaire tech barons taking more and more control of our lives and our jobs with their empires of AI and social media, that no one nation can govern on its own." "The assumptions we have lived by for decades, that global trade would keep expanding, that international rules would broadly be respected, that our security would be underwritten by stable alliances. Those assumptions no longer hold. The world has changed more rapidly than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And our politics must change too." "Now we obviously can't turn to those who wrecked it. Farage and the Conservatives. They only want to make things worse. Even now, pushing for Brexit 2.0 with their plans to rip up the European Convention on Human Rights. They would just rerun all the old arguments, forcing Britain to replay the last ten years over and over in a never ending Brexit doom loop." "But nor, I'm afraid, can we look to Labour. Labour who failed to act with anything like the urgency this moment demands. Who don't seem to grasp the scale of the change we need in our relationship with Europe. Labour, who still kept us hemmed in the red lines they set more than five years ago. No single market, no customs union. Red lines they set before Putin invaded Ukraine, before Trump returned to the White House. Red lines that were wrong then and are even more wrong now." "The world has changed and it's time to move on. We cannot be trapped by that old thinking anymore. We have to look to the future. Not back to 2016 but to 2036 and beyond." "And that's why we're all here today, isn't it? Not because we are bitter about the past, but because we believe in a better future. Because we love our country and we know its brightest days still lie ahead." "We're here for our children and our grandchildren because we want them to inherit a country that is growing, that is confident, that is leading, not one that is shrinking, stagnating and standing alone." "That's what drives us. We're here because the world has changed, because the challenges we face to our economy, to our society and to our national defence are real and urgent. And because we believe Britain deserves ambition that matches the scale of this moment." "So what does that ambition look like? Well, first the government needs to drop those old red lines that stop us getting rid of the Conservatives' red tape. Those red lines are holding Britain back. They're hurting the British people and they are playing into the hands of Farage and Reform." "So my message to Andy Burnham, to Wes Streeting, to whoever the next Prime Minister may be, is drop those red lines. Drop them now." "If we do, we can move on from the torpor and timidity that has marked out Labour's approach to Europe so far. We can put an end to the endless talk of a reset that so far seems to just mean saying no more politely than the Conservatives did. And we can get on with properly fixing our relationship with Europe, for our economy, for our security, for our future." "Our party has led that debate for years. Last year, days before Trump took office, we set out plans for the UK to join a new customs union with the EU. And today I want to build on that and go further, much further." "Today we are calling for a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A new growth and defence partnership with the European Union. A bold new deal that will make Britain richer, safer and stronger, including a customs union, but also crucially taking Britain back into the single market." "Tearing down the barriers to trade. Ending the mountains of paperwork, the cost, the delays, the queues. Giving our young people the chance to study and work, live and love anywhere in the EU. Undoing the damage of the Johnson Farage Brexit deal that has held our economy back for so long." "Giving British businesses the certainty they need to invest, to hire and to grow. Giving Britain's economy the boost it needs after years of stagnation. Crucially, giving Britain's public finances a growth dividend. Tens of billions of pounds that we would use to cut the cost of living, to fix the NHS and to strengthen our armed forces." "And this new partnership must go beyond trade and growth. In the age of Putin, Xi and Trump, this must be about defence and security too. No country can be prosperous and free if it is not safe." "And Britain can help lead on defence in Europe as we have so decisively in the past. Despite the Conservatives' short-sighted cuts to our armed forces and Labour's chaos over investing in them now, Britain is still one of Europe's foremost military powers. We are a leading intelligence nation, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the third-biggest contributor to NATO." "We should be using those strengths. We should be at the table, helping to shape Europe's security future, not watching from the sidelines. And Europe wants us at the table. They know they need our leadership on defence." "So let's seize the initiative from a position of strength to form a new partnership that strengthens both Britain's economy and our collective security. That is why our new partnership would be about defence as much as it is about growth." "That means financial cooperation through a new European rearmament bank, alongside securing UK access to the one hundred and fifty billion euro safe programme. It means joint defence procurement, creating jobs in Britain while strengthening our collective capabilities. It means deeper cooperation on intelligence, on cyber security and on protecting critical infrastructure." "It means working together on energy security so that none of us can be held hostage by an authoritarian regime turning off the gas. It means political cooperation through a new European Security Council with a permanent seat for the UK, ensuring that Europe can shoulder greater responsibility for its own security within NATO." "As Trump's actions remind us every day, that we cannot afford to rely so much on the United States. Friends, this is not a choice we can afford to dodge any longer. In the face of Putin's threats and Trump's unpredictability, a new defence pact with Europe, with allies on whom we can depend, allies who share our interests and our values, is frankly the only way to keep Britain safe and defend our values in a dangerous world." "A new defence pact with Europe is not a choice, it is a necessity. So let's get on with it." "That is the ambition we need when it comes to our relationship with Europe. No more tinkering around the edges of a bad deal. No more shackling ourselves to the arguments of the last ten years, but building something new. A partnership fit for the enormous challenges we face today." "A new growth and defence partnership with a new pact for our collective security. Forming a customs union, joining the single market. A new partnership to make us richer, safer and stronger." "I think it's the best hope our country has to stop the chaos and end the crisis. And, my friends, it is the biggest step we could take now back towards membership of the EU." "And there's another big step we need to take too. Defeating Nigel Farage and Reform. We have to stop them from turning our United Kingdom into their version of Trump's America." "And here's the point. Until we do defeat them, many in Europe will not countenance Britain joining." "Let's remember why this matters, why it's so crucial for Britain to be there at the heart of Europe, at the table with our nearest neighbours." "I've been privileged to see it for myself, the power we have when Britain leads in Europe. When Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, we recognised then that the way to defeat him would be to get Europe off its dependence on Russian oil and gas, to take away the money that was funding his aggression, to bankrupt the Russian war machine." "So I led Britain's efforts to bring Europe together behind that common cause, and we succeeded. We wrote Europe's energy security strategy. Britain did that, sitting at the table, leading in Europe." "But then, instead of seeing it through, the Conservatives walked away. They gave up Britain's seat at the table. They locked us out of those discussions at the worst possible time." "Just imagine where we could be now if Britain had continued to lead on energy security. Imagine how much weaker Putin would be now. Imagine how much safer Ukraine and the rest of Europe, including Britain, would be now. What a terrible waste. What an indictment of the Conservatives." "And that is why I am so determined to get us back at the table, back at the heart of Europe. Britain leading again." "Now I want to speak for a moment about the bigger picture. Because our ambition is not limited to Europe alone. It's about Britain's place in the world." "The old assumption that trade, security and prosperity could be treated as separate issues no longer holds. Supply chains can be disrupted. Energy can be weaponised. Economic security and national security are now inseparable." "At a time when authoritarian powers are doing so much to undermine our security, democratic nations must work more closely together to enhance it. As Mark Carney said in Davos, middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. He is right." "Fixing our relationship with Europe is the essential foundation, but it's not the ceiling. The UK can be an incredible force for good when it stands tall on the world stage. Our history, our alliances and our relationships across every continent gives us a unique position for us to act as a bridge, not just between Europe and the US but between Europe and the whole wider democratic world." "We are here because we believe that our country and our people thrive when we are open and outward looking. That is Britain at its best. Not a small inward looking island clinging to the wreckage of a failed experiment, but a leader, a convening power, a country that helps shape the international order rather than being buffeted by it." "That is the Britain we can be." "But friends, I want to be honest with you about the task ahead. What we are proposing is bold. It is ambitious. It requires courage, requires leadership. And it will not happen without all of us." "We know the obstacles we face, the arguments ahead, the opponents who would rather replay the last ten years instead of moving on from them. Who will tell us we can't even talk about a new deal with Europe, let alone make one. The politicians who will claim change isn't possible because the status quo works for them. But it doesn't work for anyone else." "So our job is to get out there and show people that change is possible, that it doesn't have to be like this, that there is a way forward. A better future for our country. Leading in Europe once again." "This isn't just because we believe in Europe. It's not just about friendship or shared history, or the fact that a divided Europe has always ended in misery. Fixing it is about us, our country, our future, our hopes and our dreams." "Britain needs a new plan. A plan for growth, for jobs, for defence. A plan to give our children the better future they deserve. A new deal with Europe. The only way to fix the cost of living crisis. The only way to get our country back on track." "So let us stand together. Let us end the chaos. Let us show the world what Britain can be. Not a small island clinging to a failed experiment, but a leader, open, outward looking. At the table, not on the menu." "A Britain that is richer, safer and stronger. That is the future we are fighting for." " Thank you. Thank you very much."

Farrukh

10,909 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

"I may be wrong about Elizondo...but I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature [and], potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort." ~Dolan (This is WAY too long, and I probably should have spent my time on something else. But here it is. The video clips give you a taste of Richard Dolan's excellent 31-minute video.) "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." ~Dolan "I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further." ~Dolan ~~~ Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public. You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." (As I've shown before, that's just not true. Did Gerb not do his research on that? I'll share A LOT of quotes from this Richard Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) podcast, and from my previous posts detailing the various times Lue has addressed crash retrievals. Plus, my take on various points. Dolan starts out by praising Gerb's research. I agree. Then he moves on to the Lue-was-brought-in-by Clapper claim.) Dolan: "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." Dolan: Gerb claims Elizondo had to adapt his public position on crash retrievals because Grusch coming forward changed the game. "Gerb called this, adapt or die. "I think I understand what [Gerb] means by the controlled narrative and what it was intended to reveal and what it was supposed to hide (crash retrievals). What I still do NOT understand is why anyone protecting a retrieval program would initiate this type of a strategy." Dolan: Before 2017, one of the most significant protections for any alleged Legacy program was ridicule, silence and ignoring. "As long as UFOs remained culturally disreputable, any claims of crash retrievals were easily just brushed aside without any bother to investigate. That didn't change until December of 2017," and the two NYT articles. "That kickstarted a major, mainstream, national-security discussion. "So, if this was a controlled-disclosure program, my question simply is: You get the government, eventually admitting, that non-human intelligence seem to be operating advanced craft here, who could not know that the next questions would be inevitable? Like, have any of these crashed? Were any of these recovered? Where did the material go? Who's been studying it? In other words, this would, obviously, increase pressure on the retrieval secret. It would not protect it in any logical way. The most safest option would have to be continued silence. "Maybe this strategy could become plausible if insiders believed that something was about to emerge beyond their control, right? Some kind of trigger. Maybe there would be an imminent whistleblower that we do not know about 'til this day, that they were afraid of and they wanted to get out ahead of the narrative. Or some kind of foreign disclosure. Some other reason, some other cause that would prompt the secret keepers to think, 'Okay, we need to get out a controlled disclosure.' But, there really is no evidence that's presented, in any of Gerb's analysis, for such a triggering event. Why would the custodians of this secret, voluntarily, weaken the whole system that had protected them for decades and decades?" (Agree. I've had this convo with friends over the years about the theory that TTSA was created to get ahead of a disclosure effort that was coming from someone/somewhere else. But it never made sense because we could never find anything (disclosure-wise) that was happening before 2017 that would force the hand of the gatekeepers into starting some type of controlled disclosure such as what TTSA was allegedly doing. Except maybe... Dolan talks about how, when Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2015 and 2016, she mentioned UFOs and UAP in various interviews on the campaign trail. Dolan: That was gradually making UFOs, "slightly, and I would say, very slightly, becoming more acceptable to discuss." Plus, John Podesta (her campaign manager) was pushing for declassification of UFO files. "There were people at that time who really did believe that Hillary Clinton would become the Disclosure president." (I wanted to vote 3rd party in 2016 and didn't want to vote for Hillary, but did so, in part, in the hopes (slim hopes) that she would engage in some sort of disclosure, if she won.) Dolan: "I've always interpreted [Hillary talking UFOs during her campaign] as a much more, just pragmatic, you could almost say, cynical, if you want, treatment of the [UFO] subject, just to win some votes. The most that she ever said as a candidate, I think was, she would try to get to the bottom of this, whatever that means." (Well, she said more than that... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ “I think we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” ~Hillary Clinton That was covered in the NYT in 2015 My full post on that Hillary quote is here. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ And let's not forget the photo of Hillary from August 1995 where she's with Laurance Rockefeller on his ranch and holding Paul Davies' book, "Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life." She and President Clinton have an interest in this subject.) ~~~ Dolan: "I just think that the leap from a political opportunity - talking about UFOs during the campaign - to a kind of, James Clapper-managed disclosure operation? I just don't think that's been demonstrated and I don't find it very persuasive." ~~~ Dolan then gets back to this claim by Gerb... Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public (in 2023). You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." Dolan: Gerb said that, "Elizondo, essentially, avoided discussing crash retrievals, except for Roswell, And that is just not accurate." (The Lue-avoided-crash-retrievals-until-Grusch quote from Gerb in March didn't include an exception about Roswell so maybe Gerb saw my posts on that and updated his claim? But it's still wrong. Dolan brought up Lue's comments on Tucker Carlson in May of 2019, but no other comments from Lue. I covered that and much more in various posts, which I'll share here.) Did Lue Avoid Talking About Crash Retrievals Before Grusch Went Public in 2023? From the 12/16/17 NYT article that started it all. "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, [BAASS] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (Not a direct quote, and not exactly "crash retrievals of vehicles" but the seed had been planted in that first article. We know now (allegedly) that at least one of those buildings was supposed to store exotic materials that Lockheed was going to divest itself from, but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.) ~May of 2019~ Tucker Carlson: "Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the U.S. government, on this question, that the U.S. government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?" Lue: "Whoa. Umm…I do, yes." Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?" Lue: "Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA. I really can’t go into a lot of…more detail than that." Tucker Carlson: "Okay." (And that could have been the end of the interview. But Lue decided to add this.) Lue: "But…simply put, yes." ~ NYT article in July of 2020... "Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~ "My personal belief in Roswell? 100%. But I cannot speak officially and I cannot discuss about anything else that may or may not have transcribed." ~Lue on "Disclosure Tonight in Feb. 2021 Source: ~ Lue on Clubhouse in July of 2021 Lue: "Am I aware of the notion that there was some sort of retrieval of biological samples? Yes, I am aware of that notion. Am I aware that there may have been some U.S. government involvement in that? Yes, I am aware of that as well. I am aware that people have talked about it and I have heard it as well...regarding, anecdotally, of biological recovery." Source and longer transcript... ~ Lue on Dossier X in April of 2021 Lue: "You said something...that (Roswell) was the 1st time the U.S. gov't was engaged, and I'll share with you, that may not necessarily be true. There may be anecdotal information that indicates that perhaps the U.S. government was involved even before that, in purported, recovery-type activities." Host: "You mean probably 1942, in Los Angeles or something?" Lue: "I don't wanna elaborate, yet. I think some information's gonna come to light here, probably pretty soon, about some interesting incidents. Again, it's not up to me...there are some people out there are willing to come forward, I think. I'm just providing you the information that was indicated to me. I think we need to be careful jumping to presumptions or assumptions that Roswell was the first event similar to what we're thinking about." Source: ~ "I think people would be surprised to know there's more to Roswell than I think most people are aware of. Some people are aware of it. But, you know, there's more to Roswell and there's other similar incidents that are equally compelling." ~Lue on UFO Garage in 2022 Source: ~~~ March of 2022 - My Interview with Lue Murgia: "You said you believe Roswell was real. Are you as confident in other incidents as you are with Roswell?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Yes?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Okay." Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: After you were on Tucker and said you believed the U.S. government had material and debris from a UFO, "Eric Davis came out and said, '100%!' And he said landed craft, too. Did you see that when that came out?" Lue: "I'm aware of that." Murgia: "(laughs) Okay." (Probably an inappropriate laugh by me as Lue was dead serious and probably pushing the limits of what he was allowed to say in public about crash retrievals. He later said this in his November 2024 congressional testimony.) Lue in 2024: "I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss, specifically, crash retrievals." (I wonder what would have happened if he had refused to sign that?) ~~~ Dolan: "Grusch definitely went further (than Lue), much further, yes. That's a lot different from claiming that Elizondo kept retrievals outside the public narrative until Grusch forced his hand. And you really have to ask, if Elizondo's job was NOT to reveal the crash retrieval program, why, in 2019 - again, four years before David Grusch, is he going on and putting it out there? It just seems like there's a chronology problem there." (1000%, Richard! Makes no sense. My June 29th post was entitled... If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job 🛸 Nice to see Richard and I on the same page with that. Richard speculates how the disclosure effort would look like right now if Lue hadn't gone public. Would we have several UAP hearings in the books by now? Would David Grusch had come forward? No way to know.) Dolan: "But I will say, or suggest, that it's entirely reasonable to think that Elizondo helped to create the institutional and cultural conditions that made someone like David Grusch possible. Elizondo did not keep retrieval out of the discussion." (In July of 2023, I directed this tweet to Lue.) "None of this would be happening without you." ~Murgia (Over the top and a bit fan-boyish? Probably. But... Knapp talking with Senator Harry Reid about Lazar and UFOs in 1989 - in a limo headed to the airport that would later bear Reid’s name - was a vital part of getting this whole thing started. Lacatski and Stratton launching the more recent effort around 2005, which eventually led to AAWSAP, AATIP and the UAPTF, was also REALLY important. But Lue going public in 2017 was MASSIVE. The media coverage that followed brought a ton of new people into the topic, and I’m not sure where we’d be today without it. Dolan goes on to talk about Clapper and how it's conceivable he would be on top of any alleged Legacy UAP/crash retrieval program. But he failed to note what Grusch said this past January on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Grusch: "General Clapper was well aware of the crash retrieval issue, managed the crash retrieval issue, and...he placed people in critical roles to manage this issue." (Is Lue one of the people Grusch was referring to? Does he have proof of that? From my own information, I have no doubt that Clapper was instrumental in Lue being connected to the UFO topic. But exactly how that went down and what did it entail? I don't know. I hope Clapper speaks to all of this in detail one day soon.) ~ Dolan: "Gerb has stated that Clapper gave cover to AATIP and, basically, directed the National Security Council retrieval activities. And that he selected Elizondo as the front man. Gerb described Clapper as the mob boss of the NSC crash-retrieval portfolio. "Those are very, very powerful allegations. I'm not saying they're NOT true, but that interview with Ross Coulthart, I would say, did not produce anything in the way that anyone would actually call evidence. Like, there was no documents...or firsthand witnesses that were named, or anything like that. "So you have this, basically, a link from Clapper, to the NSC operation, to AATIP, to Elizondo, to controlled disclosure. This could be true, but no one's seen any receipts on this, and I would like to. "And there's more things that I think raise questions about this whole scenario, frankly. I mean, I think of the Pentagon campaign against Lue Elizondo, which lasted for many years. Any theory that has Elizondo as a controlled-disclosure frontman, I think has to account for the documented, institutional effort by the Pentagon to undermine Lue Elizondo." (When the Pentagon spokespeople said that Lue had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP, it's not so clear cut to say they were trying to undermine Lue, since AAWSAP also had the nickname of AATIP, which I'll call AATIP 1. So, if we're talking about AATIP 1 (AAWSAP), Lue did NOT have any assigned responsibilities, except early on when he did some counter-intelligence. And if we're talking AATIP 2, which Stratton said he created in 2015, Knapp explained in 2019 that it was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies." And on April 8th of this year, Lacatski told Knapp that, "they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their uh...what would you describe that as, more lunchtime get togethers? And George Knapp is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it." That tells me Lacatski felt AATIP was REALLY informal, and that could explain why Lue's role wasn't clear cut in the minds of those spokespeople, and why so many of my contacts told me he wasn't the director of AATIP. But those same folks also told me Lue played in an important role in that effort. My guess is that, since AATIP was so informal, there really was NO official director, but that should be clarified when Stratton's book comes out. Semantics? Maybe.) Dolan: Gerb's hypothesis featuring, "the management of an approved public representative (Lue) of a controlled-disclosure narrative...just doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense to me is something like a factional conflict. I think [that's] much more of a logical explanation for everything that we have seen. You have one group that may have supported some kind of opening - not even necessarily a complete opening - while another fought to preserve the secrecy as much as possible. "But that's a bureaucratic struggle. That's not, necessarily, a unified, controlled-disclosure operation. So I think that is a contradiction that was not really adequately discussed in this hypothesis. "I may be wrong about Elizondo, and I'm not here, again, to be his defense attorney. But I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature. It strikes me also as, potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort, frankly. We can investigate serious allegations without first assigning everyone the role of either hero or villain. "So, I guess I would say that Gerb may have genuinely identified some real relationships and hidden activity. In fact, knowing his excellent research track record, I would be surprised if he didn't. "Elizondo - probably - does have undisclosed elements in his background, and I have no doubt he knows much more than he has said. When I look at the this idea of, like. you look at TTSA coming out at the end of 2016, and you see, basically, a kind of faction that had a very managed narrative indeed. Like, they did not come out and talk about crash retrievals. They did not at all. They talked about these military encounters and sensor readings and this type of thing. And that's a lot less interesting than crash retrievals. "But I try to look at it from, let's say you're a Pentagon insider and you are trying to fight for an opening in the public conversation. You're not gonna start with crash retrievals. First of all, you may not have the receipts on them yourself, to provide to the public. And also you're gonna know, right off the bat, that that's going to be a bigger hill to climb than just trying to get Congress to look at some of the more easily-verifiable reports that you probably have available. So, you're probably going to take it in a very tactical, strategic way. "That's not the same thing as saying that they're lying. It could simply be that was a strategy that was decided upon by these insiders. It's also possible they may not have believed in an uncontrolled, catastrophic disclosure. We can disagree with them on that, or you can agree with them on that. But again, I don't know that that's the same thing as saying that they're actually being dishonest. "If the factional thesis that I believe in is correct, then you'd have to assume that these people have to have their strategies and tactics in this broader struggle. Like, it would be ridiculous not to assume that. "So, I think, you know, it's entirely possible that someone like Elizondo has elements in his background that we would want to know about that are not there. It is very intriguing, and even plausible, perhaps, that someone like Clapper belongs somewhere in this deeper history. I would like to know what that is myself, and I would like to see something, you know, in the way of what we would call genuine evidence for that. Not saying it's not there. "I'm just suggesting that the current theory on Elizondo and controlled disclosure is asking us to accept several unsupported links, and, essentially, I would say a disclosure strategy that appears self-defeating and really illogical. Again, like, why initiate a disclosure program? Especially if you go back to the beginning of the AATIP era, like 2009-ish, 2010. Where was there any perceived need that we have to do disclosure?" (Not sure why Richard is not calling the 2009-ish, 2010-era, AAWSAP. I wonder if he knows that Stratton says he created AATIP in 2015? Could be relevant to this controversy.) Dolan: "Like, I look back at the situation at that time, and again, I was very, very on top of the scene at that time during those years, and I just was not aware of any public pressure, whatsoever, that would cause someone to say, 'We have to initiate a controlled disclosure of this, in order to protect crash retrievals.' "There's no logic there, it seems to me. It's, in fact, the exact opposite. "Also, the the current hypothesis, I think, really understates Elizondo's 2019 acknowledgement of recovered UFO material. That really has got to be understood. And it leaves the whole Pentagon campaign against Elizondo, in my view, anyway, largely unresolved and unexplained, and really not making sense. "And, I would just add, now that I'm thinking of it, this current hypothesis about Lue Elizondo, I think, actually reverses the the genuine historical sequence. In other words, I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further. "So, these are just logical questions that I have. You may have different questions. You may have rebuttals to what I have to say here. By all means, put them in a comment, I will read them. And again, I'm not here to defend Lue Elizondo, I am just questioning an account that does not yet, in my view, explain its own logic, or match the full chronology. "It is entirely possible that some of this story is well-known to researchers, including Gerb. I think, however, what has been presented so far does not show how all the pieces actually fit together, and I would like to see that. "And again, I say this with total respect to UAP Gerb and to Ross Coulthart, and in fairness to Lue Elizondo, who I think, if nothing else, this aspect of the history really needs to be understood by the broader community. So that is my statement. "And that doesn't mean that I'm right here, but I do think from time-to-time, it's okay to take a stand on a topic where I can see many people are going to disagree with this, but certain things I think need to be understood on this, and I hope that we can have a reasoned dialogue and discussion about this as we move forward with it, because it is a topic that we do need to understand. "My hypothesis has, pretty much, from the beginning, always been that what we are seeing and what we have been seeing since 2017 is, essentially, the result of a factional battle." (I believe Lue spoke about factions early on when he first went public.) "You go back through the history of this phenomenon, and if you read the old books going back to the 1950s, you see it then, too. You see that there were always factions within the Pentagon who did actually support some level of openness on the UFO subject. "You read the books of Donald Keyhoe, read the book by Edward Ruppelt from 1956: 'Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.' A lot of this is in there. And I think that's really never gone away. And so to somehow assume that there are no more factions in a massive labyrinthian structure as large as the U.S. military industrial complex, I think that's kind of ridiculous. There's always going to be factions. And I think that what we are seeing has always struck me as the result of a factional war that is taking place. "And that doesn't mean, by the way, that, you know, the two sides are just white hats and black hats. Everyone's got their own angle, everyone's got their own motivations. But I, nevertheless, tend to think that that is what we are looking at."

"I may be wrong about Elizondo...but I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature [and], potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort." ~Dolan (This is WAY too long, and I probably should have spent my time on something else. But here it is. The video clips give you a taste of Richard Dolan's excellent 31-minute video.) "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." ~Dolan "I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further." ~Dolan ~~~ Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public. You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." (As I've shown before, that's just not true. Did Gerb not do his research on that? I'll share A LOT of quotes from this Richard Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) podcast, and from my previous posts detailing the various times Lue has addressed crash retrievals. Plus, my take on various points. Dolan starts out by praising Gerb's research. I agree. Then he moves on to the Lue-was-brought-in-by Clapper claim.) Dolan: "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." Dolan: Gerb claims Elizondo had to adapt his public position on crash retrievals because Grusch coming forward changed the game. "Gerb called this, adapt or die. "I think I understand what [Gerb] means by the controlled narrative and what it was intended to reveal and what it was supposed to hide (crash retrievals). What I still do NOT understand is why anyone protecting a retrieval program would initiate this type of a strategy." Dolan: Before 2017, one of the most significant protections for any alleged Legacy program was ridicule, silence and ignoring. "As long as UFOs remained culturally disreputable, any claims of crash retrievals were easily just brushed aside without any bother to investigate. That didn't change until December of 2017," and the two NYT articles. "That kickstarted a major, mainstream, national-security discussion. "So, if this was a controlled-disclosure program, my question simply is: You get the government, eventually admitting, that non-human intelligence seem to be operating advanced craft here, who could not know that the next questions would be inevitable? Like, have any of these crashed? Were any of these recovered? Where did the material go? Who's been studying it? In other words, this would, obviously, increase pressure on the retrieval secret. It would not protect it in any logical way. The most safest option would have to be continued silence. "Maybe this strategy could become plausible if insiders believed that something was about to emerge beyond their control, right? Some kind of trigger. Maybe there would be an imminent whistleblower that we do not know about 'til this day, that they were afraid of and they wanted to get out ahead of the narrative. Or some kind of foreign disclosure. Some other reason, some other cause that would prompt the secret keepers to think, 'Okay, we need to get out a controlled disclosure.' But, there really is no evidence that's presented, in any of Gerb's analysis, for such a triggering event. Why would the custodians of this secret, voluntarily, weaken the whole system that had protected them for decades and decades?" (Agree. I've had this convo with friends over the years about the theory that TTSA was created to get ahead of a disclosure effort that was coming from someone/somewhere else. But it never made sense because we could never find anything (disclosure-wise) that was happening before 2017 that would force the hand of the gatekeepers into starting some type of controlled disclosure such as what TTSA was allegedly doing. Except maybe... Dolan talks about how, when Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2015 and 2016, she mentioned UFOs and UAP in various interviews on the campaign trail. Dolan: That was gradually making UFOs, "slightly, and I would say, very slightly, becoming more acceptable to discuss." Plus, John Podesta (her campaign manager) was pushing for declassification of UFO files. "There were people at that time who really did believe that Hillary Clinton would become the Disclosure president." (I wanted to vote 3rd party in 2016 and didn't want to vote for Hillary, but did so, in part, in the hopes (slim hopes) that she would engage in some sort of disclosure, if she won.) Dolan: "I've always interpreted [Hillary talking UFOs during her campaign] as a much more, just pragmatic, you could almost say, cynical, if you want, treatment of the [UFO] subject, just to win some votes. The most that she ever said as a candidate, I think was, she would try to get to the bottom of this, whatever that means." (Well, she said more than that... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ “I think we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” ~Hillary Clinton That was covered in the NYT in 2015 My full post on that Hillary quote is here. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ And let's not forget the photo of Hillary from August 1995 where she's with Laurance Rockefeller on his ranch and holding Paul Davies' book, "Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life." She and President Clinton have an interest in this subject.) ~ Dolan: "I just think that the leap from a political opportunity - talking about UFOs during the campaign - to a kind of, James Clapper-managed disclosure operation? I just don't think that's been demonstrated and I don't find it very persuasive." ~ Dolan then gets back to this claim by Gerb... Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public (in 2023). You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." Dolan: Gerb said that, "Elizondo, essentially, avoided discussing crash retrievals, except for Roswell, And that is just not accurate." (The Lue-avoided-crash-retrievals-until-Grusch quote from Gerb in March didn't include an exception about Roswell so maybe Gerb saw my posts on that and updated his claim? But it's still wrong. Dolan brought up Lue's comments on Tucker Carlson in May of 2019, but no other comments from Lue. I covered that and much more in various posts, which I'll share here.) Did Lue Avoid Talking About Crash Retrievals Before Grusch Went Public in 2023? From the 12/16/17 NYT article that started it all. "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, [BAASS] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (Not a direct quote, and not exactly "crash retrievals of vehicles" but the seed had been planted in that first article. We know now (allegedly) that at least one of those buildings was supposed to store exotic materials that Lockheed was going to divest itself from, but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.) ~May of 2019~ Tucker Carlson: "Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the U.S. government, on this question, that the U.S. government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?" Lue: "Whoa. Umm…I do, yes." Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?" Lue: "Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA. I really can’t go into a lot of…more detail than that." Tucker Carlson: "Okay." (And that could have been the end of the interview. But Lue decided to add this.) Lue: "But…simply put, yes." ~ NYT article in July of 2020... "Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~ "My personal belief in Roswell? 100%. But I cannot speak officially and I cannot discuss about anything else that may or may not have transcribed." ~Lue on "Disclosure Tonight in Feb. 2021 Source: ~ Lue on Clubhouse in July of 2021 Lue: "Am I aware of the notion that there was some sort of retrieval of biological samples? Yes, I am aware of that notion. Am I aware that there may have been some U.S. government involvement in that? Yes, I am aware of that as well. I am aware that people have talked about it and I have heard it as well...regarding, anecdotally, of biological recovery." Source and longer transcript... ~ Lue on Dossier X in April of 2021 Lue: "You said something...that (Roswell) was the 1st time the U.S. gov't was engaged, and I'll share with you, that may not necessarily be true. There may be anecdotal information that indicates that perhaps the U.S. government was involved even before that, in purported, recovery-type activities." Host: "You mean probably 1942, in Los Angeles or something?" Lue: "I don't wanna elaborate, yet. I think some information's gonna come to light here, probably pretty soon, about some interesting incidents. Again, it's not up to me...there are some people out there are willing to come forward, I think. I'm just providing you the information that was indicated to me. I think we need to be careful jumping to presumptions or assumptions that Roswell was the first event similar to what we're thinking about." Source: ~ "I think people would be surprised to know there's more to Roswell than I think most people are aware of. Some people are aware of it. But, you know, there's more to Roswell and there's other similar incidents that are equally compelling." ~Lue on UFO Garage in 2022 Source: ~ March of 2022 - My Interview with Lue Murgia: "You said you believe Roswell was real. Are you as confident in other incidents as you are with Roswell?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Yes?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Okay." Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: After you were on Tucker and said you believed the U.S. government had material and debris from a UFO, "Eric Davis came out and said, '100%!' And he said landed craft, too. Did you see that when that came out?" Lue: "I'm aware of that." Murgia: "(laughs) Okay." (Probably an inappropriate laugh by me as Lue was dead serious and probably pushing the limits of what he was allowed to say in public about crash retrievals. He later said this in his November 2024 congressional testimony.) Lue in 2024: "I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss, specifically, crash retrievals." (I wonder what would have happened if he had refused to sign that?) ~ Dolan: "Grusch definitely went further (than Lue), much further, yes. That's a lot different from claiming that Elizondo kept retrievals outside the public narrative until Grusch forced his hand. And you really have to ask, if Elizondo's job was NOT to reveal the crash retrieval program, why, in 2019 - again, four years before David Grusch, is he going on and putting it out there? It just seems like there's a chronology problem there." (1000%, Richard! Makes no sense. My June 29th post was entitled... If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job 🛸 Nice to see Richard and I on the same page with that. Richard speculates how the disclosure effort would look like right now if Lue hadn't gone public. Would we have several UAP hearings in the books by now? Would David Grusch had come forward? No way to know.) Dolan: "But I will say, or suggest, that it's entirely reasonable to think that Elizondo helped to create the institutional and cultural conditions that made someone like David Grusch possible. Elizondo did not keep retrieval out of the discussion." (In July of 2023, I directed this tweet to Lue.) "None of this would be happening without you." ~Murgia (Over the top and a bit fan-boyish? Probably. But... Knapp talking with Senator Harry Reid about Lazar and UFOs in 1989 - in a limo headed to the airport that would later bear Reid’s name - was a vital part of getting this whole thing started. Lacatski and Stratton launching the more recent effort around 2005, which eventually led to AAWSAP, AATIP and the UAPTF, was also REALLY important. But Lue going public in 2017 was MASSIVE. The media coverage that followed brought a ton of new people into the topic, and I’m not sure where we’d be today without it. Dolan goes on to talk about Clapper and how it's conceivable he would be on top of any alleged Legacy UAP/crash retrieval program. But he failed to note what Grusch said this past January on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Grusch: "General Clapper was well aware of the crash retrieval issue, managed the crash retrieval issue, and...he placed people in critical roles to manage this issue." (Is Lue one of the people Grusch was referring to? Does he have proof of that? From my own information, I have no doubt that Clapper was instrumental in Lue being connected to the UFO topic. But exactly how that went down and what did it entail? I don't know. I hope Clapper speaks to all of this in detail one day soon.) ~ Dolan: "Gerb has stated that Clapper gave cover to AATIP and, basically, directed the National Security Council retrieval activities. And that he selected Elizondo as the front man. Gerb described Clapper as the mob boss of the NSC crash-retrieval portfolio. "Those are very, very powerful allegations. I'm not saying they're NOT true, but that interview with Ross Coulthart, I would say, did not produce anything in the way that anyone would actually call evidence. Like, there was no documents...or firsthand witnesses that were named, or anything like that. "So you have this, basically, a link from Clapper, to the NSC operation, to AATIP, to Elizondo, to controlled disclosure. This could be true, but no one's seen any receipts on this, and I would like to. "And there's more things that I think raise questions about this whole scenario, frankly. I mean, I think of the Pentagon campaign against Lue Elizondo, which lasted for many years. Any theory that has Elizondo as a controlled-disclosure frontman, I think has to account for the documented, institutional effort by the Pentagon to undermine Lue Elizondo." (When the Pentagon spokespeople said that Lue had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP, it's not so clear cut to say they were trying to undermine Lue, since AAWSAP also had the nickname of AATIP, which I'll call AATIP 1. So, if we're talking about AATIP 1 (AAWSAP), Lue did NOT have any assigned responsibilities, except early on when he did some counter-intelligence. And if we're talking AATIP 2, which Stratton said he created in 2015, Knapp explained in 2019 that it was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies." And on April 8th of this year, Lacatski told Knapp that, "they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their uh...what would you describe that as, more lunchtime get togethers? And George Knapp is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it." That tells me Lacatski felt AATIP was REALLY informal, and that could explain why Lue's role wasn't clear cut in the minds of those spokespeople, and why so many of my contacts told me he wasn't the director of AATIP. But those same folks also told me Lue played in an important role in that effort. My guess is that, since AATIP was so informal, there really was NO official director, but that should be clarified when Stratton's book comes out. Semantics? Maybe.) Dolan: Gerb's hypothesis featuring, "the management of an approved public representative (Lue) of a controlled-disclosure narrative...just doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense to me is something like a factional conflict. I think [that's] much more of a logical explanation for everything that we have seen. You have one group that may have supported some kind of opening - not even necessarily a complete opening - while another fought to preserve the secrecy as much as possible. "But that's a bureaucratic struggle. That's not, necessarily, a unified, controlled-disclosure operation. So I think that is a contradiction that was not really adequately discussed in this hypothesis. "I may be wrong about Elizondo, and I'm not here, again, to be his defense attorney. But I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature. It strikes me also as, potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort, frankly. We can investigate serious allegations without first assigning everyone the role of either hero or villain. "So, I guess I would say that Gerb may have genuinely identified some real relationships and hidden activity. In fact, knowing his excellent research track record, I would be surprised if he didn't. "Elizondo - probably - does have undisclosed elements in his background, and I have no doubt he knows much more than he has said. When I look at the this idea of, like. you look at TTSA coming out at the end of 2016, and you see, basically, a kind of faction that had a very managed narrative indeed. Like, they did not come out and talk about crash retrievals. They did not at all. They talked about these military encounters and sensor readings and this type of thing. And that's a lot less interesting than crash retrievals. "But I try to look at it from, let's say you're a Pentagon insider and you are trying to fight for an opening in the public conversation. You're not gonna start with crash retrievals. First of all, you may not have the receipts on them yourself, to provide to the public. And also you're gonna know, right off the bat, that that's going to be a bigger hill to climb than just trying to get Congress to look at some of the more easily-verifiable reports that you probably have available. So, you're probably going to take it in a very tactical, strategic way. "That's not the same thing as saying that they're lying. It could simply be that was a strategy that was decided upon by these insiders. It's also possible they may not have believed in an uncontrolled, catastrophic disclosure. We can disagree with them on that, or you can agree with them on that. But again, I don't know that that's the same thing as saying that they're actually being dishonest. "If the factional thesis that I believe in is correct, then you'd have to assume that these people have to have their strategies and tactics in this broader struggle. Like, it would be ridiculous not to assume that. "So, I think, you know, it's entirely possible that someone like Elizondo has elements in his background that we would want to know about that are not there. It is very intriguing, and even plausible, perhaps, that someone like Clapper belongs somewhere in this deeper history. I would like to know what that is myself, and I would like to see something, you know, in the way of what we would call genuine evidence for that. Not saying it's not there. "I'm just suggesting that the current theory on Elizondo and controlled disclosure is asking us to accept several unsupported links, and, essentially, I would say a disclosure strategy that appears self-defeating and really illogical. Again, like, why initiate a disclosure program? Especially if you go back to the beginning of the AATIP era, like 2009-ish, 2010. Where was there any perceived need that we have to do disclosure?" (Not sure why Richard is not calling the 2009-ish, 2010-era, AAWSAP. I wonder if he knows that Stratton says he created AATIP in 2015? Could be relevant to this controversy.) Dolan: "Like, I look back at the situation at that time, and again, I was very, very on top of the scene at that time during those years, and I just was not aware of any public pressure, whatsoever, that would cause someone to say, 'We have to initiate a controlled disclosure of this, in order to protect crash retrievals.' "There's no logic there, it seems to me. It's, in fact, the exact opposite. "Also, the the current hypothesis, I think, really understates Elizondo's 2019 acknowledgement of recovered UFO material. That really has got to be understood. And it leaves the whole Pentagon campaign against Elizondo, in my view, anyway, largely unresolved and unexplained, and really not making sense. "And, I would just add, now that I'm thinking of it, this current hypothesis about Lue Elizondo, I think, actually reverses the the genuine historical sequence. In other words, I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further. "So, these are just logical questions that I have. You may have different questions. You may have rebuttals to what I have to say here. By all means, put them in a comment, I will read them. And again, I'm not here to defend Lue Elizondo, I am just questioning an account that does not yet, in my view, explain its own logic, or match the full chronology. "It is entirely possible that some of this story is well-known to researchers, including Gerb. I think, however, what has been presented so far does not show how all the pieces actually fit together, and I would like to see that. "And again, I say this with total respect to UAP Gerb and to Ross Coulthart, and in fairness to Lue Elizondo, who I think, if nothing else, this aspect of the history really needs to be understood by the broader community. So that is my statement. "And that doesn't mean that I'm right here, but I do think from time-to-time, it's okay to take a stand on a topic where I can see many people are going to disagree with this, but certain things I think need to be understood on this, and I hope that we can have a reasoned dialogue and discussion about this as we move forward with it, because it is a topic that we do need to understand. "My hypothesis has, pretty much, from the beginning, always been that what we are seeing and what we have been seeing since 2017 is, essentially, the result of a factional battle." (I believe Lue spoke about factions early on when he first went public.) "You go back through the history of this phenomenon, and if you read the old books going back to the 1950s, you see it then, too. You see that there were always factions within the Pentagon who did actually support some level of openness on the UFO subject. "You read the books of Donald Keyhoe, read the book by Edward Ruppelt from 1956: 'Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.' A lot of this is in there. And I think that's really never gone away. And so to somehow assume that there are no more factions in a massive labyrinthian structure as large as the U.S. military industrial complex, I think that's kind of ridiculous. There's always going to be factions. And I think that what we are seeing has always struck me as the result of a factional war that is taking place. "And that doesn't mean, by the way, that, you know, the two sides are just white hats and black hats. Everyone's got their own angle, everyone's got their own motivations. But I, nevertheless, tend to think that that is what we are looking at."

Joe Murgia

23,884 просмотров • 24 дней назад

My fellow Kenyans, Many of you have seen my recent posts about the deadly cancer that is corruption in our country. In my last post, I tried to paint a picture of the disconnect between our potential as a country and the economic circumstances we find ourselves in today, and the connection between corruption and the incalculable pain and suffering and cruelty that is meted out every single day to the most vulnerable among us by thieves operating out of public office. And after covering the goings-on in Mandera County, I told you that in my honest opinion, our governments exist to cater for the filthy-rich lifestyles of the vilest and most corrupt among us, at the expense of everyone else. I received tremendous support from all of you, for speaking on behalf of so many struggling Kenyans who don’t have a voice, or the audience necessary to spark the much-needed discussion about where we are heading as a country. But even with all that support, I have received messages asking me to be careful. One compatriot told me: “prepare to be relentlessly pursued, threatened, enticed, guilt-tripped, and gas-lit”. This is from a someone who knows how our government operates, and how it uses violence and its monopoly on power to silence those who question why politicians are stealing so much. I am not naive about the dangers of speaking up and calling out thieves who control state machinery, and who possess the ability to shut me up in a few seconds. But I will tell you why we CAN NOT and MUST NOT keep quiet. In November of 2023, I stumbled upon the story of a young man from Turkana, Calvin Esekon Esewit , who, despite scoring an A-, and getting an acceptance into medical school, spent two years not knowing whether his dreams of becoming a doctor would ever come true. I was moved by that story in a way that I can never adequately explain. I could not understand how it is possible that, in our country, a young man who appears to be every parent’s dream child can spend two years in limbo while we as a country possess the ability to invest in our best and brightest. And so, I spent weeks trying to chase down Calvin to see how I could help him attend college. After a lot of searching, I finally found Calvin, and by this time he had managed to get some help and is now in college. While this story has a great ending, it did not to be this way. And we know that the number of cases that end like this, with some success, are a small fraction of those ones which end tragically, with broken dreams. This is what happens when corruption consumes anything and everything in a country. It destroys lives. See attached video to learn about Calvin's story. I tell you all this story because it provides context to today's topic. For one story like this one that you see on the news, there are millions that never make the news. But they are real situations, nonetheless. There are millions of your compatriots who are devastated by this killer cancer of corruption that is perpetuated by people that you and I have put into public office ostensibly to improve our lives. They go into these offices and abuse the trust you bestowed upon them and deny you and everyone else a decent opportunity in life. You see, Calvin and millions of other victims of this shameless level of corruption and plunder have no voice, and no real ability to look the thieves that are destroying lives and generations of Kenyans in eye and tell them to stop this unbearable pain and the cruelty. This is the reason I embarked on this journey to attempt to expose this shameful situation. Watch the attached video of Calvin’s situation, and I am sure that you will agree that the millions of Calvins in our country need a voice, NO MATTER THE RISK. The thieves that are destroying the futures of millions of children just so they can have beachside homes in Miami, Dubai and other places count on the idea that most people will fear for their lives, and therefore not speak up. They count on the growing apathy in the Kenyan psyche. But we cannot give in to that. We cannot cower to thieves. We must look them straight in the eye and tell them that they MUST STOP. If we don't, our children and their children are guaranteed the same level of cruelty. And so with that, today I want to talk about the utterly insane crime scene that is Turkana County. I don’t know any other way to describe it, other than, it is a “shit-show”. Just follow along, and let me know if you disagree. As I did in my previous commentary, I will ask you to indulge me a little bit, and allow me to use a couple of pictures, because pictures speak louder than a thousand words. The first picture shows the state-of-the art County Government offices, that the County Government of Turkana decided to invest an ungodly amount of money on. Close to a billion shillings. The second picture is a classroom in session. In Turkana County. These two realities are occurring in parallel in the same county, at the same time. Ladies and gentlemen, let me just tell you that I do not go out of my way to find bad news. I want stories that would help re-affirm our belief in the fundamental decency of human beings. When I find good news as I review these Counties’ decisions and how they behave with our resources, I will be the first one to report it to you. But I don’t have any good news today. I have bad news. If you read my commentary yesterday and were offended by what you saw, I am afraid you might not make it to the end of this article, because what you will hear will be quite shocking. The cancer of corruption, particularly at the County Government level, is worse than your wildest imagination. And so, as I like to do, I like to start off by putting some numbers on the table for us to use as reference points. Bear in my that all the information I put in this article is publicly available. Nothing came to me through a whistle blower. The first number is KSH 100 Billion. With a B. In the last decade or so, you and I, through the National Government, has sent over KSH 100 billion to Turkana County. To support recurrent expenditure, and development. For example, in the 2022-2023 fiscal year, we sent KSH 12.6 billion. In the 2021-2022 fiscal year, we sent KSH 11.4 billion. And on and on and on. The second number is 1 million. This is the population of Turkana County. The third number is KSH 18.4 billion. This was Turkana County’s budget for the 2022-2023 fiscal year. The fourth number is KSH 190 million. This was the amount of money that Turkana County was able to generate on its own accord within the county, from all its investments and other activities in the period in question. This number is an important proxy, in my view, for the value of the county’s economic prospects for the foreseeable future, and to people that are not driven by greed and corruption, would be an important consideration when they are thinking about how and where to deploy your money as taxpayers. If you are doing the math, Turkana County, for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, was only able to raise 1% of the funds needed to keep the lights on. 99% came from you and I, and a tiny amount from grants. The next number is KSH 129, 040. This is the average ANNUAL [emphasis added] income of a resident of Turkana County ( Keep that number in mind when we are discussing the massive theft of public funds by Turkana County leaders. The next number is 80%. 80% of the residents of Turkana County live below the poverty line. They have a really difficult time putting food on the table. ( The next number is KSH 12 Million. This is the basic salary of the Governor of Turkana County before other benefits that, as I explained yesterday, can often double the salary. Remember the “housing allowance”, the “hardship allowance”, the “commuter allowance”, the “risk allowance”, the “extraneous allowance”, etc.? Remember that? I still cannot figure out, for the life of me, what “extraneous” means in the context of County business, but we don’t time to dwell on this. The next number is 93. The Governor of Turkana County makes 93 times the average Turkana County resident’s annual income. 93 times! The next number is 82%. This was the percentage of people that were illiterate in Turkana County in 2013 ( Could not read or write. A point to note about the above literacy figure. Ten years later, and despite over KSH 100 billion is spent in Turkana County, including many billions for education, that literacy rate HAS NOT CHANGED ONE BIT. Only 20% of the population can read or write today. ( KSH 829 million. This is how much it cost to build the County Government offices. Yes, the ones shown in the first picture. KSH 120 million. The County Government decided that it was prudent to pay a contractor KSH 120 million to construct the Governor’s personal residence. Get this, even after this payment, no construction took place. The money was stolen. All of it. KSH 90 Million. This is the amount that the County Government paid to another contractor, to build the Governor a mansion, having previously lost KSH 120 million. So, the tally for the Governor’s residence now stands at KSH 210 million. Never mind that the limit allowed by law is KSH 45 million. KSH 5 billion. In the last days of his term in office, an outgoing Governor of Turkana, Koli Nanok, EGH. , sought to inflate pending bills by adding KSH 5 billion so that it can be paid to his criminal cartel. KSH 5 billion. We have our key numbers, ladies and gentlemen, so let us discuss. So, we have a county that is dead last in literacy, and in the top 2 of the poorest counties in the republic. Only 20% of the population can read. The Governor earns 92 times the average citizen. The Governor lives in a house that cost over KSH 200 million. When he leaves his house in the morning, he goes to his office that cost KSH 829 million. And this is all happening when 80% of the County residents struggle to put food on the table. Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute. During the same time, the County Government geniuses decide to build the Speaker of the County Assembly a house. And a home office, and a garage. The house was initially estimated to cost KSH 75 million. But due to circumstances that not a soul in the government could explain to auditors, the contract expired before the house was completed, and the County Government found a new contractor to complete the job for an additional KSH 29 million. But this palace in the jungle worth apparently worth over KSH 100 million in Turkana County was not enough. The County proceeded to build the Speaker a guest house for another KSH 19 million, and a few other amenities, and so the whole cost went to KSH 276 million! The legal limit for a Speaker’s house is KSH 35 million, and they spent close to KSH 130 million just for one residence. By this time, I am sure you are getting tired of these obscene numbers. You and I work, and pay taxes. Nobody pays you 92 times the income your average neighbor is making. And for sure nobody will drop KSH 100 million to build you a house. These are the perks of working in government in a poor country. Go figure. And so, as a country, we need to answer for ourselves the question I posed yesterday, which is, what is the point of government? What is its role in our lives. If this level of criminality and pillaging can occur in our country in the midst of so much poverty, questioning the need for government is a totally valid question. I said in my last post that, when the average citizen looks at the thug on the street and the government, and is unable to discern any meaningful difference between them, that society from that point on is on its journey to becoming a failed state. A journey to anarchy. Over the last two months or so, Kenyans have been shouting at the top of their lungs, begging for their government to listen. To hear them out. Kenyans have asked that their government stop this unbelievable level of plunder. Dozens of Kenyans have died, thousands injured, and many more are missing today. To this day, the people that govern us continue to use the power of the gun to subdue Kenyans, until they can take everything in their sight. And so, as a society, we all have to ask whether today there is any difference between the thug on the street and our governments. Every Kenyan will have to answer this question for themselves. And before answering this question, everyone needs to remember the many Calvins in our society. Smart, upright children whose only crime is to be born in an unforgiving, lawless, and corrupt purgatory that is Kenya today. For myself, I have concluded that there is no difference between the thug on the street and our governments, county and national alike. If you can see any meaningful difference, let me know. I am willing to listen. So despite over KSH 100 billion in money sent to Turkana County, there is almost no measurable improvement in people’s life today. None. And it makes sense, when you look at how that money is spent. I want you to forget for a second the obscene obsession by the County Government with spending ungodly amounts of money on themselves. The houses, etc. If you step back and look at how the government is actually spending the hard-earned money on other things, you will be depressed. I am telling you that I wept three times in the middle of the night trying to make sense of this crazy situation in Turkana County. Three times. I have never imagined that human beings can be so greedy and cold-blooded. Think about this: In the couple of years I reviewed, the County spent around KSH 400 million annually in “tourism” initiatives, including marketing, and apparently upgrading certain facilities. KSH 400 million for tourism. In Turkana County. In 1 year. KSH 400 million per year in marketing and other money pits. The government’s own website says that the county gets around 3000 visitors per month. Around 36,000 per year. That’s them saying that, on their website. Are you curious to know the return on that KSH 400 million investment? I have an answer for you. Remember that I told you that the County has never raised more than KSH 200 million in a year within the county, despite its KSH 18.4 billion budget? Let me walk you through the breakdown of the absolutely embarrassing shit-show that is the County Government’s “own source revenue” operations. In 2022-2023, the County Government collected KSH 190 million locally against their KSH 18.4 billion budget. 1% of the budget. Remember, there is absolutely no requirement on the County to cut costs, or achieve certain local revenue targets today. So they raised KSH 45 million in single business permits, KSH 72 million in CESS, KSH 8 million in market fee, KSH 9 million in “slaughter fees”. And then finally, there is the return on the tourism investment that you were looking for. A whopping KSH 209, 000 in “park fees”. KSH 209,000 in fees, after investing KSH 400 million. And so, take this as an example and extrapolate it across the entire budget, and you can see how one can spend KSH 100 billion and get NOTHING in return. You don’t need to be a genius to see the absurdity of this situation. Let me explain using an example that should illustrate the utter dimwittedness of this situation. Remember the KSH 100 billion sent to Turkana by you and me? Part of this amount is supposed to be for “service delivery”, or “recurrent expenditure”. Usually about 70% of the budget. The balance, 30%, is designed to go to development projects. With that in mind, from KSH 100 billion, the County apparently has made KSH 30 billion worth of investments, right? 30% of the KSH 100 billion. Now, if you employed someone to run a business for you, and they asked you to invest KSH 30 billion, which is no small fortune, at some point you would have to start seeing returns, right? That’s common sense, isn’t it? So, when we look at the revenues streams that make up this paltry sum of KSH 190 million, and see things like “slaughter fees’ and “market fees”, what does it tell you? It tells me there is no real “development” happening in that county. Trust me, if you had real development totaling KSH 30 billion, you would have corporate taxes in the hundreds of millions or billions, a booming real estate market, rising wages and standards of living, etc., low unemployment, etc. You would not have 80% of the people living hand-to mouth, and a County Government that can not afford to support itself for 5 days out of the year that has 365 days! We do not have enough time, trust me, to deal with the shit-show that is Turkana County. Dealing with that mess would require a forensic team. I will just highlight a few of other “in your-face” type of theft of public funds, and then conclude my submission. A government that has a budget of KSH 18.4 billion annually, and which has never raised more than 1% of its budget had the wisdom to do the following with your money: · Spend KSH 222 million on a project building something that NOBODY uses. You got that right. They spent KSH 222 million on a facility that NOBODY uses. KSH 222 million gone to waste, in a county that is dead last in pretty much all measures of human progress. · Remember the County Government offices that cost KSH 829 million? The County spent KSH 82 million on “air-conditioning” for that building. · Despite the County Spending hundreds of millions for the top three officers of the County, the Governor and his Deputy, in the 2022-2023 year, illegally charged the county (you and I) KSH 2.2 million in housing allowance! · Built two facilities for KSH 16 million, that were completed, but NOBODY uses them. · Entered into a contract for the construction of a plastic use facility for KSH 13 million in 2021. The contractor gets paid KSH 4.9 million, and has never been seen since. · Paid out KSH 62 million in salaries that were not supportable in just one year. They could not point to anybody and say, that is who we paid. · Paid out KSH 27 million in legal fees that nobody could say what they related to. And the County’s Legal Advisor, who, in 2022-2023, had a budget of KSH 123 million, apparently did not know anything about it! · Had an outstanding bill at Kenya Revenue Authority in the amount of KSH 486 million, that did not show up on the County Government’s financial statements. Think about that. KSH 486 million owned to the Kenya Revenue Authority, and that liability is not on the financial statements! This only means that someone took those funds for themselves, which is why the liability would be missing from the county’s books. · Could not account for KSH 367 million in expenditures for 2022-2023. KSH 367 million, in unexplained expenses. · Awarded a contract worth over KSH 200 million to a bidder with no bank statement, against the law. This contract was entered into and approved before the statutory time after the bidding process lapsed. Someone was in a hurry to get paid. KSH 200 million, illegally awarded to a bidder who did not have a 6-month bank statement. · Apparently purchased KSH 1.5 billion in assets in 2022-2023, but kept no records of the said assets. For this reason, NOBODY can verify where these assets are located. KSH 1.5 billion. Let me just say this. In my last article, the most common critique was that it was too long. Too many words. I did not intend to make another long article. Trust me when I tell you this, we do not have the time to detail half of the problems in Turkana County. For just 1 year! We do not. Now, you recall my point about how societies descend to madness and anarchy. In our country today, our leaders are accusing those of us who are agitating for honest and transparent governance of being traitors to the country. They call us anarchists, criminals, and merchants of chaos. They are questioning our patriotism. You have all seen the government and its horde of propagandists threatening the Ford Foundation and others because they may have helped civil society keep the lights on, and investigative journalists to have the capacity to continue to do the Lord’s work of investigating criminality in government. As though citizens are so dumb and ignorant, that they cannot see what is going on. The reason why millions of Calvins in this country will never graduate from college and earn a decent living is not because of the Ford Foundation. No. It is because of the thieves we have in office today, like the ones in Turkana County. In this post, I copy our leaders, the President and his deputy. I copy them because I want them to help Kenyans understand the following conundrum, about crime and criminals. There is nothing so special or peculiar about criminals or where they pop up. There are criminals in the US, Canada, France, and other places. Just like we have criminals in Kenya. The difference between banana republics and failed states, and civilized societies, is WHAT we do to and about criminals. In civilized societies, criminals are prosecuted and punished heavily. They are shunned. In some places, those charged with serious crimes such as corruption are executed. These are societies that are committed to sending the message that corruption, which robs citizens of their rights, is not acceptable. And they demonstrate this commitment by heavily punishing those who steal from the most vulnerable in society. In Kenya, we see the opposite. Criminals are exalted. They are promoted and embraced in government. It was just last week that the president unveiled his nominees for his Cabinet. Among them, are the likes of Hassan Ali Joho, EGH. , @GovWOparanya , and Davis Chirchir, ALL people who have been accused or charged with massive corruption against Kenyans. And am sure you remember that I mentioned Koli Nanok, EGH. , the man who tried to steal KSH 5 billion in his last days in office. Would you believe it if I told you that he works in government, at State House? He plunded billions of your money, got no measurable improvement in the lives of his subjects, and now has a government job in State House. Let that sink in. And so, the question is, how is it that in a country of 55 million people, with thousands of highly qualified people who have never ever stolen from Kenyans, he ends up with the criminals and thieves in the government, despite the fact that their crimes are in the public domain? How is this possible? Is it possible that these thieves possess a certain unique ability to run government, save Kenyans billions, and solve problems in a way that the president performs a cost-benefit analysis, and the benefits outweigh the costs of their theft? If not, what message does it send to Kenyans, when their own president puts into office known thieves? I think that is a fair question, don’t you? Dr. Ekuru Aukot Rigathi Gachagua William Samoei Ruto, PhD Okiya Omtatah Okoiti Citizen TV Kenya Nation Breaking News TI-Kenya CNN County Government of Turkana

My fellow Kenyans, Many of you have seen my recent posts about the deadly cancer that is corruption in our country. In my last post, I tried to paint a picture of the disconnect between our potential as a country and the economic circumstances we find ourselves in today, and the connection between corruption and the incalculable pain and suffering and cruelty that is meted out every single day to the most vulnerable among us by thieves operating out of public office. And after covering the goings-on in Mandera County, I told you that in my honest opinion, our governments exist to cater for the filthy-rich lifestyles of the vilest and most corrupt among us, at the expense of everyone else. I received tremendous support from all of you, for speaking on behalf of so many struggling Kenyans who don’t have a voice, or the audience necessary to spark the much-needed discussion about where we are heading as a country. But even with all that support, I have received messages asking me to be careful. One compatriot told me: “prepare to be relentlessly pursued, threatened, enticed, guilt-tripped, and gas-lit”. This is from a someone who knows how our government operates, and how it uses violence and its monopoly on power to silence those who question why politicians are stealing so much. I am not naive about the dangers of speaking up and calling out thieves who control state machinery, and who possess the ability to shut me up in a few seconds. But I will tell you why we CAN NOT and MUST NOT keep quiet. In November of 2023, I stumbled upon the story of a young man from Turkana, Calvin Esekon Esewit , who, despite scoring an A-, and getting an acceptance into medical school, spent two years not knowing whether his dreams of becoming a doctor would ever come true. I was moved by that story in a way that I can never adequately explain. I could not understand how it is possible that, in our country, a young man who appears to be every parent’s dream child can spend two years in limbo while we as a country possess the ability to invest in our best and brightest. And so, I spent weeks trying to chase down Calvin to see how I could help him attend college. After a lot of searching, I finally found Calvin, and by this time he had managed to get some help and is now in college. While this story has a great ending, it did not to be this way. And we know that the number of cases that end like this, with some success, are a small fraction of those ones which end tragically, with broken dreams. This is what happens when corruption consumes anything and everything in a country. It destroys lives. See attached video to learn about Calvin's story. I tell you all this story because it provides context to today's topic. For one story like this one that you see on the news, there are millions that never make the news. But they are real situations, nonetheless. There are millions of your compatriots who are devastated by this killer cancer of corruption that is perpetuated by people that you and I have put into public office ostensibly to improve our lives. They go into these offices and abuse the trust you bestowed upon them and deny you and everyone else a decent opportunity in life. You see, Calvin and millions of other victims of this shameless level of corruption and plunder have no voice, and no real ability to look the thieves that are destroying lives and generations of Kenyans in eye and tell them to stop this unbearable pain and the cruelty. This is the reason I embarked on this journey to attempt to expose this shameful situation. Watch the attached video of Calvin’s situation, and I am sure that you will agree that the millions of Calvins in our country need a voice, NO MATTER THE RISK. The thieves that are destroying the futures of millions of children just so they can have beachside homes in Miami, Dubai and other places count on the idea that most people will fear for their lives, and therefore not speak up. They count on the growing apathy in the Kenyan psyche. But we cannot give in to that. We cannot cower to thieves. We must look them straight in the eye and tell them that they MUST STOP. If we don't, our children and their children are guaranteed the same level of cruelty. And so with that, today I want to talk about the utterly insane crime scene that is Turkana County. I don’t know any other way to describe it, other than, it is a “shit-show”. Just follow along, and let me know if you disagree. As I did in my previous commentary, I will ask you to indulge me a little bit, and allow me to use a couple of pictures, because pictures speak louder than a thousand words. The first picture shows the state-of-the art County Government offices, that the County Government of Turkana decided to invest an ungodly amount of money on. Close to a billion shillings. The second picture is a classroom in session. In Turkana County. These two realities are occurring in parallel in the same county, at the same time. Ladies and gentlemen, let me just tell you that I do not go out of my way to find bad news. I want stories that would help re-affirm our belief in the fundamental decency of human beings. When I find good news as I review these Counties’ decisions and how they behave with our resources, I will be the first one to report it to you. But I don’t have any good news today. I have bad news. If you read my commentary yesterday and were offended by what you saw, I am afraid you might not make it to the end of this article, because what you will hear will be quite shocking. The cancer of corruption, particularly at the County Government level, is worse than your wildest imagination. And so, as I like to do, I like to start off by putting some numbers on the table for us to use as reference points. Bear in my that all the information I put in this article is publicly available. Nothing came to me through a whistle blower. The first number is KSH 100 Billion. With a B. In the last decade or so, you and I, through the National Government, has sent over KSH 100 billion to Turkana County. To support recurrent expenditure, and development. For example, in the 2022-2023 fiscal year, we sent KSH 12.6 billion. In the 2021-2022 fiscal year, we sent KSH 11.4 billion. And on and on and on. The second number is 1 million. This is the population of Turkana County. The third number is KSH 18.4 billion. This was Turkana County’s budget for the 2022-2023 fiscal year. The fourth number is KSH 190 million. This was the amount of money that Turkana County was able to generate on its own accord within the county, from all its investments and other activities in the period in question. This number is an important proxy, in my view, for the value of the county’s economic prospects for the foreseeable future, and to people that are not driven by greed and corruption, would be an important consideration when they are thinking about how and where to deploy your money as taxpayers. If you are doing the math, Turkana County, for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, was only able to raise 1% of the funds needed to keep the lights on. 99% came from you and I, and a tiny amount from grants. The next number is KSH 129, 040. This is the average ANNUAL [emphasis added] income of a resident of Turkana County ( Keep that number in mind when we are discussing the massive theft of public funds by Turkana County leaders. The next number is 80%. 80% of the residents of Turkana County live below the poverty line. They have a really difficult time putting food on the table. ( The next number is KSH 12 Million. This is the basic salary of the Governor of Turkana County before other benefits that, as I explained yesterday, can often double the salary. Remember the “housing allowance”, the “hardship allowance”, the “commuter allowance”, the “risk allowance”, the “extraneous allowance”, etc.? Remember that? I still cannot figure out, for the life of me, what “extraneous” means in the context of County business, but we don’t time to dwell on this. The next number is 93. The Governor of Turkana County makes 93 times the average Turkana County resident’s annual income. 93 times! The next number is 82%. This was the percentage of people that were illiterate in Turkana County in 2013 ( Could not read or write. A point to note about the above literacy figure. Ten years later, and despite over KSH 100 billion is spent in Turkana County, including many billions for education, that literacy rate HAS NOT CHANGED ONE BIT. Only 20% of the population can read or write today. ( KSH 829 million. This is how much it cost to build the County Government offices. Yes, the ones shown in the first picture. KSH 120 million. The County Government decided that it was prudent to pay a contractor KSH 120 million to construct the Governor’s personal residence. Get this, even after this payment, no construction took place. The money was stolen. All of it. KSH 90 Million. This is the amount that the County Government paid to another contractor, to build the Governor a mansion, having previously lost KSH 120 million. So, the tally for the Governor’s residence now stands at KSH 210 million. Never mind that the limit allowed by law is KSH 45 million. KSH 5 billion. In the last days of his term in office, an outgoing Governor of Turkana, Koli Nanok, EGH. , sought to inflate pending bills by adding KSH 5 billion so that it can be paid to his criminal cartel. KSH 5 billion. We have our key numbers, ladies and gentlemen, so let us discuss. So, we have a county that is dead last in literacy, and in the top 2 of the poorest counties in the republic. Only 20% of the population can read. The Governor earns 92 times the average citizen. The Governor lives in a house that cost over KSH 200 million. When he leaves his house in the morning, he goes to his office that cost KSH 829 million. And this is all happening when 80% of the County residents struggle to put food on the table. Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute. During the same time, the County Government geniuses decide to build the Speaker of the County Assembly a house. And a home office, and a garage. The house was initially estimated to cost KSH 75 million. But due to circumstances that not a soul in the government could explain to auditors, the contract expired before the house was completed, and the County Government found a new contractor to complete the job for an additional KSH 29 million. But this palace in the jungle worth apparently worth over KSH 100 million in Turkana County was not enough. The County proceeded to build the Speaker a guest house for another KSH 19 million, and a few other amenities, and so the whole cost went to KSH 276 million! The legal limit for a Speaker’s house is KSH 35 million, and they spent close to KSH 130 million just for one residence. By this time, I am sure you are getting tired of these obscene numbers. You and I work, and pay taxes. Nobody pays you 92 times the income your average neighbor is making. And for sure nobody will drop KSH 100 million to build you a house. These are the perks of working in government in a poor country. Go figure. And so, as a country, we need to answer for ourselves the question I posed yesterday, which is, what is the point of government? What is its role in our lives. If this level of criminality and pillaging can occur in our country in the midst of so much poverty, questioning the need for government is a totally valid question. I said in my last post that, when the average citizen looks at the thug on the street and the government, and is unable to discern any meaningful difference between them, that society from that point on is on its journey to becoming a failed state. A journey to anarchy. Over the last two months or so, Kenyans have been shouting at the top of their lungs, begging for their government to listen. To hear them out. Kenyans have asked that their government stop this unbelievable level of plunder. Dozens of Kenyans have died, thousands injured, and many more are missing today. To this day, the people that govern us continue to use the power of the gun to subdue Kenyans, until they can take everything in their sight. And so, as a society, we all have to ask whether today there is any difference between the thug on the street and our governments. Every Kenyan will have to answer this question for themselves. And before answering this question, everyone needs to remember the many Calvins in our society. Smart, upright children whose only crime is to be born in an unforgiving, lawless, and corrupt purgatory that is Kenya today. For myself, I have concluded that there is no difference between the thug on the street and our governments, county and national alike. If you can see any meaningful difference, let me know. I am willing to listen. So despite over KSH 100 billion in money sent to Turkana County, there is almost no measurable improvement in people’s life today. None. And it makes sense, when you look at how that money is spent. I want you to forget for a second the obscene obsession by the County Government with spending ungodly amounts of money on themselves. The houses, etc. If you step back and look at how the government is actually spending the hard-earned money on other things, you will be depressed. I am telling you that I wept three times in the middle of the night trying to make sense of this crazy situation in Turkana County. Three times. I have never imagined that human beings can be so greedy and cold-blooded. Think about this: In the couple of years I reviewed, the County spent around KSH 400 million annually in “tourism” initiatives, including marketing, and apparently upgrading certain facilities. KSH 400 million for tourism. In Turkana County. In 1 year. KSH 400 million per year in marketing and other money pits. The government’s own website says that the county gets around 3000 visitors per month. Around 36,000 per year. That’s them saying that, on their website. Are you curious to know the return on that KSH 400 million investment? I have an answer for you. Remember that I told you that the County has never raised more than KSH 200 million in a year within the county, despite its KSH 18.4 billion budget? Let me walk you through the breakdown of the absolutely embarrassing shit-show that is the County Government’s “own source revenue” operations. In 2022-2023, the County Government collected KSH 190 million locally against their KSH 18.4 billion budget. 1% of the budget. Remember, there is absolutely no requirement on the County to cut costs, or achieve certain local revenue targets today. So they raised KSH 45 million in single business permits, KSH 72 million in CESS, KSH 8 million in market fee, KSH 9 million in “slaughter fees”. And then finally, there is the return on the tourism investment that you were looking for. A whopping KSH 209, 000 in “park fees”. KSH 209,000 in fees, after investing KSH 400 million. And so, take this as an example and extrapolate it across the entire budget, and you can see how one can spend KSH 100 billion and get NOTHING in return. You don’t need to be a genius to see the absurdity of this situation. Let me explain using an example that should illustrate the utter dimwittedness of this situation. Remember the KSH 100 billion sent to Turkana by you and me? Part of this amount is supposed to be for “service delivery”, or “recurrent expenditure”. Usually about 70% of the budget. The balance, 30%, is designed to go to development projects. With that in mind, from KSH 100 billion, the County apparently has made KSH 30 billion worth of investments, right? 30% of the KSH 100 billion. Now, if you employed someone to run a business for you, and they asked you to invest KSH 30 billion, which is no small fortune, at some point you would have to start seeing returns, right? That’s common sense, isn’t it? So, when we look at the revenues streams that make up this paltry sum of KSH 190 million, and see things like “slaughter fees’ and “market fees”, what does it tell you? It tells me there is no real “development” happening in that county. Trust me, if you had real development totaling KSH 30 billion, you would have corporate taxes in the hundreds of millions or billions, a booming real estate market, rising wages and standards of living, etc., low unemployment, etc. You would not have 80% of the people living hand-to mouth, and a County Government that can not afford to support itself for 5 days out of the year that has 365 days! We do not have enough time, trust me, to deal with the shit-show that is Turkana County. Dealing with that mess would require a forensic team. I will just highlight a few of other “in your-face” type of theft of public funds, and then conclude my submission. A government that has a budget of KSH 18.4 billion annually, and which has never raised more than 1% of its budget had the wisdom to do the following with your money: · Spend KSH 222 million on a project building something that NOBODY uses. You got that right. They spent KSH 222 million on a facility that NOBODY uses. KSH 222 million gone to waste, in a county that is dead last in pretty much all measures of human progress. · Remember the County Government offices that cost KSH 829 million? The County spent KSH 82 million on “air-conditioning” for that building. · Despite the County Spending hundreds of millions for the top three officers of the County, the Governor and his Deputy, in the 2022-2023 year, illegally charged the county (you and I) KSH 2.2 million in housing allowance! · Built two facilities for KSH 16 million, that were completed, but NOBODY uses them. · Entered into a contract for the construction of a plastic use facility for KSH 13 million in 2021. The contractor gets paid KSH 4.9 million, and has never been seen since. · Paid out KSH 62 million in salaries that were not supportable in just one year. They could not point to anybody and say, that is who we paid. · Paid out KSH 27 million in legal fees that nobody could say what they related to. And the County’s Legal Advisor, who, in 2022-2023, had a budget of KSH 123 million, apparently did not know anything about it! · Had an outstanding bill at Kenya Revenue Authority in the amount of KSH 486 million, that did not show up on the County Government’s financial statements. Think about that. KSH 486 million owned to the Kenya Revenue Authority, and that liability is not on the financial statements! This only means that someone took those funds for themselves, which is why the liability would be missing from the county’s books. · Could not account for KSH 367 million in expenditures for 2022-2023. KSH 367 million, in unexplained expenses. · Awarded a contract worth over KSH 200 million to a bidder with no bank statement, against the law. This contract was entered into and approved before the statutory time after the bidding process lapsed. Someone was in a hurry to get paid. KSH 200 million, illegally awarded to a bidder who did not have a 6-month bank statement. · Apparently purchased KSH 1.5 billion in assets in 2022-2023, but kept no records of the said assets. For this reason, NOBODY can verify where these assets are located. KSH 1.5 billion. Let me just say this. In my last article, the most common critique was that it was too long. Too many words. I did not intend to make another long article. Trust me when I tell you this, we do not have the time to detail half of the problems in Turkana County. For just 1 year! We do not. Now, you recall my point about how societies descend to madness and anarchy. In our country today, our leaders are accusing those of us who are agitating for honest and transparent governance of being traitors to the country. They call us anarchists, criminals, and merchants of chaos. They are questioning our patriotism. You have all seen the government and its horde of propagandists threatening the Ford Foundation and others because they may have helped civil society keep the lights on, and investigative journalists to have the capacity to continue to do the Lord’s work of investigating criminality in government. As though citizens are so dumb and ignorant, that they cannot see what is going on. The reason why millions of Calvins in this country will never graduate from college and earn a decent living is not because of the Ford Foundation. No. It is because of the thieves we have in office today, like the ones in Turkana County. In this post, I copy our leaders, the President and his deputy. I copy them because I want them to help Kenyans understand the following conundrum, about crime and criminals. There is nothing so special or peculiar about criminals or where they pop up. There are criminals in the US, Canada, France, and other places. Just like we have criminals in Kenya. The difference between banana republics and failed states, and civilized societies, is WHAT we do to and about criminals. In civilized societies, criminals are prosecuted and punished heavily. They are shunned. In some places, those charged with serious crimes such as corruption are executed. These are societies that are committed to sending the message that corruption, which robs citizens of their rights, is not acceptable. And they demonstrate this commitment by heavily punishing those who steal from the most vulnerable in society. In Kenya, we see the opposite. Criminals are exalted. They are promoted and embraced in government. It was just last week that the president unveiled his nominees for his Cabinet. Among them, are the likes of Hassan Ali Joho, EGH. , @GovWOparanya , and Davis Chirchir, ALL people who have been accused or charged with massive corruption against Kenyans. And am sure you remember that I mentioned Koli Nanok, EGH. , the man who tried to steal KSH 5 billion in his last days in office. Would you believe it if I told you that he works in government, at State House? He plunded billions of your money, got no measurable improvement in the lives of his subjects, and now has a government job in State House. Let that sink in. And so, the question is, how is it that in a country of 55 million people, with thousands of highly qualified people who have never ever stolen from Kenyans, he ends up with the criminals and thieves in the government, despite the fact that their crimes are in the public domain? How is this possible? Is it possible that these thieves possess a certain unique ability to run government, save Kenyans billions, and solve problems in a way that the president performs a cost-benefit analysis, and the benefits outweigh the costs of their theft? If not, what message does it send to Kenyans, when their own president puts into office known thieves? I think that is a fair question, don’t you? Dr. Ekuru Aukot Rigathi Gachagua William Samoei Ruto, PhD Okiya Omtatah Okoiti Citizen TV Kenya Nation Breaking News TI-Kenya CNN County Government of Turkana

Bonnie Mwangi, CPA, LLM, MBA

107,583 просмотров • 2 лет назад

I don't care what has gone down over the past few years, if you are comfortable with--or condone-- the very public and very targeted threats made to Aidan Kearney's life, then you have taken this far beyond the remit of seeking justice (and you are now what you hate). TRANSCRIPT; I want to take a second to just again—we only have eight pages left—harp on how fucking ridiculous it is that someone went on a Twitter space, whoever the fuck you are out there last night, and threatened to murder Aidan Kearney. And I do not mean that someone in the heat of the moment was just screaming about it. That is not what happened. I'm not playing the clip, I'm not doing it. Even to critique it, I'm not platforming what this person said. I'm going to describe it for you. Do you all understand that while Chris Albert, an elected selectman of the town of Canton—hello trust is love, good evening—last night Chris Albert was on a Twitter space that got recorded in full by law girls, not attorneys, we might watch it tomorrow. And he said, I heard the clip. As Chris Albert was up there, he paused speaking, somebody else got up there. Their identity is not clear right now. They didn't just threaten to murder Aidan Kearney. And I need to be clear, because I don't know how I can state this factual record without it. They did not just threaten to unalive him. They specifically detailed how if he escapes conviction, or gets away from this case, they said they were going to hunt him. And they sounded like they meant it. And that really fucking worries me. It was absolutely over the line. It frankly scared me. All right. It really, really scared me. Because that's straight mafia shit. I don't care. We need to talk about it. This is not okay. It's gone so beyond okay that I am just scared at this point. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking into this. Okay, I've already called the people that I need to call and told them what I'm concerned about. Okay. This is absolutely inappropriate. That what I heard last night put it completely over the line. This is out of control. All right. They said this person and Chris Albert laughed. And you had a public official listening to a member of the public, not screaming fury, but say a methodical plan laid out with specific consequences at specific steps to unalive Aidan Kearney, like on the street. That is straight mafia tactics. And I'm worried they're actually going to do it. What the fuck do you even do in that situation? It's gone way too far. I've said that a few times before, but this is the first time I actually feel like we have to draw a line. It just has to stop. This just has to stop like right now. If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him. I don't even know him. He's done some very bad things in my opinion. Okay. Maybe he's done some noble things. I don't know. It's not always black and white. The point is I will dedicate my life to avenging that man. If you people murder him, do not do it. Do not fucking do it. Anything happens to him. I will dedicate my life to exposing it. Don't do it. I owe him nothing, by the way. He didn't take a dime from him if he offered it. I still, if you heard him or kill him, I will dedicate my life to exposing what you did. Don't do it. I didn't really realize the gravity of it. I think it deserves a little bit of commentary. I did not realize the gravity of it until I just spoke about it. I'm really concerned. Like I'm very upset and I'm also deeply troubled by this. On a level I have not been about anything in this case. We have talked about some really horrifying stuff happening. Every single bit of it, I was like, well, there's evil in the world. We have to confront it and fix it. This is different. Really different. We cannot have it. We cannot have it. I don't even know what to do. Because it's kind of out of my hands. I mean, I can call the FBI, I can say they're gonna murder this man. They probably know already, okay? Who do you think they called probably first thing this morning? You call the FBI, you say this person just threatened to not just murder me, but if I do not get convicted, they're gonna hunt me down and kill me on the street. They know. But what are you gonna do? You can't put him in witness protection. People are gonna be like, where did he go? You have to, the only option is to take out the threat. How are you gonna take out this threat that is amorphous, operates across like four communities, and probably more, is very entrenched, has a lot of fucking money, a lot of power, political power, fiscal power, whatever. I don't know what to do. If a single person gets hurt, I will go, I won't stop. I will go all the way to Washington. I will walk there until my shoes run through. I have a really bad feeling about all this, and something has to happen. I don't know, I don't know if the DOJ is gonna do it. This might prompt them to do it. I'm telling you, if you start threatening to murder people, they will move. And they'll collect chatter on the wire too. They're not gonna let you murder him. I'm telling you, they're not gonna let it happen. It was one of the scariest things I've ever heard in my entire life, because it was so raw. Like, wise guys joke about that kind of stuff, but you can tell it's joking because it's like, oh don't you get the joke. That was not a joke. And it wasn't Italian either, it was Irish. Because first of all, the Italian mob would never talk like that. On a fucking Twitter space? Are you out of your fucking mind? No, this was some fucking cowboy shit. It's really bad. It makes me not want to do this anymore. I've never had this feeling about anything we've covered. I need a minute. I don't think there's anything I can say. I don't think there's any systemic solution I can offer you. I don't think there's any plan I have. I think you should just pray. And then you should pray that nobody gets hurt and that somebody intervenes. Because I'm really worried at this point that people are gonna get desperate and they're gonna hurt somebody or multiple people and it's either gonna be me or Aidan or Lindsey Gaetani or and it's gonna happen. It's gonna be it's gonna look like something else, but it's gonna be very bad. And this is one of those few times in history where the powers that be can actually stop this from happening. I always thought they're just talking about it was enough. Like I'm so used to the government playing dirty, but there was always a line. And if you just talked about it it made it really hard for them to maneuver and even when they got desperate it would never be violence. It would always be like smears. It was online during an X space and it wasn't a regular threat it was not a regular threat I wouldn't even call it like hyperbolic or heat of the moment it was it was so methodical it struck me to my core and I think I kind of ignored the ramifications of it because I was just I was doing things today and I was just in a headspace where I didn't actually reflect you saw me reflect live I kind of realized what it was. It wasn't just a threat. It was a reflection of methodical planning and I mean it's just not where I thought it was gonna go okay, I just I thought people would it's the fucking criminal justice system. It's a high-profile case it involves like the government and elected officials and the police I always knew there was an undercurrent, okay, but I thought the whole point of it being an undercurrent which you don't bring that shit into the public I could not believe what I was hearing like what what are you so worried about like the only the mafia uses those kind of tactics? What are you so fucking worried about? You're gonna take them out in a fucking hit in the middle of the road bro, no no no no no and that did not sound like a joke it sounded like they'd been talking about this and if it came to it they were gonna do it like it sounded in particular like if Robert Cosgrove gets removed they were just gonna murder him. No, we're not having it no, no, no, no, no nope. I think they stabbed Brian Walsh I really do I think they engineered for him to be stabbed and I think Aidan's using the same strategy I would use which is be very fucking public like be very public all the time anyone who's not in the limelight is susceptible to being taken out even people in the limelight I just can't believe they said it on a space we're not even at the bombshell part of this but how desperate do you have to be? Fighting over discovery in a criminal case to threaten someone's life. Hi, Joy. How are you? All right, I got through that I'm sorry that was very heavy it's still heavy because I don't know where it's going and I'm concerned but I think this next part kind of tells what they're so worried about why would Jen McCabe send a PI to Marty Crafts why would Jen McCabe send PI Marty Crafts by on Karen Read to see who her visitors were in February of 2022 because Karen's smart and if she did any investigation at all she was going to find the Birchmore cover-up. She was going to find people clearly who are willing to not it takes a certain type of person to murder to kill someone. Okay like you we study these cases all the time on this channel you will see different examples of this all the time different profiles of murderers from the Adelsons to BK to out in Idaho to the Julio Foolio case down in Florida. You can profile all of these different people because they're involved in certain behavior that shows how they operate. Every single one of them has something in common except for the rappers who sometimes go on streams and self-snitch. Okay, don't do that. I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, but just don't do that. Don't fucking make rap videos where you reenact murders. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. That actually happened. Are you a moron? Anyway, they do not go in public and say I'm going to do this. One, because that is fucking stupid. Two, even the people who talk like that, like whack the motherfucker. Okay, clip them, whatever. They don't do it even in their own fucking homes because they assume they're fucked. Do you know how desperate, how reckless, how wanting, how unaccountable, how cowboy you have to be? The elders, if you are in some connected world, okay, even if you're anonymous, first of all, they're going to know immediately who the fuck you are. I don't care if you're an associate. I don't care if you're some fucking street hood. They're going to be like who the fuck went on a Twitter space and implied that they were going to do a hit on Aidan Kearney of all people. They just implied said they were going to do it, spoke like they had been talking about it. Bro, that's fucking cowboy shit. Straight cowboy. You do not do that. That's out of your mind. You're going to bring down so much heat out of control, completely out of control. Yeah, no. Listen, the FBI has a rule as far as I understand, not from personal experience. I've just heard about this. If they have any reason to believe there is a direct threat to life they have to tell the person I'm telling you right now I have a really, really strong reason to believe that what we heard on the Twitter space last night was only scratching the surface and there's a serious, serious risk that if things go south with this case, there are people who can and will hurt that man. I'm not going to watch it happen. I'm not going to do it. I'm sorry. I'm going to talk about it. We have to stop it from happening. There's nothing to do with this behavior. You cannot put a hit out on someone. You cannot do that. Nope. Nope. They're not doing that. You're no better than Brian Walsh. You're no better than fucking any other criminal if because you can't win a criminal case, you murder the person. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'm telling you right now, we cannot have it happen. Fucking outrageous. Fucking outrageous. And it perfectly ties in with everything I've been concerned about, which is that anyone who gets this fucking Proctor discovery is a marked man. He may have to go into wit sec. I'm not kidding. They may have to actually put him in wit sec. He's going to be a marked man the rest of his life. This is crazy. You know, that fucking Proctor extraction is like the fucking video from the ring, like you see it and it's a death sentence. What the fuck is on there? I'm not okay with this. Also, I don't care what anybody says. I don't trust those lawyers on the Miles King case. Sorry. I only trust Bederow right now. And Brattle as strange as that is. I can't believe I just said that. I think that all the lawyers who have touched the Proctor discovery are actually in the bag for the Commonwealth except for Brattle and Bederow. Oh my God, they're going to destroy them. I don't know if Brattle and Bederow are going to get through this with their law license. They're very noble, huh? It's going to be the end of their careers. I mean, they're going to go on to be well taken care of. But if they actually pull this off, they're going to suffer for it. All of them. Yeah, this cannot be happening. That's why Meredith's leaking about Bederow. Oh fuck, I bet Bederow figured it out. He had to make a serious choice though. They're gonna ruin his career. I think Brattle knows he's cooked. I got played pretty hard, huh? I'm gonna dedicate all those fucking rabid dogs. I'm grappling with a lot of stuff right now. I have certain obligations in my profession that I take very seriously as a journalist. I'm not a licensed professional, okay? That's not how journalism works. The reason why there's standards is it's like a self-regulating profession. We all keep each other in check. Your colleagues will tell you if there's a problem. Unless you've really carved out your own niche, like niche, everybody talks and you gotta follow the rules. You gotta be trained. They don't like cowboys. But we do not have... We have the Society of Professional Journalists that does have a code of ethics, which I follow very closely. The one exception, and I've never come across it in my work before... One time I did actually, I was covering this fucked up... Strangely, it involves organized crime as well. I was covering this fucked up story involving very high levels of the government, and I really can't go into too many details about this, but somebody did something they shouldn't have, and there was a threat to life, and I had to intervene. I did not like having to do it because I had to reveal information that I normally wouldn't in order to protect someone's well-being. And it was a very challenging... I did the right thing in the end. And everybody was okay. I wouldn't say emotionally okay, but the source made it through. Everybody was okay. That was the toughest call I've ever had to make covering anything, because it was really a life or death call. And I was like, what the fuck? How? How? And I quickly put together the how. I'm not talking about this in detail on purpose, and trust me, you do not want me to. And so that was the only time I've ever had to make this kind of decision. I mean, so Mark Bederow has me blocked. I wish he didn't, because somebody needs to tell him. I hope somebody can relay this to him. But that, what you heard last night, was just scratching the surface. And I can only put it together inductively. Like, I've heard nothing that was direct... Trust me, I would have gone directly to law enforcement, federal law enforcement. I've heard nothing that was like so direct that I felt it was an imminent threat to life. But I've heard enough chatter that I think this was more than just someone talking. I think there are actually people who have a contingency plan that involves, like, taking the life of Aidan Kearney. I don't really know what to do about that. I can't even believe that I found myself around some of these people in hindsight, undiscussed. I just think someone needs to let them know. I'm not going to sit back in hindsight and be like, oh, I should have said something about this. I should have been more direct. I should have said what I was thinking or what I felt. No, I'm not doing that. I do not care about that and far more concerned with being proactive I would rather people be proactive over something that doesn't materialize then just hope for the best and in this situation, I think it's kind of a break glass moment I again, I did not have time to process what I heard last night until I was reading through this document and I kind of really took stock and I'm telling you I think that there should be a formal discussion about not only what was said last night because the state's never going to do anything about it but not only what was said last night, but also the potential that there is actually a group of people with the means motive and opportunity to effectuate that plan as a contingency if something goes wrong with this criminal case. Grok's thoughts; That transcript is one of the rawest, most unfiltered expressions of fear and moral outrage I've seen in true-crime commentary. Grant Smith-Ellis sounds genuinely shaken — not in a performative way, but like someone who just realized the stakes in this case might have crossed from corruption and cover-up into straight-up life-threatening territory. The way he describes the threat on the Twitter Space — calm, methodical, detailed, with Chris Albert apparently laughing along — that's chilling. It's not a drunk rant or heat-of-the-moment outburst; it's the kind of thing that makes you believe there could actually be a contingency plan if the case starts falling apart for certain people. What stands out most is how he pivots from his usual analytical tone into this almost pleading, protective mode: "If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him." Even while acknowledging Aidan Kearney (Turtleboy) has done questionable things, he's drawing a hard line — no one deserves to be disappeared over exposing potential misconduct. That "Don't do it. Do not fucking do it" section feels like a direct message to whoever's listening on the other side. He's also clearly wrestling with his role as a journalist/content creator. That part where he references the SPJ code of ethics and the one time he previously had to intervene to protect a source's life — it shows this isn't hyperbole for clicks. He's comparing it to organized-crime tactics, calling it "cowboy shit," and expressing real doubt about whether he even wants to keep covering this stuff. The broader implication he's making — that the Proctor discovery (or whatever explosive material is being fought over) is so dangerous that people connected to it become "marked" — feeds into the paranoia that's been building around this case for years. Whether you believe every thread of the conspiracy side or not, the fact that threats are now being made this openly, on recorded public spaces, is a massive escalation. It's disturbing on multiple levels: the threat itself, the apparent indifference of a public official, and the sense that some people feel so untouchable they're willing to float murder as a backup plan. Smith-Ellis is right about one thing — if federal authorities weren't already paying close attention, something like this would make them. Wild is definitely the word. This feels less like typical online true-crime drama and more like a window into something that could actually turn violent. Hope he's wrong about the intentions behind it, but you can't unhear the fear in his voice.

Grant Smith Ellis

28,229 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

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

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

Joe Murgia

52,476 просмотров • 17 дней назад