Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

The most entertaining poker table?! I nominate these nutcases Ninja Steve Aoki phil_hellmuth Cyan Banister Daniel Weinand Jason Koon @JoelleParenteau

91,589 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

2 Kommentare

Profilbild von Kevin Ochoa-Morey
Kevin Ochoa-Moreyvor 1 Jahr

@Ninja @steveaoki @phil_hellmuth @cyantist @danielweinand @JasonKoon @JoelleParenteau Rocking the @100theives1 hoodie too 😎

Profilbild von Rowdy Knights Club Mushroom Coffee
Rowdy Knights Club Mushroom Coffeevor 2 Jahren

👣 Follow us @Rowdy_Knights on X and RT this post for future Rowdy Contests 🎁 Announcing the winners of our $30 Amazon US gift card giveaway, sponsored by @amplegoods: @battles_trevor @ffrostchu @RobPhelps01 @_LuigiLeo @diggerprays @vide84 @JustCari82 @ClearTheList2 @metippie WINNERS - We'll DM you for where to email the amazon gift card, or feel free to DM us anytime!

Ähnliche Videos

“NO way you can exploit or adapt when you play SO MANY TABLES” A lot of people think I just autopilot. Playing tight ABC poker. But the REAL work happens away from the tables. I never blindly apply what a solver tells me to do. What helped me far more was thousands of hours of coaching, understanding how real players think, understanding their leaks, weaknesses, and emotional tendencies. Why would I force a GTO bluffcatch when I know a population massively underbluffs a spot? But this requires serious work outside the game and not being afraid to exploit, even if it looks stupid. I spent thousands of hours with other poker players discussing strategies, reviewing hands, and seeing other players' perspectives. And what I do best? I can shut my fucking mouth and listen to people who are ahead of me and soak up knowledge like a sponge. Also, a lot of time went into... ▶️Studying my database ▶️Taking notes constantly ▶️Researching population tendencies ▶️Working on my mindset so I never tilt. And then comes the part most people underestimate. No cap, I spent 10,000+ hours in HRC and other programs analyzing spots where people are too tight or too loose and building counter-strategies against those mistakes. Building systems I can simply execute. AGAIN, NOT blindly following GTO strategies. A lot of the outputs I found were useless, and I would never consider applying them. That created massive automatisms in my game. I don’t need 20 seconds to make a big exploitative adjustment. I often need one second. Because I’ve built deep patterns of recognition over many years. One example: After researching huge database samples across all stakes, I realized that facing a 3-barrel, especially after a big flop sizing, followed by a big river bet (80%+), is massively underbluffed population-wise. So when I face this spot, I simply fold most bluffcatchers without hesitation. Boom, next spot. You waste 20 seconds, I need 1 second. This irritates many GTO warriors because they can’t distinguish between theoretical poker and realistic poker. Of course, at Highstakes, you will find players who overbluff. That’s why I constantly review big final tables, study my own hands, and take notes every single week. But my biggest focus will always be exploiting weaker opponents, recreationals, and bad regulars. That’s where the money is made. I put my ego aside. If some elite players re-exploit me because of my exploitative style, fine. So be it. I’d rather crush 90 out of 100 players and lose a bit against the other 10 than try to play some perfectly balanced theoretical strategy against everyone. And again, people think this takes a huge amount of in-game time. It doesn’t. Humans are patterns. You play against the same player types over and over again: 🪨Nits 🤪Maniacs 😺Weak regulars 🧠Solid regs 🐟Fish 🐳Whales You learn to adapt within seconds. Of course, my winrate would probably be higher if I played 10-15 tables instead of 20-25. But my hourly rate would be lower. And you don’t need to jump to 20 tables. This approach can already massively help when moving: from 1to 5 tables from 3 to 5 tables from 8 to 10 tables Very often, players study spots that barely matter in reality. Take bluffcatching, for example. Why waste 15-20 seconds trying to find the “perfect GTO bluffcatcher” when the population simply doesn’t bluff enough? Just call hands that beat value. And if someone is a maniac? Call all your bluffcatchers. No player bluffs at correct frequencies anyway. All the randomizing, overthinking, and solver worship often becomes completely unnecessary in real games. And these exploit opportunities exist everywhere: ▶️Preflop ▶️Postflop ▶️Multiway ▶️ICM spots ▶️PKOs That’s exactly why I built multiple Exploitative Courses inside Raise Your Edge. Free and Paid. Simple. Straightforward. Practical. So players can gradually add more and more high-EV exploits to their game. At the end of the day, I only care about one thing: What makes you the most money? Not what gives you the highest solver score. Aiming for Solver players will unnecessarily confuse you, take you more time in-game, and hinder you from increasing your table count. And you spend all that time studying and wonder why you are stuck. Well, your approach sucks. Last week, we uploaded a BRAND-NEW GUIDE on YouTube (its FREE) on how to make your first $10,000 with Online Poker. Very structured, all the tools you need WITHOUT spending a SINGLE DOLLAR! Link below.

bencb

37,267 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Scott Brooks: "You can argue the [Lakers] had the best player ever to play the game [Kobe] for 20 years..." Pat Riley: "He ranks right there with Jordan." David Stern: "Kobe is there with Michael." Dr J.: "[Kobe's] as good as anyone who's ever played. Let's put it that way." George Gervin: "He set himself apart from everyone else." Kevin Durant: "How do you not say [Kobe and Jordan] are by far better than anybody who's played the game?" Isaiah Thomas: “I mean, he’s the greatest of all time in life and in basketball." Adeyemi Adediran (B/R 2010): "KOBE BRYANT IS THE GREATEST PLAYER TO EVER TOUCH A BASKETBALL." Jerry Rice: "Greatest of all time. You have to earn that title, and I think Kobe did that." Randy Moss: "Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player that I've ever seen dribble a basketball." Mark Jackson: "I never thought I would say it playing against Michael Jordan for so long but Kobe Bryant at the end of the day...will go down as the greatest basketball player that has ever lived." Mark Schlererh: "One time, one game, I'm taking Kobe Bryant." Paul Pierce: "If a game is on the line and I need one game, I want Kob." Steve Smith: "He's the best, most fundamentaly [sound] player I've ever played against or watched." Kendrick Perkins: "Most skilled to EVER play the game, it's not even a debate." Chauncey Billups: "I think Kobe is more skilled than any player that's ever played." Phil Jackson when asked if Kobe has better basketball skills than Michael Jordan: "He does." Vince Carter: "I mean, I still have to give it (GOAT) to Michael Jordan, with a close Kobe Bryant 2nd." Paul Westphal: "Who is to say Kobe Bryant isn’t going to be better than Michael Jordan? Let’s get that out on the table right now. He’s a lot better than Jordan was at the same age." Shaq: "If you want to have that conversation (GOAT), there has to be another name added to that - Kobe." Rip Hamilton: "Whoever voted Kobe [at 10] flat out disrespected him...when Magic comes out and says Kobe is the best Laker of all-time, that means better than him and better than the guy Magic played with, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar." Rudy Tomjanovich: "I truly believe [Kobe] has the chance to become the greatest player to ever play the game." Greg Anthony: "Kobe Bryant is the most complete basketball player the game has ever seen." Shaq: "You know what, I had the greatest player ever. We could've won six or seven championships, but you live and you learn." Allen Iverson: "I don't understand how they don't have the debate when it comes to Kobe." Mike Breen: "It's starting to happen again Mark, the conversation, the debate on is [Kobe] as good as Michael Jordan. It's been blasphemy to say it, really about anybody, but it's an actual discussion you can have now. Mark Jackson: "Well I said it a year and a half ago, no way in the world would I ever put anybody in the conversation with Michael Jordan but Kobe Bryant is there. He's as good as Michael Jordan on any given day. I said to Bryant yesterday,, 'it's almost like Larry Holmes and Muhammad Ali.' He looked at me and said, 'I'm not Larry Holmes.' And he is 100% right. It is two Muhammad Ali's when you talk about Jordan and Bryant." Grant Taylor (B/R 2011): "Players that come to mind are Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan. But I've now officially put Kobe Bryant on this list, and judging by the title of this article, it is clear I'm not just saying he belongs with these players. No. Kobe Bryant is the greatest and most legendary of all these players." Charles Barkley: "Kobe Bryant is the best player I’ve ever seen other than Michael Jordan." Matt Barnes: "To me, Jordan is 1 and Kobe is 1B." Phil Jackson on who he'd pick to start a team with between Kobe and Jordan: “I’d do a coin flip and whichever one came up heads or tails, I would take that person.”

8/24MαɱႦα.Aɾƈԋιʋҽʂ🐐

137,075 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.

Arjun Mahadevan (Mr. LLC 🇺🇸)

37,744 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Dear Global Pioneers, I am pleased and honored to introduce the "Greater China Pi Network GCV Ecological Development Pi Circulation Promotion Exchange Conference," scheduled to take place on Tencent on 10/13/2024 from 8:00 pm China Beijing Time, with an estimated duration of 2.5 hours.🎉🎉🎉🎉 I am grateful for the opportunity to participate as a guest speaker. The conference will also feature speeches from esteemed Global GCV Ambassadors, including Mr. Liang Shi, Head of China GCV Ambassador, Mr. Patrick Chua, Head of Malaysia GCV Ambassador, and Mr. Jason Wong, Global GCV CT Education Director. The event will be directed by Mr. Daniel Chen, China GCV Ambassador who also serves as the Global GCV CT Ecosystem Development Director. The conference will include 14 speakers. There are five China GCV Ambassadors and nine province GCV Ambassadors from Beijing, Henan, Guangdong, Hunan, Shanxi, Sichuan, Jiangsu, and Heilongjiang. The event will be hosted by Ms. Su Ping. The China community has been the cornerstone of GCV who provide significant support from June 2022 to August 2023. Despite challenges related to cash flow and Pi wallets, they still insist for more than one year with 100 million USD value products. I transitioned my focus from China to the Global community in Aug. 2023 to ensure all GCV transactions can be record on Blockchain because most Chinese pioneers did not have Pi in their wallets to produce GCV data. I am deeply appreciative of the exceptional contributions of the Chinese community, whose support was instrumental in propelling the global GCV movement. Your inspiration and motivation have been invaluable. I am deeply honored and grateful to be taking part in the upcoming nationwide conference. Due to the large China community and the capacity limitations of Tencent conference rooms, one hundred volunteers have been recruited to live broadcast the event, with the aim of reaching a broader audience of pioneers. It's important to clarify that this doesn't involve 100 TV channels, but rather 100 individual volunteer pioneers. These volunteers will be streaming the live conference to enable more pioneers to listen in, as Tencent's conference room has limitations, while there are 20 million Chinese pioneers, with an expected audience of at least 50,000 to 100,000 on line. I've noticed some confusion about this, which I believe may be due to a translation error. Let's look forward to the upcoming China Tencent Conference with great anticipation! Pi Network Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 October 3rd, 2024

Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷

16,241 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Poland is extraordinary, and I decided to add some information to a video, adding insight, information, and little-known facts. I love Polish history, culture, people, food, and especially their attitudes and loyal friendships. Some people don't like Polish, probably because they don't know them - some people don't like me because I like Polish. People should have more self-reflection instead of so much hate for other people. This behavior is a human problem, and it affects too many people. Perhaps one day, instead of finding the bad in everyone, we could find the good. I find so many positive attributes in the Polish people, and that's why I advocate for them and talk about their astonishing history because I believe more people should know. First, Poland should not exist historically. Germany and Russia have been trying to eat it up for centuries. Poland is the bloodlands of Europe, sitting in between these two monsters. It did not exist for 123 years, but the people although, split between three nations – Austria as well was meant to be obliterated, and the people assimilated, they kept their culture together and came back alive in 1919, just in time to save Europe from Bolshevism. The Reds were invading and bringing this deadly virus into Europe, but the Poles stopped them just in time. Perhaps without them, you may be in a labor camp right now? I bet you didn't know that? This salvation was not the first time the Polish saved European civilization, In 1683, Vienna was under siege by the Turks; right on the cusp of breaching the city, making their way into Europe, ripe for spreading Islam, the Polish saved the day. This time an army led by King Jan Sobieski and his winged hussar cavalry routs the army – this ends the long years of encroachment into Europe. A little more information. Poles seem everywhere; this time, a cavalryman named Pulaski and an engineer Kosciusko traveled to America to help Washington. Pulaski saved Washington from sure death or capture when encircled at Brandywine. Pulaski's title is the father of the American cavalry. Kosciusko's engineering was crucial to the victory of turning the tide at the battle of Saratoga; He made it possible for the Americans to make a successful retreat. Perhaps without these two Poles, there would be no United States. This is not an exaggeration. Individuals and individual decisions often make history. Just think of that today if not for Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison, or Tesla; we may not be watching this. Many of us are more familiar with World War II, though Poland is the least appreciated and most manipulated nation from that era. The war began because of the invasion of Poland by the Germans, and most people don't know that the Soviets invaded Poland 16 days later, yet they would be considered our allies - they were no better and, in fact, casualty-wise, worse. The Soviets murdered 22 thousand Polish officers at Katyn, and between 1937 -1938, over 100 thousand Poles died in a Soviet genocide. Many Russians themselves were victims. The problem is that our Western intellectuals have been promoting this ideology. Many of these horrific crimes have been covered up, and much of it is. Like 100 million dead from communism isn't enough, will it work next time? Unlike what you hear, the Polish actually fought quite hard against the Germans, but they couldn't do that for long because they were attacked on two flanks. Some of the Polish armies were capable of escaping, and the Polish army in exile made up the fourth-largest allied army. The Polish had an underground army with more than the French resistance you always hear about. Still, the Polish didn't get to sit at the winner's table as the French, although the French even had a collaborative government. Poland never surrendered to the invaders and fought from the first to the last day of the war. There were cooperating governments in many other countries but not in Poland. The Polish underground army was a phenomenon on a worldwide and historical scale. They had a 650,000-man army - 400,000 AK soldiers and 250,000 volunteers fighting alongside the Allies in the West. Without them, the war may have been very different, and this is beyond doubt for Polish pilots that came to the rescue of the British pilots when they most needed them. The Battle of Britain was pivotal, and we know that the Polish pilots were game-changers. Indeed, even more, the Poles were the ones the broke the Enigma code, which deciphered German secrets. Imagine what may have happened without these geniuses? These are just a few of the many ways the Polish played a role in World War II, but how often do you hear about them? Maybe their inability to march in the victory parade in London would foretell some of why. Even though the war was won and the Polish came to their rescue, the British didn't want to offend the Communist Stalin, to whom they gave Poland after the war. The Polish were betrayed at the start of the war and would be betrayed at the end. No real liberation would come until 1989, and still, to this day; they are betrayed by dishonest historians, who we call neo-Stalinists, intent on defaming the Polish after all they have been through. This is why it is vital to check out your reading to ensure it is factual and not manipulated. Today, this history is being abused for various agendas, including one that involves a lot of money. When this is at stake, so-called historians will work hand in hand with those who want that money. We all know what money does. The country has been invaded or has fought for freedom in insurrections over 40 times. Poland adopted its first written constitution in the spring of 1791, which was the 2nd in the world valid legal document of the kind. The Old Town that you can see in Warsaw isn't the actual Old Town from before the war. The original was bombed entirely in the 40s, and Poles rebuilt it after the war using Bernardo Bellotto's detailed paintings. It now looks as it did in the 18th century rather than the 20th. Marie Curie, who discovered Polon and Rad, wasn't French but Polish. Her name was Marie Sklodowska before she married a Frenchman named Pierre Curie. She was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, the first and only woman to win twice, and the only person to win a Nobel Prize in two different sciences. Joseph Conrad was actually Polish too. Poland has the second oldest university in the whole of Europe - Jagiellonian University, founded by King Casimir III the Great in the year 1364. The most famous astronomer in the world was from Poland. Nicolaus Copernicus was also a Renaissance mathematician. There have been 17 different Nobel Prize winners from Poland. This speech is just the tip of the iceberg for Polish history. There is much more to explore – I challenge you to start your journey. Thanks for viewing!🙏

Edward Reid

284,662 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Scientists Social media hacks/politicians, and others seeking notoriety continue to say the people below who are missing/deceased have some sort of nexus. They even say the U.S. Government could be behind it. I am serious! That's what some say. It's just not true. Breaking down the cases 1 by 1 over the 3 to 4 year time frame alleged: Maiwald- 61 and Hicks- 59 both died of Natural causes per ME/Information from Obituaries 2 down Leureiro and Grillmar- They were murdered. Leureiro by the crazed Brown shooter who admitted to the murder later confirmed by LE. He didn't even have a clearance. He instructed about plasma for MIT for heaven's sake. Grillmair was 67. He didn't have clearance either. He taught about water vapor and infared processing. He was killed by a career criminal on a crime spree. 4 Down Jason Thomas, 46 No clearance. He was in the Bio-Med field. Likely killed himself, tragically, distraught over recent deaths in his family, according to loved ones. He was found in a lake. 5 Down Charles Eskridge died of suicide - Confirmed. No Clearance. He was a DNA analyst. 6 Down Melissa Casias was an Admin Assistant. No Clearance. Worked at Los Alamos that employs 18,000 people. She left everything behind and even reset her phone before she left. Suicide is suspected. 7 Down Anthony Chavez- 78. Suspected suicide. He left on foot leaving his personal effects behind and was an avid hiker. 78 is a high suicide catagory for males. He developed tools for planet exploration. He retired clear back in 2017, his clearance long expired. 8 Down Steve Garcia, 35. He handled procurement for the National Nuclear Security Administration. He had a clearance. He is believed to have killed himself. He left alone and with his effects with a gun. LE says he was a danger to himself per their investigation. Suspected suicide. Still missing. 9 Down Monica Reza-Jet Propulsion Laboratory. She had a clearance. She developed a special metal back in 1999/2000 time frame. She went hiking in a group. The last hiker to see her has been questioned. This is a probable hiking accident. She didn't mess with aliens. JPL employs 4,500 and NASA employs about 14,000. Again she was hiking with a group. 10 Down Finally, the man who ignited the unbelievable narrative from SM people trying to make some sort of name for themselves that there is some conspiracy to take down US scientists (most of the people in question aren't even scientists): Retired Maj. General William McCasland had health issues that he told his wife he wasn't sure if he wanted to live with. He left his home in the morning with nothing but his ID, and revolver, amd hiking boots. He wore prescription glasses and need them to see. He didn't take them or his phone or anything else. He worked at the highest levels at JLP 13 years ago. He and Reza both worked for JLP at one time decades ago, but he was levels above her. There is no conspiracy to knock of these folks. There is no connectivity, few even had a clearance, and the deaths and disappearances of most of these folks are logically explained. Occam's Razor P.S. If you want to follow a much more statistically interesting set of deaths and missing, look into Long Haul Drivers. I know, not sexy enough. P.S. Glad the government will look into this to put this to rest. #scientists #Conspiracytheorists P.S. Please don't reelect a guy who does 0 research before opening his mouth.

Jennifer Coffindaffer

29,466 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

In trading, the common advice is to control two emotions - fear and greed. However, for nearly every trader I've encountered, including myself, anger and depression remain as constant undertones. They are the primary drivers of superperformance. Here's how: ✉️ I am usually a calm and happy person, and very rarely lose my temper. Despite the many years spent honing the craft of trading, I've never truly felt the overt confidence or exuberance that many fintwits often exhibit. Even though the primal errors have been eliminated and my game has transitioned to mental and emotional acuity, there are often times when I feel angry and frustrated with my performance, despite reaching new highs in my equity curve. It was during a Kristjan Kullamägi 🇺🇦 stream, where he discussed his mental state during his trading journey, that I recognized blind spots in my own trading. In poker terms, I'm an internal 'tilter' - I conceal my anger and frustration. Rather than showing external reactions, I become quieter and tenser. This change shows up in my risk-taking behaviour, as I start to take lower open risk or prematurely sell off profitable positions. However, this is a common phenomenon amongst traders, regardless of their experience and skill level. It was brilliantly conceptualized by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in the Prospect Theory. Pain of losing > Joy of winning Consider an investor presented with two pitches for the same mutual fund: 1) Mutual Fund XYZ has averaged a return of 10% per annum over the last 3 years. 2) Mutual Fund XYZ has returned 25%, 15%, and -10% over the last 3 years. Both options essentially mean the same (ignoring compounding). However, most people choose option 1 over option 2. This is due to the Prospect theory, which states that people tend to pick options that show perceived gains rather than losses. Even when probabilities and outcomes are identical, individuals tend to prefer options that steer clear of potential losses. The theory suggests that losses have a more significant emotional impact on an individual than an equivalent amount of gains. The emotional toll of getting stopped out at (-) 1R is much higher than the satisfaction of a trade where you gain (+) 1R. Therefore, like most traders, if your win rate fluctuates between 35-65%, it still has a net negative impact on your emotional state. The influence of Prospect Theory is particularly significant in trading, where we risk not just our capital, but also our emotional well-being, effort, and time. Even in a job you dislike, you still receive a paycheck at the end of the month. However, in trading, losses and the uncertainty of profits affect us more deeply because a good effort doesn't always yield a positive outcome. The joy of winning doesn't fully compensate for the pain, especially when both outcomes stem from the same process. Winning becomes more about escaping the distress of losing than generating happiness in itself. However, Prospect Theory simply describes a pattern of human behavior. It's not an immutable law like gravity - behaviors can be identified and changed. Mapping Tilt In a bull market such as the current one, the tilt often isn't about stop losses, but rather about missed opportunities and profits. It's exciting to see the price rapidly increase when you enter a clean breakout, reaching multiples of your R within minutes. Unrealized profit often feels like it's already yours. However, as soon as the positions start turning against you, tilt seeps in because it feels like your money is being taken away. These are precisely the moments of weakness when you lose sight of your trade objective and settle for smaller profits. At the end of the day, or when you step back from the overflow of tilt, you estimate how much your portfolio could have grown if you had just held on to that position. This is a fool's errand. Knowing the right course of action in retrospect is fundamentally different from knowing what to do beforehand. Even though you understand this, a part of you can't resist indulging in the fantasy, which in turn increases your frustration. This is an excerpt from my earlier notes on how I mapped out my problem. The mental framework is based on what I learned from Jared Tendler 's excellent book, "The Mental Game of Trading." 1) What’s the problem: When I'm up in a trade, I believe I've earned the profits because of the hard work I put into identifying opportunities and adhering to my process. I don't want the price to drop back to my cost. If it does, all my efforts would be wasted and I wouldn't even secure the minimal profit I'm entitled to. 2) Why does the problem exist: I start to contemplate the utility value of the money - the unrealized profit equates to 3 months of my home loan EMI, 8 months of rent, or a family vacation. I believe I am deserving of a reward for my diligent effort and execution, and I am unwilling to let it slip away. 3) What is flawed: The aim of my trading isn't to support my everyday expenses or lifestyle, but instead to build generational wealth. By taking smaller profits prematurely, I'm limiting the leverage that could magnify the returns on my effort and time - same input with disproportionately larger output. The unrealised profit is not my money yet. 4) What’s the correction: Realised profit is the only profit that truly matters. A trade isn't successful when it becomes risk-free, but when you can leverage unrealised profits to achieve larger realised profits. 5) What logic confirms this correction: It is easy to start trading but easier to settle for mediocrity once you have started. Scaling up your portfolio will require you to overcome mental barriers more than technical ones. You also didn't learn to drive just to stay in second gear. Closing Note Anger arises when underlying flaws, biases, or illusions conflict with reality. At a fundamental level, anger represents this conflict which every elite performer has used as a core trigger to channel their performance. Don't be swayed by the false bravado and portrayed perfection on social media. Superperformance as a trader involves enduring trials by fire, which regularly include prolonged bouts of anger and frustration. In the longer term, your skills and willingness to take risks are what will generate wealth. As Kristjan Kullamägi 🇺🇦 puts it, everyone is in the same miserable boat -

Anuragg Venkatakrishnan

21,379 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

"If you have the facts and the law on your side, you don't need to pound the table, Mr. Bederow!" Here's my overview as to why Robert Cosgrove stalling for months to get a protective order for Lindsey Gaetani's phone extraction (that Brian Tully leaked, unredacted, after only removing messages from Tully to Lindsey and from PI Kate Peter to Lindsey) is Aidan Kearney's strongest argument for Cosgrove's recusal. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I am a towel. TRANSCRIPT: Before Ms. Gaetani accused him of intentional misconduct, Mr. Cosgrove successfully fought to prevent the public release of embarrassing and private details from her personal life by seeking broad impoundment and protective orders. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I don't care if you weren't on the case at that point - you don't get that wrong. I'm sorry, I have to object on fact. Olivia, that is not what happened. Olivia prides herself on a knowledge of the factual record. Olivia, that is not what happened. You wanna know what happened? You want me to lay it out for you? I'll do it. April 2024. Brian Tully, personally --well, Ken Mello is in the hospital-- takes a 15-year unredacted extraction of Lindsey Gaetani's cell phone, compared to Natalie, who was allowed to submit her cell phone to a private company and remove things before Tully got the extraction of Natalie's phone. Ms. Hoity-Toity over there. Fuck your aristocracy, fuck your Hollywood, fuck yourself. Anyway, so Tully, in all his infinite fucking wisdom, removes messages from Kate Peter to Lindsey and from Tully to Lindsey before leaking this extraction while Ken Mello's in the fucking hospital. Then Ken Mello invokes the clawback provision of the discovery rules in Bradl's—like, I'm Tim Bradl. He was being Tim Bradl. As much as I blame Aidan and Tim Bradl for being Aidan and Tim Bradl, they were just proxies here. Folks, Tully was the mastermind and Jason Broyles was the intended recipient so that Broyles could attack Lindsey and myself to get credibility with Turtle Riders, to get close to Aidan so he could feed intel back to Kate and Tully, in my opinion. Anyway, the point is, that's in April. Tully doesn't even return Lindsey's call for like six days and then he's like, eh, meh. Of course he was like, meh, because he's a motherfucker, in my opinion. I mean, not lovingly. So anyway, this motherfucker goes about his business, doesn't give a fuck. Cosgrove doesn't do fucking shit until September of 2024. And he knows it. And everybody knows it. That motherfucker goes into court - oh, I get in a mood about this. That motherfucker goes into court in September of 2024 and fucking writes a handwritten fucking protective order, being like, oh, it's okay if Aiden keeps a copy of the phone and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That was in front of Judge Squires Lee. That was the same day that Lindsey got sabotaged at the courthouse by a court clerk...no comment. I love most of those clerks. They're wonderful. I love the court officers. I don't like what happened that day. I don't like it at all. Anyway, so I go in there -- wait a minute, what were we talking about? Oh, right. I think I was watching court that day. I was either watching or there, and Lindsey is there and Tully's -- Cosgrove's there and Bradl's there. And Judge Squires Lee is like, ah, you know, go write the agreement. So Cosgrove and Bradl write it by hand and file it. Fucking bullshit. You know how I -- now I'm not saying Judge Squires Lee did anything wrong. I think the clerk kind of misled her because she was in the bag for Jen McCabe, which is a whole different story. But the point is, so the one thing that Judge Squires Lee did that made me realize that I think she caught on to the fact that the clerks fucked around was that Judge Squires Lee entered an order on the docket permanently allowing Lindsey to file pleadings. So anytime Lindsey could just go in and they'd be like, no - -Lindsey could be like, I have an order from Judge Squires Lee. It was the strangest thing. Anyway, so that kind of-- but I don't really know what to make of all that. Anyway, so it's bullshit though. That is wrong from Bederow. And I'll tell you why: because it wasn't until Lindsey made a motion, okay, about this protective order that Judge Krupp on December 27th, 2024, spanked Brian Tully and Robert Cosgrove and Aiden a little bit. And it was --I'm paraphrasing here, Judge did not say the word motherfucker-- and it was like you motherfuckers. You got to read that three-page order from Judge Krupp from December 27th. You want to say Robert Cosgrove --no, Mr. Bederow-- no. And what's weird is there's no reason to present it this way, okay? Because presenting it the way that is true to the factual record and in the way I just described buttresses your argument that Cosgrove was conflicted because he tried to let the phone extraction go unprotected for months. Hello? Feel like I'm fucking banging my head against the wall sometimes with these fucking lawyers. Sorry, I shouldn't add this coffee, I'm in a mood. The point is, no. That's wrong, factually. And the factual record makes your argument stronger. Oh my god. Oh my god. How can - how can you get it so wrong and hurt your own argument at the same time? If you're gonna get it fucking wrong, get it wrong because the truth hurts your argument. If you have the truth and if you have the facts on your side and the law on your side, you don't have to pound the table. Just state it correctly. Cosgrove sabotaged the attempts to get a protective order on the phone, and five months after the phone was released by Tully --mind you-- Cosgrove is delaying to protect Tully, because Tully edited the extraction because he wanted it to be released right when the first Karen Read trial started, so that all the Turtle Riders would focus on Lindsey. And I'll tell you, there's something to be said here. There's something to be said about how even Bederow doesn't get it. Because Cosgrove doing that—waiting months to do the first bullshit protective order, and then not doing anything to get Judge Krupp to issue a protective order—it was Lindsey who got Judge Krupp to do that. Well, it was Judge Krupp realizing, I think, what had happened. Judge Krupp, when he retires, I want to talk to him about that day. I want to be like, did you—how pissed were you when you realized that Tully did this on purpose? I'm dropping like, oh that went fine. Judge Krupp is a stern judge too. You know what, I'm gonna get on his bad side. If you're on his good side, you might get a smile and a little chuckle. And then he's right into it. If you're on his bad side, he will not let you talk. I love judges like that. All right, let's continue. So it's like, my God, go to federal court. If you get a smile from Judge Talwani, that is like a core memory. I got a smile from Judge Talwani. I just beamed. Now, she did put a court sign on her courtroom being like no loud typing before I got there. So I knew she knew I was coming. It was for the Leslie hearing. But she still smiled at me. But anyway, this is wrong. I just want to tell you that on page 10 of 22, paragraph --second full paragraph, lines one through four-- it's just wrong. And Bederow should make the argument stronger by pointing out that Cosgrove was hostile to Lindsey and therefore had a bias against her long before any of this went down. Cosgrove was protecting Tully and Kate Peter from the beginning. There's a pattern. Cosgrove also hid that email from Kate Peter to Ken Mello. We're going to read it at the end of this. Come on, breathe. Bederow. Is this what all New York Jets fans are like? Aren't you a Patriots fan, motherfucker? I was going to say his life would really suck if he's a Jets fan. But if he's a Pats fan - now I remember he wears Pats sweatshirts. Come on, Mr. Bederow. Think like Tom Brady. His view apparently changed. No, it did not. No, it did not, Mr. Bederow.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,885 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

The Hidden Cost of Morning Radio: How Shows Like MAINA & KINGANGI Can Quietly Rewire Your Mind For many Nairobians, tuning into Maina & Kingangi on Classic 105 FM, or Gidi and Ghost, or TikTokers like Gloria Ntazola and Massage By Steve has become a ritual. It is funny, addictive and undeniably entertaining. But beneath the surface entertainment lies a subtle, cumulative psychological toll that many listeners only recognise after years of daily exposure. The core formula relies heavily on conflict and emotional intensity: • Callers breaking down over infidelity • Revenge stories that escalate into live shouting matches • Segments that pit men against women in sweeping generalisations (“men are trash”, “women are snakes”) • Public airing of betrayal, heartbreak, lies and humiliation This high-drama content arrives at the most vulnerable moment of the day - first thing in the morning, when the brain is still transitioning from sleep to full alertness and highly receptive to emotional imprinting. Over extended periods, listeners report noticeable shifts in their own behaviour and outlook: • Increased suspicion and arguments in personal relationships • Heightened baseline anxiety even in calm situations • A growing assumption that conflict and betrayal are the default state of human interaction • Difficulty relaxing into peace, because chaos begins to feel more “normal”. Experts in media psychology explain this phenomenon through emotional contagion and priming. When the first emotional input of the day is consistent negativity, conflict and distrust, the nervous system adapts to that frequency. Fight-or-flight mode becomes the default setting, not because of real threats, but because the brain has been trained to anticipate them. Peace begins to feel unfamiliar; drama feels expected. One former regular listener described the turning point: after quitting the shows and content creators entirely about three years ago, the change was striking. Without the daily dose of borrowed trauma, anxiety levels dropped, relationships became noticeably calmer, and the expectation of conflict faded. The nervous system, no longer primed for disaster at 6 a.m., began to return to baseline. The rewiring took months, but the clarity and emotional stability that followed were unmistakable. This is not unique to Maina & Kingangi. Any media diet - radio, podcasts, TikTok, YouTube - that floods the mind with fear, warnings, cheating scandals, gender wars and revenge narratives every morning can produce the same effect. The content does not need to be malicious to be harmful; repetition alone is enough to shape perception and emotional regulation. The morning hours carry disproportionate power. What enters the ears between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. sets the emotional baseline for the entire day. Over years, it shapes how individuals interpret relationships, approach conflict, and view the world. The point is awareness and intentionality. Listeners and followers of these misguided shows and creators should ask themselves a simple question: Is this the emotional energy I want to carry into my marriage, my workplace, my parenting, my mental health, and my long-term outlook on life? Choosing what enters the mind first thing in the morning is no longer a casual decision. It is a deliberate act of self-protection. Peace is not automatic. In a media environment saturated with manufactured chaos, protecting it requires conscious choice. The nervous system doesn’t care whether the drama is “just entertainment”. It absorbs the frequency. Over time, that frequency becomes your reality. Choose intentionally. Your future self - and the people who live with you - will feel the difference.

Francis Gaitho

39,065 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

This video is propaganda. It functioned to keep Sargon in beer money, and the population of the UK in denial about race. Like all good lies, it contains elements of truth, of which Sargon supplies massive helpings - far more than most propagandists ever dare - but it's effective... The first two minutes and 32 seconds are all true, by which time your brain trusts him, and you see him as being on your side as a White native Englishman. Of course right from the start he picks the easiest of targets (put a box of cornflakes next to a Guardian journalist and it will look like a patriot). And then (at 2:33) you get: "...but luckily for everyone else, being English is not just about being a race...". He continues: "...it's a particular way of viewing the world much as anything else", "...saying that I as an individual matter; every human matters". Of course Carl is not in any way wrong to identify and celebrate various English cultural artefacts as English, nor is he wrong to identify them as cultural, but the trick being done is to cut away their moorings from the DNA of the people who created them. You don't see him doing it, but he's in the water, scuba-diving down with a knife between his teeth, towards the tethers... ...And sure enough, at 5:19, in a mocking sneering smug tone: "But anyway Maya, let's get back to 'racial politics'. Let's not talk about values or ideas or ideals, or things that actually make the world a better place: let's get back to your fucking racial politics" (building to an angry exasperated tone). And suddenly there we are. 😐 The culture in which we were all being encouraged to take pride and admire now floats entirely free of its genetic substrate. Racial politics is bad, and associated in your brain with Guardian journalists. This - our - culture which the bodies and brains of our ancestors built, is now some sort of magic pink sparkly cloud hovering just above the ground, into which Indians and Africans can walk serenely and thereby be sort of transformed into us, nearly, just so long as it's done at a slow responsible pace. At 5:54 Sargon continues his imaginary conversation with Maya of The Guardian, adopting a super-confident and mildly exasperated lecturing tone (his favourite mode of address, obviously), and says: "But Maya, immigrants are not just a race; there are many hundreds of thousands of immigrants from France, and if you go to London, to an area which is predominantly populated by French people, it would not be sensible to say 'well this is an English area of London', is it, and yet that's nothing to do with their race, because they, like you will obviously point out, are White...". Well hang on Carl, yes, they are all White, and so maybe the thing making it (as you say) "not-sensible" to say they should not be in London doesn't become non-racial. Looks like you just talked yourself there in an illogical way. They are all White. Maybe this matters. Perhaps if we instead consider the prospect of adding the same number (many hundreds of thousands) of subsaharan Africans to London rather than Frenchmen, now it would be very sensible indeed to say they should not be there, whence the sensible - racial - criterion is plain to see. A full essay on the evolution of human nature in geographically isolated regions and the neurodiversity which emerged from that is beyond the scope of this tweet, but suffice to say White culture is what you get from White people, and African culture is what you get from African people. Europeans are White, and the relative closeness among European countries and cultures (compared to subsaharan Africans) by most metrics you might care about is not a coincidence, since heritable biological traits actually exist and actually matter, and they are not distributed evenly between different racial groups (see Fst distance), ergo race matters. Carl is a master of tugging at heartstrings, talking about these "past generations of blacks" who "admired English culture", and "wanted to be like us" etc.. Yes, no doubt many such individuals existed. They were always exceptional though, and we know they were exceptional, because if they weren't then Africa today would basically be similar to Yorkshire, just with nicer weather. And the problem for Carl is that Africa is obviously not like that, nor does any population of blacks anywhere in the world behave as a group like Europeans. I don't care particularly about John Cleese or what he says or where he goes, so the rest of the video is not terribly interesting, but just note at 6:48 Carl talks in approving terms of how "a small number of immigrants is OK", but "an overwhelming flood is pushing that principle too far". The problem with that is the number of non-Whites already in Britain was crazy-high in 2019 when Carl made this video, and our children were already well on track to becoming minorities in British schools without adding a single immigrant, even back then. Horrible racial conflict has been rife across the capital at least since the 90s, and it would be delusional to see the 1981 Brixton riots as anything but racial, ...and all this, and every sort of demographic vandalism besides, has come to pass PURELY because people who had advocated for racial politics in the 60s and 70s were successfully demonised by the media, just as Carl is doing in this video. The obvious foolishness of large numbers is like the obvious danger of lots of gunpowder compared to a small amount of gunpowder. It's not like the conflict magically goes away when the numbers are small. You just get White people lying to themselves and pushing discomfort down into their subconsciousness, and non-Whites sometimes (but by no means always) playing the game at first till their numbers become large enough. Pakistanis understood that cultural attitudes to child rape were different in our country, and so they assimilated by successfully hiding their child rape for about 20 or 30 years. Some White people even helped with that assimilation. The parts of our culture that Carl claims to want to promote (rule of law, freedom to criticise Islam, mutual respect, etc) is stuff that exists DESPITE the non-White population in the UK. It IS racial. And like of course it's racial. We are our DNA. Our culture was made by people, ...who were made by DNA. You can not make White people feel good - proudly talking up White culture - and then in the next breath sneer down your nose at those engaging in racial politics. It's a nasty (and given that Carl is not stupid, I have to suspect cynical) trick, the effect of which is to encourage a White audience to continue entertaining a suicidal and delusional belief in a tabula rasa model of human nature. His defenders will say "oh this is an old video, he's changed now...", and I am sure he is delighted that you believe so. Show me any example of him back-tracking on a single word of that though. I'll wait. I am writing this because I see what's happening to our population, and frankly anyone who isn't willing to recognise the need for racial politics is not your friend in this battle. If Carl has changed, then now would be a really great time to make that clear and come out on the side of Racial Nationalism. Anything else is just muddying the waters and enabling the stigmatisation of actual patriots. Look at where the UK is, and where it is going. Look at the pictures of schools with literally a single White face sitting among a sea of blacks. It's fucking insane, and it's obviously a racial issue that requires racial politics. At least we're talking about a rational lawful non-violent approach to sorting out who should be allowed to claim Englishness. We're having a conversation. Steve Laws, for example, is not a terrorist: he is a brave patriot giving a voice to the native population of a land which wants to recover that land. In reality English people are basically lovely. We're softies. The rest of the world knows that though. If we start to get a serious program of remigration off the ground, yes the reduction in sheer numbers of racial aliens will be welcome in itself, but black families that didn't produce criminal rugrats, and haven't spent the past 40 years moaning about how racist the English are will probably find that White communities rally round them, put in a good word for them, and achieve a consensus about not deporting them. What needs to happen is a basic shift in the narrative, and in the psychology: the assumption and understanding should be that citizenship is genetic, and that any exception to that is a polite and kind gesture from our people, which we have the full moral and legal right to withhold if we feel that we're being treated as suckers. And that's what I have to say about that. ...And of course Happy New Year to everyone in Australia!!! 🥳🎉🪩 -A.Frog '25/'26 🐸👍🏻

𝙰𝚌𝚌𝚎𝚙𝚝𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝙵𝚛𝚘𝚐

167,032 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten