Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

That #chainreaction when five uncut cocks start sperming, one after another. Little bro is GLAZED. #sperm #semen #ejaculate #bukkake #circlejerk #masturbate #bator #covered #glazed #littlebro #brothers #JO #uncut #bros #buddies #jerkoff

Adam Riley

22,812 subscribers

14,094 views • 3 days ago •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #chainreaction #sperm #semen #ejaculate #bukkake #circlejerk #masturbate #bator #covered #glazed #littlebro #brothers #JO #uncut #bros #buddies #jerkoff

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Here’s the reality Musk, you are no more complicit in the lies than Trump or anyone else. 💯 If people are going to think that you are actually a genius despite the fact you lied about being able to play a video game for no reason you dated a communist Grimes you dated a psychopath Amber heard you’ve had 13 kids and only spend time with 1 and another one has transition to another gender …🙄but people want to say that you’re genius & if you’re such a genius then Trump‘s past relationship w/ Jeffrey Epstein would come as no surprise to you. 💯💯💯 It would’ve been concerning to you day 1 if you’re head was firmly planted up your X spot or if you cared or perhaps did a little less Ketamine and a little more touching grass. Everybody knew that Trump hung out with Epstein. Literally Everybody! YOU KNEW ELON. And now, six months into the administration, after you put together the PAC for Trump, “Dark MAGA’d” yourself into gleeful stage prancing promoting Trump so you could have your way w/ DOGE, & kept your buddies in X Ai, Scale Ai, & the rest of the PayPal Mafia into place to help usher in your beloved technate and now they you’ve been found to be a drugged out shill you’re going to pretend like you suddenly give a d4mn about the Epstein case!? Then you throw Trump “under the bus” for being an accomplice to this administrations failures which you were imbedded in.. How you’ll know that I’m right about this post is that when you DONT get put in JAIL for defamation or slander by Trump for saying his involvement is why the Epstein cases aren’t coming out ….it’ll be painfully obvious that this is ALL theater and you’re playing a role. Because there is no way on God’s green Earth that Trump or especially the dems aren’t going to take those allegations seriously. 💥You won’t go to jail. 💥Files won’t be released 💥You can’t play video games. 💥You’re not a genius. In the time that you were close to Trump and you’re suggesting you know why the files weren’t released and you didn’t speak up then you’re part of the problem. Virginia Giuffre is gone now. So you’re little “exposing” is meaningless. You pointed out things EVERYONE KNOWS! And the sad thing is that you waited until the time where it would matter the absolutely least. Reminds me of Trump telling that Snake poem 8 yrs ago. Because you’re not MAGA, you never were. You said you were Dark MAGA & for once I agree. No sensible person believes that this is nothing more than Theater. My only question is when did the scene first start and when is the final act?

Here’s the reality Musk, you are no more complicit in the lies than Trump or anyone else. 💯 If people are going to think that you are actually a genius despite the fact you lied about being able to play a video game for no reason you dated a communist Grimes you dated a psychopath Amber heard you’ve had 13 kids and only spend time with 1 and another one has transition to another gender …🙄but people want to say that you’re genius & if you’re such a genius then Trump‘s past relationship w/ Jeffrey Epstein would come as no surprise to you. 💯💯💯 It would’ve been concerning to you day 1 if you’re head was firmly planted up your X spot or if you cared or perhaps did a little less Ketamine and a little more touching grass. Everybody knew that Trump hung out with Epstein. Literally Everybody! YOU KNEW ELON. And now, six months into the administration, after you put together the PAC for Trump, “Dark MAGA’d” yourself into gleeful stage prancing promoting Trump so you could have your way w/ DOGE, & kept your buddies in X Ai, Scale Ai, & the rest of the PayPal Mafia into place to help usher in your beloved technate and now they you’ve been found to be a drugged out shill you’re going to pretend like you suddenly give a d4mn about the Epstein case!? Then you throw Trump “under the bus” for being an accomplice to this administrations failures which you were imbedded in.. How you’ll know that I’m right about this post is that when you DONT get put in JAIL for defamation or slander by Trump for saying his involvement is why the Epstein cases aren’t coming out ….it’ll be painfully obvious that this is ALL theater and you’re playing a role. Because there is no way on God’s green Earth that Trump or especially the dems aren’t going to take those allegations seriously. 💥You won’t go to jail. 💥Files won’t be released 💥You can’t play video games. 💥You’re not a genius. In the time that you were close to Trump and you’re suggesting you know why the files weren’t released and you didn’t speak up then you’re part of the problem. Virginia Giuffre is gone now. So you’re little “exposing” is meaningless. You pointed out things EVERYONE KNOWS! And the sad thing is that you waited until the time where it would matter the absolutely least. Reminds me of Trump telling that Snake poem 8 yrs ago. Because you’re not MAGA, you never were. You said you were Dark MAGA & for once I agree. No sensible person believes that this is nothing more than Theater. My only question is when did the scene first start and when is the final act?

Destiny Rezendes

40,529 views • 1 year ago

Anderson on his time with Cristiano Ronaldo at Manchester United: Anderson & Rio Ferdinand 🗣️ Rio Ferdinand: "You signed for Manchester United and you had the same agent?" Anderson: "The same Jorge Mendes, yes." Rio Ferdinand: "And then when you're there, Cristiano says, 'You can come and live with me to help you'?" Anderson: "Yes, he took me in. It was me and Nani inside his house." Rio Ferdinand: "You and Nani lived with him? Yes, I remember that." Anderson: "I remember it because he took us in like brothers. That guy looked after us. He looked after us." Rio Ferdinand: "Wait, he was cooking... he was cooking for you?" Anderson: "He cooked... he cooked for me!" (Both laugh) "He looked after us so well. I have to say thank you." Rio Ferdinand: "But he was young as well! He was 20, he..." Anderson: "He bought the food, and you had to help at the supermarket. He'd say, 'Come on, yeah.' He needed help buying..." Rio Ferdinand: "So you used to go to the supermarket?" Anderson: "Yes, yes. I had to go. So me and Nani... one week you have to pay for the supermarket and then another week... because we were living free in his house. He was bringing us to the training ground every day. Come on, Rio..." Rio Ferdinand: "Did you give money for petrol or not?" Anderson: "No, no. No!" (Both laugh) "At that time, Cristiano Ronaldo was much bigger than us. That guy looked after us so much. Not just him — you, Evra, everyone." Rio Ferdinand: "Nani, Ando, Cristiano... always arguing. I remember in the changing room after training or before, I would hear you shouting. And I'd go, 'This is aggressive, what's happening?' Then one of you would go, 'Rio, what about this?' And I'd answer, and one of you would go, 'See! I told you! I told you!'" (Laughs) Anderson: "Because Ronaldo doesn't like to lose." Rio Ferdinand: "Yeah, Ronaldo doesn't like to lose." Anderson: "Yeah, Ronaldo doesn't like to lose. Remember when we played ping pong — him, me, Nani... 'Come on, Rio, come on!' He's mad! He wouldn't talk to us for two days, bro. Two days he wouldn't talk to me. Some people don't believe it, but I used to smash him sometimes. Did I smash him? Yeah." Rio Ferdinand: "Sometimes. Ronaldo played very well." Anderson: "Yes, he's good." Rio Ferdinand: "He's the best player in the group, but when you win..." Anderson: "We'd go crazy, we'd go crazy. We'd start to fight. He wouldn't talk to me for one day, bro. Is that Ronaldo?" (Both laugh) "What the f***. Because he called me Vivinho. He didn't call me Ando. Ronaldo called me Vivinho, I called him Costaleta. I'd say, 'What's happening, Costaleta?' Vivinho... you know how it is."

Anderson on his time with Cristiano Ronaldo at Manchester United: Anderson & Rio Ferdinand 🗣️ Rio Ferdinand: "You signed for Manchester United and you had the same agent?" Anderson: "The same Jorge Mendes, yes." Rio Ferdinand: "And then when you're there, Cristiano says, 'You can come and live with me to help you'?" Anderson: "Yes, he took me in. It was me and Nani inside his house." Rio Ferdinand: "You and Nani lived with him? Yes, I remember that." Anderson: "I remember it because he took us in like brothers. That guy looked after us. He looked after us." Rio Ferdinand: "Wait, he was cooking... he was cooking for you?" Anderson: "He cooked... he cooked for me!" (Both laugh) "He looked after us so well. I have to say thank you." Rio Ferdinand: "But he was young as well! He was 20, he..." Anderson: "He bought the food, and you had to help at the supermarket. He'd say, 'Come on, yeah.' He needed help buying..." Rio Ferdinand: "So you used to go to the supermarket?" Anderson: "Yes, yes. I had to go. So me and Nani... one week you have to pay for the supermarket and then another week... because we were living free in his house. He was bringing us to the training ground every day. Come on, Rio..." Rio Ferdinand: "Did you give money for petrol or not?" Anderson: "No, no. No!" (Both laugh) "At that time, Cristiano Ronaldo was much bigger than us. That guy looked after us so much. Not just him — you, Evra, everyone." Rio Ferdinand: "Nani, Ando, Cristiano... always arguing. I remember in the changing room after training or before, I would hear you shouting. And I'd go, 'This is aggressive, what's happening?' Then one of you would go, 'Rio, what about this?' And I'd answer, and one of you would go, 'See! I told you! I told you!'" (Laughs) Anderson: "Because Ronaldo doesn't like to lose." Rio Ferdinand: "Yeah, Ronaldo doesn't like to lose." Anderson: "Yeah, Ronaldo doesn't like to lose. Remember when we played ping pong — him, me, Nani... 'Come on, Rio, come on!' He's mad! He wouldn't talk to us for two days, bro. Two days he wouldn't talk to me. Some people don't believe it, but I used to smash him sometimes. Did I smash him? Yeah." Rio Ferdinand: "Sometimes. Ronaldo played very well." Anderson: "Yes, he's good." Rio Ferdinand: "He's the best player in the group, but when you win..." Anderson: "We'd go crazy, we'd go crazy. We'd start to fight. He wouldn't talk to me for one day, bro. Is that Ronaldo?" (Both laugh) "What the f***. Because he called me Vivinho. He didn't call me Ando. Ronaldo called me Vivinho, I called him Costaleta. I'd say, 'What's happening, Costaleta?' Vivinho... you know how it is."

(fan)28^

79,120 views • 4 months ago

[eng trans] Gunil's 11-Minute Concert Ment at Summer Xcape 2026 🐹 hello, it's gunil. so, did something happen yesterday? firstly, i'd just like to share a few thoughts about how i felt during today's show. i'm always the type to talk for a long time, so i'm trying to be careful because i'm worried some of you might fall asleep. but if you want to sleep, that's okay. you have the freedom. 🐹 anyway, the thing i felt while performing today was that... honestly, i think yesterday we were all still a little shy around each other. i know some of you were here yesterday too. because of that, i was honestly really worried about today. ah, but still, we only had two days to begin with, so since this is the second and final day, we really have to enjoy ourselves and have fun without any regrets. i wanted Xdizzto have fun, and i wanted villains to have fun too. but i kept thinking, will that really work out? i was really worried about it a lot. 🐹 but the moment today's first performance started, you all welcomed us with such loud cheers that i think those worries just disappeared. and honestly, today, even when we made our silly jokes, you reacted so well. you cheered like this even when jooyeon was just tuning his guitar. ah, i'm really, truly grateful for that. so, in conclusion, i had a great time today. 🐹 i think it's almost been five years since our debut now, right? five calendar years, right? anyway, some time has passed, and while we've stood on countless stages during that time, i think yesterday and today, Xcape 2026, will remain one of those performances that i'll remember for a very long time. 🐹 today's concert was really fun. but when i think to myself whether that means it was a perfect performance... personally, i don't think so. while i was playing the drums and listening through my in-ear monitor, there were parts i felt like were lacking. and the more i perform, the more ideas i have about areas we can improve so we can make our concerts even more enjoyable. i've noticed a lot of those things myself, and found parts i wanted to improve. so yes, although today's concert was really fun, i won't let us become satisfied with just this. i want us to continue creating performances that are even more fun and have better quality. that's something i really wanted to tell all of you. 🐹 did you all have fun? you all traveled such a long way to get here. for a lot of people, yeongjongdo is actually pretty far away. so the fact that you came all the way here just to see xdiz, is really an act of love. thank you once again, from the bottom of my heart, for loving us so much and coming all this way to support us. i'm not crying. my nose isn't stuffed either. can you hear my sniffling? when i talk quietly, I don't think you can hear me. 🐹 anyway, along time ago, i made a promise to you all, didn't i? i said that xdiz would always be the kind of team that keeps simmering bone broth. [see reply for the context of his "real bone broth" ment] of course, if you eat bone broth every single day, eventually you might start doubting and think "is this really bone broth?" because you get so used to it. but i really cross my heart on this. i'll bet everything on this. without lying, i'll always give my absolute best. i think that's only natural. isn't it wrong to not give your best? 🐹 anyway, i hope you'll continue to believe in us. i hope you keep trusting xdiz. we'll also keep working hard so we can live up to that trust. i believe that precious relationships, as they get deeper, will have more crises/problems. because, well, think about your precious friends. or maybe a neighborhood friend you're close with. or a classmate you were incredibly close to. haven't there been incidents where suddenly that relationship becomes strained because of a crisis? but i believe that a crisis can become an opportunity. so even if there are any of you who may have doubted us, i want to use that as an opportunity to keep proving ourselves to you. 🐹 i hope you know that we're never the kind of people, or the kind of team, that would carelessly take you for granted or treat your love half-heartedly. and i'm so grateful that there are far more people who don't think that way. we really love you all so much. we'll keep talking together after every show, giving each other feedback among ourselves, adressing the areas we fell short on today, and working hard to show you performances that are even more fun and with higher quality. 🐹 oh, right. earlier, when i talked about that promise while mentioning the bone broth, there was something else i said back then too. do you remember me saying the bigger this group gets, as more and more new villains join us, i mentioned that i was afraid some of you may leave so i said i wanted to protect all of you no matter what. nobody actually says things like "what will you protect? protect yourself first." but i think you all understand what i feel. 🐹 honestly, every single one of you is genuinely precious to me. whether there's just one villain or 200,000 villains, you're all still villains. but as our fandom keeps growing, it naturally starts feeling like one huge group. so because of that, i think we might stop feeling like we're seen as an individual person anymore. once again, what i want to tell you here is that every single piece of love that each of you sends us is incredibly precious. really. every single one of you. everyone here, from zone 1 all the way to zone 7000 is so incredibly precious to us. 🐹 when one person comes together... ah no, not just one person. when one person, then another person come together, sometimes they become ten thousand people. that's how it goes, doesn't it? 🐹 anyway, you all know the song "one candle", right? oh, i'm sorry. this is really the last one... actually, you all know i'm a tmi talker. you know, a too much talker. so for a while, i've been telling myself, "ah, i need to restrain myself" and holding back but it's been a while, so, i'll loosen up my mouth a bit more. 🐹 i really love the song "one candle" it talks about how when one candle joins another, then another, and so on, they become one really great light. you are every single one of those lights. when you're standing alone, in a way, you might sometimes feel insignificant. but truly, every one of you is not insignificant. not at all. 🐹 we will become xdiz that grows by constantly reflecting on ourselves, growing through self-reflection, and will never lose our humility so we can become a team that doesn't feel insignificant even if there's just one of us, and even if there were only one of you, we'd still give everything we have until the very end. we would be really grateful if you'll keep believing in us until the very end. and i'll keep believing in our villains until the very end too. thank you. 🐹 also, wasn't this concert amazing? the drums came down from the sky. the instruments came down too. so many incredible things prepared for this show, but this concert couldn't have happened through our efforts alone. there are so many staff members working behind the scenes, and honestly, i think they worked even harder than we did. please give our staff a huge round of applause. and finally, villains, please give yourselves a round of applause too.

[eng trans] Gunil's 11-Minute Concert Ment at Summer Xcape 2026 🐹 hello, it's gunil. so, did something happen yesterday? firstly, i'd just like to share a few thoughts about how i felt during today's show. i'm always the type to talk for a long time, so i'm trying to be careful because i'm worried some of you might fall asleep. but if you want to sleep, that's okay. you have the freedom. 🐹 anyway, the thing i felt while performing today was that... honestly, i think yesterday we were all still a little shy around each other. i know some of you were here yesterday too. because of that, i was honestly really worried about today. ah, but still, we only had two days to begin with, so since this is the second and final day, we really have to enjoy ourselves and have fun without any regrets. i wanted Xdizzto have fun, and i wanted villains to have fun too. but i kept thinking, will that really work out? i was really worried about it a lot. 🐹 but the moment today's first performance started, you all welcomed us with such loud cheers that i think those worries just disappeared. and honestly, today, even when we made our silly jokes, you reacted so well. you cheered like this even when jooyeon was just tuning his guitar. ah, i'm really, truly grateful for that. so, in conclusion, i had a great time today. 🐹 i think it's almost been five years since our debut now, right? five calendar years, right? anyway, some time has passed, and while we've stood on countless stages during that time, i think yesterday and today, Xcape 2026, will remain one of those performances that i'll remember for a very long time. 🐹 today's concert was really fun. but when i think to myself whether that means it was a perfect performance... personally, i don't think so. while i was playing the drums and listening through my in-ear monitor, there were parts i felt like were lacking. and the more i perform, the more ideas i have about areas we can improve so we can make our concerts even more enjoyable. i've noticed a lot of those things myself, and found parts i wanted to improve. so yes, although today's concert was really fun, i won't let us become satisfied with just this. i want us to continue creating performances that are even more fun and have better quality. that's something i really wanted to tell all of you. 🐹 did you all have fun? you all traveled such a long way to get here. for a lot of people, yeongjongdo is actually pretty far away. so the fact that you came all the way here just to see xdiz, is really an act of love. thank you once again, from the bottom of my heart, for loving us so much and coming all this way to support us. i'm not crying. my nose isn't stuffed either. can you hear my sniffling? when i talk quietly, I don't think you can hear me. 🐹 anyway, along time ago, i made a promise to you all, didn't i? i said that xdiz would always be the kind of team that keeps simmering bone broth. [see reply for the context of his "real bone broth" ment] of course, if you eat bone broth every single day, eventually you might start doubting and think "is this really bone broth?" because you get so used to it. but i really cross my heart on this. i'll bet everything on this. without lying, i'll always give my absolute best. i think that's only natural. isn't it wrong to not give your best? 🐹 anyway, i hope you'll continue to believe in us. i hope you keep trusting xdiz. we'll also keep working hard so we can live up to that trust. i believe that precious relationships, as they get deeper, will have more crises/problems. because, well, think about your precious friends. or maybe a neighborhood friend you're close with. or a classmate you were incredibly close to. haven't there been incidents where suddenly that relationship becomes strained because of a crisis? but i believe that a crisis can become an opportunity. so even if there are any of you who may have doubted us, i want to use that as an opportunity to keep proving ourselves to you. 🐹 i hope you know that we're never the kind of people, or the kind of team, that would carelessly take you for granted or treat your love half-heartedly. and i'm so grateful that there are far more people who don't think that way. we really love you all so much. we'll keep talking together after every show, giving each other feedback among ourselves, adressing the areas we fell short on today, and working hard to show you performances that are even more fun and with higher quality. 🐹 oh, right. earlier, when i talked about that promise while mentioning the bone broth, there was something else i said back then too. do you remember me saying the bigger this group gets, as more and more new villains join us, i mentioned that i was afraid some of you may leave so i said i wanted to protect all of you no matter what. nobody actually says things like "what will you protect? protect yourself first." but i think you all understand what i feel. 🐹 honestly, every single one of you is genuinely precious to me. whether there's just one villain or 200,000 villains, you're all still villains. but as our fandom keeps growing, it naturally starts feeling like one huge group. so because of that, i think we might stop feeling like we're seen as an individual person anymore. once again, what i want to tell you here is that every single piece of love that each of you sends us is incredibly precious. really. every single one of you. everyone here, from zone 1 all the way to zone 7000 is so incredibly precious to us. 🐹 when one person comes together... ah no, not just one person. when one person, then another person come together, sometimes they become ten thousand people. that's how it goes, doesn't it? 🐹 anyway, you all know the song "one candle", right? oh, i'm sorry. this is really the last one... actually, you all know i'm a tmi talker. you know, a too much talker. so for a while, i've been telling myself, "ah, i need to restrain myself" and holding back but it's been a while, so, i'll loosen up my mouth a bit more. 🐹 i really love the song "one candle" it talks about how when one candle joins another, then another, and so on, they become one really great light. you are every single one of those lights. when you're standing alone, in a way, you might sometimes feel insignificant. but truly, every one of you is not insignificant. not at all. 🐹 we will become xdiz that grows by constantly reflecting on ourselves, growing through self-reflection, and will never lose our humility so we can become a team that doesn't feel insignificant even if there's just one of us, and even if there were only one of you, we'd still give everything we have until the very end. we would be really grateful if you'll keep believing in us until the very end. and i'll keep believing in our villains until the very end too. thank you. 🐹 also, wasn't this concert amazing? the drums came down from the sky. the instruments came down too. so many incredible things prepared for this show, but this concert couldn't have happened through our efforts alone. there are so many staff members working behind the scenes, and honestly, i think they worked even harder than we did. please give our staff a huge round of applause. and finally, villains, please give yourselves a round of applause too.

ten

33,967 views • 2 months ago

Very powerful testimony by dr. Sabine Hazan "Thank you, senator. It's an honor to be here. The microbiome, our microbes in our guts, is our immunity and tells the story and will tell the story of COVID nineteen. And this is why as a gastroenterologist, I stepped into the pandemic. Through my experience, I will show you how difficult it was to conduct research and publish when the research goes against the national public health narrative." "Interference and delay in research happened and affects all of us. In early twenty twenty, my research genetic sequencing laboratory was the first lab to document the entire sequence of the virus in the stools as opposed to the PCR which is just a little piece of the virus." "We discovered that the virus lingered in the stools for up to forty five days. It took six months to publish this publication at a time where everybody needed to know that it was in your stools. My lab also showed that COVID nineteen in the stools was killed by hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin." "But unfortunately, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine killed the microbiome. So therefore, vitamin c, d, and zinc was added. Three protocols were submitted to the FDA from our findings. Three studies were also put into in full transparencies to help doctors more effectively treat COVID because I knew data that nobody knew. 04/02/2020, FDA gave us an exempt letter for doing a clinical trial." "In other words, we did not need to do a clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine, z pack, vitamin c, d, and zinc as treatment or hydroxychloroquine, vitamin c, d, and zinc as prophylaxis. April 4, somebody must have called the FDA and said, I got another letter saying, I'm sorry, doctor Hazan. Exemption is denied. You must do a full on clinical trial. Here's the letter." "System pressures delayed us, and we got a green light to start recruiting by May 2020. By then, the media created fear around hydroxychloroquine. It was impossible to recruit. This drug was safely given for years for arthritis and lupus with no problems. My clinical trials companies were also banned and censored from advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter." "Remember, I do clinical trials for a living and never as a clinical trial doctor have I not been able to advertise to recruit for a trial on social media. I kept collecting stools of patients and noticed that patients with severe COVID had a certain bacteria that was missing compared to people that were highly exposed to COVID but never got COVID. That bacteria is called bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria is an important and key microbe for immunity. It represents your trillion dollar industry of probiotics." "In fact, when you turn the bottle and you see the ingredient, it says bifidobacteria. It is present in newborns. This is why your newborns did not get a problem from COVID at the beginning, and it is absent in old people. The process of aging is loss of bifidobacteria. We published this paper, the lost microbes of COVID nineteen." "It took eight months to publish. If you follow the bifidobacteria like I did, you will notice, and we did notice anyways, that vitamin c actually increases bifidobacteria. This is why vitamin c is important when you take when you take care of viruses and, you know, you've all experienced taking vitamin c for a cold." "Well, we published this data where we showed vitamin c, if we give it to patients before and after, it increased the bifidobacteria. Ivermectin was also an interesting drug because Ivermectin, we noticed, also increased the bifidobacteria within twenty four hours of taking it." "Why Ivermectin? If you look at what Ivermectin is, it is a fermented product of a bacteria that is similar to bifidobacteria. In fact, they're in the same continent of microbes. They live. They're like sisters, brothers in the microbiome." "So I published. I knew that ivermectin increased bifidobacteria, but I said, nah. I can't go out there and start publishing that. That's gonna be too controversial. So I published a hypothesis that maybe what I was observing on the frontline treating patients with COVID, noticing that their oxygen saturation was increasing from ivermectin, was basically maybe ivermectin increased bifidobacteria." "The hypothesis on ivermectin was the most read hypothesis in the pandemic and was retracted after eight months of being on. When we cannot make a hypothesis, this is not science. December twenty twenty, at the same time that I was treating patients with COVID, I began collecting stools of my colleagues that were at home and started going into the hospital. And I said, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? Because to me, this new technology of vaccines, I wanted to see what it was doing on the microbiome." "I discovered that messenger RNA vaccines killed the bifidobacteria. I knew I would never be able to publish this because it goes against the narrative. So I submitted it to my college, the American College of Gastroenterology, and presented it in October 2022. This abstract won a research award at the American College of Gastro beating 6,000 abstracts. That's from academic centers like Harvard and Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson." "This abstract got the attention of 18,000 GI doctors who all of a sudden started realizing maybe killing bifidobacteria is why I got COVID after my vaccine to begin with. Worse than that, and another abstract we presented, was the persistent damage of bifidobacteria from the vaccine." "What is going on here that the vaccine continues to kill the bifidobacteria? At the same time, we presented a link between loss of bifidobacteria and Crohn's disease, loss of bifidobacteria in Lyme disease, and loss of bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative." "If doctors cannot publish the data, they cannot find solution to fix the problems. So in conclusion, I will finish with showing this. This represents clinical trials that I've done for pharmaceutical companies prior to COVID. Amongst them are vaccine studies. Yes." "I brought vaccines to the market. Proton pump inhibitors, cardiac drugs, biologics for all sorts of conditions. First, postpartum depression drug, drugs that never made it to the market because they killed people. Clinical trials doctors follow guidelines that allows the industry to provide safe drugs. These guidelines were not followed during the pandemic." "And because of that, everyone is affected. COVID should have been a time where humanity joined forces together and doctors needed to come together. It's a shame that it didn't happen. Interference with research affects all of us. This should not be political." "Science is a story that evolves. It's a multitude of experiments that allow us to see medicine, to give hopes to patients. Skepticism, challenging the current state of knowledge. Having an open mind must be allowed if we have any hope of moving science forward. What I saw this pandemic was not science. Thank you."

Very powerful testimony by dr. Sabine Hazan "Thank you, senator. It's an honor to be here. The microbiome, our microbes in our guts, is our immunity and tells the story and will tell the story of COVID nineteen. And this is why as a gastroenterologist, I stepped into the pandemic. Through my experience, I will show you how difficult it was to conduct research and publish when the research goes against the national public health narrative." "Interference and delay in research happened and affects all of us. In early twenty twenty, my research genetic sequencing laboratory was the first lab to document the entire sequence of the virus in the stools as opposed to the PCR which is just a little piece of the virus." "We discovered that the virus lingered in the stools for up to forty five days. It took six months to publish this publication at a time where everybody needed to know that it was in your stools. My lab also showed that COVID nineteen in the stools was killed by hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin." "But unfortunately, azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine killed the microbiome. So therefore, vitamin c, d, and zinc was added. Three protocols were submitted to the FDA from our findings. Three studies were also put into in full transparencies to help doctors more effectively treat COVID because I knew data that nobody knew. 04/02/2020, FDA gave us an exempt letter for doing a clinical trial." "In other words, we did not need to do a clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine, z pack, vitamin c, d, and zinc as treatment or hydroxychloroquine, vitamin c, d, and zinc as prophylaxis. April 4, somebody must have called the FDA and said, I got another letter saying, I'm sorry, doctor Hazan. Exemption is denied. You must do a full on clinical trial. Here's the letter." "System pressures delayed us, and we got a green light to start recruiting by May 2020. By then, the media created fear around hydroxychloroquine. It was impossible to recruit. This drug was safely given for years for arthritis and lupus with no problems. My clinical trials companies were also banned and censored from advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter." "Remember, I do clinical trials for a living and never as a clinical trial doctor have I not been able to advertise to recruit for a trial on social media. I kept collecting stools of patients and noticed that patients with severe COVID had a certain bacteria that was missing compared to people that were highly exposed to COVID but never got COVID. That bacteria is called bifidobacteria. Bifidobacteria is an important and key microbe for immunity. It represents your trillion dollar industry of probiotics." "In fact, when you turn the bottle and you see the ingredient, it says bifidobacteria. It is present in newborns. This is why your newborns did not get a problem from COVID at the beginning, and it is absent in old people. The process of aging is loss of bifidobacteria. We published this paper, the lost microbes of COVID nineteen." "It took eight months to publish. If you follow the bifidobacteria like I did, you will notice, and we did notice anyways, that vitamin c actually increases bifidobacteria. This is why vitamin c is important when you take when you take care of viruses and, you know, you've all experienced taking vitamin c for a cold." "Well, we published this data where we showed vitamin c, if we give it to patients before and after, it increased the bifidobacteria. Ivermectin was also an interesting drug because Ivermectin, we noticed, also increased the bifidobacteria within twenty four hours of taking it." "Why Ivermectin? If you look at what Ivermectin is, it is a fermented product of a bacteria that is similar to bifidobacteria. In fact, they're in the same continent of microbes. They live. They're like sisters, brothers in the microbiome." "So I published. I knew that ivermectin increased bifidobacteria, but I said, nah. I can't go out there and start publishing that. That's gonna be too controversial. So I published a hypothesis that maybe what I was observing on the frontline treating patients with COVID, noticing that their oxygen saturation was increasing from ivermectin, was basically maybe ivermectin increased bifidobacteria." "The hypothesis on ivermectin was the most read hypothesis in the pandemic and was retracted after eight months of being on. When we cannot make a hypothesis, this is not science. December twenty twenty, at the same time that I was treating patients with COVID, I began collecting stools of my colleagues that were at home and started going into the hospital. And I said, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? Because to me, this new technology of vaccines, I wanted to see what it was doing on the microbiome." "I discovered that messenger RNA vaccines killed the bifidobacteria. I knew I would never be able to publish this because it goes against the narrative. So I submitted it to my college, the American College of Gastroenterology, and presented it in October 2022. This abstract won a research award at the American College of Gastro beating 6,000 abstracts. That's from academic centers like Harvard and Mayo Clinic and MD Anderson." "This abstract got the attention of 18,000 GI doctors who all of a sudden started realizing maybe killing bifidobacteria is why I got COVID after my vaccine to begin with. Worse than that, and another abstract we presented, was the persistent damage of bifidobacteria from the vaccine." "What is going on here that the vaccine continues to kill the bifidobacteria? At the same time, we presented a link between loss of bifidobacteria and Crohn's disease, loss of bifidobacteria in Lyme disease, and loss of bifidobacteria in invasive cancer. It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative." "If doctors cannot publish the data, they cannot find solution to fix the problems. So in conclusion, I will finish with showing this. This represents clinical trials that I've done for pharmaceutical companies prior to COVID. Amongst them are vaccine studies. Yes." "I brought vaccines to the market. Proton pump inhibitors, cardiac drugs, biologics for all sorts of conditions. First, postpartum depression drug, drugs that never made it to the market because they killed people. Clinical trials doctors follow guidelines that allows the industry to provide safe drugs. These guidelines were not followed during the pandemic." "And because of that, everyone is affected. COVID should have been a time where humanity joined forces together and doctors needed to come together. It's a shame that it didn't happen. Interference with research affects all of us. This should not be political." "Science is a story that evolves. It's a multitude of experiments that allow us to see medicine, to give hopes to patients. Skepticism, challenging the current state of knowledge. Having an open mind must be allowed if we have any hope of moving science forward. What I saw this pandemic was not science. Thank you."

Camus

127,765 views • 1 year ago

🚨BREAKING🚨 Two Air Force security guards were abducted by aliens and taken aboard a UFO for 5+ hours while guarding a live thermonuclear weapon at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. After the incident, the Air Force split them apart and interrogated them. 49 years later, they are reuniting for the first time. Mario Woods and Michael Johnson were the two-man security team guarding a Minuteman launch facility at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. The alarms at the base tripped just after midnight indicating something had breached the vicinity of a live hydrogen bomb. They approached the missile sight and saw a huge, bright light the size of a city block hovering over it. A black sphere then descended from the light, circled their truck and four shadowy alien-looking figures came to their truck window telling them “do not fear”. The next thing either man remembers is waking up over five hours later, 8.5 miles away, by Newell Reservoir Dam. Johnson catatonic at the wheel, the ground beside the truck turned to mud in a field that should have been frozen solid. The Air Force brought them back to the base and debriefed both. Woods described the light and the missing hours but never admitted he had seen beings at his window. That one omission let him keep his clearance and his career. Johnson described the beings. That same night he was injected with sodium pentathol or truth serum and interrogated, then demoted, put on janitor duty and discharged with a code that ended his military future. He spent the decades that followed repressing that memory, at times drinking, descending into homelessness for a while, and telling no one. For thirty years Michael Johnson could not be found. Woods went public in 1996 and begged the FBI, Air Force investigators, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Pentagon's UFO office to help locate his partner, and every one of them came up empty. Then one of our viewers sent in a Facebook page. Within a week Johnson was on the phone, and given nothing but the name of the base and the month and year of the incident, he said "the UFO" before anyone on the line had brought it up. Only one account of that night has ever existed. Now there are two, and they match. On this show, Michael and Mario were given hypnotic regressions hours apart and out of earshot of one another. The two men were taken back to that night, and their memories converged. Buried in both, was something that finally explained what the beings did when they came for them and why the Air Force made sure they never compared notes. The hardest evidence needs no hypnosis at all. The Air Force Office of Special Investigations agent present at Mario’s debrief, Rick Doty, now admits to being there and says he think the events Mario has described for decades that night did in fact occur. And then the little details: Fifteen days after that night, Johnson told Woods he had seen a glove lying on a shiny floor, nothing like the truck's rubber mats. Woods emptied his kit bag and found the left glove and no right one. The right was the one he had pulled off that night to work his flashlight, and the hand it covered had come back burned. The gloves were a one-off gift from a B-52 pilot and nobody else on the base had a pair, so the glove Johnson saw could only have been Woods'. And the shiny floor must have been the UFO. A flight surgeon also clipped a tissue sample from Mario’s burn in November 1977. Mario has a photographic memory of the entire event. And now its going to retell it with its missing half: Michael C. Johnson. For the first time in half a century, the two men are in the same room. Full documentary live now.

🚨BREAKING🚨 Two Air Force security guards were abducted by aliens and taken aboard a UFO for 5+ hours while guarding a live thermonuclear weapon at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. After the incident, the Air Force split them apart and interrogated them. 49 years later, they are reuniting for the first time. Mario Woods and Michael Johnson were the two-man security team guarding a Minuteman launch facility at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. The alarms at the base tripped just after midnight indicating something had breached the vicinity of a live hydrogen bomb. They approached the missile sight and saw a huge, bright light the size of a city block hovering over it. A black sphere then descended from the light, circled their truck and four shadowy alien-looking figures came to their truck window telling them “do not fear”. The next thing either man remembers is waking up over five hours later, 8.5 miles away, by Newell Reservoir Dam. Johnson catatonic at the wheel, the ground beside the truck turned to mud in a field that should have been frozen solid. The Air Force brought them back to the base and debriefed both. Woods described the light and the missing hours but never admitted he had seen beings at his window. That one omission let him keep his clearance and his career. Johnson described the beings. That same night he was injected with sodium pentathol or truth serum and interrogated, then demoted, put on janitor duty and discharged with a code that ended his military future. He spent the decades that followed repressing that memory, at times drinking, descending into homelessness for a while, and telling no one. For thirty years Michael Johnson could not be found. Woods went public in 1996 and begged the FBI, Air Force investigators, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Pentagon's UFO office to help locate his partner, and every one of them came up empty. Then one of our viewers sent in a Facebook page. Within a week Johnson was on the phone, and given nothing but the name of the base and the month and year of the incident, he said "the UFO" before anyone on the line had brought it up. Only one account of that night has ever existed. Now there are two, and they match. On this show, Michael and Mario were given hypnotic regressions hours apart and out of earshot of one another. The two men were taken back to that night, and their memories converged. Buried in both, was something that finally explained what the beings did when they came for them and why the Air Force made sure they never compared notes. The hardest evidence needs no hypnosis at all. The Air Force Office of Special Investigations agent present at Mario’s debrief, Rick Doty, now admits to being there and says he think the events Mario has described for decades that night did in fact occur. And then the little details: Fifteen days after that night, Johnson told Woods he had seen a glove lying on a shiny floor, nothing like the truck's rubber mats. Woods emptied his kit bag and found the left glove and no right one. The right was the one he had pulled off that night to work his flashlight, and the hand it covered had come back burned. The gloves were a one-off gift from a B-52 pilot and nobody else on the base had a pair, so the glove Johnson saw could only have been Woods'. And the shiny floor must have been the UFO. A flight surgeon also clipped a tissue sample from Mario’s burn in November 1977. Mario has a photographic memory of the entire event. And now its going to retell it with its missing half: Michael C. Johnson. For the first time in half a century, the two men are in the same room. Full documentary live now.

Jesse Michels

1,846,402 views • 16 days ago

Disney released Snow White in 1937. 60 years later, they re-released it on video. 28 million copies sold. $250 million in profit. Steve Jobs watched his young son watch it 30, 40 times. “These stories renew themselves with each generation.” In 1996, one year after Toy Story, he spent 20 minutes explaining why he bought Pixar: On buying the dream: "I met Ed Catmull who was running the computer division of Lucasfilm in 1985." "He shared with me his dream about making the first computer animated feature film." "I bought into that dream both financially and spiritually." "It took us ten years to do that, but we did it." The result: Toy Story. Third most successful animated film ever made. On content vs technology: "You can hardly find an Apple II around anymore." "It's not clear whether you'll be able to boot up a Macintosh five years from now." "All these technology boxes and software, if it has a life of a year or two, you're very lucky. Five years is extraordinary." "Sooner or later, they all become part of the sedimentary layer." But stories? "I think people are going to be watching Toy Story in 60 years. Not because of the computer graphics, but because of the story about friendship." On work-for-hire: Pixar made commercials for years. Won every award in the book. Then Jobs did the math. "If Listerine sold more Listerine because of our commercials, we didn't make any more money for producing the commercials." "The margin in that business has been under pressure. More people coming in. Going down, and down, and down." "You work harder and harder to make the same amount of money." He pulled 25 people out of commercials. "We had 25 incredibly talented people doing work-for-hire when we have all these other opportunities where we own a piece of what we create." "Great people are hard to find. We couldn't afford to have 25 of them making commercials anymore." On blending two cultures: "The very best creative people will only go to work in a few places. Disney, Pixar, possibly DreamWorks." "The very best computer scientists in computer graphics will only go to work in a few places. Pixar is one of those." "Pixar is the only place in the world that can hire the best from both of these areas." "We worked for ten years to figure out a way to have them all work together. The Hollywood culture and the Silicon Valley culture are really different." On the hierarchy of power: "When you've got incredibly talented people that are rare and in-demand, if you don't treat them right, they can go get another job in 10 minutes." "So this strange thing happens. The hierarchy of power inverts." "The CEO is actually at the bottom." "I feel like I work for most of these people because they're the ones doing all the brilliant work." "It's management's job to support them because they're on the front lines doing the work." On contracts vs stock options: "Hollywood uses the stick, which is the contract. Silicon Valley uses the carrot, which is the stock option." "When you sign a contract with somebody, you can say, 'I don't have to worry about that person for five years.'" "If you're sophisticated, you'll have a little database that tickles you six months before their contract is up so you can start paying more attention to them." "They're the most important person in the world for six months. Then after they sign up again, you put them in the drawer." Pixar chose stock options. "Every single day, we worry about how to make Pixar a better company so that nobody will ever want to leave." "We don't take anybody for granted." On what Disney taught them: "When you make a live-action film, a director shoots ten to twenty-five times as much footage as will end up on the screen." "Walt Disney realized many decades ago that animation was so expensive that you couldn't afford to animate ten times more than what you need." "The only conclusion: you have to edit your film before you make it." "Working with Disney gave us access to that wisdom. You can't buy it for love or money." On the constant: "Ten years ago, when we made Luxo Jr., it took about three hours to render each frame." "Toy Story. Computers are hundreds of times faster. It still took three hours to render each frame." "The frames were a hundred times more complex." "Our ambitions, visually, are growing as fast as the technology can feed them." On story vs technology: "The art of storytelling is very old." "No amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good story." "That's our mantra at Pixar. It's the story, stupid." "I don't think storytelling has changed in a long time. And I'm not sure it will. I don't think it's something that technology has anything to do with."

Disney released Snow White in 1937. 60 years later, they re-released it on video. 28 million copies sold. $250 million in profit. Steve Jobs watched his young son watch it 30, 40 times. “These stories renew themselves with each generation.” In 1996, one year after Toy Story, he spent 20 minutes explaining why he bought Pixar: On buying the dream: "I met Ed Catmull who was running the computer division of Lucasfilm in 1985." "He shared with me his dream about making the first computer animated feature film." "I bought into that dream both financially and spiritually." "It took us ten years to do that, but we did it." The result: Toy Story. Third most successful animated film ever made. On content vs technology: "You can hardly find an Apple II around anymore." "It's not clear whether you'll be able to boot up a Macintosh five years from now." "All these technology boxes and software, if it has a life of a year or two, you're very lucky. Five years is extraordinary." "Sooner or later, they all become part of the sedimentary layer." But stories? "I think people are going to be watching Toy Story in 60 years. Not because of the computer graphics, but because of the story about friendship." On work-for-hire: Pixar made commercials for years. Won every award in the book. Then Jobs did the math. "If Listerine sold more Listerine because of our commercials, we didn't make any more money for producing the commercials." "The margin in that business has been under pressure. More people coming in. Going down, and down, and down." "You work harder and harder to make the same amount of money." He pulled 25 people out of commercials. "We had 25 incredibly talented people doing work-for-hire when we have all these other opportunities where we own a piece of what we create." "Great people are hard to find. We couldn't afford to have 25 of them making commercials anymore." On blending two cultures: "The very best creative people will only go to work in a few places. Disney, Pixar, possibly DreamWorks." "The very best computer scientists in computer graphics will only go to work in a few places. Pixar is one of those." "Pixar is the only place in the world that can hire the best from both of these areas." "We worked for ten years to figure out a way to have them all work together. The Hollywood culture and the Silicon Valley culture are really different." On the hierarchy of power: "When you've got incredibly talented people that are rare and in-demand, if you don't treat them right, they can go get another job in 10 minutes." "So this strange thing happens. The hierarchy of power inverts." "The CEO is actually at the bottom." "I feel like I work for most of these people because they're the ones doing all the brilliant work." "It's management's job to support them because they're on the front lines doing the work." On contracts vs stock options: "Hollywood uses the stick, which is the contract. Silicon Valley uses the carrot, which is the stock option." "When you sign a contract with somebody, you can say, 'I don't have to worry about that person for five years.'" "If you're sophisticated, you'll have a little database that tickles you six months before their contract is up so you can start paying more attention to them." "They're the most important person in the world for six months. Then after they sign up again, you put them in the drawer." Pixar chose stock options. "Every single day, we worry about how to make Pixar a better company so that nobody will ever want to leave." "We don't take anybody for granted." On what Disney taught them: "When you make a live-action film, a director shoots ten to twenty-five times as much footage as will end up on the screen." "Walt Disney realized many decades ago that animation was so expensive that you couldn't afford to animate ten times more than what you need." "The only conclusion: you have to edit your film before you make it." "Working with Disney gave us access to that wisdom. You can't buy it for love or money." On the constant: "Ten years ago, when we made Luxo Jr., it took about three hours to render each frame." "Toy Story. Computers are hundreds of times faster. It still took three hours to render each frame." "The frames were a hundred times more complex." "Our ambitions, visually, are growing as fast as the technology can feed them." On story vs technology: "The art of storytelling is very old." "No amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good story." "That's our mantra at Pixar. It's the story, stupid." "I don't think storytelling has changed in a long time. And I'm not sure it will. I don't think it's something that technology has anything to do with."

Jaynit

95,800 views • 5 months ago

🚨 ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICAN SCHOOL CHILDREN YOUR KIDS GOT EXTRA CREDIT AT AN ILLINOIS MOSQUE RUN BY ICNA’S CONVERSION ARM A "world religion" class was taken to a Chicago-area mosque with their teacher, Emily. The man in front of them was not a museum guide. He was Dr. Sabeel Ahmed of GainPeace - the official dawah / outreach project of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). Speakers. Open houses. Free Qurans. Follow-up for new Muslims. That is ICNA’s public conversion apparatus. ICNA is not a bake sale. Investigators have documented its Jamaat-e-Islami roots. The 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memo - entered as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial - listed ICNA among “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Before the tour even started, he asked Aaron what class it was. World religion. Had they already covered the Islam chapter? Yes. Then he said it was “fair game” to quiz them. On tape: “Extra grade, right? Extra credit, perhaps. Some of you need some extra credits.” Hands went up. He ran them through the pillars like Sunday school. Daily prayer. Hajj once in a lifetime. Ramadan. He asked how many Muslims were in the class. Aaron. Amir. Yusuf. Emily asked when kids start fasting. He said obligation starts at puberty - then bragged that his son fasted the entire month at age seven. He bragged on film about how his little daughter puts on hijab automatically when she leaves the house. A student asked how you convert. No baptism. No pool in the basement. Understand the six beliefs and five pillars, then say: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger. That sentence makes you a Muslim. Then you are expected to live by it. Another student asked the question every parent should hear: What happens if you follow another faith? This is where the game begins. He quoted Quran 2:256: no compulsion in religion. No force. Peaceful education. Your choice. Then he flipped it. Islam is the faith God ordained for humanity. Islam means submitting to the Creator. If you hear that and consciously reject it, there are consequences. Life is a classroom. God is the teacher. At the end comes the exam. Paradise if you submit. Hellfire if you die having rejected Islam. He never told them what “no compulsion” leaves out. The same chapter tells Muslims to fight until religion is for Allah. Muhammad said he was ordered to fight people until they declare there is no god but Allah. Leave Islam after entering it, and classical law is not a debate club. The hadith is: kill him. Apostasy has been punished that way for 1,400 years. A top cleric later admitted that without the apostasy punishment, Islam would not exist today. None of that made the field trip. He also told Christian students there are no statues, no images, no mediator. You pray straight to God. That is not a décor note. That is a denial of Christ as mediator, delivered to kids sitting on a mosque floor for class credit. Women and girls pray upstairs. Men downstairs. His “logical” reason on tape: a boy standing shoulder to shoulder, touching a pretty girl, might think about her instead of God. Prostration in mixed rows would not be “decent.” Friday prayer: men must leave school and work. He said the place holds maybe 300 on a normal day and 2,000 on Friday - gym, basement, classrooms, two services. Kids from the full-time Islamic school break class and file in. He called it the second-largest Islamic school in the United States. Emily did not push back. She sold it. “Very inclusive.” “You got their brains stirring.” Shoes off - “immersive.” Come back during prayer and watch them pray, if the school allows it. “Way better to see it than read it in a book.” She even showed the class One Day in the Haram on Amazon - a Mecca film about spreading Islam on social media. This was not interfaith. This was ICNA GainPeace dawah with a public-school teacher, extra credit, and a camera. Illinois parents: who signed the slip? Who called this extra credit? Who partnered a classroom with a Brotherhood-listed network’s missionary wing and called it education? SEE THE FULL REPORT HERE:

🚨 ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICAN SCHOOL CHILDREN YOUR KIDS GOT EXTRA CREDIT AT AN ILLINOIS MOSQUE RUN BY ICNA’S CONVERSION ARM A "world religion" class was taken to a Chicago-area mosque with their teacher, Emily. The man in front of them was not a museum guide. He was Dr. Sabeel Ahmed of GainPeace - the official dawah / outreach project of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). Speakers. Open houses. Free Qurans. Follow-up for new Muslims. That is ICNA’s public conversion apparatus. ICNA is not a bake sale. Investigators have documented its Jamaat-e-Islami roots. The 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memo - entered as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial - listed ICNA among “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Before the tour even started, he asked Aaron what class it was. World religion. Had they already covered the Islam chapter? Yes. Then he said it was “fair game” to quiz them. On tape: “Extra grade, right? Extra credit, perhaps. Some of you need some extra credits.” Hands went up. He ran them through the pillars like Sunday school. Daily prayer. Hajj once in a lifetime. Ramadan. He asked how many Muslims were in the class. Aaron. Amir. Yusuf. Emily asked when kids start fasting. He said obligation starts at puberty - then bragged that his son fasted the entire month at age seven. He bragged on film about how his little daughter puts on hijab automatically when she leaves the house. A student asked how you convert. No baptism. No pool in the basement. Understand the six beliefs and five pillars, then say: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger. That sentence makes you a Muslim. Then you are expected to live by it. Another student asked the question every parent should hear: What happens if you follow another faith? This is where the game begins. He quoted Quran 2:256: no compulsion in religion. No force. Peaceful education. Your choice. Then he flipped it. Islam is the faith God ordained for humanity. Islam means submitting to the Creator. If you hear that and consciously reject it, there are consequences. Life is a classroom. God is the teacher. At the end comes the exam. Paradise if you submit. Hellfire if you die having rejected Islam. He never told them what “no compulsion” leaves out. The same chapter tells Muslims to fight until religion is for Allah. Muhammad said he was ordered to fight people until they declare there is no god but Allah. Leave Islam after entering it, and classical law is not a debate club. The hadith is: kill him. Apostasy has been punished that way for 1,400 years. A top cleric later admitted that without the apostasy punishment, Islam would not exist today. None of that made the field trip. He also told Christian students there are no statues, no images, no mediator. You pray straight to God. That is not a décor note. That is a denial of Christ as mediator, delivered to kids sitting on a mosque floor for class credit. Women and girls pray upstairs. Men downstairs. His “logical” reason on tape: a boy standing shoulder to shoulder, touching a pretty girl, might think about her instead of God. Prostration in mixed rows would not be “decent.” Friday prayer: men must leave school and work. He said the place holds maybe 300 on a normal day and 2,000 on Friday - gym, basement, classrooms, two services. Kids from the full-time Islamic school break class and file in. He called it the second-largest Islamic school in the United States. Emily did not push back. She sold it. “Very inclusive.” “You got their brains stirring.” Shoes off - “immersive.” Come back during prayer and watch them pray, if the school allows it. “Way better to see it than read it in a book.” She even showed the class One Day in the Haram on Amazon - a Mecca film about spreading Islam on social media. This was not interfaith. This was ICNA GainPeace dawah with a public-school teacher, extra credit, and a camera. Illinois parents: who signed the slip? Who called this extra credit? Who partnered a classroom with a Brotherhood-listed network’s missionary wing and called it education? SEE THE FULL REPORT HERE:

Amy Mek

38,603 views • 26 days ago

He didn't run. That's the detail nobody expects. Every instinct in a wild, broken animal screams "run" the second a human gets close. Flight is the oldest survival code there is. And yet — he didn't run. Watch the video and you'll understand why that single fact should terrify you more than comfort you. Because an animal that doesn't run from you anymore has already given up on the idea that running matters. He has already decided, somewhere in that starving, exhausted brain, that whatever comes next can't possibly be worse than what came before. Sit with that for a second. What does it take to break that instinct? What does it take to make a living creature so depleted, so past the point of hope, that self-preservation itself shuts off? We're not talking about a dog that was "a little scared." We're talking about a dog who had already made peace with dying alone in the grass, hidden from a world that had already decided he didn't matter. And then someone showed up anyway. This is the part of the internet nobody warns you about. Not the cute part. Not the "aww" part. The part where you realize how close "almost too late" actually is — and how many of these moments are happening right now, in ditches and fields and abandoned lots, with nobody filming, nobody coming, nobody ever finding out. This one was found. I'm not going to walk you through what happens in the footage. I'm not going to spoil the moment his body language shifts, or the second you can physically see the exact heartbeat where "prey" turns into "please." Words can't carry that anyway. You have to watch it happen in real time, frame by frame, to feel what it actually is: the most fragile, most honest negotiation on earth — a terrified animal deciding, right in front of a camera, whether trust is worth the risk one more time. Here's what almost nobody talks about when it comes to strays like this. Dogs abandoned long enough don't behave like pets. They behave like wild animals, because that's exactly what they've had to become. The friendliness gets stripped away first — that's a luxury, and luxuries are the first thing survival deletes. What's left underneath is raw calculation: threat or not a threat, food or not food, safe or not safe. Every second spent deciding wrong could be the last second they get. So when you see an animal in that state hold still — when you see it let a stranger's hand get closer than four legs and thirty years of abandonment should ever allow — you're not looking at "cute." You're looking at the single bravest decision an animal without language, without hope, without any promise of a good outcome, is capable of making. That's what's buried in this video. That's the part that will actually get you. And here's the twist that makes this whole thing so much heavier once you know it: this isn't rare. This is happening at a scale most people never let themselves think about. Estimates on free-roaming and abandoned dogs worldwide run into the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions of versions of this exact moment — animals lying in grass, behind dumpsters, under bridges, past the point of hoping anyone comes — and only a fraction of them ever get a camera pointed at them, let alone a hand extended. Every viral rescue video you've ever scrolled past is a survivor's story. For every one of these, there are dozens that never get told, because nobody showed up in time to tell them. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to explain why this specific video hits different the second you actually watch it instead of skimming past it. You're not watching content. You're watching one of the rare good outcomes in a numbers game that is brutally stacked against good outcomes. Now — about the moment itself. There's a very specific window in every rescue like this. Rescuers call it different things, but it comes down to the same handful of seconds: the animal has to choose, right then, whether the human in front of it is a predator or a possibility. There's no in-between. No negotiation period. No "let me think about it." It happens in the space of a breath, and everything after depends on which way it breaks. You can see it happen in this footage. You can actually watch the exact moment where the decision gets made — where you'd swear the animal's whole nervous system recalibrates in real time. If you've never seen that moment up close, you don't actually know what "trust" looks like at its most primal. Most of us only ever encounter trust after it's already established, already comfortable, already taken for granted. This is trust being built from absolute zero, live, on camera, with everything on the line. I've watched hundreds of these rescue videos over the years — the genuinely real ones, not the staged reels that flood every feed now with fake "before" shots and suspiciously perfect lighting. The real ones all share this same fingerprint: a pause. A held breath. A moment where absolutely nothing happens except two creatures deciding, silently, whether the next few seconds are going to be safe. This video has that pause. And it's the reason you need to actually watch it instead of just reading about it. Because here's the thing text can never replicate: body language. The tension in a spine before it releases. The exact angle of an ear that tells you, before anything else does, whether fear is winning or losing. None of that survives translation into words. You either watch it happen, or you miss it completely. Let's talk about what "broken" actually costs an animal, physically, because most people underestimate it wildly. Extended abandonment doesn't just mean hunger. It means the body starts making impossible trade-offs. Muscle gets sacrificed for basic organ function. Coat and skin — usually the first thing to show damage — become secondary priorities compared to keeping a heart beating and lungs working. By the time visible damage shows up on the outside, the inside has usually already been compromising for weeks, sometimes months. Vets who specialize in stray and feral rescue will tell you the same thing over and over: what you see on the surface is never the full story. The surface is the last thing the body protects. If the outside already looks that rough, you almost don't want to know what's happening underneath. That's the stakes this video is actually operating at, even if the softness of the moment makes it easy to forget. This isn't a feel-good clip about a slightly dirty dog getting a bath. This is triage. This is the line between "made it" and "didn't," captured completely by accident, because someone happened to have a phone out at exactly the right moment. And that's maybe the most unsettling part of all of this, if you actually think about it for more than five seconds: how much of survival — for an animal with zero ability to ask for help — comes down to pure, dumb chance. Right place. Right time. Right person, willing to stop instead of walk past. How many times has "walking past" been the actual ending to a story like this one? We'll never know, because those endings don't get filmed. They don't get posted. They don't get millions of views and thousands of comments. They just... end, quietly, in a field somewhere, with nobody ever finding out there was a story there at all. This time, someone stopped. I want to be straight with you about something else, because it's the part that actually separates a real rescue from a manufactured one, and it matters more than people think. You can tell — almost instantly — when a rescue video is authentic versus when it's been engineered for engagement. Authentic ones are messy. Uncomfortable. Slow in places where a scripted video would cut. The animal doesn't hit its emotional beats on cue. There's confusion, hesitation, sometimes a step backward before the step forward. Real fear doesn't resolve on a content creator's timeline. It resolves on the animal's timeline, whenever that ends up being — thirty seconds, three minutes, sometimes far longer than anyone filming has patience for. This one has that texture. That's what makes it worth your two minutes instead of just another manufactured "rescue" clip built for a fake reaction. There's a reason rescue footage — the real kind — keeps outperforming almost everything else on this platform, and it's not because people are shallow or looking for cheap emotion. It's because this content taps into something most of us don't get nearly enough exposure to anymore: raw, unscripted stakes. Something is genuinely at risk. Something genuinely uncertain is happening. In a feed built almost entirely out of performance, irony, and content calculated down to the frame, a moment like this lands like a gut punch precisely because nobody could have staged the way it actually plays out. You can't fake that pause. You can't script that flinch, or the moment right after it, when the flinch stops. That's why you need to watch this instead of scrolling past the description of it. Because I can tell you it happened. I can't make you feel it happening. That gap — between knowing about something and actually witnessing it — is the entire reason video exists as a medium in the first place. Let's talk for a second about what happens after a moment like this, because most people watch these videos and never think past the ending card. Rescue is not resolution. It's the very first data point in a much longer, much harder process that almost nobody films because it isn't visually dramatic enough to go viral. Quarantine periods. Vet visits. Bloodwork. The slow, exhausting process of convincing a nervous system that's been running on high alert for months that it's actually allowed to relax now. Some animals take days to decompress. Some take literal years. Trust, once it's been broken at the level this video hints at, doesn't rebuild on anyone's convenient schedule. That's the part that never gets the same reach. The three-months-later update, the "he finally slept through the night" post, the "he let a stranger pet him for the first time" milestone that would look like nothing to anyone who didn't know the whole story. Those posts get a fraction of the views the rescue moment gets, even though they're arguably the more important part of the story. The internet loves a beginning. It's much worse at sticking around for the middle. So if this video moves you — and it will, if you actually watch it instead of skimming past — do something with that feeling beyond just scrolling to the next post. Rescues like this don't happen because of luck alone. They happen because someone, somewhere, decided that stopping mattered more than being on time to wherever they were headed. They happen because someone funded a vet bill, fostered an animal mid-recovery, drove two hours to pick up a dog that wasn't even theirs yet. None of that is glamorous. None of it goes viral on its own. But all of it is the actual machinery behind every single one of these videos you've ever watched and felt something about. If there's one thing I'd want you to take from this before you hit play, it's this: pay attention to the exact moment things shift. Don't just watch for the "aww." Watch for the decision. Watch for the specific second an animal that has every biological reason to run instead chooses to stay. That's the whole story, compressed into a handful of frames. Everything else — the outcome, the relief, the ending — is just what happens after that decision gets made. Most people will watch this video for the ending. Watch it for the middle instead. That's where the real thing is happening. And once you've seen it — once you've actually watched that shift happen in real time instead of reading about it secondhand — you'll understand why videos like this stop people mid-scroll every single time, no matter how many of them they've already seen. Because no matter how many of these you watch, that exact moment never gets less powerful. It just reminds you, over and over, of how much is riding on someone simply choosing to stop. Let's go back to the beginning for a second, because there's a question almost nobody asks about videos like this, and it's the one that actually matters most. How long was he out there before anyone found him? Nobody in the video knows the answer. Nobody watching it will ever know the answer. That's the part that sits with you long after the clip ends — not the moment of rescue itself, but the enormous, silent, unfilmed stretch of time that came before it. Days? Weeks? However long it was, it was long enough to erase every part of him except the will to keep breathing. Long enough that hiding in overgrown grass, invisible to a world that had stopped looking for him, had become the only strategy left. That's the actual horror hiding underneath a video that, on the surface, looks gentle. Everything soft about the footage is only possible because of everything brutal that happened just outside the frame, in the hours and days the camera never captured. This is why I keep telling you not to treat this as passive scrolling material. There is an entire invisible story sitting behind every second of visible footage, and your brain fills in almost none of it unless you slow down and actually let the video play out in full, without skipping ahead, without half-watching while doing five other things. Now, let's talk about why content like this spreads the way it does — because understanding the mechanics actually makes the moment hit harder, not softer. Platforms reward exactly one thing above everything else: retention. Not likes. Not shares. Not comments. Time spent actually watching, second by second, without looking away. And there is almost nothing on this entire platform that earns retention like genuine, unscripted animal footage where the outcome isn't obvious from frame one. Think about why that is. A cooking video, you already know the dish is going to come out fine. A prank video, you already know it's a joke. A dance video, a fashion video, a "get ready with me" video — the outcome was never in question to begin with. But a video like this one? The outcome is not guaranteed. For the first several seconds, you genuinely do not know which way it's going to go. That uncertainty is exactly what makes your eyes stay locked on the screen instead of your thumb flicking to the next post. That's not manipulation. That's not a trick. That's just what happens when something real, with real stakes, ends up on a feed built almost entirely out of things that were never actually uncertain in the first place. Here's something worth sitting with: most people, if you stopped them and asked directly, would say they care about animal welfare. Genuinely, sincerely, most people mean it when they say that. And yet the actual scale of the stray and abandoned animal crisis worldwide remains something most of the same people have almost no real information about. Not because they don't care — because nobody ever hands them the numbers in a way that actually lands. So here they are, stated plainly, without softening them: hundreds of millions of dogs live as strays globally, a significant share of them in conditions of chronic hunger, untreated injury, and disease. Shelters in country after country report the same pattern every single year — intake numbers that outpace adoption numbers, resources that fall short of need, and volunteers stretched thin trying to hold together a system that was never built to handle the actual scale of the problem. None of that is abstract when you're watching one specific dog in one specific patch of grass. It becomes very real, very fast, once you understand that what you're looking at isn't an isolated incident. It's one visible thread pulled out of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern. That's part of why this particular video deserves more than a passive scroll-past. It's not just "a nice moment." It's a small, rare, filmed exception to something that is happening constantly, relentlessly, without cameras, without rescuers, without any kind of happy resolution at all. Let's talk about the rescuer for a second, because they never get enough credit in videos like this, and it's worth correcting that. Whoever is behind that camera — whoever made the decision to stop, to approach slowly, to read an animal's body language carefully enough to know when to move closer and when to hold back — did something that looks simple on video and is genuinely difficult in real life. Approaching a frightened, possibly injured, possibly defensive stray animal correctly is a skill. Get it wrong, and you can panic the animal into fleeing somewhere far worse, or hurting itself trying to escape, or in rare cases, defending itself the only way it knows how. The people who do this well, over and over, in situation after situation, are operating on a mix of instinct and hard-earned experience that most of us will never develop, because most of us will never need to. That instinct is exactly why this rescue plays out the way it does instead of ending in a chase, a panic, or worse. Give that person their due before you close this tab. What you're watching is competence dressed up as tenderness. It looks soft. It is not easy. Now — a quick myth-versus-reality breakdown, because misconceptions about rescue moments like this one are everywhere, and they change how people watch this kind of footage. Myth: a starving, frightened stray will always be aggressive toward humans. Reality: fear responses vary enormously animal to animal. Some go defensive. Many, especially those who were once someone's pet before being abandoned, retain a flicker of learned trust toward people, buried under the fear, waiting for a reason to resurface. Myth: rescue is basically instant — approach, comfort, done. Reality: what you see in a two-minute clip is often the result of a much slower, more careful approach happening just before the camera starts rolling, sometimes minutes, sometimes far longer. Myth: once rescued, an animal is "fine." Reality: rescue is step one of dozens. Medical evaluation, parasite treatment, nutritional rehabilitation, and behavioral decompression all come after, often over a period of weeks or months, invisible to anyone who only ever saw the viral clip. Keep those in mind while you watch. They completely change what you're actually looking at. One more thing before you go press play, because it's the detail that changes how the whole video reads. Location matters more than people think. An animal hidden deep in overgrown grass, off any visible path, away from foot traffic, isn't there by accident. Animals in that condition instinctively seek concealment — it's one of the last functioning defense mechanisms left once running is no longer a realistic option. Being found at all, in a spot chosen specifically to not be found, is already a low-probability event before a single second of footage even starts. That's the invisible math sitting underneath this entire video. The odds of this exact outcome happening were never good. And yet here we are. If you've read this far without watching the video yet, that's honestly a little bit funny, because everything above was building toward one single, simple, unavoidable conclusion: None of this — the psychology, the statistics, the survival instinct, the odds stacked against him — means anything close to what it means once you actually see it unfold in real time, on his face, in his body, in the exact second everything changes. Reading about a moment like this is the trailer. Watching it is the movie. Let me leave you with one last thing, because it's the part people usually forget by the time they close the app and move on with their day. Every single one of us has scrolled past a moment like this before. Not this exact video — but this exact shape of moment. The thumbnail that looked heavy. The caption that hinted at something hard. The three seconds of hesitation before deciding whether today was a day you had the emotional bandwidth to watch an animal suffer before things got better. Most days, most people, scroll past. That's not a character flaw. That's just what an endless feed trains you to do — protect your attention, protect your mood, keep moving. But here's the thing about this specific kind of video that makes stopping worth it, every single time: the discomfort at the start is never the point. It's the toll you pay to get to the part that actually matters — the shift, the decision, the moment fear loses. Skip the discomfort, and you skip the entire reason the video exists in the first place. You end up with secondhand information about a moment that was never designed to be understood secondhand. Think about the last time a video actually changed your mood for the rest of the day. Not entertained you — changed something. Made you call someone. Made you donate somewhere you'd never donated before. Made you look at your own dog curled up on the couch and feel something different for a second. Those moments are rare precisely because most content isn't built to carry that kind of weight. Most content is built to be forgotten by the next scroll. This isn't most content. There's a reason rescue footage keeps circulating years after it's first posted, resurfacing on different accounts, different platforms, different captions, over and over, long after the original context is gone. It's because moments like this don't expire. A joke gets old. A trend dies in a week. But the exact second an abandoned, broken animal decides to trust a stranger anyway — that doesn't age. It hits the same way in five years that it hits today, because the thing it's tapping into isn't a trend. It's something much older than any platform, any algorithm, any feed. It's the oldest story there is, really, just told without words: something was broken, someone showed up anyway, and against every reasonable expectation, that was enough. We don't get many unscripted, unforced examples of that anymore. Almost everything in front of us now is curated, edited, angled for a reaction. This isn't. This is just what actually happened, captured because a phone happened to be there, no different than it would have looked if no camera existed at all. That's rare. That's worth two minutes of your undivided attention instead of a half-watched scroll-by. So here's the actual ask, plain and simple: don't just watch this one and move on like it's any other post in your feed today. Watch it properly. Let it play all the way through without skipping ahead to see how it ends. Notice the exact second his body changes. Notice what happens right after that. And then, if it moves you even a fraction as much as it should, do one small thing with that feeling before it fades — share it with someone, support a rescue near you, or just remember, the next time you see a stray on the side of a road, that stopping is always an option. It's always been an option. Somebody just has to choose to take it. That choice is the entire video. Everything else is just what happens after it gets made. One last thought, and then I'll let you go watch it instead of reading about it any longer. Somewhere out there, right now, there's another version of this exact scene playing out with no camera anywhere near it. No rescuer. No hand reaching out slowly through tall grass. No moment where fear loses. Just an animal, alone, running out of time in silence. We can't fix that with a video. Nobody's pretending we can. But we can make sure the ones that do get found, the ones that do get a camera and a rescuer and a happy ending, actually get seen — properly seen, not scrolled past in half a second on the way to something louder and easier. This is one of the good ones. One of the rare stories where showing up actually happened in time. Don't waste that by treating it like background noise. He didn't run. Now go find out why.

He didn't run. That's the detail nobody expects. Every instinct in a wild, broken animal screams "run" the second a human gets close. Flight is the oldest survival code there is. And yet — he didn't run. Watch the video and you'll understand why that single fact should terrify you more than comfort you. Because an animal that doesn't run from you anymore has already given up on the idea that running matters. He has already decided, somewhere in that starving, exhausted brain, that whatever comes next can't possibly be worse than what came before. Sit with that for a second. What does it take to break that instinct? What does it take to make a living creature so depleted, so past the point of hope, that self-preservation itself shuts off? We're not talking about a dog that was "a little scared." We're talking about a dog who had already made peace with dying alone in the grass, hidden from a world that had already decided he didn't matter. And then someone showed up anyway. This is the part of the internet nobody warns you about. Not the cute part. Not the "aww" part. The part where you realize how close "almost too late" actually is — and how many of these moments are happening right now, in ditches and fields and abandoned lots, with nobody filming, nobody coming, nobody ever finding out. This one was found. I'm not going to walk you through what happens in the footage. I'm not going to spoil the moment his body language shifts, or the second you can physically see the exact heartbeat where "prey" turns into "please." Words can't carry that anyway. You have to watch it happen in real time, frame by frame, to feel what it actually is: the most fragile, most honest negotiation on earth — a terrified animal deciding, right in front of a camera, whether trust is worth the risk one more time. Here's what almost nobody talks about when it comes to strays like this. Dogs abandoned long enough don't behave like pets. They behave like wild animals, because that's exactly what they've had to become. The friendliness gets stripped away first — that's a luxury, and luxuries are the first thing survival deletes. What's left underneath is raw calculation: threat or not a threat, food or not food, safe or not safe. Every second spent deciding wrong could be the last second they get. So when you see an animal in that state hold still — when you see it let a stranger's hand get closer than four legs and thirty years of abandonment should ever allow — you're not looking at "cute." You're looking at the single bravest decision an animal without language, without hope, without any promise of a good outcome, is capable of making. That's what's buried in this video. That's the part that will actually get you. And here's the twist that makes this whole thing so much heavier once you know it: this isn't rare. This is happening at a scale most people never let themselves think about. Estimates on free-roaming and abandoned dogs worldwide run into the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions of versions of this exact moment — animals lying in grass, behind dumpsters, under bridges, past the point of hoping anyone comes — and only a fraction of them ever get a camera pointed at them, let alone a hand extended. Every viral rescue video you've ever scrolled past is a survivor's story. For every one of these, there are dozens that never get told, because nobody showed up in time to tell them. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to explain why this specific video hits different the second you actually watch it instead of skimming past it. You're not watching content. You're watching one of the rare good outcomes in a numbers game that is brutally stacked against good outcomes. Now — about the moment itself. There's a very specific window in every rescue like this. Rescuers call it different things, but it comes down to the same handful of seconds: the animal has to choose, right then, whether the human in front of it is a predator or a possibility. There's no in-between. No negotiation period. No "let me think about it." It happens in the space of a breath, and everything after depends on which way it breaks. You can see it happen in this footage. You can actually watch the exact moment where the decision gets made — where you'd swear the animal's whole nervous system recalibrates in real time. If you've never seen that moment up close, you don't actually know what "trust" looks like at its most primal. Most of us only ever encounter trust after it's already established, already comfortable, already taken for granted. This is trust being built from absolute zero, live, on camera, with everything on the line. I've watched hundreds of these rescue videos over the years — the genuinely real ones, not the staged reels that flood every feed now with fake "before" shots and suspiciously perfect lighting. The real ones all share this same fingerprint: a pause. A held breath. A moment where absolutely nothing happens except two creatures deciding, silently, whether the next few seconds are going to be safe. This video has that pause. And it's the reason you need to actually watch it instead of just reading about it. Because here's the thing text can never replicate: body language. The tension in a spine before it releases. The exact angle of an ear that tells you, before anything else does, whether fear is winning or losing. None of that survives translation into words. You either watch it happen, or you miss it completely. Let's talk about what "broken" actually costs an animal, physically, because most people underestimate it wildly. Extended abandonment doesn't just mean hunger. It means the body starts making impossible trade-offs. Muscle gets sacrificed for basic organ function. Coat and skin — usually the first thing to show damage — become secondary priorities compared to keeping a heart beating and lungs working. By the time visible damage shows up on the outside, the inside has usually already been compromising for weeks, sometimes months. Vets who specialize in stray and feral rescue will tell you the same thing over and over: what you see on the surface is never the full story. The surface is the last thing the body protects. If the outside already looks that rough, you almost don't want to know what's happening underneath. That's the stakes this video is actually operating at, even if the softness of the moment makes it easy to forget. This isn't a feel-good clip about a slightly dirty dog getting a bath. This is triage. This is the line between "made it" and "didn't," captured completely by accident, because someone happened to have a phone out at exactly the right moment. And that's maybe the most unsettling part of all of this, if you actually think about it for more than five seconds: how much of survival — for an animal with zero ability to ask for help — comes down to pure, dumb chance. Right place. Right time. Right person, willing to stop instead of walk past. How many times has "walking past" been the actual ending to a story like this one? We'll never know, because those endings don't get filmed. They don't get posted. They don't get millions of views and thousands of comments. They just... end, quietly, in a field somewhere, with nobody ever finding out there was a story there at all. This time, someone stopped. I want to be straight with you about something else, because it's the part that actually separates a real rescue from a manufactured one, and it matters more than people think. You can tell — almost instantly — when a rescue video is authentic versus when it's been engineered for engagement. Authentic ones are messy. Uncomfortable. Slow in places where a scripted video would cut. The animal doesn't hit its emotional beats on cue. There's confusion, hesitation, sometimes a step backward before the step forward. Real fear doesn't resolve on a content creator's timeline. It resolves on the animal's timeline, whenever that ends up being — thirty seconds, three minutes, sometimes far longer than anyone filming has patience for. This one has that texture. That's what makes it worth your two minutes instead of just another manufactured "rescue" clip built for a fake reaction. There's a reason rescue footage — the real kind — keeps outperforming almost everything else on this platform, and it's not because people are shallow or looking for cheap emotion. It's because this content taps into something most of us don't get nearly enough exposure to anymore: raw, unscripted stakes. Something is genuinely at risk. Something genuinely uncertain is happening. In a feed built almost entirely out of performance, irony, and content calculated down to the frame, a moment like this lands like a gut punch precisely because nobody could have staged the way it actually plays out. You can't fake that pause. You can't script that flinch, or the moment right after it, when the flinch stops. That's why you need to watch this instead of scrolling past the description of it. Because I can tell you it happened. I can't make you feel it happening. That gap — between knowing about something and actually witnessing it — is the entire reason video exists as a medium in the first place. Let's talk for a second about what happens after a moment like this, because most people watch these videos and never think past the ending card. Rescue is not resolution. It's the very first data point in a much longer, much harder process that almost nobody films because it isn't visually dramatic enough to go viral. Quarantine periods. Vet visits. Bloodwork. The slow, exhausting process of convincing a nervous system that's been running on high alert for months that it's actually allowed to relax now. Some animals take days to decompress. Some take literal years. Trust, once it's been broken at the level this video hints at, doesn't rebuild on anyone's convenient schedule. That's the part that never gets the same reach. The three-months-later update, the "he finally slept through the night" post, the "he let a stranger pet him for the first time" milestone that would look like nothing to anyone who didn't know the whole story. Those posts get a fraction of the views the rescue moment gets, even though they're arguably the more important part of the story. The internet loves a beginning. It's much worse at sticking around for the middle. So if this video moves you — and it will, if you actually watch it instead of skimming past — do something with that feeling beyond just scrolling to the next post. Rescues like this don't happen because of luck alone. They happen because someone, somewhere, decided that stopping mattered more than being on time to wherever they were headed. They happen because someone funded a vet bill, fostered an animal mid-recovery, drove two hours to pick up a dog that wasn't even theirs yet. None of that is glamorous. None of it goes viral on its own. But all of it is the actual machinery behind every single one of these videos you've ever watched and felt something about. If there's one thing I'd want you to take from this before you hit play, it's this: pay attention to the exact moment things shift. Don't just watch for the "aww." Watch for the decision. Watch for the specific second an animal that has every biological reason to run instead chooses to stay. That's the whole story, compressed into a handful of frames. Everything else — the outcome, the relief, the ending — is just what happens after that decision gets made. Most people will watch this video for the ending. Watch it for the middle instead. That's where the real thing is happening. And once you've seen it — once you've actually watched that shift happen in real time instead of reading about it secondhand — you'll understand why videos like this stop people mid-scroll every single time, no matter how many of them they've already seen. Because no matter how many of these you watch, that exact moment never gets less powerful. It just reminds you, over and over, of how much is riding on someone simply choosing to stop. Let's go back to the beginning for a second, because there's a question almost nobody asks about videos like this, and it's the one that actually matters most. How long was he out there before anyone found him? Nobody in the video knows the answer. Nobody watching it will ever know the answer. That's the part that sits with you long after the clip ends — not the moment of rescue itself, but the enormous, silent, unfilmed stretch of time that came before it. Days? Weeks? However long it was, it was long enough to erase every part of him except the will to keep breathing. Long enough that hiding in overgrown grass, invisible to a world that had stopped looking for him, had become the only strategy left. That's the actual horror hiding underneath a video that, on the surface, looks gentle. Everything soft about the footage is only possible because of everything brutal that happened just outside the frame, in the hours and days the camera never captured. This is why I keep telling you not to treat this as passive scrolling material. There is an entire invisible story sitting behind every second of visible footage, and your brain fills in almost none of it unless you slow down and actually let the video play out in full, without skipping ahead, without half-watching while doing five other things. Now, let's talk about why content like this spreads the way it does — because understanding the mechanics actually makes the moment hit harder, not softer. Platforms reward exactly one thing above everything else: retention. Not likes. Not shares. Not comments. Time spent actually watching, second by second, without looking away. And there is almost nothing on this entire platform that earns retention like genuine, unscripted animal footage where the outcome isn't obvious from frame one. Think about why that is. A cooking video, you already know the dish is going to come out fine. A prank video, you already know it's a joke. A dance video, a fashion video, a "get ready with me" video — the outcome was never in question to begin with. But a video like this one? The outcome is not guaranteed. For the first several seconds, you genuinely do not know which way it's going to go. That uncertainty is exactly what makes your eyes stay locked on the screen instead of your thumb flicking to the next post. That's not manipulation. That's not a trick. That's just what happens when something real, with real stakes, ends up on a feed built almost entirely out of things that were never actually uncertain in the first place. Here's something worth sitting with: most people, if you stopped them and asked directly, would say they care about animal welfare. Genuinely, sincerely, most people mean it when they say that. And yet the actual scale of the stray and abandoned animal crisis worldwide remains something most of the same people have almost no real information about. Not because they don't care — because nobody ever hands them the numbers in a way that actually lands. So here they are, stated plainly, without softening them: hundreds of millions of dogs live as strays globally, a significant share of them in conditions of chronic hunger, untreated injury, and disease. Shelters in country after country report the same pattern every single year — intake numbers that outpace adoption numbers, resources that fall short of need, and volunteers stretched thin trying to hold together a system that was never built to handle the actual scale of the problem. None of that is abstract when you're watching one specific dog in one specific patch of grass. It becomes very real, very fast, once you understand that what you're looking at isn't an isolated incident. It's one visible thread pulled out of an enormous, mostly invisible pattern. That's part of why this particular video deserves more than a passive scroll-past. It's not just "a nice moment." It's a small, rare, filmed exception to something that is happening constantly, relentlessly, without cameras, without rescuers, without any kind of happy resolution at all. Let's talk about the rescuer for a second, because they never get enough credit in videos like this, and it's worth correcting that. Whoever is behind that camera — whoever made the decision to stop, to approach slowly, to read an animal's body language carefully enough to know when to move closer and when to hold back — did something that looks simple on video and is genuinely difficult in real life. Approaching a frightened, possibly injured, possibly defensive stray animal correctly is a skill. Get it wrong, and you can panic the animal into fleeing somewhere far worse, or hurting itself trying to escape, or in rare cases, defending itself the only way it knows how. The people who do this well, over and over, in situation after situation, are operating on a mix of instinct and hard-earned experience that most of us will never develop, because most of us will never need to. That instinct is exactly why this rescue plays out the way it does instead of ending in a chase, a panic, or worse. Give that person their due before you close this tab. What you're watching is competence dressed up as tenderness. It looks soft. It is not easy. Now — a quick myth-versus-reality breakdown, because misconceptions about rescue moments like this one are everywhere, and they change how people watch this kind of footage. Myth: a starving, frightened stray will always be aggressive toward humans. Reality: fear responses vary enormously animal to animal. Some go defensive. Many, especially those who were once someone's pet before being abandoned, retain a flicker of learned trust toward people, buried under the fear, waiting for a reason to resurface. Myth: rescue is basically instant — approach, comfort, done. Reality: what you see in a two-minute clip is often the result of a much slower, more careful approach happening just before the camera starts rolling, sometimes minutes, sometimes far longer. Myth: once rescued, an animal is "fine." Reality: rescue is step one of dozens. Medical evaluation, parasite treatment, nutritional rehabilitation, and behavioral decompression all come after, often over a period of weeks or months, invisible to anyone who only ever saw the viral clip. Keep those in mind while you watch. They completely change what you're actually looking at. One more thing before you go press play, because it's the detail that changes how the whole video reads. Location matters more than people think. An animal hidden deep in overgrown grass, off any visible path, away from foot traffic, isn't there by accident. Animals in that condition instinctively seek concealment — it's one of the last functioning defense mechanisms left once running is no longer a realistic option. Being found at all, in a spot chosen specifically to not be found, is already a low-probability event before a single second of footage even starts. That's the invisible math sitting underneath this entire video. The odds of this exact outcome happening were never good. And yet here we are. If you've read this far without watching the video yet, that's honestly a little bit funny, because everything above was building toward one single, simple, unavoidable conclusion: None of this — the psychology, the statistics, the survival instinct, the odds stacked against him — means anything close to what it means once you actually see it unfold in real time, on his face, in his body, in the exact second everything changes. Reading about a moment like this is the trailer. Watching it is the movie. Let me leave you with one last thing, because it's the part people usually forget by the time they close the app and move on with their day. Every single one of us has scrolled past a moment like this before. Not this exact video — but this exact shape of moment. The thumbnail that looked heavy. The caption that hinted at something hard. The three seconds of hesitation before deciding whether today was a day you had the emotional bandwidth to watch an animal suffer before things got better. Most days, most people, scroll past. That's not a character flaw. That's just what an endless feed trains you to do — protect your attention, protect your mood, keep moving. But here's the thing about this specific kind of video that makes stopping worth it, every single time: the discomfort at the start is never the point. It's the toll you pay to get to the part that actually matters — the shift, the decision, the moment fear loses. Skip the discomfort, and you skip the entire reason the video exists in the first place. You end up with secondhand information about a moment that was never designed to be understood secondhand. Think about the last time a video actually changed your mood for the rest of the day. Not entertained you — changed something. Made you call someone. Made you donate somewhere you'd never donated before. Made you look at your own dog curled up on the couch and feel something different for a second. Those moments are rare precisely because most content isn't built to carry that kind of weight. Most content is built to be forgotten by the next scroll. This isn't most content. There's a reason rescue footage keeps circulating years after it's first posted, resurfacing on different accounts, different platforms, different captions, over and over, long after the original context is gone. It's because moments like this don't expire. A joke gets old. A trend dies in a week. But the exact second an abandoned, broken animal decides to trust a stranger anyway — that doesn't age. It hits the same way in five years that it hits today, because the thing it's tapping into isn't a trend. It's something much older than any platform, any algorithm, any feed. It's the oldest story there is, really, just told without words: something was broken, someone showed up anyway, and against every reasonable expectation, that was enough. We don't get many unscripted, unforced examples of that anymore. Almost everything in front of us now is curated, edited, angled for a reaction. This isn't. This is just what actually happened, captured because a phone happened to be there, no different than it would have looked if no camera existed at all. That's rare. That's worth two minutes of your undivided attention instead of a half-watched scroll-by. So here's the actual ask, plain and simple: don't just watch this one and move on like it's any other post in your feed today. Watch it properly. Let it play all the way through without skipping ahead to see how it ends. Notice the exact second his body changes. Notice what happens right after that. And then, if it moves you even a fraction as much as it should, do one small thing with that feeling before it fades — share it with someone, support a rescue near you, or just remember, the next time you see a stray on the side of a road, that stopping is always an option. It's always been an option. Somebody just has to choose to take it. That choice is the entire video. Everything else is just what happens after it gets made. One last thought, and then I'll let you go watch it instead of reading about it any longer. Somewhere out there, right now, there's another version of this exact scene playing out with no camera anywhere near it. No rescuer. No hand reaching out slowly through tall grass. No moment where fear loses. Just an animal, alone, running out of time in silence. We can't fix that with a video. Nobody's pretending we can. But we can make sure the ones that do get found, the ones that do get a camera and a rescuer and a happy ending, actually get seen — properly seen, not scrolled past in half a second on the way to something louder and easier. This is one of the good ones. One of the rare stories where showing up actually happened in time. Don't waste that by treating it like background noise. He didn't run. Now go find out why.

Earth Unveiled

189,242 views • 11 days ago

And here is, Tucker Carlson breaks down how the Architect of J6 the FBI engineered the Gretchen Whitbag kidnapping plot. “Most of the media were paying zero attention to this. Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 of American Greatness has actually covered it. We’re grateful to her for what she’s found.” The FBI orchestrated, plotted, funded, and executed the plan to kidnap Michigan's governor Gretchen Whitbag so that the DOJ could blame the kidnapping on Trump supporters and "right-wing extremists." The FBI funded Dan Chappel [FBI informant/Ray Epps] with more than $60,000 in 7 months and told him he needed to start organizing a group of right-wing extremists for the criminals within the DOJ to prosecute. The FBI made a new Facebook group called "Patriot 3 Percenters." Through the group, Dan Chappel met a man named Adam Fox, who was struggling financially and lived alone in the basement of a vacuum repair shop with no running water. The FBI provided Dan Chappel with several $5,000 limit credit cards on taxpayers expense and they told him to bribe Adam Fox and to tell him to spend it on guns and ammunition. Adam Fox refused on five different occasions. Even Dan Chappel suggested that Adam Fox and others fire rounds into the Governor's mansion, but Fox and the other defendants refused. When the group started falling apart, the FBI told their informant Dan Chappel to keep the group intact, so they introduced another informant, a convicted felon and this time with a new idea, to kidnap Gretchen Whitbag. And they still refused. But the FBI kept pushing their informants and even drove the defendants to Whitbag's home, and then they suggested assassinating the Governor of Virginia. On September 5, 2020, FBI Agent Chambers texted Chappel, "mission is to kill the governor specifically." To coerce the defendants into kidnapping the governor, the FBI used a female informant and was directed to act as “honeypot” to seduce them and even got them high on Hunter Biden (drugs). After all of this failed attempts, the task fell on another FBI agent Richard Task, this time a wife beater and a Trump hater to build a criminal case against the defendants. In other words, 12 out of the 18 people involved with the plot to kidnap the whore were employed by one of the most powerful and corrupt law enforcement agency on the planet the FBI.

And here is, Tucker Carlson breaks down how the Architect of J6 the FBI engineered the Gretchen Whitbag kidnapping plot. “Most of the media were paying zero attention to this. Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 of American Greatness has actually covered it. We’re grateful to her for what she’s found.” The FBI orchestrated, plotted, funded, and executed the plan to kidnap Michigan's governor Gretchen Whitbag so that the DOJ could blame the kidnapping on Trump supporters and "right-wing extremists." The FBI funded Dan Chappel [FBI informant/Ray Epps] with more than $60,000 in 7 months and told him he needed to start organizing a group of right-wing extremists for the criminals within the DOJ to prosecute. The FBI made a new Facebook group called "Patriot 3 Percenters." Through the group, Dan Chappel met a man named Adam Fox, who was struggling financially and lived alone in the basement of a vacuum repair shop with no running water. The FBI provided Dan Chappel with several $5,000 limit credit cards on taxpayers expense and they told him to bribe Adam Fox and to tell him to spend it on guns and ammunition. Adam Fox refused on five different occasions. Even Dan Chappel suggested that Adam Fox and others fire rounds into the Governor's mansion, but Fox and the other defendants refused. When the group started falling apart, the FBI told their informant Dan Chappel to keep the group intact, so they introduced another informant, a convicted felon and this time with a new idea, to kidnap Gretchen Whitbag. And they still refused. But the FBI kept pushing their informants and even drove the defendants to Whitbag's home, and then they suggested assassinating the Governor of Virginia. On September 5, 2020, FBI Agent Chambers texted Chappel, "mission is to kill the governor specifically." To coerce the defendants into kidnapping the governor, the FBI used a female informant and was directed to act as “honeypot” to seduce them and even got them high on Hunter Biden (drugs). After all of this failed attempts, the task fell on another FBI agent Richard Task, this time a wife beater and a Trump hater to build a criminal case against the defendants. In other words, 12 out of the 18 people involved with the plot to kidnap the whore were employed by one of the most powerful and corrupt law enforcement agency on the planet the FBI.

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

14,446 views • 1 year ago

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

Nick LoPiccolo

99,106 views • 4 months ago

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Earth Unveiled

70,985 views • 6 days ago

Vaccine-Injured Man Confronts British Prime Minister on GB News JOHN WATTS: "Hi, Rishi Sunak. I've got so much to say but such little time. My name is John Watt, and I'm one of the COVID vaccine injured in this country. "I want you to look into my eyes, Rishi Sunak, and I want you to look at the pain, the trauma, and the regret I have in my eyes. We have been left with no help at all. "Not only am I in here [who's] vaccine injured; there's another man over there whose life's been ruined by that Covid-19 vaccine. I know people who have lost legs — amputations. I know people with heart conditions like myself, Rishi Sunak. "Why have I had to set up a support group in Scotland to look after the people that have been affected by that Covid-19 vaccine? Why are the people who are in charge who told us all to do the right thing have left us all to rot and left me and the thousands and the tens of thousands in this country to rot? "Rishi Sunak, look me in the eye. When are you going to start to do the right thing? The vaccine damage payment scheme is not fit for purpose. In Scotland right now, according to the yellow card system, there are over 30,000 people [who] have had an adverse reaction to that vaccine." PM RISHI SUNAK: "John, thank you very much indeed for your question." JOHN WATTS: "Thank you to start doing the right thing, Mr. Rishi Sunak." PM RISHI SUNAK: "You've made a really strong point, John. Well, I'm very sorry to hear about your personal circumstances, and you said someone over here also seems to have suffered by a similar thing. Now, obviously, I don't know about the individual situation that you're in." JOHN WATTS: "We are silenced, Rishi. On social media and everything. We are silenced! We are the most silenced people in this country!" OTHER VACCINE-INJURED MAN: "Silence in the press because my story in the press — I had to go to the government for comment, and they made them take all that stuff out." MODERATOR: Forgive me both. Sir, you raised some very valid points, I'm sure. What I've got to say is, though, we haven't got you on microphone, and as you know, we've got to get through this. I'm sure we can raise your points with the Prime Minister at a later date, but in the meantime, Prime Minister, if you have not covered the issue." RISHI SUNAK: "I'm very happy to. So there is a vaccine compensation scheme that's in place, as you alluded to, in the NHS. Obviously, everyone individually will work through their cases. It's difficult for me to comment on anyone's individual case. I'm sure you'll appreciate that. "I'm very happy to go and look at the cases, and I'm sure you'll get them to the team here. I'm very saddened and shocked to hear that you've been silenced by anybody. That is surprising to me. "So please do get your details to Stephen and the team, and I will happily take that away. Of course, you should be able to speak about your experience — what's happened to you. And as I said, we have a compensation scheme in place for that, and I'll make sure that we're working through that. "Obviously, I think you'll appreciate it's hard for me to comment on your specific circumstances — just not knowing them. And those things that." (Other Vaccine-Injured Man Begins Speaking) MODERATOR: "Please forgive me, sir. We haven't got a microphone on you, so our viewers and listeners won't be able to hear what you say." RISHI SUNAK: "The last thing I'd say is we went through a pandemic like everyone else at the points when it came to the vaccine. Those decisions were always taken on the basis of medical advice from our medical experts to tell us, as politicians, who are obviously not doctors, about how best to roll out the vaccine, what was in the public health interest, the priority order, how that should be done, who should be eligible. That was something that the doctors recommended on, and that's something that we followed. "Now, obviously, if there are individual circumstances which haven't worked out, then that's why we have the compensation scheme in place and I'll make sure that we follow up on your cases." MODERATOR: "Okay, Prime Minister. Thank you. Gents, both of you, do give us your details. We will get that to the Prime Minister. And as he said, he will, I'm sure, look at that for you."

Vaccine-Injured Man Confronts British Prime Minister on GB News JOHN WATTS: "Hi, Rishi Sunak. I've got so much to say but such little time. My name is John Watt, and I'm one of the COVID vaccine injured in this country. "I want you to look into my eyes, Rishi Sunak, and I want you to look at the pain, the trauma, and the regret I have in my eyes. We have been left with no help at all. "Not only am I in here [who's] vaccine injured; there's another man over there whose life's been ruined by that Covid-19 vaccine. I know people who have lost legs — amputations. I know people with heart conditions like myself, Rishi Sunak. "Why have I had to set up a support group in Scotland to look after the people that have been affected by that Covid-19 vaccine? Why are the people who are in charge who told us all to do the right thing have left us all to rot and left me and the thousands and the tens of thousands in this country to rot? "Rishi Sunak, look me in the eye. When are you going to start to do the right thing? The vaccine damage payment scheme is not fit for purpose. In Scotland right now, according to the yellow card system, there are over 30,000 people [who] have had an adverse reaction to that vaccine." PM RISHI SUNAK: "John, thank you very much indeed for your question." JOHN WATTS: "Thank you to start doing the right thing, Mr. Rishi Sunak." PM RISHI SUNAK: "You've made a really strong point, John. Well, I'm very sorry to hear about your personal circumstances, and you said someone over here also seems to have suffered by a similar thing. Now, obviously, I don't know about the individual situation that you're in." JOHN WATTS: "We are silenced, Rishi. On social media and everything. We are silenced! We are the most silenced people in this country!" OTHER VACCINE-INJURED MAN: "Silence in the press because my story in the press — I had to go to the government for comment, and they made them take all that stuff out." MODERATOR: Forgive me both. Sir, you raised some very valid points, I'm sure. What I've got to say is, though, we haven't got you on microphone, and as you know, we've got to get through this. I'm sure we can raise your points with the Prime Minister at a later date, but in the meantime, Prime Minister, if you have not covered the issue." RISHI SUNAK: "I'm very happy to. So there is a vaccine compensation scheme that's in place, as you alluded to, in the NHS. Obviously, everyone individually will work through their cases. It's difficult for me to comment on anyone's individual case. I'm sure you'll appreciate that. "I'm very happy to go and look at the cases, and I'm sure you'll get them to the team here. I'm very saddened and shocked to hear that you've been silenced by anybody. That is surprising to me. "So please do get your details to Stephen and the team, and I will happily take that away. Of course, you should be able to speak about your experience — what's happened to you. And as I said, we have a compensation scheme in place for that, and I'll make sure that we're working through that. "Obviously, I think you'll appreciate it's hard for me to comment on your specific circumstances — just not knowing them. And those things that." (Other Vaccine-Injured Man Begins Speaking) MODERATOR: "Please forgive me, sir. We haven't got a microphone on you, so our viewers and listeners won't be able to hear what you say." RISHI SUNAK: "The last thing I'd say is we went through a pandemic like everyone else at the points when it came to the vaccine. Those decisions were always taken on the basis of medical advice from our medical experts to tell us, as politicians, who are obviously not doctors, about how best to roll out the vaccine, what was in the public health interest, the priority order, how that should be done, who should be eligible. That was something that the doctors recommended on, and that's something that we followed. "Now, obviously, if there are individual circumstances which haven't worked out, then that's why we have the compensation scheme in place and I'll make sure that we follow up on your cases." MODERATOR: "Okay, Prime Minister. Thank you. Gents, both of you, do give us your details. We will get that to the Prime Minister. And as he said, he will, I'm sure, look at that for you."

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

956,510 views • 2 years ago

Oh My God!!! 😱 Corbell Threatened to Release Hundreds of UFO Files, Which Were Also Given to Hundreds of Journalists! And Then He Backed Down! One Problem: It Never Happened I found the Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell clip I wanted to show you. But First: The claims... "Jeremy Corbell threatened to release hundreds of UFO files." ~Red Panda Koala And... "Jeremy Corbell says hundreds of journalists have been given the secret UFO files that will be released, if..." ~Red Panda Koala Full (inaccurate, IMO) claims, and the actual transcripts, are here: ⬇️⬇️⬇️ The following interview was uploaded several days after Corbell made those early-June comments that are now going viral, and for which he's getting a lot of hate over. This is a more complete explanation of the situation. Andy, forgive me for uploading such a long clip. I know this won't answer every question but it should educate folks on what was said. Or what was meant. And I'm sure it will calm the haters. 🥴 ~ Andy (That UFO Podcast): In 'Sleeping Dog,' you get your laptop out towards the end of the documentary. You know, dramatic, you dig some sh*t up. You've got a pen drive, you open it, and you see these files. And I'm sure, like many folks, I'm pausing frantically, reading all these names of files. I can just see the bottom of and the top. And I'm looking around your laptop screen. "And we begin to see clips of those videos. Now, those came out within the second release from the war dot gov, UFOs. Can you, first of all, clear up for me...we heard you had 46 videos that you were going to release." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "No, who said that?" Andy: "So, generally, online, there was 46 videos were coming out. I think 52 came out. This is what I want cleared up, though. You know about those 52 videos that came out. How many came from you? Because the feeling online - and this even was for me - was, Jeremy's got his documentary, he showed what's going to come, and then within a couple of weeks we had the second drop, and bang, here's all these videos. Can you just clear up how many videos that were dropped, came from your end, and what's the story there?" Corbell: "Zero came from my end. Zero. Those are government-filmed UAP. They were provoked to release them by a variety of ways. George Knapp and I gave a multitude of lists of UAP filmed by our military, to Congress. They validated, they vetted, they found out where they were. We told them where they are, we had eyes on them, making sure they're not going to be deleted. "This is something we've acquired over decades, George and myself. You know, the newer ones are kind of the the best, I would say. You know, better hardware than, let's say, 15 years ago. But...so none of them came from us. That...it is government-filmed footage. "We identified the file names and file structures and location of holdings, gave that to Congress, and it's not just the 46. It actually surprised me when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna put out, and it was a gangster move. Rep. Luna put out a public letter to Pete Hegseth saying, 'Here are 46 files that we want.' "They didn't mention...it's actually 14 Air Force files that we've identified - even to the Department of Justice - that there's a bottleneck in UAP reporting within our own government. Remember 'Immaculate Constellation,' the idea of like, siphoning off the best footage. Well, George and I were able to identify that in Central Command, that there was a nexus point where there was a bottleneck, and the best UAP footage and evidence was being siphoned off even before it got to AARO. "Even our, you know, who were kind of enemies at a time, we informed AARO that there's this bottleneck, and if you want to find out where the good sh*t's going, we told them where. So, when you say 46 videos, 52 videos. Bro, there are probably hundreds of thousands. Very little ever get to reporters like George and myself, and it takes years for us to vet and verify. "And then, you know, anybody that leaks videos to journalists - if you consider them sources- they're at risk, you know, when journalists publish them. So, I have always been fighting. And then people yell at me, and they're like, 'It's not good enough, and the frame rates aren't right.' And all this weird sh*t. They're just baiting to try to like, dig in and try to investigate sources. It's all a charade. Everything with that online is a charade. They're just trying to entrap people. "So what we do, is we take the heat and we just keep doing the reporting. We gave Congress way more than 46 file structures, file names with locations, with evidence they exist. But we don't possess anything. We can't, legally. We can obtain and release. I'm familiar with, have access from time-to-time, too. "You know, you have to be really smart as a journalist on what your rights are. That's why I have a federal lawyer, which you learned in the movie is Chuck McCullough. Kind of one of the best federal lawyers you could have, now that I've admitted it, right?" (McCullough was the first Intelligence Community Inspector General, represented David Grusch, and is HIGHLY respected. The fact that he's representing Corbell is something that's lost on the Corbell haters.) Corbell: "So, basically, those are the protocols. Our government has hundreds of thousands, in full-motion video, which is like a layered, sensor system from satellite platforms, as an example, which you've never seen, no one's ever seen. With incredible fidelity, showing all-domain UAP coming from space-to-air-to-sea and back out, from sea-to-air-to space. That's fact. I know that for a fact. I have been witness to a lot of that information. "But I did not give anything to Congress except file names, and they verified, vetted, and put out a public letter for 46. They kept the other ones private, which I think was smart. Because sometimes even just the the file names themselves, you know, could be an issue for 100 reasons. Does that clarify what you're asking?" Andy: "100% And even in the Discord, when that drop happened, everyone's Discords and stuff were going crazy. People were asking, 'Are these the videos that Corbell and Knapp have provided?' So there has been this idea, from some, that you guys gave them the videos. But what you've given was the locations, how to get them, where they were." Corbell: "The exact file names and locations, with verifiable proof that they do exist, that they did exist upon delivery, of those titles. You know. I'm not gonna just... You know, and also, what we get, when they ask for them, from Pete Hegseth and Department of War, is when they do release them, which they were provoked to do. That's the thing. "And they're not all out. The 46, just read the file names that were in that list, and then look at what was released. They are not all out. So think about that. They give you the underhanded pitch, the bottom of the barrel. And George Knapp and I, as I have said, we're gonna continue our reporting. "But it's kind of like a warning shot. You're like, here's what is in the hands of over 100 journalists, including podcasters now. Meaning they they can get access if they need. That's a whole process. But, essentially, we're telling them what journalists have. So what you can do is get in front of it and release the full, original files. And then nobody argues about frame rates, nobody goes after sources. "That's the way it should work because the onus is on the United States government because they themselves have said that we are going to be transparent about this, we're gonna be putting out all this information. Good, good. "So you've started, and it was total happenstance that the first release was on the premiere of 'Sleeping Dog' date, In in the sense that, I had no idea they were going to do that. It's kind of hilarious. But, you know, we did inform them before about the movie and that we're gonna, you know, do our journalism. So, you do the math." Andy: "Yeah, no, that's useful. And can we just confirm, I am not one of the podcasters who has those files before I am raided, or the CIA get in touch." Corbell: "Nobody has the files. You know, George and I have been sure to back up our work and provide an ability, if anything goes sideways, that, you know, the American public gets what they need. You know, it's very simple, dude. It's not like cloak and dagger. "You have to make sure that when you're reporting on things of national-security concern, that you don't damage national security, A number one. I'm an American, I live here, I love my country. Like, straight up. But also, you put things in place so that you're not the only one who's been able to see or have access, at time. And that's what we did. "We did that to protect sources, whistleblowers, and the information itself getting out to people. I don't possess anything, Andy. Of course, you don't. You're a foreign journalist to me. I'm sorry, but that that's another aspect to it. Is that, even though we have Five-Eyes Alliance, we've never hung out and had a beer, dude." Andy: "Not yet." Corbell: "[Laughs] I hope to." Andy: "Next year's Contact [in the Desert], maybe. So those 100 journalists... Because so many folks got in touch with me to ask..." Corbell: "100-plus." Andy: "100-plus, journalists and podcasters. It's not like you've sent out a special-edition pen drive and went, 'Here's all the files, if something happens.' But there are ways and means that if something did happen to yourself and/or George (Corbell: "Oh yeah"), these folks can access this material?" Corbell: "Yeah. I said it in Episode 60 of Weaponized, right? So we have, as journalists, we have covered and made sure the American public will never be, you know, the American public will never stay in the dark about what we've reported on or what we have to report on. But, you know, we have to go slow, we have to vet everything. It's just an insurance thing that that people would have instantaneous access. "I don't want that, either. Like, I don't want...you can't tell your friends, somebody, without telling your enemies. You know, and I don't...I would rather that we just continue doing our journalism under First Amendment, in America, without any interruption, in any way, that is illegal. And that's what's been happening. You know, the influence campaigns and the threats and that kind of thing. "So, yeah, man, I don't know how far we wanna go into that, but just base-level, we have made sure to protect the information that George Knapp and I have obtained over the decades. We don't hold in possession of anything, but at the same time, we've democratized the way that information will get out if we're stopped in any way, and that's just how it is." Andy: "And you guys are in full control of that, that no one can go rogue that has the information, or, you know, 'Ah, f**k Jeremy and George. I can access this. I'm gonna go off and find.' No, you guys are in complete control of that?" Corbell: "No, because that's a national-security issue because the nature of any information that comes to us in this realm. But additionally, that's not the right way to go about... I don't wanna go too deep into this, but that's not the right way that journalists operate, right? Is, you don't just haphazardly... So, no. Is that okay? Just end with no?" Andy: "You can end with 'no' on that one. It might come back round in one of these other answers to a different question." Corbell: "Okay, yeah."

Oh My God!!! 😱 Corbell Threatened to Release Hundreds of UFO Files, Which Were Also Given to Hundreds of Journalists! And Then He Backed Down! One Problem: It Never Happened I found the Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell clip I wanted to show you. But First: The claims... "Jeremy Corbell threatened to release hundreds of UFO files." ~Red Panda Koala And... "Jeremy Corbell says hundreds of journalists have been given the secret UFO files that will be released, if..." ~Red Panda Koala Full (inaccurate, IMO) claims, and the actual transcripts, are here: ⬇️⬇️⬇️ The following interview was uploaded several days after Corbell made those early-June comments that are now going viral, and for which he's getting a lot of hate over. This is a more complete explanation of the situation. Andy, forgive me for uploading such a long clip. I know this won't answer every question but it should educate folks on what was said. Or what was meant. And I'm sure it will calm the haters. 🥴 ~ Andy (That UFO Podcast): In 'Sleeping Dog,' you get your laptop out towards the end of the documentary. You know, dramatic, you dig some sht up. You've got a pen drive, you open it, and you see these files. And I'm sure, like many folks, I'm pausing frantically, reading all these names of files. I can just see the bottom of and the top. And I'm looking around your laptop screen. "And we begin to see clips of those videos. Now, those came out within the second release from the war dot gov, UFOs. Can you, first of all, clear up for me...we heard you had 46 videos that you were going to release." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "No, who said that?" Andy: "So, generally, online, there was 46 videos were coming out. I think 52 came out. This is what I want cleared up, though. You know about those 52 videos that came out. How many came from you? Because the feeling online - and this even was for me - was, Jeremy's got his documentary, he showed what's going to come, and then within a couple of weeks we had the second drop, and bang, here's all these videos. Can you just clear up how many videos that were dropped, came from your end, and what's the story there?" Corbell: "Zero came from my end. Zero. Those are government-filmed UAP. They were provoked to release them by a variety of ways. George Knapp and I gave a multitude of lists of UAP filmed by our military, to Congress. They validated, they vetted, they found out where they were. We told them where they are, we had eyes on them, making sure they're not going to be deleted. "This is something we've acquired over decades, George and myself. You know, the newer ones are kind of the the best, I would say. You know, better hardware than, let's say, 15 years ago. But...so none of them came from us. That...it is government-filmed footage. "We identified the file names and file structures and location of holdings, gave that to Congress, and it's not just the 46. It actually surprised me when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna put out, and it was a gangster move. Rep. Luna put out a public letter to Pete Hegseth saying, 'Here are 46 files that we want.' "They didn't mention...it's actually 14 Air Force files that we've identified - even to the Department of Justice - that there's a bottleneck in UAP reporting within our own government. Remember 'Immaculate Constellation,' the idea of like, siphoning off the best footage. Well, George and I were able to identify that in Central Command, that there was a nexus point where there was a bottleneck, and the best UAP footage and evidence was being siphoned off even before it got to AARO. "Even our, you know, who were kind of enemies at a time, we informed AARO that there's this bottleneck, and if you want to find out where the good sht's going, we told them where. So, when you say 46 videos, 52 videos. Bro, there are probably hundreds of thousands. Very little ever get to reporters like George and myself, and it takes years for us to vet and verify. "And then, you know, anybody that leaks videos to journalists - if you consider them sources- they're at risk, you know, when journalists publish them. So, I have always been fighting. And then people yell at me, and they're like, 'It's not good enough, and the frame rates aren't right.' And all this weird sh*t. They're just baiting to try to like, dig in and try to investigate sources. It's all a charade. Everything with that online is a charade. They're just trying to entrap people. "So what we do, is we take the heat and we just keep doing the reporting. We gave Congress way more than 46 file structures, file names with locations, with evidence they exist. But we don't possess anything. We can't, legally. We can obtain and release. I'm familiar with, have access from time-to-time, too. "You know, you have to be really smart as a journalist on what your rights are. That's why I have a federal lawyer, which you learned in the movie is Chuck McCullough. Kind of one of the best federal lawyers you could have, now that I've admitted it, right?" (McCullough was the first Intelligence Community Inspector General, represented David Grusch, and is HIGHLY respected. The fact that he's representing Corbell is something that's lost on the Corbell haters.) Corbell: "So, basically, those are the protocols. Our government has hundreds of thousands, in full-motion video, which is like a layered, sensor system from satellite platforms, as an example, which you've never seen, no one's ever seen. With incredible fidelity, showing all-domain UAP coming from space-to-air-to-sea and back out, from sea-to-air-to space. That's fact. I know that for a fact. I have been witness to a lot of that information. "But I did not give anything to Congress except file names, and they verified, vetted, and put out a public letter for 46. They kept the other ones private, which I think was smart. Because sometimes even just the the file names themselves, you know, could be an issue for 100 reasons. Does that clarify what you're asking?" Andy: "100% And even in the Discord, when that drop happened, everyone's Discords and stuff were going crazy. People were asking, 'Are these the videos that Corbell and Knapp have provided?' So there has been this idea, from some, that you guys gave them the videos. But what you've given was the locations, how to get them, where they were." Corbell: "The exact file names and locations, with verifiable proof that they do exist, that they did exist upon delivery, of those titles. You know. I'm not gonna just... You know, and also, what we get, when they ask for them, from Pete Hegseth and Department of War, is when they do release them, which they were provoked to do. That's the thing. "And they're not all out. The 46, just read the file names that were in that list, and then look at what was released. They are not all out. So think about that. They give you the underhanded pitch, the bottom of the barrel. And George Knapp and I, as I have said, we're gonna continue our reporting. "But it's kind of like a warning shot. You're like, here's what is in the hands of over 100 journalists, including podcasters now. Meaning they they can get access if they need. That's a whole process. But, essentially, we're telling them what journalists have. So what you can do is get in front of it and release the full, original files. And then nobody argues about frame rates, nobody goes after sources. "That's the way it should work because the onus is on the United States government because they themselves have said that we are going to be transparent about this, we're gonna be putting out all this information. Good, good. "So you've started, and it was total happenstance that the first release was on the premiere of 'Sleeping Dog' date, In in the sense that, I had no idea they were going to do that. It's kind of hilarious. But, you know, we did inform them before about the movie and that we're gonna, you know, do our journalism. So, you do the math." Andy: "Yeah, no, that's useful. And can we just confirm, I am not one of the podcasters who has those files before I am raided, or the CIA get in touch." Corbell: "Nobody has the files. You know, George and I have been sure to back up our work and provide an ability, if anything goes sideways, that, you know, the American public gets what they need. You know, it's very simple, dude. It's not like cloak and dagger. "You have to make sure that when you're reporting on things of national-security concern, that you don't damage national security, A number one. I'm an American, I live here, I love my country. Like, straight up. But also, you put things in place so that you're not the only one who's been able to see or have access, at time. And that's what we did. "We did that to protect sources, whistleblowers, and the information itself getting out to people. I don't possess anything, Andy. Of course, you don't. You're a foreign journalist to me. I'm sorry, but that that's another aspect to it. Is that, even though we have Five-Eyes Alliance, we've never hung out and had a beer, dude." Andy: "Not yet." Corbell: "[Laughs] I hope to." Andy: "Next year's Contact [in the Desert], maybe. So those 100 journalists... Because so many folks got in touch with me to ask..." Corbell: "100-plus." Andy: "100-plus, journalists and podcasters. It's not like you've sent out a special-edition pen drive and went, 'Here's all the files, if something happens.' But there are ways and means that if something did happen to yourself and/or George (Corbell: "Oh yeah"), these folks can access this material?" Corbell: "Yeah. I said it in Episode 60 of Weaponized, right? So we have, as journalists, we have covered and made sure the American public will never be, you know, the American public will never stay in the dark about what we've reported on or what we have to report on. But, you know, we have to go slow, we have to vet everything. It's just an insurance thing that that people would have instantaneous access. "I don't want that, either. Like, I don't want...you can't tell your friends, somebody, without telling your enemies. You know, and I don't...I would rather that we just continue doing our journalism under First Amendment, in America, without any interruption, in any way, that is illegal. And that's what's been happening. You know, the influence campaigns and the threats and that kind of thing. "So, yeah, man, I don't know how far we wanna go into that, but just base-level, we have made sure to protect the information that George Knapp and I have obtained over the decades. We don't hold in possession of anything, but at the same time, we've democratized the way that information will get out if we're stopped in any way, and that's just how it is." Andy: "And you guys are in full control of that, that no one can go rogue that has the information, or, you know, 'Ah, f**k Jeremy and George. I can access this. I'm gonna go off and find.' No, you guys are in complete control of that?" Corbell: "No, because that's a national-security issue because the nature of any information that comes to us in this realm. But additionally, that's not the right way to go about... I don't wanna go too deep into this, but that's not the right way that journalists operate, right? Is, you don't just haphazardly... So, no. Is that okay? Just end with no?" Andy: "You can end with 'no' on that one. It might come back round in one of these other answers to a different question." Corbell: "Okay, yeah."

Joe Murgia

65,251 views • 2 months ago

The most feared predator in the Western Hemisphere just swam up to armed men and asked them not to shoot. Read that again. Not a house cat. Not a stray dog. The single most powerful bite of any big cat on Earth — stronger than a lion's, stronger than a tiger's, strong enough to punch through a turtle shell or a crocodile's skull in one clamp — swam, on its own, toward a boat full of armed soldiers. And it didn't attack. It asked. If you know anything about apex predators, you already know how insane that sentence is. Apex predators do not approach armed humans voluntarily. Every instinct wired into 12 million years of evolution tells them the opposite: humans mean guns, humans mean traps, humans mean pain. A healthy jaguar in the wild will not let you get within 200 meters before it vanishes into cover so completely you'll swear it was never there. That's not fear, that's mastery. Jaguars are the ghosts of the Amazon. Biologists who've spent entire careers in the field have gone years without a confirmed sighting of a wild one, despite knowing exactly which territory it patrols, despite finding its tracks every single week. So when the apex predator of an entire continent breaks 12 million years of instinct and swims TOWARD the thing it's engineered to avoid — something has gone catastrophically wrong. This is that story. And by the end of it you're going to need to see the footage for yourself, because no description does it justice. — Let's talk about what a jaguar actually is, because most people have the wrong animal in their head right now. You're picturing a leopard. You're wrong. Jaguars are built like tanks — shorter, stockier, more muscle packed onto a heavier frame than any other big cat pound for pound. Where a leopard or a cougar kills by suffocating its prey, clamping the throat and waiting, a jaguar doesn't bother. It bites straight through the skull. Through bone. In one motion. It's the only big cat on the planet that regularly kills this way, because it's the only one with the jaw strength to pull it off. Scientists have measured jaguar bite force at up to 1,500 PSI. A lion's is around 650. Compare that number twice, because it doesn't feel real the first time. This is an animal that eats caimans. It eats anacondas. It has been documented dragging a full-grown black caiman — an armored reptile that can grow past 13 feet — out of the water like it was nothing. There is functionally no animal in its ecosystem that is safe from it, including the largest and most heavily armored reptiles on the continent. The jaguar is not just at the top of the Amazon's food chain. It IS the food chain. Every other predator in that rainforest — the caimans, the anacondas, the ocelots — exists underneath it, and every prey species has evolved specifically around avoiding it. That's the animal we're talking about. Indigenous cultures across the Americas didn't worship jaguars because they were pretty. The Maya believed the sun turned into a jaguar every night to fight its way through the underworld so it could rise again at dawn. Olmec rulers carved themselves with jaguar features because there was no higher symbol of power available to them. Amazonian shamanic traditions across dozens of tribes describe the jaguar as the one animal capable of moving between the world of the living and the world of spirits at will. You don't build three thousand years of mythology around something that isn't genuinely, undeniably the most dangerous thing in the room. Even today, biologists who track jaguars for a living describe the same experience over and over: you can walk within a hundred feet of a wild jaguar and never know it. It sees you first. It always sees you first. It decides, every single time, whether you're worth the energy of a confrontation — and almost every single time, it decides you're not, and simply disappears. Camera traps left in the same stretch of forest for years will capture a resident jaguar walking past the exact same tree, week after week, and the researchers who set those traps will never once encounter that animal in person. That's not luck. That's a predator so completely in control of its environment that avoiding you costs it nothing. Now picture that animal exhausted. Picture it with nothing left. Picture it choosing, out of every option available to it in an entire river system, to swim toward the one thing on Earth that should terrify it more than anything else. That's not an animal being brave. That's an animal that has run out of other options. — Here's the part that should make you angry. This wasn't an accident, and it wasn't old age, and it wasn't disease. When veterinarians finally got their hands on this animal, what they found wasn't a natural injury. It was evidence of a crime scene. Multiple gunshot wounds. Broken teeth, almost certainly from trying to bite or fight its way out of something. And buried in its skull and neck — not one bullet, not two, not five — more than THIRTY separate lead fragments. Thirty pieces of shrapnel embedded in the head and neck of a living, breathing apex predator that somehow, against every statistical likelihood, was still alive when it was found. Read that number again. Thirty. That's not one shot. That's not a warning fired into the air. That's sustained, close-range violence against an animal that is legally protected, nationally symbolic, and — despite its raw physical power — has no defense whatsoever against a firearm. A 1,500 PSI bite means nothing against a bullet. All that evolutionary power, all those millions of years of becoming the perfect killing machine, and it is completely, totally helpless against a human with a gun and bad intentions. Somebody did this. Somebody stood close enough to unload more than thirty rounds' worth of lead into this animal's head and neck and left it to die in a river. And it almost worked. Sit with the mechanics of that for a second, because it matters. Thirty-plus fragments in the skull and neck doesn't happen from one clean shot fired from a safe distance by someone who wanted this over quickly. That pattern is the signature of sustained fire — of someone who kept shooting after the animal was already down, or shooting in a panic, or shooting because they wanted to make absolutely sure. None of those explanations are good. All of them describe a human being standing over one of the rarest, most protected animals on the continent and choosing, again and again, pull after pull of the trigger, to keep going. A fractured jaw on top of that isn't just collateral damage from gunfire, either — it's consistent with an animal that was still fighting back at some point in whatever happened before that river. This wasn't necessarily an animal that surprised someone and got shot in self-defense. The physical evidence tells a story closer to a hunt, or a trap, or a retaliation killing that went further than "scare it off." We don't get to know exactly what happened in the hours before this jaguar hit the water. What we do know, written directly into its body, is that whatever happened was not quick, and it was not merciful. — Picture the hours before this footage was recorded, because nobody filmed those hours, and they're the part of the story that actually explains everything you're about to see. A wounded jaguar, bleeding, in agony, with a fractured jaw and a skull full of metal, trying to cross one of the widest rivers in the Amazon basin. Not a stream. Not a creek. A river so enormous in places it looks like open ocean, with currents that professional boat crews respect and plan around. It didn't have a choice. Injured, disoriented, likely running from the exact humans who shot it, the water was probably the only route away from more gunfire. So it went in. And it swam. For how long, nobody who filmed the final moment actually knows — but long enough that by the time it was spotted, eyewitnesses on the water described an animal that was completely spent. Not swimming with purpose anymore. Barely staying above the surface. The kind of exhausted where the next few minutes were going to decide everything, one way or another, with or without anyone there to see it. That is the state this jaguar was in when it spotted the boat. And this is the part your brain refuses to accept: it didn't turn away. — Try to actually sit with the decision this animal made, because it is not a small one. A jaguar in that condition has two options. Option one: keep swimming, alone, and hope the river runs out before its strength does. Statistically, in open water, against a current, with a fractured jaw and a body full of shrapnel — that bet does not favor the jaguar. Option two: swim toward the only object breaking the surface of the water for miles in any direction, a floating hunk of metal covered in the same species that just tried to kill it. It chose option two. Not because it trusted humans. It had every reason on Earth not to. It chose the boat because drowning was now more certain than the risk of getting close to people. When your body is failing and your training says "avoid this at all costs," but the alternative is certain death — the calculation changes. That is not tameness. That's not a "friendly" jaguar. That is a wild animal making the most desperate call available to it, betting its life on the tiny, statistically insane chance that the next humans it encountered would be different from the last ones. It had no way of knowing who was on that boat. It gambled anyway. Ask yourself honestly what that decision would have looked like from inside the animal's head, if you can even attempt that exercise. Every muscle memory it has ever built tells it that boats mean people, people mean danger, danger means run. It has almost certainly encountered humans before in a way that reinforced exactly that lesson — possibly hours earlier, possibly from the very people who put thirty pieces of lead into its skull. And yet, with the last of its strength, faced with a binary choice between a slow death by exhaustion in open water or a gamble on the species that had just tried to end its life, it picked the gamble. That is not an animal "trusting" a boat the way a dog trusts a familiar hand. That is an animal doing cost-benefit analysis under lethal pressure and concluding that the smallest available risk was still better than the certainty of drowning. If you've ever wondered what raw, unfiltered survival instinct actually looks like when it's stripped of every comfortable assumption — this is it. No safety net. No guarantee. Just a wild, wounded predator betting its own life on a stranger, because the alternative had already stopped being a choice at all. — And here's where the story turns, because the people on that boat were not the people who shot it. This wasn't a random tourist boat. This was a Brazilian Military Police Environmental Battalion patrol — units whose entire job is protecting the Amazon and the animals in it from exactly the kind of violence this jaguar had just survived. They had been alerted that a jaguar had been struggling in the water for hours. They went looking. And when they found it, weak, barely afloat, right at the edge of giving out completely, they didn't hesitate. No tranquilizer gun. No cage. No net thrown over its head. A crew of armed officers, face to face in open water with the most powerful bite in the hemisphere, made a split-second decision to try something almost unbearably tender: they offered it something to hold onto instead of trying to force it. An apex predator, at the absolute end of its strength, reached out and took it. Think about the physics of that moment for one second. This is an animal capable of crushing bone in a single bite, choosing, in its most vulnerable state, not to lash out at the nearest living thing — but to accept help from it. Every ounce of instinct built for survival by not trusting anything that looks like a human, overridden in real time by pure, desperate necessity. That single moment — an apex predator and armed men, face to face, and nobody fighting — is one of the rarest things you will ever see captured on camera. Not because it's cute. Because it should not be possible. And yet there it is, recorded, real, happening. Think about the training those officers actually had to override in that moment, too, because it wasn't just the jaguar taking a risk. Standard protocol around a wounded wild predator, especially one capable of killing a grown man in seconds, does not say "get close enough to hand it something." It says keep distance, call a specialist, wait for proper equipment, minimize risk to personnel. Every part of a textbook response would have kept that boat well back from the animal until trained handlers with tranquilizers arrived. But a jaguar in open water, that far gone, might not have had that kind of time. Somebody on that boat made the same kind of split-second calculation the jaguar did — that the measured, official, by-the-book response might not get there fast enough, and that the smaller, riskier, human option was worth trying anyway. Two completely different species, in the same sixty seconds, independently deciding that the safe, predictable choice wasn't good enough, and that trusting a stranger was worth the risk. That's the part of this story that never makes it into the caption. It's not just a jaguar getting saved. It's two sets of instincts, built by evolution and training to keep their owners as far away from each other as possible, both breaking pattern at the exact same moment, for the exact same reason: because doing nothing was worse. There's a version of this story where the boat crew plays it safe. Where they keep their distance, radio it in, wait for a specialist unit with proper sedation equipment, follow every protocol to the letter — and by the time backup arrives, the outcome is simply different. Nobody would have blamed them for that choice. It's the defensible choice, the one that protects everyone involved from risk and liability. It is also, very possibly, the choice that doesn't end with a living jaguar in a Manaus clinic a few hours later. The margin between those two versions of this story was measured in minutes, not hours, and somebody on that boat understood that in real time and acted on it anyway. — This is the point where I'd normally tell you how it ends. I'm not going to. Not because I'm trying to be dramatic — because the ending has to be seen, not summarized. There is a specific second in this footage where the outcome is still completely uncertain, where you genuinely do not know if this is about to become a rescue or a tragedy, and reading about it in a tweet will never replicate watching it happen in real time. The tension in that clip is not manufactured. It's not edited for effect. It is exactly as unbearable live as it reads on paper, and somehow more so, because you can see it on the animal's face. What I will tell you is what happened after the cameras kept rolling: this jaguar did not die in that river. It was pulled from the water, transported, and placed under intensive veterinary care in Manaus. Doctors went to work pulling more than thirty pieces of lead out of its skull and neck. It survived surgery. It survived recovery. And an animal that, hours earlier, had been given essentially no chance by anyone who saw the state it was in, is alive today because a handful of people refused to let the story end in that river. An investigation into who did this to it is ongoing. — Here's what almost nobody talks about when this kind of footage goes viral: how close we are, right now, to a world where moments like this stop happening — not because the violence stops, but because there's no jaguar left to survive it. Jaguars once ranged from the southern United States all the way to northern Argentina. That range has collapsed by roughly half. In some regions it's fallen off a cliff entirely — over 95% of the historic range in places like the western U.S., simply gone. The IUCN lists the species as Near Threatened, and in country after country across its range, "Near Threatened" is a polite way of describing an animal on a countdown. The two biggest killers aren't disease and they aren't old age. It's habitat destruction — cattle ranching and agriculture chewing through the rainforest one cleared acre at a time — and it's people with guns. Retaliation killings after livestock attacks. Poaching for the illegal wildlife trade, where jaguar teeth and bones get trafficked as substitutes for tiger parts in markets that don't ask questions. Estimates on the illegal jaguar parts trade have climbed for years, with parts of the animal's own body turned into inventory the second it stops breathing. This particular jaguar didn't get shot thirty-plus times by accident. Somewhere behind this footage is a human decision, made by someone who looked at the most powerful predator in the hemisphere and decided the appropriate response was sustained gunfire. That decision happens more than people realize. Most of the time, nobody's there with a camera. Most of the time, there's no boat crew nearby, no rescue, no recovery, no viral clip forcing millions of people to pay attention for thirty seconds. Most of the time, the story just ends in the water, and nobody outside a five-mile radius ever finds out it happened. This time, someone was there. This time, it was filmed. This time, the ending is one you can actually watch. That's exactly why you should. — Let's talk numbers for a second, because numbers are the part of this story that doesn't trend, and they're the part that actually explains why this one clip matters so much more than thirty seconds of video usually should. Researchers estimate the wild jaguar population across the entire Americas has fallen to somewhere in the range of 64,000 individuals, spread across seventeen countries, most of them concentrated in shrinking pockets of the Amazon and the Pantanal. Spread that number across a landmass that stretches from the U.S. border with Mexico down to northern Argentina, and the animal that once ruled an entire hemisphere starts to look less like an apex predator and more like a population hanging on by a thread across a handful of strongholds. Brazil holds the largest share of that population, which is exactly why what happens in rivers like the Rio Negro matters so much. Lose enough individuals here, in the stronghold, and there's nowhere left for the species to retreat to. This isn't a story about one unlucky animal in one unlucky river. It's a story about the literal center of the species' last remaining territory, and what's still happening inside it. The illegal trade in jaguar parts — teeth, claws, pelts, skulls — has been documented expanding for years, driven in part by demand that shifted toward jaguar parts as tiger populations became harder to poach and tiger parts became harder to move. Investigators have traced trafficking routes carrying jaguar teeth out of South America toward markets on the other side of the planet, sold as substitutes in traditional medicine and status-symbol markets that don't particularly care which big cat the teeth came from, as long as they came from one. Every jaguar killed for this trade is killed quietly, without a camera, without a rescue boat, without thirty seconds of footage forcing anyone to pay attention. Retaliation killings make up another huge share of the losses. A jaguar takes a cow from a rancher's herd — which happens, because cattle ranching has eaten enormous stretches of the jaguar's traditional hunting territory — and the response, in far too many cases, isn't a fence or a guard dog. It's a rifle. The animal that gets blamed for adapting to a shrinking habitat is the same animal being punished for the shrinking itself. This particular jaguar, the one in this footage, was found with wounds inconsistent with a single clean kill shot. Multiple gunshot wounds. A fractured jaw. Over thirty fragments of lead. That is not the profile of an accident. That is the profile of exactly the kind of violence conservationists have been documenting and warning about for years — and for once, instead of disappearing into the statistics, it ended up on video, mid-rescue, with a happy ending you can actually confirm happened. — Here's a question worth sitting with before you watch this: what do you think the odds actually were, walking into that moment, that this ends well? Realistically? Low. An animal that far gone, that many injuries, that much blood loss, crossing that much open water — most wildlife rescuers will tell you, off the record, that by the time footage like this starts circulating, they're often watching an animal that's already lost too much ground to recover. The fact that this jaguar made it not just to the boat, but through surgery, through recovery, through the transfer to a zoo where it's now receiving ongoing care, is not the expected outcome. It's the outlier. It's the version of this story that almost didn't happen, that had a dozen different points where it could have gone the other way, and somehow didn't. That's what makes this different from the thousand other animal clips you've scrolled past this month. This isn't staged cuteness. This isn't a dog getting a bath. This is a genuine, unscripted, life-or-death moment, with real stakes, a real crime behind it, and a real ending that could have gone either way — captured, start to finish, on camera. — I've spent years studying what actually makes something go viral, what makes millions of people stop scrolling and actually watch something to the end. Most of the time it's manufactured — a hook engineered in an editing room, a fake cliffhanger, a thumbnail that promises more than the video delivers. This isn't that. This is unscripted, unplanned, real-time footage of the exact moment when the most dangerous predator on the continent decided, in the single worst moment of its life, to trust the species that had just tried to kill it. Nobody storyboarded that decision. No director yelled action. An animal that could kill every person on that boat in seconds chose, instead, to hold on. You will not see the actual moment described accurately in any caption, including this one. You have to watch it. The stillness right before it happens. The tension in the water. The exact second everything could still go wrong. And then the second it doesn't. This is the kind of footage people are still going to be sending to their group chats next year with no caption at all, just the video, because some things don't need one. Think about how few times in your life you'll ever get to watch genuine trust form in real time between a species that could kill you and a species it has every reason to fear. Not trust that was trained over years, like a zoo animal raised on bottle feeding and familiar handlers. Trust built in seconds, under maximum stress, with zero prior relationship, purely because both sides ran out of better options at the exact same moment. That kind of footage doesn't get remade. You can't restage it, you can't fake the tension in the water, you can't CGI the specific stillness of an apex predator deciding, in real time, whether the hand in front of it is a threat or a lifeline. Most of what goes viral on this platform is manufactured urgency — a countdown that isn't real, a cliffhanger built in post-production, a thumbnail promising a payoff the video doesn't deliver. This is the opposite of all of that. Nobody scripted this. Nobody could have. The stakes were real, the animal was really dying, the people on that boat really didn't know if this was going to work, and none of that uncertainty is something you can manufacture after the fact. It either happened or it didn't. It happened. It's on camera. And you haven't actually watched it yet. Sound on. Full screen. Don't skip to the end. Watch it. #Jaguar #Amazon #RioNegro #WildlifeRescue #Brazil #ApexPredator #Nature #Rescue #Conservation #WildlifeCrime #AmazonRainforest #BigCats #AnimalRescue #Viral

Earth Unveiled

1,032,320 views • 1 day ago

🚨 While you were asleep, the war shifted. Here’s how... OPERATIONAL UPDATE: ISRAEL U.S. WAR WITH THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC - 3/25 to 3/26 • Israel sustained a broad overnight strike campaign inside Iran, with Reuters reporting a wide new strike wave and your outbox capturing repeated explosions and reported air activity in Isfahan, Shiraz, Tehran, Bandar Abbas, Qeshm, Najafabad, Khomeini Shahr, and other locations. • Iran’s direct fire into Israel remained dangerous but uneven. A missile fell near Hadera in what appeared to be an attempted strike near the Orot Rabin power station, while additional Iranian missile waves hit central Israel on Thursday morning. • Hezbollah kept the northern and central threat picture active, with Israeli and Jerusalem Post reporting indicating rocket fire toward northern Israel and the Tel Aviv area while Israel continued strikes on Hezbollah infrastructure in Lebanon. • Diplomacy did not meaningfully advance. Reuters reported Tehran is reviewing a U.S. proposal while rejecting the idea of actual negotiations, demanding formal control of Hormuz, guarantees against renewed attacks, and Lebanon’s inclusion in any ceasefire framework. • The Gulf and wider regional fronts stayed central. Kuwait’s airport fuel tank was hit by a drone, Gulf states told the U.N. Iranian attacks pose an existential threat, and your transcript underscored Tehran’s messaging that it intends to tie any endgame to Hormuz and potentially wider maritime pressure. The defining narrative in this reporting window was not a single headline strike but the shape of the war itself. Israel kept pressing deeper and wider inside Iran, Iran remained defiant in public while signaling maximalist terms through intermediaries, Hezbollah stayed fully engaged, and the Gulf front continued to harden. Tehran’s messaging was not the language of de escalation. It was the language of a regime trying to preserve leverage through Hormuz, Hezbollah, and regional coercion even as the military pressure on its own infrastructure intensified. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ *⃣ IRANIAN MISSILE ATTACKS ON ISRAEL The clearest operational signal on the Israeli home front was the missile that fell near Hadera. Times of Israel reported that the impact was in an open area near the IEC’s major power station and that no infrastructure damage was caused. That matters because the targeting logic appears to have been strategic infrastructure, not just another general population area. Open source intel reporting strengthens that reading with reporting tying the strike area to the Orot Rabin facility, later messaging that Iran had publicized the plant’s coordinates and described the earlier impact as a warning shot, and repeated confirmation that no major infrastructure damage was reported. At the same time, Reuters reported that by Thursday Iran had launched multiple new missile waves at Israel, with sirens in Tel Aviv and other areas and at least five people injured. That suggests the broader pattern is not that Iran has lost the ability to strike, but that its direct fire is becoming more intermittent and less dominant than earlier in the conflict. Reuters also cited CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper saying Iranian drone and missile launch rates are down by more than 90 percent. That is the important distinction this morning. Iran can still generate painful and politically charged attacks, especially when it tries to threaten energy or symbolic infrastructure, but the cadence looks less like sustained strategic pressure and more like punctuated salvos inside a broader degradation trend. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ *⃣ STRATEGIC AIR CAMPAIGN OVER IRAN The main operational story overnight was the continued spread of strikes across Iranian territory. Reuters reported that strikes hit a residential zone in Bandar Abbas, a village outside Shiraz where Tasnim said two teenage brothers were killed, and a university building in Isfahan, while the Israeli military said it had completed a wide scale wave of strikes targeting infrastructure in Iran. Open source intel adds the operational texture mainstream coverage only partly captured. It logged eyewitness and opposition sourced reporting of explosions or low flying aircraft in Malard, Shiraz, Tehran, Isfahan, Najafabad, Khomeini Shahr, Qeshm, Talesh, Bandar Abbas, and Aligudarz. It also captured claims of a possible targeted assassination attempt against senior Iranian naval figures in Bandar Abbas and reporting of smoke over the port city after a reported U.S. attempt on a senior figure. Those Bandar Abbas details remain less firmly confirmed than the wider strike wave itself, but they fit the pattern of pressure on Iran’s southern maritime and naval infrastructure. This is the key point. The strike campaign continues to broaden into much more than a narrow nuclear file. It is hitting military infrastructure, industrial capacity, maritime assets, command nodes, and whatever leadership or specialist personnel Israel and the U.S. assess as essential to Iran’s ability to keep fighting and regenerate capability. Reuters’ reporting that Israel completed another large infrastructure wave is consistent with that larger pattern. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ *⃣ LEBANON / HEZBOLLAH FRONT Lebanon remained fully tied to the main war. Reuters reported that Iran told intermediaries Lebanon must be included in any ceasefire arrangement, which is one of the clearest strategic indicators yet that Tehran sees Hezbollah’s position as inseparable from the end state it wants. On the ground, Hezbollah remained active. Jerusalem Post’s live coverage led with two injured after Hezbollah rocket fire in the north and referenced a missile near Hadera as part of the same broad war picture. Reuters separately reported Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem rejecting talks with Israel under fire and vowing fighters would continue “without limits.” Open source intelligence adds the tactical layer: Hezbollah had launched about 120 rockets from populated neighborhoods in Tyre since the start of the operation, that the IDF struck Hezbollah targets including a command center in Dahieh, and that Israeli aircraft eliminated a Hezbollah cell after it launched rockets at IDF forces in southern Lebanon. The practical takeaway is that Hezbollah is not behaving like a secondary theater waiting for diplomacy. It is still an active front and, diplomatically, one of Tehran’s key red lines. That makes Lebanon both a battlefield and a central piece of the bargaining struggle now underway. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ *⃣ GULF / HORMUZ / ENERGY WAR The Gulf front remained one of the most consequential dimensions of the war. Reuters reported that a drone hit a fuel tank at Kuwait International Airport, causing a fire but no casualties. Reuters also reported Gulf Arab states told the U.N. Human Rights Council that Iranian strikes now pose an existential threat. Reuters also reported that Iran is demanding formal control of the Strait of Hormuz as part of its position on ending the war, while AP described Tehran’s counterproposal as including sovereignty over the Strait and continued insistence on its own conditions. Reuters further noted that the Strait remains effectively closed and cited ADNOC chief Sultan Al Jaber calling Iran’s restriction of passage “economic terrorism.” Iranian state messaging framed Hormuz sovereignty, reparations, and guarantees against resumed attacks as core ceasefire conditions, and also warned of broader maritime pressure, including possible escalation around Bab al Mandab, which is highly relevant as a reflection of the regime’s messaging line. This is why the Gulf theater matters so much this morning. Tehran’s leverage is no longer just missiles into Israel. It is also maritime chokehold, energy disruption, and the threat of widening economic pain across the region and beyond. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ *⃣ POLITICAL / DIPLOMATIC DEVELOPMENTS Diplomatically, the most important development was not progress but clarity. Reuters reported that Iran is reviewing a U.S. ceasefire proposal but says there are no negotiations, while Iranian officials publicly mocked Washington’s claims that talks are under way. Reuters also reported the U.S. proposal contains sweeping demands ranging from dismantling Iran’s nuclear program and curbing missiles to effectively handing over control of Hormuz, while Tehran is demanding guarantees, compensation, formal Strait control, and Lebanon’s inclusion. Iranian state television also carrying language that Tehran will end the war when it decides to do so and only on its own conditions showing the regime is posturing and why a quick off ramp still looks unlikely. On the Israeli side, the government approved a reserve call up ceiling of up to 400,000 reservists, according to Times of Israel. That does not mean all are being mobilized immediately, but it is a strong indicator that Jerusalem wants maximum flexibility for a conflict that still spans Iran and Lebanon simultaneously. In related news the Knesset committee move toward a special military tribunal for October 7 perpetrators and a separate death penalty push. Those are not central operational developments for the war front, but they do show the political system continuing to harden in parallel with the regional conflict. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ *⃣ WHAT MATTERS MOST RIGHT NOW What changed in the last 24 hours is that the war kept widening sideways even as Iran’s direct military pressure on Israel looked less overwhelming than earlier phases. ➡️Inside Iran, the strike campaign remained broad, geographically dispersed, and increasingly focused on infrastructure that matters to long term war capacity. ➡️Against Israel, Tehran still showed it can threaten high value targets and generate fresh missile waves, but the pattern looks more episodic than dominant. ➡️In Lebanon, Hezbollah remained active and politically central to any prospective endgame. In the Gulf, the war’s economic and maritime dimension kept hardening, which may now be one of Tehran’s most important remaining pressure tools. ➡️And politically Tehran is not signaling real compromise. It is signaling defiance, maximalist conditions, and an attempt to preserve leverage through Hormuz and Hezbollah while absorbing continued military punishment. That is the signal leading this morning. Not that the war is cooling. It is that Iran’s center of gravity is continuing to shift from sustained direct fire toward a more distributed strategy of intermittent strikes, regional proxy pressure, and maritime coercion while Israel keeps trying to cut deeper into the infrastructure that makes those options possible. **Special thanks to Michael W for your continued contribution to the open-source intel picture behind these updates. If you aren't already, give him a follow and stay informed.

🚨 While you were asleep, the war shifted. Here’s how... OPERATIONAL UPDATE: ISRAEL U.S. WAR WITH THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC - 3/25 to 3/26 • Israel sustained a broad overnight strike campaign inside Iran, with Reuters reporting a wide new strike wave and your outbox capturing repeated explosions and reported air activity in Isfahan, Shiraz, Tehran, Bandar Abbas, Qeshm, Najafabad, Khomeini Shahr, and other locations. • Iran’s direct fire into Israel remained dangerous but uneven. A missile fell near Hadera in what appeared to be an attempted strike near the Orot Rabin power station, while additional Iranian missile waves hit central Israel on Thursday morning. • Hezbollah kept the northern and central threat picture active, with Israeli and Jerusalem Post reporting indicating rocket fire toward northern Israel and the Tel Aviv area while Israel continued strikes on Hezbollah infrastructure in Lebanon. • Diplomacy did not meaningfully advance. Reuters reported Tehran is reviewing a U.S. proposal while rejecting the idea of actual negotiations, demanding formal control of Hormuz, guarantees against renewed attacks, and Lebanon’s inclusion in any ceasefire framework. • The Gulf and wider regional fronts stayed central. Kuwait’s airport fuel tank was hit by a drone, Gulf states told the U.N. Iranian attacks pose an existential threat, and your transcript underscored Tehran’s messaging that it intends to tie any endgame to Hormuz and potentially wider maritime pressure. The defining narrative in this reporting window was not a single headline strike but the shape of the war itself. Israel kept pressing deeper and wider inside Iran, Iran remained defiant in public while signaling maximalist terms through intermediaries, Hezbollah stayed fully engaged, and the Gulf front continued to harden. Tehran’s messaging was not the language of de escalation. It was the language of a regime trying to preserve leverage through Hormuz, Hezbollah, and regional coercion even as the military pressure on its own infrastructure intensified. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⃣ IRANIAN MISSILE ATTACKS ON ISRAEL The clearest operational signal on the Israeli home front was the missile that fell near Hadera. Times of Israel reported that the impact was in an open area near the IEC’s major power station and that no infrastructure damage was caused. That matters because the targeting logic appears to have been strategic infrastructure, not just another general population area. Open source intel reporting strengthens that reading with reporting tying the strike area to the Orot Rabin facility, later messaging that Iran had publicized the plant’s coordinates and described the earlier impact as a warning shot, and repeated confirmation that no major infrastructure damage was reported. At the same time, Reuters reported that by Thursday Iran had launched multiple new missile waves at Israel, with sirens in Tel Aviv and other areas and at least five people injured. That suggests the broader pattern is not that Iran has lost the ability to strike, but that its direct fire is becoming more intermittent and less dominant than earlier in the conflict. Reuters also cited CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper saying Iranian drone and missile launch rates are down by more than 90 percent. That is the important distinction this morning. Iran can still generate painful and politically charged attacks, especially when it tries to threaten energy or symbolic infrastructure, but the cadence looks less like sustained strategic pressure and more like punctuated salvos inside a broader degradation trend. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⃣ STRATEGIC AIR CAMPAIGN OVER IRAN The main operational story overnight was the continued spread of strikes across Iranian territory. Reuters reported that strikes hit a residential zone in Bandar Abbas, a village outside Shiraz where Tasnim said two teenage brothers were killed, and a university building in Isfahan, while the Israeli military said it had completed a wide scale wave of strikes targeting infrastructure in Iran. Open source intel adds the operational texture mainstream coverage only partly captured. It logged eyewitness and opposition sourced reporting of explosions or low flying aircraft in Malard, Shiraz, Tehran, Isfahan, Najafabad, Khomeini Shahr, Qeshm, Talesh, Bandar Abbas, and Aligudarz. It also captured claims of a possible targeted assassination attempt against senior Iranian naval figures in Bandar Abbas and reporting of smoke over the port city after a reported U.S. attempt on a senior figure. Those Bandar Abbas details remain less firmly confirmed than the wider strike wave itself, but they fit the pattern of pressure on Iran’s southern maritime and naval infrastructure. This is the key point. The strike campaign continues to broaden into much more than a narrow nuclear file. It is hitting military infrastructure, industrial capacity, maritime assets, command nodes, and whatever leadership or specialist personnel Israel and the U.S. assess as essential to Iran’s ability to keep fighting and regenerate capability. Reuters’ reporting that Israel completed another large infrastructure wave is consistent with that larger pattern. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⃣ LEBANON / HEZBOLLAH FRONT Lebanon remained fully tied to the main war. Reuters reported that Iran told intermediaries Lebanon must be included in any ceasefire arrangement, which is one of the clearest strategic indicators yet that Tehran sees Hezbollah’s position as inseparable from the end state it wants. On the ground, Hezbollah remained active. Jerusalem Post’s live coverage led with two injured after Hezbollah rocket fire in the north and referenced a missile near Hadera as part of the same broad war picture. Reuters separately reported Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem rejecting talks with Israel under fire and vowing fighters would continue “without limits.” Open source intelligence adds the tactical layer: Hezbollah had launched about 120 rockets from populated neighborhoods in Tyre since the start of the operation, that the IDF struck Hezbollah targets including a command center in Dahieh, and that Israeli aircraft eliminated a Hezbollah cell after it launched rockets at IDF forces in southern Lebanon. The practical takeaway is that Hezbollah is not behaving like a secondary theater waiting for diplomacy. It is still an active front and, diplomatically, one of Tehran’s key red lines. That makes Lebanon both a battlefield and a central piece of the bargaining struggle now underway. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⃣ GULF / HORMUZ / ENERGY WAR The Gulf front remained one of the most consequential dimensions of the war. Reuters reported that a drone hit a fuel tank at Kuwait International Airport, causing a fire but no casualties. Reuters also reported Gulf Arab states told the U.N. Human Rights Council that Iranian strikes now pose an existential threat. Reuters also reported that Iran is demanding formal control of the Strait of Hormuz as part of its position on ending the war, while AP described Tehran’s counterproposal as including sovereignty over the Strait and continued insistence on its own conditions. Reuters further noted that the Strait remains effectively closed and cited ADNOC chief Sultan Al Jaber calling Iran’s restriction of passage “economic terrorism.” Iranian state messaging framed Hormuz sovereignty, reparations, and guarantees against resumed attacks as core ceasefire conditions, and also warned of broader maritime pressure, including possible escalation around Bab al Mandab, which is highly relevant as a reflection of the regime’s messaging line. This is why the Gulf theater matters so much this morning. Tehran’s leverage is no longer just missiles into Israel. It is also maritime chokehold, energy disruption, and the threat of widening economic pain across the region and beyond. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⃣ POLITICAL / DIPLOMATIC DEVELOPMENTS Diplomatically, the most important development was not progress but clarity. Reuters reported that Iran is reviewing a U.S. ceasefire proposal but says there are no negotiations, while Iranian officials publicly mocked Washington’s claims that talks are under way. Reuters also reported the U.S. proposal contains sweeping demands ranging from dismantling Iran’s nuclear program and curbing missiles to effectively handing over control of Hormuz, while Tehran is demanding guarantees, compensation, formal Strait control, and Lebanon’s inclusion. Iranian state television also carrying language that Tehran will end the war when it decides to do so and only on its own conditions showing the regime is posturing and why a quick off ramp still looks unlikely. On the Israeli side, the government approved a reserve call up ceiling of up to 400,000 reservists, according to Times of Israel. That does not mean all are being mobilized immediately, but it is a strong indicator that Jerusalem wants maximum flexibility for a conflict that still spans Iran and Lebanon simultaneously. In related news the Knesset committee move toward a special military tribunal for October 7 perpetrators and a separate death penalty push. Those are not central operational developments for the war front, but they do show the political system continuing to harden in parallel with the regional conflict. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⃣ WHAT MATTERS MOST RIGHT NOW What changed in the last 24 hours is that the war kept widening sideways even as Iran’s direct military pressure on Israel looked less overwhelming than earlier phases. ➡️Inside Iran, the strike campaign remained broad, geographically dispersed, and increasingly focused on infrastructure that matters to long term war capacity. ➡️Against Israel, Tehran still showed it can threaten high value targets and generate fresh missile waves, but the pattern looks more episodic than dominant. ➡️In Lebanon, Hezbollah remained active and politically central to any prospective endgame. In the Gulf, the war’s economic and maritime dimension kept hardening, which may now be one of Tehran’s most important remaining pressure tools. ➡️And politically Tehran is not signaling real compromise. It is signaling defiance, maximalist conditions, and an attempt to preserve leverage through Hormuz and Hezbollah while absorbing continued military punishment. That is the signal leading this morning. Not that the war is cooling. It is that Iran’s center of gravity is continuing to shift from sustained direct fire toward a more distributed strategy of intermittent strikes, regional proxy pressure, and maritime coercion while Israel keeps trying to cut deeper into the infrastructure that makes those options possible. **Special thanks to Michael W for your continued contribution to the open-source intel picture behind these updates. If you aren't already, give him a follow and stay informed.

Inside_Israel_Intel

105,623 views • 6 months ago