正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

The trailer for W Magazine’s Best Performances Issue directed by Tyrone and Frank LeBon has been released. 🎥 Featuring Emma Stone, Wagner Moura, David Corenswet, Amanda Seyfried, Wunmi Mosaku, Renate Reinsve, Mia Goth, Stellan Skarsgård, Alexander Skarsgård, Chase Infiniti and more.

_filmcrave's profile picture

Film Crave

35,906 subscribers

119,273 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

喜剧艺术科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Mia Goth, Elle Fanning, Emma Stone, Tessa Thompson, Kate Hudson, Amanda Seyfried and more sing 'Manchild' by Sabrina Carpenter for W Magazine! 🤍
3:03

Mia Goth, Elle Fanning, Emma Stone, Tessa Thompson, Kate Hudson, Amanda Seyfried and more sing 'Manchild' by Sabrina Carpenter for W Magazine! 🤍

Sabrina Carpenter Daily

390,414 次观看 • 6 个月前

🌉 The River Café: A Brooklyn Icon 🕰️ History & Legacy Established in 1977 by Michael “Buzzy” O’Keeffe, The River Café transformed a derelict stretch beneath the Brooklyn Bridge into a premier dining destination. At a time when the area was largely abandoned, O’Keeffe envisioned a restaurant that would offer exceptional American cuisine with a focus on locally sourced, organic ingredients—a pioneering concept then. The café also played a significant role in promoting high-end California wines, diverging from the traditional French selections prevalent in fine dining at the time. Notably, The River Café has been instrumental in shaping the careers of several renowned chefs, including Larry Forgione, Charlie Palmer, David Burke, and Rick Laakkonen. Brad Steelman has been the head chef since 2000. 🌟 Current Experience Today, The River Café continues to offer an exquisite dining experience with stunning views of the Manhattan skyline and the Brooklyn Bridge. The ambiance is romantic and refined, with a dress code that requires jackets for gentlemen. The restaurant maintains its commitment to American cuisine, featuring seasonal menus that highlight the finest local ingredients. After suffering extensive damage from Hurricane Sandy in 2012, including corroded electrical wiring and the loss of antiques and a piano, the restaurant underwent significant renovations and reopened in February 2014. 🎉 Fun Facts •Floating Venue: The restaurant is situated on a former coffee barge in the East River, offering a unique dining experience. •Celebrity Spotting: In May 2019, actress Jennifer Lawrence and her then-fiancé, Cooke Maroney, held their engagement party at The River Café, attended by notable figures including actress Emma Stone. •Culinary Influence: The River Café is credited with helping to create the now-huge farm-to-table movement and boosting the profile of California wine. 🚇 Getting There from Times Square Traveling from Times Square to The River Café is straightforward: 1.Subway: •Option 1: Take the 2 or 3 train downtown to Clark Street Station in Brooklyn. From there, it’s about an 8-minute walk to the restaurant. •Option 2: Take the A or C train to High Street–Brooklyn Bridge Station. The walk from this station is approximately 10 minutes. 2.Ferry: •For a scenic route, take the NYC Ferry from Pier 11/Wall Street to the DUMBO/Fulton Ferry stop. The River Café is a short walk from the ferry terminal. •A taxi or rideshare from Times Square to The River Café typically takes about 20–30 minutes, depending on traffic. For more information or to make a reservation, visit
2:27

🌉 The River Café: A Brooklyn Icon 🕰️ History & Legacy Established in 1977 by Michael “Buzzy” O’Keeffe, The River Café transformed a derelict stretch beneath the Brooklyn Bridge into a premier dining destination. At a time when the area was largely abandoned, O’Keeffe envisioned a restaurant that would offer exceptional American cuisine with a focus on locally sourced, organic ingredients—a pioneering concept then. The café also played a significant role in promoting high-end California wines, diverging from the traditional French selections prevalent in fine dining at the time. Notably, The River Café has been instrumental in shaping the careers of several renowned chefs, including Larry Forgione, Charlie Palmer, David Burke, and Rick Laakkonen. Brad Steelman has been the head chef since 2000. 🌟 Current Experience Today, The River Café continues to offer an exquisite dining experience with stunning views of the Manhattan skyline and the Brooklyn Bridge. The ambiance is romantic and refined, with a dress code that requires jackets for gentlemen. The restaurant maintains its commitment to American cuisine, featuring seasonal menus that highlight the finest local ingredients. After suffering extensive damage from Hurricane Sandy in 2012, including corroded electrical wiring and the loss of antiques and a piano, the restaurant underwent significant renovations and reopened in February 2014. 🎉 Fun Facts •Floating Venue: The restaurant is situated on a former coffee barge in the East River, offering a unique dining experience. •Celebrity Spotting: In May 2019, actress Jennifer Lawrence and her then-fiancé, Cooke Maroney, held their engagement party at The River Café, attended by notable figures including actress Emma Stone. •Culinary Influence: The River Café is credited with helping to create the now-huge farm-to-table movement and boosting the profile of California wine. 🚇 Getting There from Times Square Traveling from Times Square to The River Café is straightforward: 1.Subway: •Option 1: Take the 2 or 3 train downtown to Clark Street Station in Brooklyn. From there, it’s about an 8-minute walk to the restaurant. •Option 2: Take the A or C train to High Street–Brooklyn Bridge Station. The walk from this station is approximately 10 minutes. 2.Ferry: •For a scenic route, take the NYC Ferry from Pier 11/Wall Street to the DUMBO/Fulton Ferry stop. The River Café is a short walk from the ferry terminal. •A taxi or rideshare from Times Square to The River Café typically takes about 20–30 minutes, depending on traffic. For more information or to make a reservation, visit

NewYorkCityKopp

21,159 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨🛸👽 Alien Craft and Bodies - How Confident? 👽🛸🚨 "Confidence is high. Repeat: confidence is high." ~The Sherminator Grusch/Kelly Part 1 - Video and Transcript "As somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that...the U.S. government has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of non-human crafts and recovering the biologics as well. I take that assessment very seriously" ~Grusch (I'll do my best to finish all three parts tonight) ~ Biggest Takeaway How did Grusch see evidence of alleged non-human craft and bodies and how confident is he that this is legit? Grusch: "I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "Eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio-visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." ~~~ Megyn Kelly: "It's the age-old question that has fascinated humans for centuries and continues to: are we alone in the universe, or even on our own planet? My next guest says, not only are UFOs - or now they're called UAPs - Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. That's hard to remember, but UAPs - real, but the government has allegedly been aware of them for decades and running a disinformation campaign to make you feel like an idiot if you believe reports about them. "David Grusch is a former US Air Force Intelligence Officer and senior intelligence official. He was his agency's co-lead in UAP investigation and quote 'transmedium object analysis' and was reporting to the Pentagon's UAP Task Force as well. In 2023, Grusch filed a whistleblower complaint asserting that the United States has been operating a quote, 'multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program,' meaning we're taking what we find - vehicles - and trying to figure out how they operated. And that Congress has been kept in the dark about large portions of the program. He later testified under oath before the House Oversight Committee, drawing national attention when he made this claim here. Watch." ~Video from the 2023 Oversight Committee Hearing~ Rep. Nancy Mace: "If you believe we have crashed craft, stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?" David Grusch: "As I've stated publicly already in my NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah." Mace: "Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics?" Grusch: "Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program." ~ Kelly: "So, he's alleging that we have crafts and we have non-human biologics from those crafts, and that the American people are being kept in the dark about it. And he is not alone. He is not alone. Now, Pentagon officials have publicly denied that there's any verified evidence of non-human intelligence or secret programs of this kind. They've been denying it for 80 years. But now, a new documentary called 'The Age of Disclosure' is taking center stage. It's extraordinary, examining decades of this alleged secrecy, and they have everyone in this film. "The film features interviews with 34 former and current government officials, including Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who claim the U.S. has long been concealing evidence of non-human intelligence and UAPs. Here's a part of the trailer." Begin Excerpt from "The Age of Disclosure" Tim Gallaudet: "Humanity is not the only intelligence in the Universe." Dr. Eric Davis: "Humanity is not the only intelligent species." Brett Feddersen: "We are absolutely not alone." Karl Nell: "Non-human intelligence exists." Jim Semivan: "UAPs are real ,they're here, and they're not human." Jay Stratton: "I have seen with my own eyes, non-human craft and non-human beings." Senator Mike Rounds: "This is so secret, very, very few people in our entire government have been allowed access to it." Secretary Marco Rubio: "Even presidents have been operating on a need-to-know basis, but that begins to ramp out of control." Kirsten Gillibrand: "It's not acceptable to have secret parts of government that no one ever sees." Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office: "You better be careful about a government that doesn't trust its people, because there's no telling what they'll pull on ya." ~End AoD Excerpt~ Kelly: "It's extraordinary. Let's get into it. David joins me now. David, thank you so much for your service and for being here." Grusch: "Thanks. Mellon. Um, excuse me (laughs). Thanks, Megan. Thank you for having me on." Kelly: "(laughs) No worries. This is like a crazy story and a stunning story and disturbing. And I have to tell you, I've always been sort of open minded to this issue, but more skeptical. And I my skepticism is gone, having watched 'The Age of Disclosure.'" (Until we hear from a firsthand witness who says they worked hands-on what they feel was a non-human craft, in the alleged Legacy crash retrieval and reverse engineering program, I think it's smart to retain some skepticism.) Kelly: "['The Age of Disclosure' is] incredibly well done, and they've got everybody. I mean, all of the like, astrophysicists and extremely-well-educated, and accomplished, scientists - who have been investigating this from the start. Well, not the start, because it was 80 years ago, but in recent decades - on camera, on the record, saying as much as they can. "And the director of the film (Dan Farah) has been making the rounds saying, the only reason he was able to get so many people to participate is because they felt there was safety in numbers and that they couldn't either fire everyone, or worse. Because a lot of these guys, these are distinguished guys, served in the Air Force like yourself, or served at the Pentagon, served all over the armed forces. A lot of these guys are actually worried not just about their careers getting killed, but about them themselves getting killed. I mean, set it up for us on the stakes of the number of people who went on camera and actually started saying as much as they could without violating classified restrictions." Grusch: "Certainly, that's a real fear, and we can certainly get into that. 'Age of Disclosure' was, you know, a project I didn't fully participate in, however, I do applaud the effort in these individuals for at least coming forward and speaking. And like you, I was a very skeptical person. I was certainly open to the topic. I was interested in space and science in a very precocious way, as a child. I ended up studying physics and the Air Force gave me a full-ride scholarship. And I was always, obviously, open to the topic, but I was in positions of high trust in the government at the most extreme levels, having walked the halls of the West Wing, personally handled the presidential daily intelligence brief and had some of the same broad accesses that the President and his cabinet has had over the years, even as a young man across multiple administrations "I figured - when I was eventually brought into this topic, working for the UAP Task Force - oh, I would know this exists. Somebody would have slipped and said something to me. At the time, I was briefed to over 90% out of all black programs in the Department of Defense and also the Intelligence Community, and I had an arrogant opinion of the topic. I was certainly open to the idea, but I figured I haven't seen any evidence and I would have been briefed into those kind of things, because I had a need-to-know at the time. So I came into it very similar to you, but open minded." Kelly: "And then, what specifically were you assigned to where you started to see actual evidence that we've been researching this for 80 years, that we do have crafts recovered, that we have, quote, 'biologics' recovered, which include some sort of other being. And what was your reaction when you started to learn this?" Grusch: "Yeah, I was very skeptical. I was in my military capacity, I had a parallel-civilian-intelligence career as well. But in my military-reserve capacity, I was the backup Intelligence Director for the National Reconnaissance Offices operation center. I briefed the NRO director. That's where I handled the PDB" Kelly: "Presidential Daily Brief." Grusch: "And I handled, essentially, all sensitive activities and all that stuff. And so, the UAP Task Force was looking for a representative from that organization. I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "But eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." Kelly: "Many in our audience may know you, David, you've been kind of really celebrated [by] people for coming out as a whistleblower and calling attention the fact that our government's been hiding this from us. And even when told to disclose what they know to investigators and to the public or to the oversight seers they haven't. There's a deeper program called The Legacy program that has really...seems to have been trying to hide the most shocking pieces of what we know from even the UAP Task Force."
9:24

🚨🛸👽 Alien Craft and Bodies - How Confident? 👽🛸🚨 "Confidence is high. Repeat: confidence is high." ~The Sherminator Grusch/Kelly Part 1 - Video and Transcript "As somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that...the U.S. government has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of non-human crafts and recovering the biologics as well. I take that assessment very seriously" ~Grusch (I'll do my best to finish all three parts tonight) ~ Biggest Takeaway How did Grusch see evidence of alleged non-human craft and bodies and how confident is he that this is legit? Grusch: "I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "Eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio-visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." ~~~ Megyn Kelly: "It's the age-old question that has fascinated humans for centuries and continues to: are we alone in the universe, or even on our own planet? My next guest says, not only are UFOs - or now they're called UAPs - Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. That's hard to remember, but UAPs - real, but the government has allegedly been aware of them for decades and running a disinformation campaign to make you feel like an idiot if you believe reports about them. "David Grusch is a former US Air Force Intelligence Officer and senior intelligence official. He was his agency's co-lead in UAP investigation and quote 'transmedium object analysis' and was reporting to the Pentagon's UAP Task Force as well. In 2023, Grusch filed a whistleblower complaint asserting that the United States has been operating a quote, 'multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program,' meaning we're taking what we find - vehicles - and trying to figure out how they operated. And that Congress has been kept in the dark about large portions of the program. He later testified under oath before the House Oversight Committee, drawing national attention when he made this claim here. Watch." ~Video from the 2023 Oversight Committee Hearing~ Rep. Nancy Mace: "If you believe we have crashed craft, stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?" David Grusch: "As I've stated publicly already in my NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah." Mace: "Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics?" Grusch: "Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program." ~ Kelly: "So, he's alleging that we have crafts and we have non-human biologics from those crafts, and that the American people are being kept in the dark about it. And he is not alone. He is not alone. Now, Pentagon officials have publicly denied that there's any verified evidence of non-human intelligence or secret programs of this kind. They've been denying it for 80 years. But now, a new documentary called 'The Age of Disclosure' is taking center stage. It's extraordinary, examining decades of this alleged secrecy, and they have everyone in this film. "The film features interviews with 34 former and current government officials, including Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who claim the U.S. has long been concealing evidence of non-human intelligence and UAPs. Here's a part of the trailer." Begin Excerpt from "The Age of Disclosure" Tim Gallaudet: "Humanity is not the only intelligence in the Universe." Dr. Eric Davis: "Humanity is not the only intelligent species." Brett Feddersen: "We are absolutely not alone." Karl Nell: "Non-human intelligence exists." Jim Semivan: "UAPs are real ,they're here, and they're not human." Jay Stratton: "I have seen with my own eyes, non-human craft and non-human beings." Senator Mike Rounds: "This is so secret, very, very few people in our entire government have been allowed access to it." Secretary Marco Rubio: "Even presidents have been operating on a need-to-know basis, but that begins to ramp out of control." Kirsten Gillibrand: "It's not acceptable to have secret parts of government that no one ever sees." Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office: "You better be careful about a government that doesn't trust its people, because there's no telling what they'll pull on ya." ~End AoD Excerpt~ Kelly: "It's extraordinary. Let's get into it. David joins me now. David, thank you so much for your service and for being here." Grusch: "Thanks. Mellon. Um, excuse me (laughs). Thanks, Megan. Thank you for having me on." Kelly: "(laughs) No worries. This is like a crazy story and a stunning story and disturbing. And I have to tell you, I've always been sort of open minded to this issue, but more skeptical. And I my skepticism is gone, having watched 'The Age of Disclosure.'" (Until we hear from a firsthand witness who says they worked hands-on what they feel was a non-human craft, in the alleged Legacy crash retrieval and reverse engineering program, I think it's smart to retain some skepticism.) Kelly: "['The Age of Disclosure' is] incredibly well done, and they've got everybody. I mean, all of the like, astrophysicists and extremely-well-educated, and accomplished, scientists - who have been investigating this from the start. Well, not the start, because it was 80 years ago, but in recent decades - on camera, on the record, saying as much as they can. "And the director of the film (Dan Farah) has been making the rounds saying, the only reason he was able to get so many people to participate is because they felt there was safety in numbers and that they couldn't either fire everyone, or worse. Because a lot of these guys, these are distinguished guys, served in the Air Force like yourself, or served at the Pentagon, served all over the armed forces. A lot of these guys are actually worried not just about their careers getting killed, but about them themselves getting killed. I mean, set it up for us on the stakes of the number of people who went on camera and actually started saying as much as they could without violating classified restrictions." Grusch: "Certainly, that's a real fear, and we can certainly get into that. 'Age of Disclosure' was, you know, a project I didn't fully participate in, however, I do applaud the effort in these individuals for at least coming forward and speaking. And like you, I was a very skeptical person. I was certainly open to the topic. I was interested in space and science in a very precocious way, as a child. I ended up studying physics and the Air Force gave me a full-ride scholarship. And I was always, obviously, open to the topic, but I was in positions of high trust in the government at the most extreme levels, having walked the halls of the West Wing, personally handled the presidential daily intelligence brief and had some of the same broad accesses that the President and his cabinet has had over the years, even as a young man across multiple administrations "I figured - when I was eventually brought into this topic, working for the UAP Task Force - oh, I would know this exists. Somebody would have slipped and said something to me. At the time, I was briefed to over 90% out of all black programs in the Department of Defense and also the Intelligence Community, and I had an arrogant opinion of the topic. I was certainly open to the idea, but I figured I haven't seen any evidence and I would have been briefed into those kind of things, because I had a need-to-know at the time. So I came into it very similar to you, but open minded." Kelly: "And then, what specifically were you assigned to where you started to see actual evidence that we've been researching this for 80 years, that we do have crafts recovered, that we have, quote, 'biologics' recovered, which include some sort of other being. And what was your reaction when you started to learn this?" Grusch: "Yeah, I was very skeptical. I was in my military capacity, I had a parallel-civilian-intelligence career as well. But in my military-reserve capacity, I was the backup Intelligence Director for the National Reconnaissance Offices operation center. I briefed the NRO director. That's where I handled the PDB" Kelly: "Presidential Daily Brief." Grusch: "And I handled, essentially, all sensitive activities and all that stuff. And so, the UAP Task Force was looking for a representative from that organization. I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "But eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." Kelly: "Many in our audience may know you, David, you've been kind of really celebrated [by] people for coming out as a whistleblower and calling attention the fact that our government's been hiding this from us. And even when told to disclose what they know to investigators and to the public or to the oversight seers they haven't. There's a deeper program called The Legacy program that has really...seems to have been trying to hide the most shocking pieces of what we know from even the UAP Task Force."

Joe Murgia

21,199 次观看 • 7 个月前

PETER OBI MUST APOLOGISE TO AIRPORT STAFF AND PAY THE FINE FOR WRONG PARKING As the Minister of Aviation, I felt a moral duty to investigate and authenticate the claim made by opposition candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, a few days ago that the tyres of his car were ‘unjustly’ clamped at the airport, suggesting a ‘persecution agenda’ against him by the Federal Government. Politics aside, every Nigerian is entitled to fair treatment under the law. I therefore instituted an internal inquiry over the issue. Luckily enough, the entire Abuja airport is covered by CCTV cameras, real-time, 24/7. But apparently, this fact was unknown to Mr. Peter Obi. Otherwise, perhaps he would have been more circumspect before rushing to the media to cry ‘persecution’. From the recordings, these are the facts: 1. On Saturday, July 4th, 2026, Mr. Obi arrived at the domestic wing of the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport Abuja at exactly 20:28 pm, driven by a Policeman. He alighted with two other occupants and went into the terminal building. 2. The Police driver then parked the vehicle, almost blocking the entrance and came out himself and went into the terminal building too. The airport rule is that, apart from the fact that it is a drop-off zone, a driver must remain behind the wheels of the vehicle for it to be tolerated for some time within that zone. Still the vehicle tyres were not clamped. 3. The Policeman came back to the vehicle at about 20:32pm and collected something from the vehicle and went back into the building again, leaving the vehicle unattended to. 4. At this point, the dutiful airport security staff came over and clamped the tyres of the car. In doing this, contrary to the claims by Peter Obi, nobody was inside the car and so nobody knew whether it was his car (not that it should matter, anyway). 5. When the Policeman returned again and discovered the tyres were clamped, he was directed to an office and upon getting there, he called Mr. Peter Obi on his phone and gave the phone to the manager. Mr. Peter Obi then introduced himself and spoke with the manager, peddled his ‘influence’ and requested for the release of the vehicle. His vehicle was then released without him paying the necessary fine. 6. It is important to note that the time the vehicle was parked unattended to in that prohibited zone was about 30 minutes, which constitutes a security risk at an airport by global best practices. What has emerged from this is a clear case of an opposition candidate trying to whip up unnecessary sentiments for a wrong he committed with his driver. The excuse which Mr. Peter Obi gave that there were other offenders too on that day (which is completely false) cannot be an excuse for an individual aspiring to be President of Nigeria. He must live above board. This is a matter that was not even mentioned at all by the airport authorities and had been put to rest. But ever determined to milk any situation to score cheap political points, Mr. Peter Obi decided to go on air to render a false narrative. Therefore, he must also face the consequences of his actions. (I have attached the CCTV footages to this statement for the public to clearly see what transpired.) In the circumstances, consistent with the principle of equality before the law, as Minister of Aviation, I make the following demands on Mr. Peter Obi: 1. That he tenders an unreserved, public apology to those hardworking, ordinary Nigerian workers at the airport, just doing their jobs dutifully and whom he sought to blackmail as his ‘persecutors’. 2. That Mr. Peter Obi voluntarily goes back to the airport and pay the appropriate fine of N25,000 for wrongful parking at the airport for which he used ‘influence peddling’ to bully his way out on that day. He cannot be bigger than the law. If these demands are not met within one week, I will be giving the necessary directives to the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) to take the next steps against him.
6:21

PETER OBI MUST APOLOGISE TO AIRPORT STAFF AND PAY THE FINE FOR WRONG PARKING As the Minister of Aviation, I felt a moral duty to investigate and authenticate the claim made by opposition candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, a few days ago that the tyres of his car were ‘unjustly’ clamped at the airport, suggesting a ‘persecution agenda’ against him by the Federal Government. Politics aside, every Nigerian is entitled to fair treatment under the law. I therefore instituted an internal inquiry over the issue. Luckily enough, the entire Abuja airport is covered by CCTV cameras, real-time, 24/7. But apparently, this fact was unknown to Mr. Peter Obi. Otherwise, perhaps he would have been more circumspect before rushing to the media to cry ‘persecution’. From the recordings, these are the facts: 1. On Saturday, July 4th, 2026, Mr. Obi arrived at the domestic wing of the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport Abuja at exactly 20:28 pm, driven by a Policeman. He alighted with two other occupants and went into the terminal building. 2. The Police driver then parked the vehicle, almost blocking the entrance and came out himself and went into the terminal building too. The airport rule is that, apart from the fact that it is a drop-off zone, a driver must remain behind the wheels of the vehicle for it to be tolerated for some time within that zone. Still the vehicle tyres were not clamped. 3. The Policeman came back to the vehicle at about 20:32pm and collected something from the vehicle and went back into the building again, leaving the vehicle unattended to. 4. At this point, the dutiful airport security staff came over and clamped the tyres of the car. In doing this, contrary to the claims by Peter Obi, nobody was inside the car and so nobody knew whether it was his car (not that it should matter, anyway). 5. When the Policeman returned again and discovered the tyres were clamped, he was directed to an office and upon getting there, he called Mr. Peter Obi on his phone and gave the phone to the manager. Mr. Peter Obi then introduced himself and spoke with the manager, peddled his ‘influence’ and requested for the release of the vehicle. His vehicle was then released without him paying the necessary fine. 6. It is important to note that the time the vehicle was parked unattended to in that prohibited zone was about 30 minutes, which constitutes a security risk at an airport by global best practices. What has emerged from this is a clear case of an opposition candidate trying to whip up unnecessary sentiments for a wrong he committed with his driver. The excuse which Mr. Peter Obi gave that there were other offenders too on that day (which is completely false) cannot be an excuse for an individual aspiring to be President of Nigeria. He must live above board. This is a matter that was not even mentioned at all by the airport authorities and had been put to rest. But ever determined to milk any situation to score cheap political points, Mr. Peter Obi decided to go on air to render a false narrative. Therefore, he must also face the consequences of his actions. (I have attached the CCTV footages to this statement for the public to clearly see what transpired.) In the circumstances, consistent with the principle of equality before the law, as Minister of Aviation, I make the following demands on Mr. Peter Obi: 1. That he tenders an unreserved, public apology to those hardworking, ordinary Nigerian workers at the airport, just doing their jobs dutifully and whom he sought to blackmail as his ‘persecutors’. 2. That Mr. Peter Obi voluntarily goes back to the airport and pay the appropriate fine of N25,000 for wrongful parking at the airport for which he used ‘influence peddling’ to bully his way out on that day. He cannot be bigger than the law. If these demands are not met within one week, I will be giving the necessary directives to the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) to take the next steps against him.

Festus Keyamo, SAN, CON, FCIArb (UK)

2,730,857 次观看 • 1 个月前

🔥Breaking! Meet the War Games movie which was released right before the election. And based on, real life, War Gaming that happened in 2022 with the deepstate. They ain’t hiding anything, and it includes an all star, anti Trump cast. The group included Republicans, Democrats and those who identified as non-partisan. Among them were two former US Senators, a US Governor, a handful of retired generals, and veterans of the CIA, FBI, DHS, and DOD. The exercise would be set in a representation of the White House Situation Room, the underground command center where the President manages civilian and military crises. Some of the involved individuals: - Alexander Vindman -GENERAL (RET.) WESLEY CLARK -SEN. DOUG JONES Alabama -David Priess served as a CIA officer during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations -PETER STRZOK -Fred Wellman (Lincoln Project) - Bill Kristol can be seen in the background among the various consultants Quote from the video: “You can authorize lethal force.” And what was just changed by Biden on an executive order? These are the things Democrat wet dreams are built on. The video even included an assassination attempt on one of the candidates. “A real-life political thriller set on January 6, 2025, War Game imagines a nation-wide insurrection in which members of the US military defect to support the losing Presidential candidate, while the winning candidate and his advisors—played by an all-star roster of senior officials from the last five administrations—war games the crisis in the White House situation room. They have 6 hours to save democracy as the country teeters on the brink of civil war.” So where did they think up the idea for this movie? “When the nonprofit Vet Voice Foundation organized the six-hour unscripted exercise — inspired by a Washington Post op-ed from three retired generals — exactly one year after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, former president Donald Trump was still in retreat at Mar-a-Lago and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) was the party’s rising star. They brought in two documentarians, Jesse Moss (“Boys State”) and Tony Gerber (“Full Battle Rattle”), to build a set that looked like the situation room and film the action in a hotel where insurrectionists had stayed.” (Vet Voices is supported by Priorities USA ) “I think the stakes that we confronted on January 6th, 2022, in this hotel ballroom in D.C., are even more so depressingly higher today than they were then,” says former Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), who plays the president in the exercise.” Interestingly a Serbian Otpor founder was present at one of the screenings. War Game screening and panel discussion at the Tides Advocacy, Movement Infrastructure Project. “Ivan Marovic- Executive Director, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, and core member of OTPOR!, a youth movement which played a critical role in bringing down Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Advisor for pro-democracy groups around the world, and has been designing and developing learning programs on civil resistance and movement building, and supporting the development of training organizations, such as Rhize and the African Coaching Network.” The founder of the Movement Infrastructure project, in an X post, told JD Vance to jump from a building. In September 2024, Gov. Josh Shapiro joined the directors and participants from War Game Film to discuss an all too plausible crisis and what to do about it. Sources to follow, including the long list of names that should be nothing near a Trump admin.
1:59

🔥Breaking! Meet the War Games movie which was released right before the election. And based on, real life, War Gaming that happened in 2022 with the deepstate. They ain’t hiding anything, and it includes an all star, anti Trump cast. The group included Republicans, Democrats and those who identified as non-partisan. Among them were two former US Senators, a US Governor, a handful of retired generals, and veterans of the CIA, FBI, DHS, and DOD. The exercise would be set in a representation of the White House Situation Room, the underground command center where the President manages civilian and military crises. Some of the involved individuals: - Alexander Vindman -GENERAL (RET.) WESLEY CLARK -SEN. DOUG JONES Alabama -David Priess served as a CIA officer during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations -PETER STRZOK -Fred Wellman (Lincoln Project) - Bill Kristol can be seen in the background among the various consultants Quote from the video: “You can authorize lethal force.” And what was just changed by Biden on an executive order? These are the things Democrat wet dreams are built on. The video even included an assassination attempt on one of the candidates. “A real-life political thriller set on January 6, 2025, War Game imagines a nation-wide insurrection in which members of the US military defect to support the losing Presidential candidate, while the winning candidate and his advisors—played by an all-star roster of senior officials from the last five administrations—war games the crisis in the White House situation room. They have 6 hours to save democracy as the country teeters on the brink of civil war.” So where did they think up the idea for this movie? “When the nonprofit Vet Voice Foundation organized the six-hour unscripted exercise — inspired by a Washington Post op-ed from three retired generals — exactly one year after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, former president Donald Trump was still in retreat at Mar-a-Lago and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) was the party’s rising star. They brought in two documentarians, Jesse Moss (“Boys State”) and Tony Gerber (“Full Battle Rattle”), to build a set that looked like the situation room and film the action in a hotel where insurrectionists had stayed.” (Vet Voices is supported by Priorities USA ) “I think the stakes that we confronted on January 6th, 2022, in this hotel ballroom in D.C., are even more so depressingly higher today than they were then,” says former Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), who plays the president in the exercise.” Interestingly a Serbian Otpor founder was present at one of the screenings. War Game screening and panel discussion at the Tides Advocacy, Movement Infrastructure Project. “Ivan Marovic- Executive Director, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, and core member of OTPOR!, a youth movement which played a critical role in bringing down Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Advisor for pro-democracy groups around the world, and has been designing and developing learning programs on civil resistance and movement building, and supporting the development of training organizations, such as Rhize and the African Coaching Network.” The founder of the Movement Infrastructure project, in an X post, told JD Vance to jump from a building. In September 2024, Gov. Josh Shapiro joined the directors and participants from War Game Film to discuss an all too plausible crisis and what to do about it. Sources to follow, including the long list of names that should be nothing near a Trump admin.

Bad Kitty Unleashed 🦁 💪🏻

21,088 次观看 • 1 年前

Recently did an interview with the lead developer of Knight's Path on the title's future release and the state of the industry. The Western AAA gaming industry has shifted its focus away from its core audience, favoring products for smaller, less engaged demographics. This shift has led to a noticeable disconnect between large publishers and their traditional fan base. This has, however, created an environment for indies to thrive. They can prioritize authenticity and community, crafting games that resonate with their players and that is exactly the case with Knight's Path. In December of 2023, Knights Path: The Tournament was released to Very Positive reviews on Steam. It is a short medieval RPG featuring challenging combat, an immersive progression system, and a nice little story. It served as an announcement, a combat concept demo, and a teaser for the forthcoming open-world RPG Knight's Path, which is currently in active development. I asked what their plans were regarding the scope of the full release. While you might get the impression that Knight's Path is an arena fighting game, that’s not the case with the full release. "Knight's Path will be a proper open-world, story-driven RPG. Of course, as a small indie team, we’re keeping the scope modest. The open world will be compact but dense, featuring one town, one village, castle ruins, forests, valleys, and other areas to explore." Many gamers would agree it is better to have a limited number of fully fleshed-out areas than to present a gigantic, empty world. This has been a major criticism levied towards recent releases like Pokémon Scarlet and Violet and even modern Assassins Creed, which tends to rely on repetitive gameplay loops scattered across an overly large map, which can feel more like busywork than meaningful exploration. I have always believed that quality over quantity is the best way to go. The team has also made this a priority with things such as the story and weapon types. "We plan to include three main weapon types: longsword, sword and shield, and bows. These will feature the full progression system seen in the demo, with skill levels such as Novice, Adept, Expert, and Master. Players will need to learn individual skills from different trainers to progress. In addition, we’re introducing secondary weapons like spears, halberds, and other polearms. These won’t have RPG-style progression but will still offer variety in combat." Regarding the story, they plan to be bold and strive to create a 16-28 hour-long main campaign. "The story will be divided into four chapters, with each chapter offering around 4–7 hours of gameplay. As in the demo, the player character begins as a nobody, slowly learning how to wield a sword and eventually becoming a knight. However, the progression will be much more realistic than in the demo, where the peasant hilariously transformed into a champion in just four days." This is a far cry from many games that are released nowadays. In just 2024 alone at a glance, the AA release Flintlock: The Siege of Dawn provided an average of 8 hours of content, Princess Peach: Showtime at 10 hours, Silent Hill 2 Remake at 15, and even the GOTY winner Astrobot holds an average playtime of 10 hours. A major issue within the industry is the way we are treated by the people who only have jobs because of our favorite hobby. In 2024 the gaming industry is forecasted to generate $208.7 BILLION dollars, up from 5.4% in 2023. Compare that to Hollywood, which is a measly $12.3 billion. The gaming industry employs 727,000 individuals in the United States alone. So, you'd think these people would have a little bit of respect for gamers, though so many who are vocal on social media show nothing but contempt for us. Perhaps this is because of fear if they do not show loyalty to a cause or "fit in" that they may not secure funding or genuinely believe in what they preach, but the team behind Knight's Path isn't worried about that. "We are independent developers, and we plan to stay independent so we can stay true to our vision. Knight's Path is a game made by gamers for gamers. We’re prioritizing fun gameplay above all, and we firmly believe this is exactly what gamers want." I also raised some questions about their big plans moving forward. In the demo, one of the major criticisms I had was with the voice acting. I had guessed it was done via AI, which was confirmed. "You guessed correctly– the voice acting in the demo was done by AI, and it was probably the loudest critique we received, and we totally understand why! Back then, we didn’t have much of a choice, but for the full game, we don’t plan to use any AI voices. Luckily, after the demo release, many voice actors reached out to us, volunteering to lend their voices to the full game. We absolutely plan to answer their call and give them that opportunity." AI can be a useful tool, especially for developers starting out who can't commit a lot of money to voice acting or just want to see a version of the product that's closer to what they envision the full release to be, but going from that to real voice actors will bump the experience to the next level. I myself played the demo in its entirety and really enjoyed my time with it! I thought the game was reminiscent of Gothic 2 and even The Witcher. I was happily surprised when I didn't encounter any bugs or glitches and while some areas have not been fleshed out like the voice acting, I would recommend putting the game on your wishlist to see what this team does in the future when they finally deliver their updated demo and the eventual full release of the game.
2:26

Recently did an interview with the lead developer of Knight's Path on the title's future release and the state of the industry. The Western AAA gaming industry has shifted its focus away from its core audience, favoring products for smaller, less engaged demographics. This shift has led to a noticeable disconnect between large publishers and their traditional fan base. This has, however, created an environment for indies to thrive. They can prioritize authenticity and community, crafting games that resonate with their players and that is exactly the case with Knight's Path. In December of 2023, Knights Path: The Tournament was released to Very Positive reviews on Steam. It is a short medieval RPG featuring challenging combat, an immersive progression system, and a nice little story. It served as an announcement, a combat concept demo, and a teaser for the forthcoming open-world RPG Knight's Path, which is currently in active development. I asked what their plans were regarding the scope of the full release. While you might get the impression that Knight's Path is an arena fighting game, that’s not the case with the full release. "Knight's Path will be a proper open-world, story-driven RPG. Of course, as a small indie team, we’re keeping the scope modest. The open world will be compact but dense, featuring one town, one village, castle ruins, forests, valleys, and other areas to explore." Many gamers would agree it is better to have a limited number of fully fleshed-out areas than to present a gigantic, empty world. This has been a major criticism levied towards recent releases like Pokémon Scarlet and Violet and even modern Assassins Creed, which tends to rely on repetitive gameplay loops scattered across an overly large map, which can feel more like busywork than meaningful exploration. I have always believed that quality over quantity is the best way to go. The team has also made this a priority with things such as the story and weapon types. "We plan to include three main weapon types: longsword, sword and shield, and bows. These will feature the full progression system seen in the demo, with skill levels such as Novice, Adept, Expert, and Master. Players will need to learn individual skills from different trainers to progress. In addition, we’re introducing secondary weapons like spears, halberds, and other polearms. These won’t have RPG-style progression but will still offer variety in combat." Regarding the story, they plan to be bold and strive to create a 16-28 hour-long main campaign. "The story will be divided into four chapters, with each chapter offering around 4–7 hours of gameplay. As in the demo, the player character begins as a nobody, slowly learning how to wield a sword and eventually becoming a knight. However, the progression will be much more realistic than in the demo, where the peasant hilariously transformed into a champion in just four days." This is a far cry from many games that are released nowadays. In just 2024 alone at a glance, the AA release Flintlock: The Siege of Dawn provided an average of 8 hours of content, Princess Peach: Showtime at 10 hours, Silent Hill 2 Remake at 15, and even the GOTY winner Astrobot holds an average playtime of 10 hours. A major issue within the industry is the way we are treated by the people who only have jobs because of our favorite hobby. In 2024 the gaming industry is forecasted to generate $208.7 BILLION dollars, up from 5.4% in 2023. Compare that to Hollywood, which is a measly $12.3 billion. The gaming industry employs 727,000 individuals in the United States alone. So, you'd think these people would have a little bit of respect for gamers, though so many who are vocal on social media show nothing but contempt for us. Perhaps this is because of fear if they do not show loyalty to a cause or "fit in" that they may not secure funding or genuinely believe in what they preach, but the team behind Knight's Path isn't worried about that. "We are independent developers, and we plan to stay independent so we can stay true to our vision. Knight's Path is a game made by gamers for gamers. We’re prioritizing fun gameplay above all, and we firmly believe this is exactly what gamers want." I also raised some questions about their big plans moving forward. In the demo, one of the major criticisms I had was with the voice acting. I had guessed it was done via AI, which was confirmed. "You guessed correctly– the voice acting in the demo was done by AI, and it was probably the loudest critique we received, and we totally understand why! Back then, we didn’t have much of a choice, but for the full game, we don’t plan to use any AI voices. Luckily, after the demo release, many voice actors reached out to us, volunteering to lend their voices to the full game. We absolutely plan to answer their call and give them that opportunity." AI can be a useful tool, especially for developers starting out who can't commit a lot of money to voice acting or just want to see a version of the product that's closer to what they envision the full release to be, but going from that to real voice actors will bump the experience to the next level. I myself played the demo in its entirety and really enjoyed my time with it! I thought the game was reminiscent of Gothic 2 and even The Witcher. I was happily surprised when I didn't encounter any bugs or glitches and while some areas have not been fleshed out like the voice acting, I would recommend putting the game on your wishlist to see what this team does in the future when they finally deliver their updated demo and the eventual full release of the game.

Vara Dark

42,375 次观看 • 1 年前

Remembering film director Lloyd Bacon on his Birthday Born | December 4, 1889 in San Jose, California, USA Died | November 15, 1955 aged 65 in Burbank, California, USA Video | The “By a Waterfall” production number from Footlight Parade (1933) featuring 300 choreographed swimmers. One of the workhorses in Warner Brothers' stable of directors in the 1930s, Lloyd Bacon didn't have a career as loaded with classic films as many of his more famous contemporaries. What few “classics” he had his hand in (42nd Street (1933), Footlight Parade (1933) are so overshadowed by the dazzling surrealistic choreography of Busby Berkeley that casual film buffs today often forget they were actually directed by Bacon. While his resume lacks the drama of failed productions and tales of an unbridled ego, he consistently enriched the studio's coffers, directing a handful of its biggest hits of the late 1920s and 1930s. Bacon's career amounts to that of a competent ― and at times brilliant ― director who did the best with the material handed to him in assembly-line fashion. Lloyd Bacon was born into a theatrical family (his father was Frank Bacon, a playwright and stage actor). His parents enlisted all the Bacon children onto the stage. Despite having a strong interest in law as a student at Santa Clara College, Lloyd opted for an acting career after appearing in a student production of “The Passion Play”. In 1911 he joined David Belasco's Los Angeles Stock Company (with Lewis Stone), touring the country and gaining good notices in a Broadway run of the hit “Cinderella Man”, and gaining further experience during a season of vaudeville. He switched gears in 1915 and took a stab at silent Hollywood, playing the heavy in several of Gilbert M. 'Broncho Billy' Anderson's shorts and pulling double duty as a stunt man. With America's entry into World War I in 1917, Bacon enlisted in the Navy and was assigned to the Photo Department. This began a lifelong admiration for the service and might explain the Navy being a favourite recurring theme in many of his films. After the war's end Bacon moved from Mutual (Charles Chaplin's studio at the time) to Triangle as a comedy actor. It was at this point that he got his first taste of directing ― he had let everyone at the studio know he had an interest in helming a picture, and when the director of a now forgotten Lloyd Hamilton comedy short fell ill, Bacon was given his chance. Constantly moving, he joined tightwad producer Mack Sennett as a gag writer. Sennett, sensing a bargain, happily accommodated Lloyd's desire to become a full-time director by early 1921. The Sennett studio was already in an irreversible decline during Bacon's tenure there but it allowed the novice director to gain a wealth of experience. He apprenticed for Sennett until joining Warner Brothers in 1925, an association that would last a remarkable 18 years and begin when the working-man's studio was building a strong stable of contract directors that included Michael Curtiz, Alan Crosland, John G. Adolfi and Mervyn LeRoy. Although Lloyd never became known for a particular style other than a well-placed close up, his ability to bring in an entertaining film on time and within budget earned him such enormous respect from the five Warner Brothers that he was soon handed control over important projects, including The Singing Fool (1928), Al Jolson's follow-up to The Jazz Singer (1927), which grossed an unheard-of (for Warners, at least) $4,000,000 in domestic receipts alone ― the studio's #1 hit for 1928. Bacon was rewarded by becoming the highest paid director on the studio lot, earning over $200,000 a year throughout the Depression. He was called upon to direct the studio's big-budget production of Moby Dick (1930), which garnered good notices, but it's a version that's barely remembered today. The 1930s saw Bacon assigned to the assembly line; aside from the Busby Berkeley-choreographed films, he directed many of James Cagney's crowd-pleasing two-week wonders, including Picture Snatcher (1933) (Cagney once remarked that the schedule on that picture was so tight that, one time after he and the cast had rehearsed a particular scene, Cagney said, “OK, Lloyd, are you ready to shoot?” Bacon grinned and said, “I just did!”) and The Irish in Us (1935). As a reward, he was occasionally afforded more time and money on productions such as Here Comes the Navy (1934) and Devil Dogs of the Air (1935). He also directed Cagney's return effort after his ill-advised move to cheapjack Grand National Pictures after one of his periodic salary disputes with studio head Jack L. Warner ― the badly miscast if frenetic Boy Meets Girl (1938). This was one of Cagney's least critically acclaimed Warner Brothers films of the 1930s, but a smash hit for the studio. During his years at Warners, Bacon gained a reputation as a clothes horse, the dapper director arriving on the set dressed to the nines, wearing expensive hats that he would hurl around the set when expressing his dissatisfaction (he ruined a lot of hats) at an actor's performance or missed cue. Bacon continued to turn out profitable films for the studio until moving to 20th Century-Fox in 1944 (a logical move, since the recently discharged Darryl F. Zanuck knew Bacon from his early days at Warners). He stayed at Fox until 1949, then bounced among Columbia, Fox, Universal and finally the chaotically-run RKO in 1954. He worked virtually until his death from a cerebral hemorrhage at age 65.
1:00

Remembering film director Lloyd Bacon on his Birthday Born | December 4, 1889 in San Jose, California, USA Died | November 15, 1955 aged 65 in Burbank, California, USA Video | The “By a Waterfall” production number from Footlight Parade (1933) featuring 300 choreographed swimmers. One of the workhorses in Warner Brothers' stable of directors in the 1930s, Lloyd Bacon didn't have a career as loaded with classic films as many of his more famous contemporaries. What few “classics” he had his hand in (42nd Street (1933), Footlight Parade (1933) are so overshadowed by the dazzling surrealistic choreography of Busby Berkeley that casual film buffs today often forget they were actually directed by Bacon. While his resume lacks the drama of failed productions and tales of an unbridled ego, he consistently enriched the studio's coffers, directing a handful of its biggest hits of the late 1920s and 1930s. Bacon's career amounts to that of a competent ― and at times brilliant ― director who did the best with the material handed to him in assembly-line fashion. Lloyd Bacon was born into a theatrical family (his father was Frank Bacon, a playwright and stage actor). His parents enlisted all the Bacon children onto the stage. Despite having a strong interest in law as a student at Santa Clara College, Lloyd opted for an acting career after appearing in a student production of “The Passion Play”. In 1911 he joined David Belasco's Los Angeles Stock Company (with Lewis Stone), touring the country and gaining good notices in a Broadway run of the hit “Cinderella Man”, and gaining further experience during a season of vaudeville. He switched gears in 1915 and took a stab at silent Hollywood, playing the heavy in several of Gilbert M. 'Broncho Billy' Anderson's shorts and pulling double duty as a stunt man. With America's entry into World War I in 1917, Bacon enlisted in the Navy and was assigned to the Photo Department. This began a lifelong admiration for the service and might explain the Navy being a favourite recurring theme in many of his films. After the war's end Bacon moved from Mutual (Charles Chaplin's studio at the time) to Triangle as a comedy actor. It was at this point that he got his first taste of directing ― he had let everyone at the studio know he had an interest in helming a picture, and when the director of a now forgotten Lloyd Hamilton comedy short fell ill, Bacon was given his chance. Constantly moving, he joined tightwad producer Mack Sennett as a gag writer. Sennett, sensing a bargain, happily accommodated Lloyd's desire to become a full-time director by early 1921. The Sennett studio was already in an irreversible decline during Bacon's tenure there but it allowed the novice director to gain a wealth of experience. He apprenticed for Sennett until joining Warner Brothers in 1925, an association that would last a remarkable 18 years and begin when the working-man's studio was building a strong stable of contract directors that included Michael Curtiz, Alan Crosland, John G. Adolfi and Mervyn LeRoy. Although Lloyd never became known for a particular style other than a well-placed close up, his ability to bring in an entertaining film on time and within budget earned him such enormous respect from the five Warner Brothers that he was soon handed control over important projects, including The Singing Fool (1928), Al Jolson's follow-up to The Jazz Singer (1927), which grossed an unheard-of (for Warners, at least) $4,000,000 in domestic receipts alone ― the studio's #1 hit for 1928. Bacon was rewarded by becoming the highest paid director on the studio lot, earning over $200,000 a year throughout the Depression. He was called upon to direct the studio's big-budget production of Moby Dick (1930), which garnered good notices, but it's a version that's barely remembered today. The 1930s saw Bacon assigned to the assembly line; aside from the Busby Berkeley-choreographed films, he directed many of James Cagney's crowd-pleasing two-week wonders, including Picture Snatcher (1933) (Cagney once remarked that the schedule on that picture was so tight that, one time after he and the cast had rehearsed a particular scene, Cagney said, “OK, Lloyd, are you ready to shoot?” Bacon grinned and said, “I just did!”) and The Irish in Us (1935). As a reward, he was occasionally afforded more time and money on productions such as Here Comes the Navy (1934) and Devil Dogs of the Air (1935). He also directed Cagney's return effort after his ill-advised move to cheapjack Grand National Pictures after one of his periodic salary disputes with studio head Jack L. Warner ― the badly miscast if frenetic Boy Meets Girl (1938). This was one of Cagney's least critically acclaimed Warner Brothers films of the 1930s, but a smash hit for the studio. During his years at Warners, Bacon gained a reputation as a clothes horse, the dapper director arriving on the set dressed to the nines, wearing expensive hats that he would hurl around the set when expressing his dissatisfaction (he ruined a lot of hats) at an actor's performance or missed cue. Bacon continued to turn out profitable films for the studio until moving to 20th Century-Fox in 1944 (a logical move, since the recently discharged Darryl F. Zanuck knew Bacon from his early days at Warners). He stayed at Fox until 1949, then bounced among Columbia, Fox, Universal and finally the chaotically-run RKO in 1954. He worked virtually until his death from a cerebral hemorrhage at age 65.

Hollywood Golden Age of Cinema

39,801 次观看 • 8 个月前

Demand Equal Treatment. Demand a Vote. Welcome to Caledon, Ont., the epicentre for a dangerous trucking problem that continues to spiral out of control. And it’s a problem that shows no signs of ebbing thanks to a complete lack of political will at every government level when it comes to merely enforcing the rules. Recently, Rebel News ventured out to the intersection of Hwy. 50 and Mayfield Road. The area was jammed with transport trucks. Illegal truck yards had shipping containers stacked six high. We met up with Franca Pisani and Amanda Corbett at this intersection; later we went on a not-so-scenic tour of the area. What we witnessed firsthand was shocking. Pisani and Corbett are members of the Caledon Community Road Safety Advocacy Group (CCRSAG). And when it comes to the trucking business in this neck of the woods, there is a lot to be concerned about. Indeed, the list of grievances includes: • Unsafe trucks and poorly trained truckers • A growing underground economy that is breeding lawlessness on the roads which includes drug running and human trafficking • Trucks that are illegally stored and not maintained properly • Immigration fraud involving temporary foreign workers • Rules being violated at every level – be it the rules of the road to the rules regarding environmental stewardship (i.e., the illegal dumping of used motor oil and transmission fluid into waterways) The descent into trucking lawlessness in such cities as Caledon, Vaughan and Brampton began about a decade ago. It’s just getting worse with the passage of time. So, what’s at the root of these problems? And more importantly, what are the authorities doing about this? Well, apparently nothing. And the stakes are high. Indeed, the reason why the Caledon Community Road Safety Advocacy Group came into existence was due to the tragic case of Adrianna Milena McCauley. This 23-year-old woman died in a four-vehicle collision on Sept. 10, 2024, on Coleraine Dr. at King St. W. Rajwinder Singh, a Punjabi asylum seeker, was behind the wheel of a transport truck that soared through a red light that had been illuminated for a full 10 seconds. Earlier this year, Singh was shockingly handed a mere 55-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine. He’s already been released; he allegedly suffers from psychological damage, you see. (When oh when is this nation going to make deportation great again?) Rebel News also reached out to the Ontario Trucking Association. The OTA is well-aware of this festering problem. Recently, the OTA’s Marco Beghetto, VP, communications and New Media, wrote a scathing editorial regarding this disturbing and unsafe situation. Notes Beghetto: “The Ontario Trucking Association has been following the chaotic situation in Caledon – specifically along the border with Vaughan – for many years. I want to be clear: the industry stands with the community in demanding that commercial activity remain within the bounds of provincial and municipal law and, more importantly, the growing number of unscrupulous carriers who put untrained, unprepared, and careless drivers on the road with our residents, must be stopped. “We must distinguish between professional carriers and rogue operators. A truck in your community making a delivery is a sign of a healthy economy. But a fleet using a ‘ghost yard’ – a site illegally carved out of vacant agricultural land or literally in the backyards of residential subdivisions – is a violation of the law. “The OTA has been working closely with some local mayors to address these issues. Yet, the problem is expanding because rogue operators are bypassing the rules that law-abiding trucking companies follow. Meanwhile, politicians and enforcement agencies at every level point fingers and debate responsibilities over jurisdiction and enforcement authority. Meanwhile, as time passes without any progress, the problem worsens.” So, what’s really going on here when it comes to enforcing the rules? Indeed, how is it that the federal Liberals invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022 to violently takedown a peaceful protest in Ottawa yet ignore the Wild West of trucking elsewhere? After all, the Freedom Convoy demonstration was comprised mostly of law-abiding truckers who weren’t causing any harm to anyone. Yet the feds now turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to illegal trucking that is leading to unsafe situations. And it’s the same deal with the province of Ontario and the various municipalities – they don’t seem to care, either. In the final analysis, is this irresponsible approach all about identity politics? After all, the vast majority of those involved in the illegal trucking racket are Indian. So, is this really all about the powers-that-be not wanting to be painted as culturally insensitive? Is this also all about not wanting to upset a growing voting bloc? If this isn’t the case, then why does this outrageous dereliction of duty continue? Shameful… REPORT by David Menzies:
21:15

Demand Equal Treatment. Demand a Vote. Welcome to Caledon, Ont., the epicentre for a dangerous trucking problem that continues to spiral out of control. And it’s a problem that shows no signs of ebbing thanks to a complete lack of political will at every government level when it comes to merely enforcing the rules. Recently, Rebel News ventured out to the intersection of Hwy. 50 and Mayfield Road. The area was jammed with transport trucks. Illegal truck yards had shipping containers stacked six high. We met up with Franca Pisani and Amanda Corbett at this intersection; later we went on a not-so-scenic tour of the area. What we witnessed firsthand was shocking. Pisani and Corbett are members of the Caledon Community Road Safety Advocacy Group (CCRSAG). And when it comes to the trucking business in this neck of the woods, there is a lot to be concerned about. Indeed, the list of grievances includes: • Unsafe trucks and poorly trained truckers • A growing underground economy that is breeding lawlessness on the roads which includes drug running and human trafficking • Trucks that are illegally stored and not maintained properly • Immigration fraud involving temporary foreign workers • Rules being violated at every level – be it the rules of the road to the rules regarding environmental stewardship (i.e., the illegal dumping of used motor oil and transmission fluid into waterways) The descent into trucking lawlessness in such cities as Caledon, Vaughan and Brampton began about a decade ago. It’s just getting worse with the passage of time. So, what’s at the root of these problems? And more importantly, what are the authorities doing about this? Well, apparently nothing. And the stakes are high. Indeed, the reason why the Caledon Community Road Safety Advocacy Group came into existence was due to the tragic case of Adrianna Milena McCauley. This 23-year-old woman died in a four-vehicle collision on Sept. 10, 2024, on Coleraine Dr. at King St. W. Rajwinder Singh, a Punjabi asylum seeker, was behind the wheel of a transport truck that soared through a red light that had been illuminated for a full 10 seconds. Earlier this year, Singh was shockingly handed a mere 55-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine. He’s already been released; he allegedly suffers from psychological damage, you see. (When oh when is this nation going to make deportation great again?) Rebel News also reached out to the Ontario Trucking Association. The OTA is well-aware of this festering problem. Recently, the OTA’s Marco Beghetto, VP, communications and New Media, wrote a scathing editorial regarding this disturbing and unsafe situation. Notes Beghetto: “The Ontario Trucking Association has been following the chaotic situation in Caledon – specifically along the border with Vaughan – for many years. I want to be clear: the industry stands with the community in demanding that commercial activity remain within the bounds of provincial and municipal law and, more importantly, the growing number of unscrupulous carriers who put untrained, unprepared, and careless drivers on the road with our residents, must be stopped. “We must distinguish between professional carriers and rogue operators. A truck in your community making a delivery is a sign of a healthy economy. But a fleet using a ‘ghost yard’ – a site illegally carved out of vacant agricultural land or literally in the backyards of residential subdivisions – is a violation of the law. “The OTA has been working closely with some local mayors to address these issues. Yet, the problem is expanding because rogue operators are bypassing the rules that law-abiding trucking companies follow. Meanwhile, politicians and enforcement agencies at every level point fingers and debate responsibilities over jurisdiction and enforcement authority. Meanwhile, as time passes without any progress, the problem worsens.” So, what’s really going on here when it comes to enforcing the rules? Indeed, how is it that the federal Liberals invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022 to violently takedown a peaceful protest in Ottawa yet ignore the Wild West of trucking elsewhere? After all, the Freedom Convoy demonstration was comprised mostly of law-abiding truckers who weren’t causing any harm to anyone. Yet the feds now turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to illegal trucking that is leading to unsafe situations. And it’s the same deal with the province of Ontario and the various municipalities – they don’t seem to care, either. In the final analysis, is this irresponsible approach all about identity politics? After all, the vast majority of those involved in the illegal trucking racket are Indian. So, is this really all about the powers-that-be not wanting to be painted as culturally insensitive? Is this also all about not wanting to upset a growing voting bloc? If this isn’t the case, then why does this outrageous dereliction of duty continue? Shameful… REPORT by David Menzies:

Rebel News

20,848 次观看 • 28 天前

The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”
2:26

The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”

DR REHIANA ALI BA MB BCHIR (Cantab) MA MRCP PhD

18,659 次观看 • 6 个月前

[Behavioral Scientist's Analysis] NewJeans, Now Even Stronger, HYBE in Trouble I’ll listen again. Danielle: “Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Hee-jin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable.” Danielle clearly stated this and also expressed it in English. So, in terms of the NewJeans issue, international fans who don’t have much information may not have had a clear perception of Ms. Min Hee-jin or how to view this issue. If you look at the comments, it was very poorly organized. In Korea, we now have clear information, so NewJeans fans, Bunnies, are cheering for NewJeans and supporting Ms. Min Hee-jin. It has become clearly sorted out like this. However, internationally, it hasn’t been clearly explained. But with Danielle explaining it so well in English, I expect that from now on, the international atmosphere will shift towards attacking HYBE, criticizing Bang Si-hyuk, and supporting Ms. Min Hee-jin and NewJeans worldwide. So, now that the artist has clearly stated their position and made it clear that the identity and assets of the NewJeans brand come from Ms. Min Hee-jin, regardless of any legal disputes or lawsuits, in the minds of the fans, NewJeans equals Min Hee-jin. And as for the current management of ADOR and HYBE, they will be seen as the ones attacking NewJeans and the mysterious people with no clear motive, such as Bang Si-hyuk. I think this will now be clear. Considering the nature of the entertainment industry, like many creative industries and the cultural industry, this is not manufacturing. Many things can’t be determined through legal processes like patents for ideas or lawsuits. The B2C market, or the market for services and consumption of an artist's brand, is driven by sensitivity. People consume it because of the emotional connection and enjoy it because of that sensitivity. So, what’s the point of winning a legal case? Even if HYBE were to win any legal case, do you think consumers wouldn’t boycott NewJeans’ music or other products afterward? I believe HYBE will be punished in some way for its actions towards ADOR and its current management. The way they are handling risk management is shortsighted, as they fail to understand people’s emotions. They seem to only rely on the advice of legal professionals and accountants, and their entire approach to this issue is so narrow-minded and misguided. It feels incredibly foolish to me. So, to summarize: NewJeans’ branding was done by Ms. Min Hee-jin. The identity and assets of the NewJeans brand were created by her, and we did it together because of her. Haerin: “However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step.” The current situation is shocking, but this is not just about this one incident; they’ve been continuously receiving unfair treatment from HYBE. The fact that they are saying this publicly now is truly shocking. They’ve been discussing these unfair treatments with their parents and Ms. Min Hee-jin while continuing their activities as NewJeans. They are saying that the unfair treatment from HYBE has been ongoing. It’s hard to understand as an outsider, but now the artists themselves have confirmed that there have been instances where the company has mistreated them. This is no longer a matter of speculation or exaggeration. NewJeans has officially admitted that HYBE has been continuously mistreating them. Moving forward, this changes the entire perspective on the issue. It’s no longer just NewJeans vs. HYBE or Min Hee-jin vs. Bang Si-hyuk. It’s hard to even imagine the reality of this situation. Now that the NewJeans artists have come out and said that HYBE has mistreated them, regardless of how HYBE tries to communicate going forward, they will now be framed as the ones mistreating NewJeans. How can they possibly shake off this perception now? I don’t think they can. Hanni: “Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that.” I still don’t understand why that happened, even now. When I think about it, I feel like it was really ridiculous. This story from Hanni was so frustrating and absurd. Wow, what Hanni just shared is really shocking. She mentioned meeting an artist, and that artist's manager told them to ignore her. If this happened in middle or high school, people would probably dismiss it as childish fighting, but this happened among adults, and it's becoming a huge issue. Honestly, the NewJeans members aren’t sharing these stories to stir things up. They’re probably just speaking truthfully about their experiences and trying to be genuine with their fans, saying, “It’s time we express our stance honestly.” The timing and approach they’ve taken are actually perfect. They started by clearly explaining their motivations and why they’re speaking out, then moved on to using English to express what NewJeans’ identity is and the members' feelings, as well as their history with their manager. They made it clear how they feel about these situations. Now, they've started sharing more detailed stories. The way they’ve structured everything is so good because people remember stories more than abstract thoughts or philosophies. When you say, “This happened to me,” people are much more likely to remember that than vague statements. Hanni shared her unfair experience in such an honest way, and I think it’s going to spread widely. I can already imagine netizens trying to figure out which manager it was, which artist, and so on. This story will likely go viral. People remember stories like this because they stick in their minds. For example, remember when Bang Si-hyuk didn’t return NewJeans’ greeting, and it became a huge thing about face blindness? People don’t remember the details, but they remember that someone important didn’t greet them. It became a memorable story. Minji: “When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about how many more similar incidents might occur in the future and whether we’ll be subtly ostracized without anyone there to protect us.” Hanni: “I hope no one else has to go through something like that, but since it’s already happened once, I can’t help but feel scared that other members might experience the same thing. I spoke to the new CEO about it, but since I didn’t have evidence and it was considered too late, they seemed to brush it off, making me feel like there’s no one left to protect us. It really felt like the concern for us was gone, and even though I was being honest, it made me feel like I was suddenly being treated as a liar. Before, Min Heejin, our previous CEO, used to take care of us a lot. But now, while the new people say they’ll help, it’s just been months of excuses... excuses... excuses... They keep saying that it’s something they can’t resolve. But this is something that I personally went through and experienced, yet they are trying to dismiss it as if it’s my fault. I’m worried and scared about what might happen next.” I want to make two points here. First, this is clearly “invisibility.” It’s not physical violence, but it’s about not acknowledging someone’s greeting, deliberately ignoring them, and so on. While it may not seem like a big deal, it still deeply hurts someone’s feelings. There’s been a lot of research on how these kinds of actions negatively affect an organization, spreading like poison and making people feel bad. It’s something we should really work against. The second point is about third-party justice. Hanni raised a legitimate concern, and it wasn’t handled properly within the company. This made Hanni, Minji, and others realize that the new management isn’t on their side. When others witness this, they’ll also realize that this company doesn’t have their best interests at heart. This realization leads to a loss of trust. People will remember these events, and once this perception sticks, it’s hard to change. It affects not just NewJeans, but also other artists who will think, “Oh, this is how HYBE treats people.” And it even affects the employees who work there. Minji: “Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our production, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all.” What’s worth discussing here is the perception of hypocrisy. People really dislike hypocrisy, and when you think about it, it makes sense. When humans are surviving, if there’s an enemy or a difficult environment, they overcome it as part of life. But the most dangerous situation is when you think someone is an ally, but they turn out to be an enemy. When you thought they were on your side but they stab you in the back — that’s when people are really upset. That’s why people hate it when there’s a discrepancy between outward appearances and inward intentions. It creates a near-hatred, especially when someone claims to be acting for your benefit but it’s clear that they’re not. This is what Minji is clearly pointing out — these people are hypocrites. New Jeans has already reached a conclusion internally: this new management team, in less than a month, has revealed themselves to be hypocrites. And they’ve shared this with the fans and everyone else. This isn’t just some interesting topic on a live broadcast; this will cause a huge impact, and I am certain of that. New Jeans has come to a solid realization — these people are not working for us. They are liars and hypocrites. Therefore, the new management can no longer properly lead the company. They will not be able to continue, and this system cannot be maintained. Why? Because the artist has called them out as hypocrites. The only way they can recover is by proving they aren’t hypocrites, but even then, that’s not effective — New Jeans would have to say it. But the chance of that happening is zero. In short, these people have been socially branded as hypocrites. The new management’s time is up. Less than a month, and their time is over. In the creative industry, especially in culture and the arts, content production — such as creating songs or music videos — cannot be separated from management. That’s how we’ve always worked, and it was good for us. Min Hee-jin was a remarkable creator and artist who understood all of this. The harmony between management and artistic decision-making brought about the incredible phenomenon of New Jeans. But now, they’ve created a system where that harmony can’t exist anymore. Moreover, the new management is culturally ignorant. They don’t understand art, music, or creativity. They have shown this clearly, especially with their mishandling of Director Shin Woo-seok’s music video and the associated fan content, like those on the Dolphiners YouTube channel. They’ve demanded to delete content without protecting the artists, or respecting the work of those who collaborated on it. Their management decisions show a complete lack of sensitivity or empathy. So once again, I say: "the new management’s time is over." Danielle: “As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, as we have done so far.” Personally, they just want to be left alone—just "Leave us alone. Don't interfere; just leave us alone.” This is what they’re saying to both ADOR and HYBE. It's become clear now that HYBE and ADOR can no longer meddle with NewJeans, and I think things will flow that way from now on. The fans won’t stand still either. In entertainment, it’s not about titles like "I’m the CEO," or "I own shares." These are shallow understandings of what makes the entertainment business work. The real value created in this industry is the love and recognition from the fans. No amount of shares or CEO titles matter when that love disappears in an instant. NewJeans is asking to be left alone, and because of this, the new management of HYBE and ADOR can no longer act. I believe the future will unfold accordingly. One important thing I want to emphasize is that NewJeans is a unique group. They’re not just factory-produced idols. The distinctive nature of NewJeans’ music is felt by everyone who listens to them. For example, producer 250, who played a significant role in shaping the NewJeans sound, alongside other talented producers like those from the Banana Culture label, was brought in by CEO Min Hee-jin. This collaboration birthed the unique musical style of NewJeans, which many have come to appreciate. Their latest album, which incorporated elements like New Jack Swing, wasn’t just NewJeans making this music—it was 250's creative vision, drawing inspiration from 70s and 80s funk, R&B, and American black music, and reinterpreting them. If 250 no longer works with NewJeans, their music might become indistinguishable from other idol groups. The choreography, another element that set NewJeans apart, also contributed to their success. However, with the recent tensions, it's obvious that working with key figures like director Shin Woo-seok, who directed many of NewJeans' music videos, will become difficult moving forward. Director Shin wasn’t even interested in music videos before but was inspired to work with NewJeans after a conversation with Min Hee-jin. If Min Hee-jin and people like director Shin are ousted from ADOR, it’s inevitable that the core assets of NewJeans, including their distinctive musical and visual style, will vanish. This is not just a simple matter of one person being ousted—it’s about losing the core elements that made NewJeans what they are. WE STAND WITH NEWJEANS #버니즈_뉴진스와함께_준비갈완료 #방시혁_2주준다_민희진_복귀시켜라
38:10

[Behavioral Scientist's Analysis] NewJeans, Now Even Stronger, HYBE in Trouble I’ll listen again. Danielle: “Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Hee-jin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable.” Danielle clearly stated this and also expressed it in English. So, in terms of the NewJeans issue, international fans who don’t have much information may not have had a clear perception of Ms. Min Hee-jin or how to view this issue. If you look at the comments, it was very poorly organized. In Korea, we now have clear information, so NewJeans fans, Bunnies, are cheering for NewJeans and supporting Ms. Min Hee-jin. It has become clearly sorted out like this. However, internationally, it hasn’t been clearly explained. But with Danielle explaining it so well in English, I expect that from now on, the international atmosphere will shift towards attacking HYBE, criticizing Bang Si-hyuk, and supporting Ms. Min Hee-jin and NewJeans worldwide. So, now that the artist has clearly stated their position and made it clear that the identity and assets of the NewJeans brand come from Ms. Min Hee-jin, regardless of any legal disputes or lawsuits, in the minds of the fans, NewJeans equals Min Hee-jin. And as for the current management of ADOR and HYBE, they will be seen as the ones attacking NewJeans and the mysterious people with no clear motive, such as Bang Si-hyuk. I think this will now be clear. Considering the nature of the entertainment industry, like many creative industries and the cultural industry, this is not manufacturing. Many things can’t be determined through legal processes like patents for ideas or lawsuits. The B2C market, or the market for services and consumption of an artist's brand, is driven by sensitivity. People consume it because of the emotional connection and enjoy it because of that sensitivity. So, what’s the point of winning a legal case? Even if HYBE were to win any legal case, do you think consumers wouldn’t boycott NewJeans’ music or other products afterward? I believe HYBE will be punished in some way for its actions towards ADOR and its current management. The way they are handling risk management is shortsighted, as they fail to understand people’s emotions. They seem to only rely on the advice of legal professionals and accountants, and their entire approach to this issue is so narrow-minded and misguided. It feels incredibly foolish to me. So, to summarize: NewJeans’ branding was done by Ms. Min Hee-jin. The identity and assets of the NewJeans brand were created by her, and we did it together because of her. Haerin: “However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step.” The current situation is shocking, but this is not just about this one incident; they’ve been continuously receiving unfair treatment from HYBE. The fact that they are saying this publicly now is truly shocking. They’ve been discussing these unfair treatments with their parents and Ms. Min Hee-jin while continuing their activities as NewJeans. They are saying that the unfair treatment from HYBE has been ongoing. It’s hard to understand as an outsider, but now the artists themselves have confirmed that there have been instances where the company has mistreated them. This is no longer a matter of speculation or exaggeration. NewJeans has officially admitted that HYBE has been continuously mistreating them. Moving forward, this changes the entire perspective on the issue. It’s no longer just NewJeans vs. HYBE or Min Hee-jin vs. Bang Si-hyuk. It’s hard to even imagine the reality of this situation. Now that the NewJeans artists have come out and said that HYBE has mistreated them, regardless of how HYBE tries to communicate going forward, they will now be framed as the ones mistreating NewJeans. How can they possibly shake off this perception now? I don’t think they can. Hanni: “Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that.” I still don’t understand why that happened, even now. When I think about it, I feel like it was really ridiculous. This story from Hanni was so frustrating and absurd. Wow, what Hanni just shared is really shocking. She mentioned meeting an artist, and that artist's manager told them to ignore her. If this happened in middle or high school, people would probably dismiss it as childish fighting, but this happened among adults, and it's becoming a huge issue. Honestly, the NewJeans members aren’t sharing these stories to stir things up. They’re probably just speaking truthfully about their experiences and trying to be genuine with their fans, saying, “It’s time we express our stance honestly.” The timing and approach they’ve taken are actually perfect. They started by clearly explaining their motivations and why they’re speaking out, then moved on to using English to express what NewJeans’ identity is and the members' feelings, as well as their history with their manager. They made it clear how they feel about these situations. Now, they've started sharing more detailed stories. The way they’ve structured everything is so good because people remember stories more than abstract thoughts or philosophies. When you say, “This happened to me,” people are much more likely to remember that than vague statements. Hanni shared her unfair experience in such an honest way, and I think it’s going to spread widely. I can already imagine netizens trying to figure out which manager it was, which artist, and so on. This story will likely go viral. People remember stories like this because they stick in their minds. For example, remember when Bang Si-hyuk didn’t return NewJeans’ greeting, and it became a huge thing about face blindness? People don’t remember the details, but they remember that someone important didn’t greet them. It became a memorable story. Minji: “When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about how many more similar incidents might occur in the future and whether we’ll be subtly ostracized without anyone there to protect us.” Hanni: “I hope no one else has to go through something like that, but since it’s already happened once, I can’t help but feel scared that other members might experience the same thing. I spoke to the new CEO about it, but since I didn’t have evidence and it was considered too late, they seemed to brush it off, making me feel like there’s no one left to protect us. It really felt like the concern for us was gone, and even though I was being honest, it made me feel like I was suddenly being treated as a liar. Before, Min Heejin, our previous CEO, used to take care of us a lot. But now, while the new people say they’ll help, it’s just been months of excuses... excuses... excuses... They keep saying that it’s something they can’t resolve. But this is something that I personally went through and experienced, yet they are trying to dismiss it as if it’s my fault. I’m worried and scared about what might happen next.” I want to make two points here. First, this is clearly “invisibility.” It’s not physical violence, but it’s about not acknowledging someone’s greeting, deliberately ignoring them, and so on. While it may not seem like a big deal, it still deeply hurts someone’s feelings. There’s been a lot of research on how these kinds of actions negatively affect an organization, spreading like poison and making people feel bad. It’s something we should really work against. The second point is about third-party justice. Hanni raised a legitimate concern, and it wasn’t handled properly within the company. This made Hanni, Minji, and others realize that the new management isn’t on their side. When others witness this, they’ll also realize that this company doesn’t have their best interests at heart. This realization leads to a loss of trust. People will remember these events, and once this perception sticks, it’s hard to change. It affects not just NewJeans, but also other artists who will think, “Oh, this is how HYBE treats people.” And it even affects the employees who work there. Minji: “Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our production, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all.” What’s worth discussing here is the perception of hypocrisy. People really dislike hypocrisy, and when you think about it, it makes sense. When humans are surviving, if there’s an enemy or a difficult environment, they overcome it as part of life. But the most dangerous situation is when you think someone is an ally, but they turn out to be an enemy. When you thought they were on your side but they stab you in the back — that’s when people are really upset. That’s why people hate it when there’s a discrepancy between outward appearances and inward intentions. It creates a near-hatred, especially when someone claims to be acting for your benefit but it’s clear that they’re not. This is what Minji is clearly pointing out — these people are hypocrites. New Jeans has already reached a conclusion internally: this new management team, in less than a month, has revealed themselves to be hypocrites. And they’ve shared this with the fans and everyone else. This isn’t just some interesting topic on a live broadcast; this will cause a huge impact, and I am certain of that. New Jeans has come to a solid realization — these people are not working for us. They are liars and hypocrites. Therefore, the new management can no longer properly lead the company. They will not be able to continue, and this system cannot be maintained. Why? Because the artist has called them out as hypocrites. The only way they can recover is by proving they aren’t hypocrites, but even then, that’s not effective — New Jeans would have to say it. But the chance of that happening is zero. In short, these people have been socially branded as hypocrites. The new management’s time is up. Less than a month, and their time is over. In the creative industry, especially in culture and the arts, content production — such as creating songs or music videos — cannot be separated from management. That’s how we’ve always worked, and it was good for us. Min Hee-jin was a remarkable creator and artist who understood all of this. The harmony between management and artistic decision-making brought about the incredible phenomenon of New Jeans. But now, they’ve created a system where that harmony can’t exist anymore. Moreover, the new management is culturally ignorant. They don’t understand art, music, or creativity. They have shown this clearly, especially with their mishandling of Director Shin Woo-seok’s music video and the associated fan content, like those on the Dolphiners YouTube channel. They’ve demanded to delete content without protecting the artists, or respecting the work of those who collaborated on it. Their management decisions show a complete lack of sensitivity or empathy. So once again, I say: "the new management’s time is over." Danielle: “As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Hee-jin Daepyonim, as we have done so far.” Personally, they just want to be left alone—just "Leave us alone. Don't interfere; just leave us alone.” This is what they’re saying to both ADOR and HYBE. It's become clear now that HYBE and ADOR can no longer meddle with NewJeans, and I think things will flow that way from now on. The fans won’t stand still either. In entertainment, it’s not about titles like "I’m the CEO," or "I own shares." These are shallow understandings of what makes the entertainment business work. The real value created in this industry is the love and recognition from the fans. No amount of shares or CEO titles matter when that love disappears in an instant. NewJeans is asking to be left alone, and because of this, the new management of HYBE and ADOR can no longer act. I believe the future will unfold accordingly. One important thing I want to emphasize is that NewJeans is a unique group. They’re not just factory-produced idols. The distinctive nature of NewJeans’ music is felt by everyone who listens to them. For example, producer 250, who played a significant role in shaping the NewJeans sound, alongside other talented producers like those from the Banana Culture label, was brought in by CEO Min Hee-jin. This collaboration birthed the unique musical style of NewJeans, which many have come to appreciate. Their latest album, which incorporated elements like New Jack Swing, wasn’t just NewJeans making this music—it was 250's creative vision, drawing inspiration from 70s and 80s funk, R&B, and American black music, and reinterpreting them. If 250 no longer works with NewJeans, their music might become indistinguishable from other idol groups. The choreography, another element that set NewJeans apart, also contributed to their success. However, with the recent tensions, it's obvious that working with key figures like director Shin Woo-seok, who directed many of NewJeans' music videos, will become difficult moving forward. Director Shin wasn’t even interested in music videos before but was inspired to work with NewJeans after a conversation with Min Hee-jin. If Min Hee-jin and people like director Shin are ousted from ADOR, it’s inevitable that the core assets of NewJeans, including their distinctive musical and visual style, will vanish. This is not just a simple matter of one person being ousted—it’s about losing the core elements that made NewJeans what they are. WE STAND WITH NEWJEANS #버니즈_뉴진스와함께_준비갈완료 #방시혁_2주준다_민희진_복귀시켜라

1tokki

39,222 次观看 • 1 年前

JAMES COMEY LEAKED CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES in order to push the Russia Collusion narrative onto the American people to take down Trump. Adam Schiff wasn't the only leaker of classified intel. James Comey specifically leaked classified intel to the NYT in order to enable a special prosecutor to take down Trump and conspire with other mainstream media organizations to fool and lie to the American people to push them to go against Trump with a false narrative. This is basically "Project Mockingbird." The main media channels were colluding with government in order to take down a sitting president and undermine the U.S. This has been going on since 2016 against Trump and still is to this day. The FBI concluded numerous legacy news media stories that crafted the false Russia collusion narrative contained illegally leaked classified intelligence but failed to definitively identify the leakers. But agents did force a stunning admission that ex-FBI Director James Comey used a special conduit to the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times in his bid to polish his image and push for a special prosecutor to take down President Donald Trump. Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman admitted to agents in interviews he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey, his longtime friend, with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, whose work was among the newspaper's 2018 Pulitzer-winning stories on Russian election interference. The goal, Richman told the FBI, was "to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage" outside of the bureau's official press office, according to internal FBI memos that current Director Kash Patel delivered to Congress this week. While Richman was known to have been publicly quoted in news stories as an advocate for Comey, he admitted to agents — who were part of the FBI’s Arctic Haze classified leaks inquiry — that he was given access by Comey to what turned out to be highly classified information up to the SCI level and sometimes provided information to reporters on an anonymous basis. Richman insisted he did not believe he had confirmed or provided classified intelligence to reporters but said he could not be 100 percent, the memos state, noting he could only make his leak denial “with a discount.” "Richman was pretty sure he did not confirm the Classified Information. However, Richman told the interviewing agents he was sure 'with a discount' that he did not tell Schmidt about the Classified Information," one FBI memo recounted. In the end, the Justice Department decided not to pursue any criminal charges against Comey or any of his lieutenants or now-Sen. Adam Schiff despite potential evidence of leaks, saying it could not be certain of who leaked what and when. But its interrogation of Richman and his admissions of significant contact with the Times' Schmidt provide the most detailed account to date of how Trump critics like Comey — who was fired by the president — used the media to craft narratives that ultimately turned out to be untrue or misleadingly overstated, the memos show. Just the News also revealed this week that a career intelligence officer who worked for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee for more than a decade repeatedly warned the FBI beginning in 2017 that then-Rep. Adam Schiff had approved leaking classified information to smear then-President Donald Trump over the now-debunked Russiagate scandal. Schiff has denied the allegation. Newly-declassified FBI memos also include details on classified leaks investigations dubbed Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Sirens Lure, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Comey, Richman, and “Arctic Haze” The FBI leak investigation code-named “Arctic Haze” revealed key details about Richman — Comey’s longtime friend, confidante, and media conduit — including what was at that time his nearly decade-long source relationship with Michael Schmidt of The New York Times. The leak investigation zeroed in on four news articles which contained leaked classified information. The first was a New York Times article by four reporters — Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Eric Lichtblau — from late April 2017 titled “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” The second was a Washington Post story by Ellen Nakashima from early April 2017 titled “New details emerge about 2014 Russian hack of the State Department: It was ‘hand to hand combat’.” The third was another Washington Post piece by Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett from late May 2017 titled, “How a Dubious Russian Document Influenced the FBI’s Handling of the Clinton Probe.” The fourth was a Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins Jr. from late May 2017 titled, “The Trump-Russia Story Starts Making Sense.” The April 2017 Times article by Schmidt quoted Richman defending Comey: “Jim sees his role as apolitical and independent. The F.B.I. director, even as he reports to the attorney general, often has to stand apart from his boss.” Schmidt wrote that “confidants like Mr. Richman say he was constrained by circumstance” while “navigating waters in which every move has political consequences.” Richman also reportedly said that Comey displayed “a consistent pattern of someone trying to act with independence and integrity, but within established channels” and that “his approach to the Russia investigation fits this pattern.” The Times article wrongly argued that, in the case of the Trump-Russia investigation, Comey “conducted the investigation by the book.” The FBI memos show that Arctic Haze was opened by the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a media leak investigation in mid-August 2017, after a redacted source in late June 2017 “reported the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in eight articles published between April and June 2017” and after a DOJ request at the start of August 2017. Arctic Haze was predicated on the four aforementioned stories. The FBI closed the investigation in early September 2021 — with the DOJ charging no one with leaking classified material — with the bureau’s closure document providing details about the FBI’s failed attempt to catch the leakers. The bureau document indicated that it had been treated as an “Espionage Investigation.” The FBI said the “factual predication” for the leak inquiry was largely based on the classified information which first appeared in the April 2017 Times piece. The FBI noted that Comey had “publicly indicated on several occasions that classified information contributed to his decision” to unilaterally and preemptively announce in early July 2016 that he did not believe any reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information on a private email server and his further announcement in October 2016 that the Clinton emails investigation was (briefly) being reopened. The bureau said Comey had four reasons for making the announcements the way he did, including that “Comey had concerns the Classified Information, which directly related to whether or not the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] should have been recused from the Midyear Exam investigation, would be leaked to the media or would otherwise be disclosed.” Comey had told the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2017 that “one significant item I can’t, I know the committee’s been briefed on. There’s been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee’s been briefed on the classified facts.” The bureau said that, in classified testimony to a bureau watchdog, “Comey confirmed the specific Classified Information, which was discussed in the New York Times article, and indicated it did impact his decision to make unilateral, public statements about the Midyear Exam [Clinton] investigation.” Recent declassifications provide more details on the classified intelligence which swayed Comey to let Clinton off the hook, as well as revealed more information on so-called Clinton Plan intelligence which the Comey FBI seemed to ignore as it launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump. Comey hires Richman to afford him Top Secret Clearance. The FBI said that “Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE)” in 2015 and “to grant him a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information” and that “FBI records indicated Richman was hired to work on ‘Going Dark’ matters.” The bureau said its investigation “revealed Comey also hired Richman so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information, with someone outside of the FBI’s regular leadership. Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media.” “The investigation revealed Richman had been a source for Michael Schmidt, one of the reporters credited with writing the article at issue, and The New York Times since at least 2008,” the bureau wrote. “Richman first spoke with Schmidt regarding an investigation into illegal activity in sports. Prior to Richman becoming an SGE, Schmidt visited Richman’s house numerous times. The New York Times quoted Richman several times, both on the record and on background, in stories regarding Jim Comey. After he was terminated by President Trump, Comey used Richman as a conduit to convey to the media memoranda of his meetings with President Trump.” “According to Richman, Comey and Richman talked about the ‘hammering’ Comey was taking from the media concerning his handling of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman opined Comey took comfort in the fact Richman had talked to the press about his feelings regarding Comey’s handling and decision-making on the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman claimed Comey never asked him to talk to the media,” the FBI notes say. The FBI wrote that “Richman recalled Comey told him there was some weird classified material related to Lynch which came to the FBI’s attention” and that “Comey told Richman about the Classified Information, including the source of the information.” The FBI said that “investigators learned that FBI Office of Public Affairs was told to assist The New York Times with the April 2017 article” and that “Comey either directed or otherwise authorized FBI’s official assistance to The New York Times.” Disgraced and fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair, appear to have been involved in briefing the Times, according to the bureau memos. “Strzok stated he believed FBI Executive Management told them to meet with the New York Times. Strzok said he recalled being told to provide an investigator-level briefing on the Midyear Exam investigation,” the FBI said. “During the March 30, 2017, meeting, the Times told Strzok and Page they had the Classified Information.” The “summary of investigative steps” by the FBI included interviews with bureau and intelligence community officials, document reviews, phone and email records researches, the review of a 2017 “Tropic Vortex” investigation conducted by then U.S. Attorney John Durham and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and more. “Based upon discussions with DOJ, these investigative steps did not generate sufficient proof to charge any individual with willfully transmitting the Classified Information, conspiring to transmit the Classified Information, or aiding and abetting another person’s Transmission,” the FBI concluded in 2021. The FBI claimed that “the investigation has not yielded sufficient evidence to criminally charge any person, including Comey or Richman, with making false statements or with the substantive offenses under investigation.” Inspector General calls Comey's leaks "unauthorized" DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz wrote a report released in August 2019 criticizing Comey’s decision to leak his so-called “Comey Memos” — including details about Trump’s alleged comments about Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn — to the media in 2017 in an effort by the then-fired FBI director to spur the appointment of a special counsel. Horowitz wrote that his investigation “interviewed 17 witnesses, including former Director Comey and Daniel Richman, the individual who, at Comey's request, shared the contents of one of the Memos with a reporter [Schmidt] for The New York Times.” Comey told Horowitz that the day after being fired by Trump, he retained Richman as an attorney. “We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy,” the DOJ watchdog wrote. “Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” Comey admitted in 2017 that he had hoped leaking this information “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Horowitz concluded Comey’s leaks were “an attempt to force the Department to take official investigative actions.” “Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a special counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure,” Horowitz wrote. “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” Horowitz sent a criminal referral to the DOJ over Comey’s memos at the time, but the DOJ declined to prosecute. Comey’s leak efforts were successful, however, as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel within days of the Comey Memo leaks making their way to the New York Times. An article in the Times penned by Schmidt was titled “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation” and was published on May 16, 2017. Then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel the next day. After two years, Mueller “did not establish” any criminal Trump-Russia collusion. Other classified leaks inquiries also come up short, here is a list: The newly-declassified FBI memos also detail a host of other failed or botched classified leaks investigations that made their way into legacy media. They were given operational code names such as Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Tropic Vortex: he Justice Department’s Tropic Vortex classified leaks investigation focused on an unspecified October 2016 article by The New York Times as well as an early March 2017 article written by Times reporters Schmidt and Michael Shear and titled, “Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claims.” Foggy Falls: The FBI’s Foggy Falls classified inquiry focused on a Washington Post article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from mid-April 2017 titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” The bureau’s Riding Hood investigation included a main focus on a Buzzfeed News article from early April 2017 written by Ali Watkins and titled, “A Former Trump Adviser Met With A Russian Spy.” The FBI speculated that the classified information in that article may have informed a mid-April 2017 story by the Washington Post written by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — and titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” Siren's Lure: The FBI’s unsuccessful Sirens Lure classified inquiry focused on three Washington Post stories. The first was one by four reporters — Matt Zapotosky, Sari Horwitz, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from late May 2017 titled, "Jared Kushner Now a Focus in Russia Investigation.” The second was an article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, and Greg Miller — from late May 2017 titled, "Russian Ambassador Told Moscow that Kushner Wanted Secret Communications Channel with Kremlin.” The third was a piece by four reporters — David Filipov, Amy Brittain, Rosalind Helderman, and Tom Hamburger — from early June 2017 titled, "Explanations for Kushner's Meeting with Head of Kremlin-linked Bank Don't Match Up.” Echos Fate: The bureau’s Echos Fate classified leaks inquiry focused on two Washington Post stories. The first one mentioned by the FBI was a mid-January 2017 story by David Ignatius originally titled “Four burning questions on Russia” which was renamed “Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking?” The second was by three reporters — Greg Miller, Adam Entous, and Ellen Nakashima — published in early February 2017 and titled, “Officials Say Flynn Discussed Sanctions.” Genetic Christmas: The FBI’s failed Genetic Christmas classified leaks investigation focused on an NBC News article written by three reporters — William Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden — which was published in mid-December 2016 and was titled, “U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack.” Series of leaks fed "blatantly false" information to media: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently harshly criticized this specific leak to NBC News, as well as one to The Washington Post, arguing that they fed a false narrative that the intelligence community had already reached a conclusion on Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s intentions during the 2016 election when the Obama-ordered Intelligence Community Assessment had not yet been completed. “Deep State officials in the IC begin leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post, as proven by the unpublished PDB and previous IC products, claiming that Russia used ‘cyber means’ to influence ‘the outcome of the election.’ … Another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA ‘concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened’ in the election to help President Trump,” the Gabbard-led Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed last month. ODNI added: “At this point, there is no official IC assessment that contains that conclusion [...] IC officials again leak to the media, this time claiming [to NBC News] that IC officials believe ‘with a high level of confidence’ that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the ‘U.S. Election Hack’.” Source: Just The News
4:25

JAMES COMEY LEAKED CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES in order to push the Russia Collusion narrative onto the American people to take down Trump. Adam Schiff wasn't the only leaker of classified intel. James Comey specifically leaked classified intel to the NYT in order to enable a special prosecutor to take down Trump and conspire with other mainstream media organizations to fool and lie to the American people to push them to go against Trump with a false narrative. This is basically "Project Mockingbird." The main media channels were colluding with government in order to take down a sitting president and undermine the U.S. This has been going on since 2016 against Trump and still is to this day. The FBI concluded numerous legacy news media stories that crafted the false Russia collusion narrative contained illegally leaked classified intelligence but failed to definitively identify the leakers. But agents did force a stunning admission that ex-FBI Director James Comey used a special conduit to the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times in his bid to polish his image and push for a special prosecutor to take down President Donald Trump. Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman admitted to agents in interviews he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey, his longtime friend, with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, whose work was among the newspaper's 2018 Pulitzer-winning stories on Russian election interference. The goal, Richman told the FBI, was "to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage" outside of the bureau's official press office, according to internal FBI memos that current Director Kash Patel delivered to Congress this week. While Richman was known to have been publicly quoted in news stories as an advocate for Comey, he admitted to agents — who were part of the FBI’s Arctic Haze classified leaks inquiry — that he was given access by Comey to what turned out to be highly classified information up to the SCI level and sometimes provided information to reporters on an anonymous basis. Richman insisted he did not believe he had confirmed or provided classified intelligence to reporters but said he could not be 100 percent, the memos state, noting he could only make his leak denial “with a discount.” "Richman was pretty sure he did not confirm the Classified Information. However, Richman told the interviewing agents he was sure 'with a discount' that he did not tell Schmidt about the Classified Information," one FBI memo recounted. In the end, the Justice Department decided not to pursue any criminal charges against Comey or any of his lieutenants or now-Sen. Adam Schiff despite potential evidence of leaks, saying it could not be certain of who leaked what and when. But its interrogation of Richman and his admissions of significant contact with the Times' Schmidt provide the most detailed account to date of how Trump critics like Comey — who was fired by the president — used the media to craft narratives that ultimately turned out to be untrue or misleadingly overstated, the memos show. Just the News also revealed this week that a career intelligence officer who worked for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee for more than a decade repeatedly warned the FBI beginning in 2017 that then-Rep. Adam Schiff had approved leaking classified information to smear then-President Donald Trump over the now-debunked Russiagate scandal. Schiff has denied the allegation. Newly-declassified FBI memos also include details on classified leaks investigations dubbed Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Sirens Lure, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Comey, Richman, and “Arctic Haze” The FBI leak investigation code-named “Arctic Haze” revealed key details about Richman — Comey’s longtime friend, confidante, and media conduit — including what was at that time his nearly decade-long source relationship with Michael Schmidt of The New York Times. The leak investigation zeroed in on four news articles which contained leaked classified information. The first was a New York Times article by four reporters — Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Eric Lichtblau — from late April 2017 titled “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” The second was a Washington Post story by Ellen Nakashima from early April 2017 titled “New details emerge about 2014 Russian hack of the State Department: It was ‘hand to hand combat’.” The third was another Washington Post piece by Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett from late May 2017 titled, “How a Dubious Russian Document Influenced the FBI’s Handling of the Clinton Probe.” The fourth was a Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins Jr. from late May 2017 titled, “The Trump-Russia Story Starts Making Sense.” The April 2017 Times article by Schmidt quoted Richman defending Comey: “Jim sees his role as apolitical and independent. The F.B.I. director, even as he reports to the attorney general, often has to stand apart from his boss.” Schmidt wrote that “confidants like Mr. Richman say he was constrained by circumstance” while “navigating waters in which every move has political consequences.” Richman also reportedly said that Comey displayed “a consistent pattern of someone trying to act with independence and integrity, but within established channels” and that “his approach to the Russia investigation fits this pattern.” The Times article wrongly argued that, in the case of the Trump-Russia investigation, Comey “conducted the investigation by the book.” The FBI memos show that Arctic Haze was opened by the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a media leak investigation in mid-August 2017, after a redacted source in late June 2017 “reported the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in eight articles published between April and June 2017” and after a DOJ request at the start of August 2017. Arctic Haze was predicated on the four aforementioned stories. The FBI closed the investigation in early September 2021 — with the DOJ charging no one with leaking classified material — with the bureau’s closure document providing details about the FBI’s failed attempt to catch the leakers. The bureau document indicated that it had been treated as an “Espionage Investigation.” The FBI said the “factual predication” for the leak inquiry was largely based on the classified information which first appeared in the April 2017 Times piece. The FBI noted that Comey had “publicly indicated on several occasions that classified information contributed to his decision” to unilaterally and preemptively announce in early July 2016 that he did not believe any reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information on a private email server and his further announcement in October 2016 that the Clinton emails investigation was (briefly) being reopened. The bureau said Comey had four reasons for making the announcements the way he did, including that “Comey had concerns the Classified Information, which directly related to whether or not the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] should have been recused from the Midyear Exam investigation, would be leaked to the media or would otherwise be disclosed.” Comey had told the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2017 that “one significant item I can’t, I know the committee’s been briefed on. There’s been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee’s been briefed on the classified facts.” The bureau said that, in classified testimony to a bureau watchdog, “Comey confirmed the specific Classified Information, which was discussed in the New York Times article, and indicated it did impact his decision to make unilateral, public statements about the Midyear Exam [Clinton] investigation.” Recent declassifications provide more details on the classified intelligence which swayed Comey to let Clinton off the hook, as well as revealed more information on so-called Clinton Plan intelligence which the Comey FBI seemed to ignore as it launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump. Comey hires Richman to afford him Top Secret Clearance. The FBI said that “Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE)” in 2015 and “to grant him a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information” and that “FBI records indicated Richman was hired to work on ‘Going Dark’ matters.” The bureau said its investigation “revealed Comey also hired Richman so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information, with someone outside of the FBI’s regular leadership. Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media.” “The investigation revealed Richman had been a source for Michael Schmidt, one of the reporters credited with writing the article at issue, and The New York Times since at least 2008,” the bureau wrote. “Richman first spoke with Schmidt regarding an investigation into illegal activity in sports. Prior to Richman becoming an SGE, Schmidt visited Richman’s house numerous times. The New York Times quoted Richman several times, both on the record and on background, in stories regarding Jim Comey. After he was terminated by President Trump, Comey used Richman as a conduit to convey to the media memoranda of his meetings with President Trump.” “According to Richman, Comey and Richman talked about the ‘hammering’ Comey was taking from the media concerning his handling of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman opined Comey took comfort in the fact Richman had talked to the press about his feelings regarding Comey’s handling and decision-making on the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman claimed Comey never asked him to talk to the media,” the FBI notes say. The FBI wrote that “Richman recalled Comey told him there was some weird classified material related to Lynch which came to the FBI’s attention” and that “Comey told Richman about the Classified Information, including the source of the information.” The FBI said that “investigators learned that FBI Office of Public Affairs was told to assist The New York Times with the April 2017 article” and that “Comey either directed or otherwise authorized FBI’s official assistance to The New York Times.” Disgraced and fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair, appear to have been involved in briefing the Times, according to the bureau memos. “Strzok stated he believed FBI Executive Management told them to meet with the New York Times. Strzok said he recalled being told to provide an investigator-level briefing on the Midyear Exam investigation,” the FBI said. “During the March 30, 2017, meeting, the Times told Strzok and Page they had the Classified Information.” The “summary of investigative steps” by the FBI included interviews with bureau and intelligence community officials, document reviews, phone and email records researches, the review of a 2017 “Tropic Vortex” investigation conducted by then U.S. Attorney John Durham and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and more. “Based upon discussions with DOJ, these investigative steps did not generate sufficient proof to charge any individual with willfully transmitting the Classified Information, conspiring to transmit the Classified Information, or aiding and abetting another person’s Transmission,” the FBI concluded in 2021. The FBI claimed that “the investigation has not yielded sufficient evidence to criminally charge any person, including Comey or Richman, with making false statements or with the substantive offenses under investigation.” Inspector General calls Comey's leaks "unauthorized" DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz wrote a report released in August 2019 criticizing Comey’s decision to leak his so-called “Comey Memos” — including details about Trump’s alleged comments about Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn — to the media in 2017 in an effort by the then-fired FBI director to spur the appointment of a special counsel. Horowitz wrote that his investigation “interviewed 17 witnesses, including former Director Comey and Daniel Richman, the individual who, at Comey's request, shared the contents of one of the Memos with a reporter [Schmidt] for The New York Times.” Comey told Horowitz that the day after being fired by Trump, he retained Richman as an attorney. “We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy,” the DOJ watchdog wrote. “Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” Comey admitted in 2017 that he had hoped leaking this information “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Horowitz concluded Comey’s leaks were “an attempt to force the Department to take official investigative actions.” “Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a special counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure,” Horowitz wrote. “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” Horowitz sent a criminal referral to the DOJ over Comey’s memos at the time, but the DOJ declined to prosecute. Comey’s leak efforts were successful, however, as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel within days of the Comey Memo leaks making their way to the New York Times. An article in the Times penned by Schmidt was titled “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation” and was published on May 16, 2017. Then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel the next day. After two years, Mueller “did not establish” any criminal Trump-Russia collusion. Other classified leaks inquiries also come up short, here is a list: The newly-declassified FBI memos also detail a host of other failed or botched classified leaks investigations that made their way into legacy media. They were given operational code names such as Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Tropic Vortex: he Justice Department’s Tropic Vortex classified leaks investigation focused on an unspecified October 2016 article by The New York Times as well as an early March 2017 article written by Times reporters Schmidt and Michael Shear and titled, “Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claims.” Foggy Falls: The FBI’s Foggy Falls classified inquiry focused on a Washington Post article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from mid-April 2017 titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” The bureau’s Riding Hood investigation included a main focus on a Buzzfeed News article from early April 2017 written by Ali Watkins and titled, “A Former Trump Adviser Met With A Russian Spy.” The FBI speculated that the classified information in that article may have informed a mid-April 2017 story by the Washington Post written by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — and titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” Siren's Lure: The FBI’s unsuccessful Sirens Lure classified inquiry focused on three Washington Post stories. The first was one by four reporters — Matt Zapotosky, Sari Horwitz, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from late May 2017 titled, "Jared Kushner Now a Focus in Russia Investigation.” The second was an article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, and Greg Miller — from late May 2017 titled, "Russian Ambassador Told Moscow that Kushner Wanted Secret Communications Channel with Kremlin.” The third was a piece by four reporters — David Filipov, Amy Brittain, Rosalind Helderman, and Tom Hamburger — from early June 2017 titled, "Explanations for Kushner's Meeting with Head of Kremlin-linked Bank Don't Match Up.” Echos Fate: The bureau’s Echos Fate classified leaks inquiry focused on two Washington Post stories. The first one mentioned by the FBI was a mid-January 2017 story by David Ignatius originally titled “Four burning questions on Russia” which was renamed “Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking?” The second was by three reporters — Greg Miller, Adam Entous, and Ellen Nakashima — published in early February 2017 and titled, “Officials Say Flynn Discussed Sanctions.” Genetic Christmas: The FBI’s failed Genetic Christmas classified leaks investigation focused on an NBC News article written by three reporters — William Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden — which was published in mid-December 2016 and was titled, “U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack.” Series of leaks fed "blatantly false" information to media: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently harshly criticized this specific leak to NBC News, as well as one to The Washington Post, arguing that they fed a false narrative that the intelligence community had already reached a conclusion on Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s intentions during the 2016 election when the Obama-ordered Intelligence Community Assessment had not yet been completed. “Deep State officials in the IC begin leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post, as proven by the unpublished PDB and previous IC products, claiming that Russia used ‘cyber means’ to influence ‘the outcome of the election.’ … Another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA ‘concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened’ in the election to help President Trump,” the Gabbard-led Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed last month. ODNI added: “At this point, there is no official IC assessment that contains that conclusion [...] IC officials again leak to the media, this time claiming [to NBC News] that IC officials believe ‘with a high level of confidence’ that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the ‘U.S. Election Hack’.” Source: Just The News

The SCIF

32,064 次观看 • 1 年前

THE GRAND ILLUSION: Former FBI Head confirms the Illuminati wants to rule the world and has infiltrated every level of society including prosecutors, judges, industry, politicians and the White House. Their Secret Covenant is the intentional demise of humanity through wars, pandemics, climate change, division, poison, terrorist acts, disease and death. The Illuminati are members of the Committee of 300 and this is their Secret Covenant against Humanity: An illusion it will be, so large, so vast it will escape their perception. Those who will see it will be thought of as insane. We will create separate fronts to prevent them from seeing the connection between us. We will behave as if we are not connected to keep the illusion alive. Our goal will be accomplished one drop at a time so as to never bring suspicion upon ourselves. This will also prevent them from seeing the changes as they occur. We will always stand above the relative field of their experience for we know the secrets of the absolute. We will work together always and will remain bound by blood and secrecy. Death will come to he who speaks. We will keep their lifespan short and their minds weak while pretending to do the opposite. We will use our knowledge of science and technology in subtle ways so they will never see what is happening. We will use soft metals, aging accelerators and sedatives in food and water, also in the air. They will be blanketed by poisons everywhere they turn. The soft metals will cause them to lose their minds. We will promise to find a cure from our many fronts, yet we will feed them more poison. The poisons will be absorbed through their skin and mouths, they will destroy their minds and reproductive systems. From all this, their children will be born dead, and we will conceal this information. The poisons will be hidden in everything that surrounds them, in what they drink, eat, breathe and wear. We must be ingenious in dispensing the poisons for they can see far. We will teach them that the poisons are good, with fun images and musical tones. Those they look up to will help. We will enlist them to push our poisons. They will see our products being used in film and will grow accustomed to them and will never know their true effect. When they give birth we will inject poisons into the blood of their children and convince them its for their help. We will start early on, when their minds are young, we will target their children with what children love most, sweet things. When their teeth decay we will fill them with metals that will kill their mind and steal their future. When their ability to learn has been affected, we will create medicine that will make them sicker and cause other diseases for which we will create yet more medicine. We will render them docile and weak before us by our power. They will grow depressed, slow and obese, and when they come to us for help, we will give them more poison. We will focus their attention toward money and material goods so they may never connect with their inner self. We will distract them with fornication, external pleasures and games so they may never be one with the oneness of it all. Their minds will belong to us and they will do as we say. If they refuse we shall find ways to implement mind-altering technology into their lives. We will use fear as our weapon. We will establish their governments and establish opposites within. We will own both sides. We will always hide our objective but carry out our plan. They will perform the labor for us and we shall prosper from their toil. Our families will never mix with theirs. Our blood must be pure always, for it is the way. We will make them kill each other when it suits us. We will keep them separated from the oneness by dogma and religion. We will control all aspects of their lives and tell them what to think and how. We will guide them kindly and gently letting them think they are guiding themselves. We will foment animosity between them through our factions. When a light shall shine among them, we shall extinguish it by ridicule, or death, whichever suits us best. We will make them rip each other's hearts apart and kill their own children. We will accomplish this by using hate as our ally, anger as our friend. The hate will blind them totally, and never shall they see that from their conflicts we emerge as their rulers. They will be busy killing each other. They will bathe in their own blood and kill their neighbors for as long as we see fit. We will benefit greatly from this, for they will not see us, for they cannot see us. We will continue to prosper from their wars and their deaths. We shall repeat this over and over until our ultimate goal is accomplished. We will continue to make them live in fear and anger through images and sounds. We will use all the tools we have to accomplish this. The tools will be provided by their labor. We will make them hate themselves and their neighbors. We will always hide the divine truth from them, that we are all one. This they must never know! They must never know that color is an illusion, they must always think they are not equal. Drop by drop, drop by drop we will advance our goal. We will take over their land, resources and wealth to exercise total control over them. We will deceive them into accepting laws that will steal the little freedom they will have. We will establish a money system that will imprison them forever, keeping them and their children in debt. When they shall ban together, we shall accuse them of crimes and present a different story to the world for we shall own all the media. We will use our media to control the flow of information and their sentiment in our favor. When they shall rise up against us we will crush them like insects, for they are less than that. They will be helpless to do anything for they will have no weapons. We will recruit some of their own to carry out our plans, we will promise them eternal life, but eternal life they will never have for they are not of us. The recruits will be called "initiates" and will be indoctrinated to believe false rites of passage to higher realms. Members of these groups will think they are one with us never knowing the truth. They must never learn this truth for they will turn against us. For their work they will be rewarded with earthly things and great titles, but never will they become immortal and join us, never will they receive the light and travel the stars. They will never reach the higher realms, for the killing of their own kind will prevent passage to the realm of enlightenment. This they will never know. The truth will be hidden in their face, so close they will not be able to focus on it until its too late. Oh yes, so grand the illusion of freedom will be, that they will never know they are our slaves. When all is in place, the reality we will have created for them will own them. This reality will be their prison. They will live in self-delusion. When our goal is accomplished a new era of domination will begin. Their minds will be bound by their beliefs, the beliefs we have established from time immemorial. But if they ever find out they are our equal, we shall perish then. THIS THEY MUST NEVER KNOW. If they ever find out that together they can vanquish us, they will take action. They must never, ever find out what we have done, for if they do, we shall have no place to run, for it will be easy to see who we are once the veil has fallen. Our actions will have revealed who we are and they will hunt us down and no person shall give us shelter. This is the secret covenant by which we shall live the rest of our present and future lives, for this reality will transcend many generations and life spans. This covenant is sealed by blood, our blood. We, the ones who from heaven to earth came. This covenant must NEVER, EVER be known to exist. It must NEVER, EVER be written or spoken of, for if it is, the consciousness it will spawn will release the fury of the PRIME CREATOR upon us and we shall be cast to the depths from whence we came and remain there until the end time of infinity itself. The above Secret Covenant was received by an UNKNOWN Person on 6/21/2002. Below are the names of the members of the Committee of 300 who have been destroying and controlling humanity for over 200 years. They have thousands of "initiates" that are under their control such as Klaus Schwab, Anthony Fauci, George Soros, Joseph R. Biden, Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and many more. They are moving forward with full force to accomplish their goals of depopulation and a one world government. They will continue to use fires, climate change, pandemics, wars and terrorist acts to accomplish their goals unless we stop them now. PAST AND PRESENT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300 AS OF 1991: BILL GATES IS A NEW MEMBER Abergavemy, Marquis of. Acheson, Dean. Adeane, Lord Michael. Agnelli, Giovanni. Alba, Duke of. Aldington, Lord. Aleman, Miguel. Allihone, Professor T. E. Alsop Family Designate. Amory, Houghton. Anderson, Charles A. Anderson, Robert 0. Andreas, Dwayne. Asquith, Lord. Astor, John Jacob and successor, Waldorf. Aurangzeb, Descendants of. Austin, Paul. Baco, Sir Ranulph BalFour, Arthur. Balogh, Lord. Bancroft, Baron Stormont. Baring. Barnato, B. Barran, Sir John. Baxendell, Sir Peter. Beatrice of Savoy, Princess. Beaverbrook, Lord. Beck, Robert. Beeley, Sir Harold. Beit, Alfred. Benn, Anthony Wedgewood. Bennet, John W. Benneton, Gilberto or alternate Carlo. Bertie, Andrew. Besant, Sir Walter. Bethal, Lord Nicholas. Bialkin, David. Biao, Keng. Bingham, William. Binny, J. F. Blunt, Wilfred. Bonacassi, Franco Orsini. Bottcher, Fritz. Bradshaw, Thornton. Brandt, Willy. Brewster, Kingman. Buchan, Alastair. Buffet, Warren. Bullitt, William C. Bulwer-Lytton, Edward. Bundy, McGeorge. Bundy, William. Bush, George. Cabot, John. Family Designate. Caccia, Baron Harold Anthony. Cadman, Sir John. Califano, Joseph. Carrington, Lord. Carter, Edward. Catlin, Donat. Catto, Lord. Cavendish, Victor C. W. Duke of Devonshire. Chamberlain, Houston Stewart. Chang, V. F. Chechirin, Georgi or Family Designate. Churchill, Winston. Cicireni, V. or Family Designate. Cini, Count Vittorio. Clark, Howard. Cleveland, Amory. Cleveland, Harland. Clifford, Clark. Cobold, Lord. Coffin, the Rev William Sloane. Constanti, House of Orange. Cooper, John. Family Designate. Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count. Cowdray, Lord. Cox, Sir Percy. Cromer, Lord Evelyn Baring. Crowther, Sir Eric. Cumming, Sir Mansfield. Curtis, Lionel. d'Arcy, William K. D'Avignon, Count Etienne. Danner, Jean Duroc. Davis, John W. de Benneditti, Carlo. De Bruyne, Dirk. De Gunzberg, Baron Alain. De Lamater, Major General Walter. De Menil, Jean. De Vries, Rimmer. de Zulueta, Sir Philip. de'Aremberg, Marquis Charles Louis. Delano. Family Designate. Dent, R. Deterding, Sir Henri. di Spadaforas, Count Guitierez, (House Douglas-Home, Sir Alec. Drake, Sir Eric. Duchene, Francois. DuPont. Edward, Duke of Kent. Eisenberg, Shaul. Elliott, Nicholas. Elliott, William Yandel. Elsworthy, Lord. Farmer, Victor. Forbes, John M. Foscaro, Pierre. France, Sir Arnold. Fraser, Sir Hugh. Frederik IX, King of Denmark Family Designate. Freres, Lazard. Frescobaldi, Lamberto. Fribourg, Michael. Gabor, Dennis. Gallatin, Albert. Family Designate. Gardner, Richard. Gates, William Henry III Geddes, Sir Auckland. Geddes, Sir Reay. George, Lloyd. Giffen, James. Gilmer, John D. Giustiniani, Justin. Gladstone, Lord. Gloucestor, The Duke of. Gordon, Walter Lockhart. Grace, Peter J. Greenhill, Lord Dennis Arthur. Greenhill, Sir Dennis. Grey, Sir Edward. Gyllenhammar, Pierres. Haakon, King of Norway. Haig, Sir Douglas. Hailsham, Lord. Haldane, Richard Burdone. Halifax, Lord. Hall, Sir Peter Vickers. Hambro, Sir Jocelyn. Hamilton, Cyril. Harriman, Averill. Hart, Sir Robert. Hartman, Arthur H. Healey, Dennis. Helsby, Lord. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty Queen Juliana. Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrix. Her Royal Highness Queen Margreta. Heseltine, Sir William. Hesse, Grand Duke descendants, Family Designate. Hoffman, Paul G. Holland, William. House of Braganza. House of Hohenzollern. House, Colonel Mandel. Howe, Sir Geoffrey. Hughes, Thomas H. Hugo, Thieman. Hutchins, Robert M. Huxley, Aldous. Inchcape, Lord. Jamieson, Ken. Japhet, Ernst Israel. Jay, John. Family Designate. Keynes, John Maynard. Jodry, J. J. Joseph, Sir Keith. Katz, Milton. Kaufman, Asher. Keith, Sir Kenneth. Keswick, Sir William Johnston, or Keswick, H.N.L. Keswick, William Johnston. Kimberly, Lord. King, Dr. Alexander. Kirk, Grayson L. Kissinger, Henry. Kitchener, Lord Horatio. Kohnstamm, Max. Korsch, Karl. Lambert, Baron Pierre. Lawrence, G. Lazar. Lehrman, Lewis. Lever, Sir Harold. Lewin, Dr. Kurt. Lippmann, Walter. Livingstone, Robert R. Family Designate. Lockhart, Bruce. Lockhart, Gordon. Linowitz, S. Loudon, Sir John. Luzzatto, Pieipaolo. Mackay, Lord, of Clasfern. Mackay-Tallack, Sir Hugh. Mackinder, Halford. MacMillan, Harold. Matheson, Jardine. Mazzini, Gueseppi. McClaughlin, W. E. McCloy, John J. McFadyean, Sir Andrew. McGhee, George. McMillan, Harold. Mellon, Andrew. Mellon, William Larimer or Family Designate. Meyer, Frank. Michener, Roland. Mikovan, Anastas. Milner, Lord Alfred. Mitterand, Francois. Monett, Jean. Montague, Samuel. Montefiore, Lord Sebag or Bishop Hugh. Morgan, John P. Mott, Stewart. Mountain, Sir Brian Edward. Mountain, Sir Dennis. Mountbatten, Lord Louis. Munthe, A., or family designate. Naisbitt, John. Neeman, Yuval. Newbigging, David. Nicols, Lord Nicholas of Bethal. Norman, Montague. O'Brien of Lotherby, Lord. Ogilvie, Angus. Okita, Saburo. Oldfield, Sir Morris. Oppenheimer, Sir Earnest, and successor, Harry. Ormsby Gore, David (Lord Harlech). Orsini, Franco Bonacassi. Ortolani. Umberto. Ostiguy, J.P.W. Paley, William S. Pallavacini. Palme, Olaf. Palmerston. Palmstierna, Jacob. Pao, Y.K. Pease, Richard T. Peccei, Aurellio. Peek, Sir Edmund. Pellegreno, Michael, Cardinal. Perkins, Nelson. Pestel, Eduard. Peterson, Rudolph. Petterson, Peter G. Petty, John R. Philip, Prince, Duke of Edinburgh. Piercy, George. Pinchott, Gifford. Pratt, Charles. Price Waterhouse, Designate. Radziwall. Ranier, Prince. Raskob, John Jacob. Recanati. Rees, John Rawlings. Rees, John. Rennie, Sir John. Rettinger, Joseph. Rhodes, Cecil John. Rockefeller, David. Role, Lord Eric of Ipsden. Rosenthal, Morton. Rostow, Eugene. Rothmere, Lord. Rothschild Elie de or Edmon de and/or Baron Rothschild Runcie, Dr.Robert. Russell, Lord John. Russell, Sir Bertrand. Saint Gouers, Jean. Salisbury, Marquisse de Robert Gascoiugne Cecil. Shelburne, The Salisbury, Lord. Samuel, Sir Marcus. Sandberg, M. G. Sarnoff, Robert. Schmidheiny, Stephan or alternate brothers Thomas, Alexander. Schoenberg, Andrew. Schroeder. Schultz, George. Schwartzenburg, E. Shawcross, Sir Hartley. Sheridan, Walter. Shiloach, Rubin. Silitoe, Sir Percy. Simon, William. Sloan, Alfred P. Smuts, Jan. Spelman. Sproull, Robert. Stals, Dr. C. Stamp, Lord Family designate. Steel, David. Stiger, George. Strathmore, Lord. Strong, Sir Kenneth. Strong, Maurice. Sutherland. Swathling, Lord. Swire, J. K. Tasse, G. Or Family Designate. Temple, Sir R. Thompson, William Boyce. Thompson, Lord. Thyssen-Bornamisza, Baron Hans Henrich. Trevelyn, Lord Humphrey. Turner, Sir Mark. Turner, Ted. Tyron, Lord. Urquidi, Victor. Van Den Broek, H. Vanderbilt. Vance, Cyrus. Verity, William C. Vesty, Lord Amuel. Vickers, Sir Geoffrey. Villiers, Gerald Hyde family alternate. Volpi, Count. von Finck, Baron August. von Hapsburg, Archduke Otto, House of Hapsburg-Lorraine. Von Thurn and Taxis, Max. Wallenberg, Peter or Family Designate. Wang, Kwan Cheng, Dr. Warburg, S. C. Ward Jackson, Lady Barbara. Warner, Rawleigh. Warnke, Paul. Warren, Earl. Watson, Thomas. Webb, Sydney. Weill, David. Weill, Dr. Andrew. Weinberger, Sir Caspar. Weizman, Chaim. Wells, H. G. Wheetman, Pearson (Lord Cowdray). White, Sir Dick Goldsmith. Whitney, Straight. Wiseman, Sir William. Wittelsbach. Wolfson, Sir Isaac. Wood, Charles. Young, Owen. Their Secret Covenant Is Not a secret anymore, the truth has been exposed. Everything stated in this document years ago has come true and is coming true at this very moment. The veil has fallen and it is easy to see who they are now. All their names are listed above. Now is the time to stand together, to be brave and take action by hunting them down and restoring humanity to its rightful place. This is our Planet and their time of ruling by death and chaos is over forever. They know that together we can vanquish them. Unite and Defend.
11:26

THE GRAND ILLUSION: Former FBI Head confirms the Illuminati wants to rule the world and has infiltrated every level of society including prosecutors, judges, industry, politicians and the White House. Their Secret Covenant is the intentional demise of humanity through wars, pandemics, climate change, division, poison, terrorist acts, disease and death. The Illuminati are members of the Committee of 300 and this is their Secret Covenant against Humanity: An illusion it will be, so large, so vast it will escape their perception. Those who will see it will be thought of as insane. We will create separate fronts to prevent them from seeing the connection between us. We will behave as if we are not connected to keep the illusion alive. Our goal will be accomplished one drop at a time so as to never bring suspicion upon ourselves. This will also prevent them from seeing the changes as they occur. We will always stand above the relative field of their experience for we know the secrets of the absolute. We will work together always and will remain bound by blood and secrecy. Death will come to he who speaks. We will keep their lifespan short and their minds weak while pretending to do the opposite. We will use our knowledge of science and technology in subtle ways so they will never see what is happening. We will use soft metals, aging accelerators and sedatives in food and water, also in the air. They will be blanketed by poisons everywhere they turn. The soft metals will cause them to lose their minds. We will promise to find a cure from our many fronts, yet we will feed them more poison. The poisons will be absorbed through their skin and mouths, they will destroy their minds and reproductive systems. From all this, their children will be born dead, and we will conceal this information. The poisons will be hidden in everything that surrounds them, in what they drink, eat, breathe and wear. We must be ingenious in dispensing the poisons for they can see far. We will teach them that the poisons are good, with fun images and musical tones. Those they look up to will help. We will enlist them to push our poisons. They will see our products being used in film and will grow accustomed to them and will never know their true effect. When they give birth we will inject poisons into the blood of their children and convince them its for their help. We will start early on, when their minds are young, we will target their children with what children love most, sweet things. When their teeth decay we will fill them with metals that will kill their mind and steal their future. When their ability to learn has been affected, we will create medicine that will make them sicker and cause other diseases for which we will create yet more medicine. We will render them docile and weak before us by our power. They will grow depressed, slow and obese, and when they come to us for help, we will give them more poison. We will focus their attention toward money and material goods so they may never connect with their inner self. We will distract them with fornication, external pleasures and games so they may never be one with the oneness of it all. Their minds will belong to us and they will do as we say. If they refuse we shall find ways to implement mind-altering technology into their lives. We will use fear as our weapon. We will establish their governments and establish opposites within. We will own both sides. We will always hide our objective but carry out our plan. They will perform the labor for us and we shall prosper from their toil. Our families will never mix with theirs. Our blood must be pure always, for it is the way. We will make them kill each other when it suits us. We will keep them separated from the oneness by dogma and religion. We will control all aspects of their lives and tell them what to think and how. We will guide them kindly and gently letting them think they are guiding themselves. We will foment animosity between them through our factions. When a light shall shine among them, we shall extinguish it by ridicule, or death, whichever suits us best. We will make them rip each other's hearts apart and kill their own children. We will accomplish this by using hate as our ally, anger as our friend. The hate will blind them totally, and never shall they see that from their conflicts we emerge as their rulers. They will be busy killing each other. They will bathe in their own blood and kill their neighbors for as long as we see fit. We will benefit greatly from this, for they will not see us, for they cannot see us. We will continue to prosper from their wars and their deaths. We shall repeat this over and over until our ultimate goal is accomplished. We will continue to make them live in fear and anger through images and sounds. We will use all the tools we have to accomplish this. The tools will be provided by their labor. We will make them hate themselves and their neighbors. We will always hide the divine truth from them, that we are all one. This they must never know! They must never know that color is an illusion, they must always think they are not equal. Drop by drop, drop by drop we will advance our goal. We will take over their land, resources and wealth to exercise total control over them. We will deceive them into accepting laws that will steal the little freedom they will have. We will establish a money system that will imprison them forever, keeping them and their children in debt. When they shall ban together, we shall accuse them of crimes and present a different story to the world for we shall own all the media. We will use our media to control the flow of information and their sentiment in our favor. When they shall rise up against us we will crush them like insects, for they are less than that. They will be helpless to do anything for they will have no weapons. We will recruit some of their own to carry out our plans, we will promise them eternal life, but eternal life they will never have for they are not of us. The recruits will be called "initiates" and will be indoctrinated to believe false rites of passage to higher realms. Members of these groups will think they are one with us never knowing the truth. They must never learn this truth for they will turn against us. For their work they will be rewarded with earthly things and great titles, but never will they become immortal and join us, never will they receive the light and travel the stars. They will never reach the higher realms, for the killing of their own kind will prevent passage to the realm of enlightenment. This they will never know. The truth will be hidden in their face, so close they will not be able to focus on it until its too late. Oh yes, so grand the illusion of freedom will be, that they will never know they are our slaves. When all is in place, the reality we will have created for them will own them. This reality will be their prison. They will live in self-delusion. When our goal is accomplished a new era of domination will begin. Their minds will be bound by their beliefs, the beliefs we have established from time immemorial. But if they ever find out they are our equal, we shall perish then. THIS THEY MUST NEVER KNOW. If they ever find out that together they can vanquish us, they will take action. They must never, ever find out what we have done, for if they do, we shall have no place to run, for it will be easy to see who we are once the veil has fallen. Our actions will have revealed who we are and they will hunt us down and no person shall give us shelter. This is the secret covenant by which we shall live the rest of our present and future lives, for this reality will transcend many generations and life spans. This covenant is sealed by blood, our blood. We, the ones who from heaven to earth came. This covenant must NEVER, EVER be known to exist. It must NEVER, EVER be written or spoken of, for if it is, the consciousness it will spawn will release the fury of the PRIME CREATOR upon us and we shall be cast to the depths from whence we came and remain there until the end time of infinity itself. The above Secret Covenant was received by an UNKNOWN Person on 6/21/2002. Below are the names of the members of the Committee of 300 who have been destroying and controlling humanity for over 200 years. They have thousands of "initiates" that are under their control such as Klaus Schwab, Anthony Fauci, George Soros, Joseph R. Biden, Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and many more. They are moving forward with full force to accomplish their goals of depopulation and a one world government. They will continue to use fires, climate change, pandemics, wars and terrorist acts to accomplish their goals unless we stop them now. PAST AND PRESENT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300 AS OF 1991: BILL GATES IS A NEW MEMBER Abergavemy, Marquis of. Acheson, Dean. Adeane, Lord Michael. Agnelli, Giovanni. Alba, Duke of. Aldington, Lord. Aleman, Miguel. Allihone, Professor T. E. Alsop Family Designate. Amory, Houghton. Anderson, Charles A. Anderson, Robert 0. Andreas, Dwayne. Asquith, Lord. Astor, John Jacob and successor, Waldorf. Aurangzeb, Descendants of. Austin, Paul. Baco, Sir Ranulph BalFour, Arthur. Balogh, Lord. Bancroft, Baron Stormont. Baring. Barnato, B. Barran, Sir John. Baxendell, Sir Peter. Beatrice of Savoy, Princess. Beaverbrook, Lord. Beck, Robert. Beeley, Sir Harold. Beit, Alfred. Benn, Anthony Wedgewood. Bennet, John W. Benneton, Gilberto or alternate Carlo. Bertie, Andrew. Besant, Sir Walter. Bethal, Lord Nicholas. Bialkin, David. Biao, Keng. Bingham, William. Binny, J. F. Blunt, Wilfred. Bonacassi, Franco Orsini. Bottcher, Fritz. Bradshaw, Thornton. Brandt, Willy. Brewster, Kingman. Buchan, Alastair. Buffet, Warren. Bullitt, William C. Bulwer-Lytton, Edward. Bundy, McGeorge. Bundy, William. Bush, George. Cabot, John. Family Designate. Caccia, Baron Harold Anthony. Cadman, Sir John. Califano, Joseph. Carrington, Lord. Carter, Edward. Catlin, Donat. Catto, Lord. Cavendish, Victor C. W. Duke of Devonshire. Chamberlain, Houston Stewart. Chang, V. F. Chechirin, Georgi or Family Designate. Churchill, Winston. Cicireni, V. or Family Designate. Cini, Count Vittorio. Clark, Howard. Cleveland, Amory. Cleveland, Harland. Clifford, Clark. Cobold, Lord. Coffin, the Rev William Sloane. Constanti, House of Orange. Cooper, John. Family Designate. Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count. Cowdray, Lord. Cox, Sir Percy. Cromer, Lord Evelyn Baring. Crowther, Sir Eric. Cumming, Sir Mansfield. Curtis, Lionel. d'Arcy, William K. D'Avignon, Count Etienne. Danner, Jean Duroc. Davis, John W. de Benneditti, Carlo. De Bruyne, Dirk. De Gunzberg, Baron Alain. De Lamater, Major General Walter. De Menil, Jean. De Vries, Rimmer. de Zulueta, Sir Philip. de'Aremberg, Marquis Charles Louis. Delano. Family Designate. Dent, R. Deterding, Sir Henri. di Spadaforas, Count Guitierez, (House Douglas-Home, Sir Alec. Drake, Sir Eric. Duchene, Francois. DuPont. Edward, Duke of Kent. Eisenberg, Shaul. Elliott, Nicholas. Elliott, William Yandel. Elsworthy, Lord. Farmer, Victor. Forbes, John M. Foscaro, Pierre. France, Sir Arnold. Fraser, Sir Hugh. Frederik IX, King of Denmark Family Designate. Freres, Lazard. Frescobaldi, Lamberto. Fribourg, Michael. Gabor, Dennis. Gallatin, Albert. Family Designate. Gardner, Richard. Gates, William Henry III Geddes, Sir Auckland. Geddes, Sir Reay. George, Lloyd. Giffen, James. Gilmer, John D. Giustiniani, Justin. Gladstone, Lord. Gloucestor, The Duke of. Gordon, Walter Lockhart. Grace, Peter J. Greenhill, Lord Dennis Arthur. Greenhill, Sir Dennis. Grey, Sir Edward. Gyllenhammar, Pierres. Haakon, King of Norway. Haig, Sir Douglas. Hailsham, Lord. Haldane, Richard Burdone. Halifax, Lord. Hall, Sir Peter Vickers. Hambro, Sir Jocelyn. Hamilton, Cyril. Harriman, Averill. Hart, Sir Robert. Hartman, Arthur H. Healey, Dennis. Helsby, Lord. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty Queen Juliana. Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrix. Her Royal Highness Queen Margreta. Heseltine, Sir William. Hesse, Grand Duke descendants, Family Designate. Hoffman, Paul G. Holland, William. House of Braganza. House of Hohenzollern. House, Colonel Mandel. Howe, Sir Geoffrey. Hughes, Thomas H. Hugo, Thieman. Hutchins, Robert M. Huxley, Aldous. Inchcape, Lord. Jamieson, Ken. Japhet, Ernst Israel. Jay, John. Family Designate. Keynes, John Maynard. Jodry, J. J. Joseph, Sir Keith. Katz, Milton. Kaufman, Asher. Keith, Sir Kenneth. Keswick, Sir William Johnston, or Keswick, H.N.L. Keswick, William Johnston. Kimberly, Lord. King, Dr. Alexander. Kirk, Grayson L. Kissinger, Henry. Kitchener, Lord Horatio. Kohnstamm, Max. Korsch, Karl. Lambert, Baron Pierre. Lawrence, G. Lazar. Lehrman, Lewis. Lever, Sir Harold. Lewin, Dr. Kurt. Lippmann, Walter. Livingstone, Robert R. Family Designate. Lockhart, Bruce. Lockhart, Gordon. Linowitz, S. Loudon, Sir John. Luzzatto, Pieipaolo. Mackay, Lord, of Clasfern. Mackay-Tallack, Sir Hugh. Mackinder, Halford. MacMillan, Harold. Matheson, Jardine. Mazzini, Gueseppi. McClaughlin, W. E. McCloy, John J. McFadyean, Sir Andrew. McGhee, George. McMillan, Harold. Mellon, Andrew. Mellon, William Larimer or Family Designate. Meyer, Frank. Michener, Roland. Mikovan, Anastas. Milner, Lord Alfred. Mitterand, Francois. Monett, Jean. Montague, Samuel. Montefiore, Lord Sebag or Bishop Hugh. Morgan, John P. Mott, Stewart. Mountain, Sir Brian Edward. Mountain, Sir Dennis. Mountbatten, Lord Louis. Munthe, A., or family designate. Naisbitt, John. Neeman, Yuval. Newbigging, David. Nicols, Lord Nicholas of Bethal. Norman, Montague. O'Brien of Lotherby, Lord. Ogilvie, Angus. Okita, Saburo. Oldfield, Sir Morris. Oppenheimer, Sir Earnest, and successor, Harry. Ormsby Gore, David (Lord Harlech). Orsini, Franco Bonacassi. Ortolani. Umberto. Ostiguy, J.P.W. Paley, William S. Pallavacini. Palme, Olaf. Palmerston. Palmstierna, Jacob. Pao, Y.K. Pease, Richard T. Peccei, Aurellio. Peek, Sir Edmund. Pellegreno, Michael, Cardinal. Perkins, Nelson. Pestel, Eduard. Peterson, Rudolph. Petterson, Peter G. Petty, John R. Philip, Prince, Duke of Edinburgh. Piercy, George. Pinchott, Gifford. Pratt, Charles. Price Waterhouse, Designate. Radziwall. Ranier, Prince. Raskob, John Jacob. Recanati. Rees, John Rawlings. Rees, John. Rennie, Sir John. Rettinger, Joseph. Rhodes, Cecil John. Rockefeller, David. Role, Lord Eric of Ipsden. Rosenthal, Morton. Rostow, Eugene. Rothmere, Lord. Rothschild Elie de or Edmon de and/or Baron Rothschild Runcie, Dr.Robert. Russell, Lord John. Russell, Sir Bertrand. Saint Gouers, Jean. Salisbury, Marquisse de Robert Gascoiugne Cecil. Shelburne, The Salisbury, Lord. Samuel, Sir Marcus. Sandberg, M. G. Sarnoff, Robert. Schmidheiny, Stephan or alternate brothers Thomas, Alexander. Schoenberg, Andrew. Schroeder. Schultz, George. Schwartzenburg, E. Shawcross, Sir Hartley. Sheridan, Walter. Shiloach, Rubin. Silitoe, Sir Percy. Simon, William. Sloan, Alfred P. Smuts, Jan. Spelman. Sproull, Robert. Stals, Dr. C. Stamp, Lord Family designate. Steel, David. Stiger, George. Strathmore, Lord. Strong, Sir Kenneth. Strong, Maurice. Sutherland. Swathling, Lord. Swire, J. K. Tasse, G. Or Family Designate. Temple, Sir R. Thompson, William Boyce. Thompson, Lord. Thyssen-Bornamisza, Baron Hans Henrich. Trevelyn, Lord Humphrey. Turner, Sir Mark. Turner, Ted. Tyron, Lord. Urquidi, Victor. Van Den Broek, H. Vanderbilt. Vance, Cyrus. Verity, William C. Vesty, Lord Amuel. Vickers, Sir Geoffrey. Villiers, Gerald Hyde family alternate. Volpi, Count. von Finck, Baron August. von Hapsburg, Archduke Otto, House of Hapsburg-Lorraine. Von Thurn and Taxis, Max. Wallenberg, Peter or Family Designate. Wang, Kwan Cheng, Dr. Warburg, S. C. Ward Jackson, Lady Barbara. Warner, Rawleigh. Warnke, Paul. Warren, Earl. Watson, Thomas. Webb, Sydney. Weill, David. Weill, Dr. Andrew. Weinberger, Sir Caspar. Weizman, Chaim. Wells, H. G. Wheetman, Pearson (Lord Cowdray). White, Sir Dick Goldsmith. Whitney, Straight. Wiseman, Sir William. Wittelsbach. Wolfson, Sir Isaac. Wood, Charles. Young, Owen. Their Secret Covenant Is Not a secret anymore, the truth has been exposed. Everything stated in this document years ago has come true and is coming true at this very moment. The veil has fallen and it is easy to see who they are now. All their names are listed above. Now is the time to stand together, to be brave and take action by hunting them down and restoring humanity to its rightful place. This is our Planet and their time of ruling by death and chaos is over forever. They know that together we can vanquish them. Unite and Defend.

Truth Justice ™

2,741,072 次观看 • 3 年前

"Anyone who leaked a [UFO] report...could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act...life in prison, or death." "Maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world." 🔥 Dr. Phil Had Me at The Bolender Memo 🔥 (Dr. Phil continued to kill it yesterday and this was better than the last one! Link to full video (21:52) is in the replies.) "Our government has been lying to us for more than 80 years. Ask yourself why? Why do they not want you to know this is going on?" (He starts out by showing that Google searches for "UFO" have allegedly nearly tripled since last Friday night, along with searches for UAP being up 400%. And "Dr. Phil UFO" is one of the fastest rising searches in the country. If all of that is true, it's a very good thing. Especially since he's been putting out some really good videos. He mentions the latest release (#4) of UFO/UAP files from the Pentagon last Friday.) "My team and I were granted early access, exclusive access to those documents before they went public." "Our government has been lying to us, by omission AND by intentional misdirection, for 79 years." "Look at these documents. You go back as far as 1947 where they have had clear information that there are objects not of this Earth, both technologically, metallurgically, performance-wise. But yet, that has been hidden from us. They've denied that, they've actually threatened people from talking about this. Threatened with careers, imprisonment, and some, with death, because they would consider it treason." (He backs it up with documents. See below.) Dr. Phil: "For 80 years, every time there was a legitimate UAP sighting and the U.S. government had a chance to get in there, they essentially told us, 'Nothing to see here. Move along.' To be clear, a UAP sighting is not proof of little green men or alien life. It means something happened, something was observed, something occurred for which we have no explanation. That's it. "Now, let's talk about that for a second. Things happen, and we don't have any explanation for it. We don't have technology that explains that. There's something that is observed in the sky, going at a speed, stopping, making a sharp turn, reversing direction, accelerating, changing altitudes, and we don't have anything on this Earth that can do that. That's what's called unexplained. "Now, do we know where it's from? How it does that? Well, if we did, it would be explained. But we don't. We go look at all of our secret weapons. We go look at what we know through intelligence, other countries have. And let me tell you, a lot of these (laughs) - they're not close calls. They are not close calls. And some of the things that have been observed, we damn sure didn't have anything like that in the 40s or the 50s or the 60s, and we still don't, now in 2020s. "But at the very same time, our government was telling us, 'Nothing to see here: weather balloon, reflection off of an airplane, just a weather anomaly.' And, the government was simultaneously threatening its own people with criminal penalties if they ever disclosed UAP information. "If somebody that was credible, that had seen this, spoke about it, they were threatened with all kinds of penalties. We were gaslighted. 'No big deal here. Probably weather balloons, misidentified aircraft.' And a jumpy public that watched, 'Close Encounters' one too many times, thinking, 'Look, what's really going on here?' "Behind the curtain, the government was spending generations of time and resources protecting this information. Was it happening? Yes, it was happening! Do we have proof of it happening? Yes, we have proof of it happening. And what I mean by that is we have this on radar. We have credible, military pilots reporting it. "We have aircraft that have guns, and when you open a gun and go live on a fighter, there's a camera that activates, so you have video of what the gun is shooting at. You have gun cameras. If they see one of these things in front of them, they open their weapons, in case they need them, and so it shoots video of what they're seeing. "Now let's talk about some of the proof. JANAP 146 - Joint Army, Navy, Air Force publication 146 - made it a criminal offense for military personnel and commercial airline pilots to discuss UFO sightings outside official channels. The penalty, 'up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.' "So, you might see some guy down on a lake, drinking beer, that talks about something he saw over the lake. Yeah, they don't mind that guy talking. But credible people? Trained observers with instrumentation? No. They say something, they're going to prison. "Well, that took effect upon receipt. No hearings, no debate. The regulation says, 'All persons aware of the contents or existence...are governed by...espionage laws.' So not just the pilot who filed a report under JANAP 146, anyone who leaked a report. Radio operators, airline staff, anyone in the chain could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. "You can see this yourself. Declassified copies are online today, including on the NSA's website. Now what is the Espionage Act? That's the same law used to prosecute spies. Section 793: Up to 10 years in federal prison for every violation. Section 794: If the information reaches a foreign power, life in prison, or death. "Imagine you're a TWA captain in 1955. You see something over the Pacific you just simply can't explain. You file your report like the regulation requires. And from that moment, talk to a newspaper, tell your own wife, puts you in the same legal category as a spy. "Ask yourself why. Why are they so interested in muzzling all this conversation? Why do they not want you to know this is going on? Why are you not entitled to know what's happening in the air around you? "Now, let's fast forward 20 years, 1971. Oliver Harry Turner was an Australian nuclear scientist and intelligence officer, head of the nuclear branch of Australia's Joint Intelligence Organization. He was asked to assess the American response to the growing UAP issue. "If you're thinking, what does an Australian know about U.S. military secrets? Well, the possibility of life beyond this planet is bigger than any one country. Australia and the rest of the world has a legitimate interest in what the U.S. knows. And Australia is one of our closest intelligence allies. What we now call Five Eyes. "The Five Eyes countries are the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These countries have shared their most sensitive intelligence with each other since World War II. When a senior, Five Eyes nuclear intelligence officer writes a report about what the United States knows, well, that's serious. "He was outside the American classification system. He had no career to lose. He pieced this together from official CIA, Air Force, Congressional, and Project Blue Book records. Now this report was written May 27, 1971. Original classification: Secret. Title: Scientific and Intelligence Aspects of the UFO Problem. Report declassified by the National Archives of Australia in 2023. "On June 9th of 2026, whistleblower David Crusch (Yes, he said Crusch) stood on Capitol Hill and told the public to read pages seven through sixteen." ~ David Grusch: "There is a declassified 1971 Australian, formally-classified, Secret assessment that a couple years ago was put in the Australian National Archives. I encourage people to read page seven through sixteen, and that was the nuclear branch chief of the Australian government discussing the U.S. cover-up and the involvement of the CIA back in the 70s. And that's actually a little-known document that is publicly available." ~ Dr. Phil: "Now here's the kicker: foreign intelligence describing an American cover-up is now referenced in the files that our government is just now releasing. And here are six key findings in the Turner report. "Number one, what Turner called the facade of ridicule. Turner documents that early Air Force intelligence concluded, 'Some of these objects, 'had flight characteristics' that could best be explained as having 'extraterrestrial origin.' (The actual language says: "The early analysis of UFO reports by USAF intelligence indicated that real phenomena were being reported which had flight characteristics so far in advance of U.S. aircraft that only as extra-terrestrial origin could be envisaged." ) Dr. Phil: "Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. "Now let that sit with you for a minute. Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. We've got to get these people believing this isn't real. We've got to debunk this. "January 1953, Turner's own words: 'By erecting a facade of ridicule, the U.S. hoped to allay public alarm, reduce the possibility of the Soviet taking advantage of UFO mass sightings...and act as a cover-up so the U.S. can develop vehicles that emulate UFO performances.' "What's the point? Well, the point is, they were thinking, 'All right, let's keep this secret,' like we're the only ones seeing this, 'and maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world.' "That's a great goal, I guess, if you can go from flying-prop planes or early jets to this incredible speed. If these are extraterrestrial, and the nearest galaxy is Andromeda, which it takes two and a half million years to get to, flying at the speed of light, we're pretty far from being able to do that. "Today, in 2026, can we move at the speed of light? No. If we could, it would take two and a half million years to get to the next galaxy. We can't move at the speed of light, even now in 2026. But that was the goal. They'll find one of these and reverse engineer it." (I don't know whether or not any black program has tech that can move at the speed of light and I doubt Dr. Phil knows, either. Someone should show him what Lacatski said about being able to reverse engineer some of this acquired (alleged non-human) tech but "not to its full extent.") Dr. Phil: "Finding number two. He then talks about Project Sign. This was the U.S. Air Force's first official UFO investigation set up in late 1947. Its analysts reportedly concluded that extraterrestrial origin was the best explanation. Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg rejected that conclusion, and copies of the report were ordered destroyed. Destroyed! "And per Turner, in February 1949, members of Project Sign, 'either volunteered to leave or were compelled to leave,' and they were replaced by people, 'willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs.' "Think about this! We have sightings by legitimate observers with scientific instrumentation, and the people who are doing the observing are voluntarily leaving or compelled to leave, and replaced by people willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs. "Finding number three, what I spoke about earlier: JANAP 146. Up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for discussing sightings outside official channels. And per the regulation's own text, Chapter One, Section 102, it covered not just military personnel, but U.S. and Canadian civilian and commercial pilots. "That's legal force over airline pilots, arguably the most credible witnesses in the sky! What jurisdiction they had over Canadian pilots, I have no idea, but they listed 'em. "Turner documents a meeting between military intelligence and airline pilots at the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood. At that meeting, pilots were, 'coerced' to keep their sightings out of public view and inside official channels. Am I overstating it to say that there's been a cover-up, that we're being lied to? "Finding number four. But they missed the retirees. JANAP 146 only covered active service. Once you retired, you could talk. And three very senior men did so between 1953 and 1960. Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the CIA, Captain Edward Ruppelt, the man the Air Force put in charge of investigating UFOs, Major Dewey Fournet, the Pentagon's project officer on UFOs. Per Turner, all three publicly stated the U.S. government knew UFOs were extraterrestrial and was withholding the fact from the public! So when those three retired, they told the truth! "Finding five. The government then silenced retirees. Per Turner, the revised regulation JANAP 146e made UAP disclosure by retirees an offense under the Espionage Act. Then finding number six. 1969, 17 years, the Air Force ran a public-facing UFO investigation called Project Blue Book. If you wrote your congressman about a sighting, it went into the Blue Book. And in 1969, the Air Force shut down the Blue Book and told the country, 'We looked at more than 12,000 sightings. No problems. No national security threat. No need for the Blue Book.' "But a memo from General Carroll Bolender, the Air Force general, said the reason Blue Book showed no national security threats was because any national security threats were gag ordered under JANAP 146 and were quote, 'not part of the Blue Book system.' The serious reports never stopped; they just moved out of public view. "Now, I know that was a lot of information. You may need to listen back to that, but those are facts. Those are in the government's documents that have now been declassified! "If the government has known for decades that unidentified objects are flying through our skies, and therefore, we may not be alone in the Universe, then the greatest revelation in American history has also been the target of a huge cover-up. "One of the challenges of social media and TV news is taking something this complex and reducing it to sound bites. And you're getting bits and pieces from the media. That's why I invest so much time and energy giving you the real story. I don't want to tell you what you believe or don't believe, but I want to give you the information so you can make up your own mind. "This information is in the files, we just haven't had access to the files. And then when we get the files, we're given the files without any context. You see a radar screen and you see a blip, and then it moves. Well, what do you have to compare it to? Is it moving fast? Too fast? Unexplainably fast? Without any context, how are we supposed to interpret that? "Well, I'm digging in, I'm talking to experts, I'm finding out what the scale is. And what we're learning, is we don't have anything that'll move that fast. We don't have anything that'll turn that sharp. We don't have anything that will withstand those kind of G-forces."
8:27

"Anyone who leaked a [UFO] report...could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act...life in prison, or death." "Maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world." 🔥 Dr. Phil Had Me at The Bolender Memo 🔥 (Dr. Phil continued to kill it yesterday and this was better than the last one! Link to full video (21:52) is in the replies.) "Our government has been lying to us for more than 80 years. Ask yourself why? Why do they not want you to know this is going on?" (He starts out by showing that Google searches for "UFO" have allegedly nearly tripled since last Friday night, along with searches for UAP being up 400%. And "Dr. Phil UFO" is one of the fastest rising searches in the country. If all of that is true, it's a very good thing. Especially since he's been putting out some really good videos. He mentions the latest release (#4) of UFO/UAP files from the Pentagon last Friday.) "My team and I were granted early access, exclusive access to those documents before they went public." "Our government has been lying to us, by omission AND by intentional misdirection, for 79 years." "Look at these documents. You go back as far as 1947 where they have had clear information that there are objects not of this Earth, both technologically, metallurgically, performance-wise. But yet, that has been hidden from us. They've denied that, they've actually threatened people from talking about this. Threatened with careers, imprisonment, and some, with death, because they would consider it treason." (He backs it up with documents. See below.) Dr. Phil: "For 80 years, every time there was a legitimate UAP sighting and the U.S. government had a chance to get in there, they essentially told us, 'Nothing to see here. Move along.' To be clear, a UAP sighting is not proof of little green men or alien life. It means something happened, something was observed, something occurred for which we have no explanation. That's it. "Now, let's talk about that for a second. Things happen, and we don't have any explanation for it. We don't have technology that explains that. There's something that is observed in the sky, going at a speed, stopping, making a sharp turn, reversing direction, accelerating, changing altitudes, and we don't have anything on this Earth that can do that. That's what's called unexplained. "Now, do we know where it's from? How it does that? Well, if we did, it would be explained. But we don't. We go look at all of our secret weapons. We go look at what we know through intelligence, other countries have. And let me tell you, a lot of these (laughs) - they're not close calls. They are not close calls. And some of the things that have been observed, we damn sure didn't have anything like that in the 40s or the 50s or the 60s, and we still don't, now in 2020s. "But at the very same time, our government was telling us, 'Nothing to see here: weather balloon, reflection off of an airplane, just a weather anomaly.' And, the government was simultaneously threatening its own people with criminal penalties if they ever disclosed UAP information. "If somebody that was credible, that had seen this, spoke about it, they were threatened with all kinds of penalties. We were gaslighted. 'No big deal here. Probably weather balloons, misidentified aircraft.' And a jumpy public that watched, 'Close Encounters' one too many times, thinking, 'Look, what's really going on here?' "Behind the curtain, the government was spending generations of time and resources protecting this information. Was it happening? Yes, it was happening! Do we have proof of it happening? Yes, we have proof of it happening. And what I mean by that is we have this on radar. We have credible, military pilots reporting it. "We have aircraft that have guns, and when you open a gun and go live on a fighter, there's a camera that activates, so you have video of what the gun is shooting at. You have gun cameras. If they see one of these things in front of them, they open their weapons, in case they need them, and so it shoots video of what they're seeing. "Now let's talk about some of the proof. JANAP 146 - Joint Army, Navy, Air Force publication 146 - made it a criminal offense for military personnel and commercial airline pilots to discuss UFO sightings outside official channels. The penalty, 'up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.' "So, you might see some guy down on a lake, drinking beer, that talks about something he saw over the lake. Yeah, they don't mind that guy talking. But credible people? Trained observers with instrumentation? No. They say something, they're going to prison. "Well, that took effect upon receipt. No hearings, no debate. The regulation says, 'All persons aware of the contents or existence...are governed by...espionage laws.' So not just the pilot who filed a report under JANAP 146, anyone who leaked a report. Radio operators, airline staff, anyone in the chain could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. "You can see this yourself. Declassified copies are online today, including on the NSA's website. Now what is the Espionage Act? That's the same law used to prosecute spies. Section 793: Up to 10 years in federal prison for every violation. Section 794: If the information reaches a foreign power, life in prison, or death. "Imagine you're a TWA captain in 1955. You see something over the Pacific you just simply can't explain. You file your report like the regulation requires. And from that moment, talk to a newspaper, tell your own wife, puts you in the same legal category as a spy. "Ask yourself why. Why are they so interested in muzzling all this conversation? Why do they not want you to know this is going on? Why are you not entitled to know what's happening in the air around you? "Now, let's fast forward 20 years, 1971. Oliver Harry Turner was an Australian nuclear scientist and intelligence officer, head of the nuclear branch of Australia's Joint Intelligence Organization. He was asked to assess the American response to the growing UAP issue. "If you're thinking, what does an Australian know about U.S. military secrets? Well, the possibility of life beyond this planet is bigger than any one country. Australia and the rest of the world has a legitimate interest in what the U.S. knows. And Australia is one of our closest intelligence allies. What we now call Five Eyes. "The Five Eyes countries are the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These countries have shared their most sensitive intelligence with each other since World War II. When a senior, Five Eyes nuclear intelligence officer writes a report about what the United States knows, well, that's serious. "He was outside the American classification system. He had no career to lose. He pieced this together from official CIA, Air Force, Congressional, and Project Blue Book records. Now this report was written May 27, 1971. Original classification: Secret. Title: Scientific and Intelligence Aspects of the UFO Problem. Report declassified by the National Archives of Australia in 2023. "On June 9th of 2026, whistleblower David Crusch (Yes, he said Crusch) stood on Capitol Hill and told the public to read pages seven through sixteen." ~ David Grusch: "There is a declassified 1971 Australian, formally-classified, Secret assessment that a couple years ago was put in the Australian National Archives. I encourage people to read page seven through sixteen, and that was the nuclear branch chief of the Australian government discussing the U.S. cover-up and the involvement of the CIA back in the 70s. And that's actually a little-known document that is publicly available." ~ Dr. Phil: "Now here's the kicker: foreign intelligence describing an American cover-up is now referenced in the files that our government is just now releasing. And here are six key findings in the Turner report. "Number one, what Turner called the facade of ridicule. Turner documents that early Air Force intelligence concluded, 'Some of these objects, 'had flight characteristics' that could best be explained as having 'extraterrestrial origin.' (The actual language says: "The early analysis of UFO reports by USAF intelligence indicated that real phenomena were being reported which had flight characteristics so far in advance of U.S. aircraft that only as extra-terrestrial origin could be envisaged." ) Dr. Phil: "Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. "Now let that sit with you for a minute. Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. We've got to get these people believing this isn't real. We've got to debunk this. "January 1953, Turner's own words: 'By erecting a facade of ridicule, the U.S. hoped to allay public alarm, reduce the possibility of the Soviet taking advantage of UFO mass sightings...and act as a cover-up so the U.S. can develop vehicles that emulate UFO performances.' "What's the point? Well, the point is, they were thinking, 'All right, let's keep this secret,' like we're the only ones seeing this, 'and maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world.' "That's a great goal, I guess, if you can go from flying-prop planes or early jets to this incredible speed. If these are extraterrestrial, and the nearest galaxy is Andromeda, which it takes two and a half million years to get to, flying at the speed of light, we're pretty far from being able to do that. "Today, in 2026, can we move at the speed of light? No. If we could, it would take two and a half million years to get to the next galaxy. We can't move at the speed of light, even now in 2026. But that was the goal. They'll find one of these and reverse engineer it." (I don't know whether or not any black program has tech that can move at the speed of light and I doubt Dr. Phil knows, either. Someone should show him what Lacatski said about being able to reverse engineer some of this acquired (alleged non-human) tech but "not to its full extent.") Dr. Phil: "Finding number two. He then talks about Project Sign. This was the U.S. Air Force's first official UFO investigation set up in late 1947. Its analysts reportedly concluded that extraterrestrial origin was the best explanation. Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg rejected that conclusion, and copies of the report were ordered destroyed. Destroyed! "And per Turner, in February 1949, members of Project Sign, 'either volunteered to leave or were compelled to leave,' and they were replaced by people, 'willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs.' "Think about this! We have sightings by legitimate observers with scientific instrumentation, and the people who are doing the observing are voluntarily leaving or compelled to leave, and replaced by people willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs. "Finding number three, what I spoke about earlier: JANAP 146. Up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for discussing sightings outside official channels. And per the regulation's own text, Chapter One, Section 102, it covered not just military personnel, but U.S. and Canadian civilian and commercial pilots. "That's legal force over airline pilots, arguably the most credible witnesses in the sky! What jurisdiction they had over Canadian pilots, I have no idea, but they listed 'em. "Turner documents a meeting between military intelligence and airline pilots at the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood. At that meeting, pilots were, 'coerced' to keep their sightings out of public view and inside official channels. Am I overstating it to say that there's been a cover-up, that we're being lied to? "Finding number four. But they missed the retirees. JANAP 146 only covered active service. Once you retired, you could talk. And three very senior men did so between 1953 and 1960. Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the CIA, Captain Edward Ruppelt, the man the Air Force put in charge of investigating UFOs, Major Dewey Fournet, the Pentagon's project officer on UFOs. Per Turner, all three publicly stated the U.S. government knew UFOs were extraterrestrial and was withholding the fact from the public! So when those three retired, they told the truth! "Finding five. The government then silenced retirees. Per Turner, the revised regulation JANAP 146e made UAP disclosure by retirees an offense under the Espionage Act. Then finding number six. 1969, 17 years, the Air Force ran a public-facing UFO investigation called Project Blue Book. If you wrote your congressman about a sighting, it went into the Blue Book. And in 1969, the Air Force shut down the Blue Book and told the country, 'We looked at more than 12,000 sightings. No problems. No national security threat. No need for the Blue Book.' "But a memo from General Carroll Bolender, the Air Force general, said the reason Blue Book showed no national security threats was because any national security threats were gag ordered under JANAP 146 and were quote, 'not part of the Blue Book system.' The serious reports never stopped; they just moved out of public view. "Now, I know that was a lot of information. You may need to listen back to that, but those are facts. Those are in the government's documents that have now been declassified! "If the government has known for decades that unidentified objects are flying through our skies, and therefore, we may not be alone in the Universe, then the greatest revelation in American history has also been the target of a huge cover-up. "One of the challenges of social media and TV news is taking something this complex and reducing it to sound bites. And you're getting bits and pieces from the media. That's why I invest so much time and energy giving you the real story. I don't want to tell you what you believe or don't believe, but I want to give you the information so you can make up your own mind. "This information is in the files, we just haven't had access to the files. And then when we get the files, we're given the files without any context. You see a radar screen and you see a blip, and then it moves. Well, what do you have to compare it to? Is it moving fast? Too fast? Unexplainably fast? Without any context, how are we supposed to interpret that? "Well, I'm digging in, I'm talking to experts, I'm finding out what the scale is. And what we're learning, is we don't have anything that'll move that fast. We don't have anything that'll turn that sharp. We don't have anything that will withstand those kind of G-forces."

Joe Murgia

50,324 次观看 • 29 天前

Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.
31:07

Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.

Farrukh

24,528 次观看 • 1 年前

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."
10:20

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."

Joe Murgia

64,328 次观看 • 18 天前

"What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] 🐹: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didn’t feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. 🐻: I’m sure that today’s announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. We’ve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, we’ll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we can’t share everything, but we’ll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Heejin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, we’ve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe that’s why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. This has been today’s news story. 🐶: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Heejin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Heejin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Heejin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Heejin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. 🐱: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Heejin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. 🐰: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that. 🐻: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all. 🐰: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Heejin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. 🐻: Besides this, there are many other incidents we’ve experienced that are beyond my understanding—things that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, it’s hard to discuss everything today because we’re not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of what’s been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. 🐶: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Heejin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. 🐱: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. 🐹: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just that—empty words. HYBE’s actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. 🐻: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, it’s incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, it’s heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work we’ve created so far but also the identity of our team. That’s what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. 🐰: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow Hybe's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Heejin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Heejin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. 🐹: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. We’re not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. We’ll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. 🐶: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee Jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. 🐻: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee Jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. #하이브어도어_뉴진스지우기_작작해 #HYBE_STOP_SABOTAGING_NEWJEANS #HYBEによるNewJeansへの妨害に抗議します #NEWJEANS_NEVER_DIE
27:11

"What NewJeans Wanted to Say" [Full transcript translated to English] 🐹: Some of you might be surprised by this sudden meeting, but we wanted to share our thoughts and opinions about the recent events, so we prepared this session. First, I want to explain one of the reasons we decided to do this live. It's been hard to see many people who have worked with us continue to suffer from unfair demands and pressure even after our CEO was dismissed. It was frustrating to just stand by and watch these situations unfold, and we were very worried about our future as a group of five. Honestly, while preparing for this live, we were naturally concerned about the reactions we might receive afterward. We were also worried that people might mistakenly think that our CEO instructed us to do this, but I want to clarify that this live was prepared because we five members genuinely wanted to express our thoughts. We received help from directors we trust for things we couldn't prepare ourselves, like setting up the shoot and finding a location. It didn’t feel right for us to stay silent when everyone, including our Bunnies, has been stepping up to support us. Moreover, this is not just a matter of leaving it to the adults because it directly affects the lives of us five members. Since we're the ones going through this, we felt that it would be healthier to speak up ourselves than to do nothing, so we mustered the courage to do so. The main point of what we want to say today is directed towards HYBE. We've already had meetings with the current management to express our opinions, but after seeing what happened afterward, it feels like our concerns weren't clearly conveyed. It seemed like communication was blocked, so we felt that preparing this live was the only way to properly share our thoughts and feelings. 🐻: I’m sure that today’s announcement has shocked many of the staff as well, as they were not aware of it, and I imagine everyone watching is quite surprised too. We’ve thought a lot about where to begin, but since the purpose is to express our intentions, we’ll try to explain as clearly as possible. Of course, due to contractual issues, we can’t share everything, but we’ll be as honest as we can. After it was decided that we would debut as NewJeans, our members spent a lot of time getting to know Min Heejin Daepyonim, both as a group and individually. At first, I had reservations and a certain fear towards the adults we were working with, but Daepyonim was the first person to approach us in a way that allowed us to open up, which was initially awkward but eventually built trust. From before our debut until now, we’ve been aware of various issues related to our debut schedule and other matters. However, working with Daepyonim made us feel good, and I believe that’s why we were able to debut successfully and continue our activities until now. This has been today’s news story. 🐶: Naturally, we all want to continue working with Daepyonim. Even before debuting as NewJeans and through all of the time that we spent together with Min Heejin Daepyonim, all of us felt that the music we wanted to make and the kind of world we wanted to build together, our vision, was similar in so many ways. With Min Heejin Daepyonim, we were able to prepare each and every task with sincere hearts, and I believe it shows in our work. Putting our sincere effort into something is only possible because of the people that we're working with have trust in each other and have that same vision. Min Heejin Daepyonim is not only the person that produces our music, but someone who makes NewJeans who we are. She discusses even the smallest details with us and explains them in ways that we can understand clearly. NewJeans has a distinct colour and tone, and this was created with Min Heejin Daepyonim. She is integral to NewJeans’ identity, and we all feel that she is irreplaceable. 🐱: However, even after our debut, there have been many unfair and incomprehensible incidents that you might not know about, and these incidents have only increased over time. As some of you may know, recently, videos from our trainee days and private records, such as medical information, were leaked. When I first saw that, I was really shocked. It was hard to understand how our company, which is supposed to protect us, failed to manage and allowed such information to be leaked. Naturally, this situation has made us worry that other strange or false information about us might spread in the future. Although we, along with our parents and Min Heejin Daepyonim, have raised concerns about this to HYBE, they haven’t resolved the issue, nor have they taken any proactive measures. Then, in the midst of all this, our CEO was dismissed, and we’re left wondering whom we can trust and rely on. We’ve come to the conclusion that if we don’t speak out about this now, no one will know what we’re going through. After much discussion among ourselves, we finally decided to take this step. 🐰: Something happened to me recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done, so a lot of other artists and staff come and go there. One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some staff from another team passed by. We greeted each other, but when they came back out a bit later, I heard one of their managers say, “Ignore her,” right in front of me. I could hear and see everything clearly. Even now, I still don’t understand why I had to go through that. 🐻: When I heard about what Hanni experienced, I was really shocked. How could a manager from another team tell their members to ignore one of us, and say it so loudly that Hanni could hear it? Such unimaginable words and behavior were directed at us, yet there was no apology, nor did they even acknowledge their wrongdoing. Of course, I’m worried about our future, but what’s most frightening is that the work we’ve already created is being compromised. Seeing the people who have poured their lives into creating our work being treated this way makes it hard to understand how this could be happening. The new management said they would separate producing and management, but we’ve always worked differently from other labels, and we thought that our way was a good one. Now, Daepyonim can no longer approve all matters, and we’re left wondering how we’re supposed to continue working as we did before. The recent statement from the new management also didn’t make sense to me. If they really didn’t intend to interfere with our producing, then the recent incident with Director Shin Woo-seok should never have happened, and it should have been handled differently. We are the ones directly involved with the copyrights and likeness rights of our content, yet they’re making decisions without our consent. In their statement, they kept saying they were acting to protect us and prevent our anxiety, but why do they keep insisting on this when they haven’t considered our wishes? We don’t want any more unnecessary issues to arise, and we want them to show respect and consideration for Daepyonim and all the directors who have worked with us. The things they’re doing right now are not in our best interest at all. 🐰: Something we all find very important, something that plays a very important role in our team's colour and image is our media content and creative production. Despite saying that they would leave all the creative production to our now former CEO, Min Heejin, through official statements that I think a lot of you might have already read or seen, and also during our personal meetings, they infringed our content. Content that not only we worked really hard on, but also our staff who spent endless hours to produce and release them solely for our fans. And if they had any understanding about what type of team we are, and the type of content that we create, they would have thought more deeply for crossing the line that they set for themselves. Because of this incident, we realized that there's not much we can do to prevent these type of issues. Personally, the way that ADOR used to run was the business management and creative production was not separated and was factors that played and worked in harmony with each other. That's how it worked and it was perfectly fine. It was our way of working and it was our CEO's way of producing NewJeans' content, which a lot of you were able to enjoy and appreciate. But now that she's no longer CEO, these factors that should have continued to work together in harmony are now being seen as two different areas of work. 🐻: Besides this, there are many other incidents we’ve experienced that are beyond my understanding—things that are frightening and uncomfortable. These incidents naturally make us question whether HYBE really cares about NewJeans, and there are clear signs of this. However, it’s hard to discuss everything today because we’re not sure how far things could escalate. We just hope you can understand a little of what’s been on our minds and why we chose to speak out in this way. 🐶: As I mentioned earlier, our dream was to perform the music we want to make with Daepyonim, and we were working very hard toward that goal. But now, we can’t do that, and the plans we’ve made might not come to fruition. As Hanni unnie said earlier, just like that, the content that we released solely for our fans, for our bunnies, was instantly erased. And I truly can't understand why anyone would do this to a group, or just anyone in general. We were just working hard for the present, so what did we do wrong? A week after Daepyonim was dismissed, we found out that we could no longer work with the director we’ve been working with all this time, and we’re extremely anxious because we don’t know what will happen to the staff who have always worked hard for us. If they really care about us, they should stop saying that they prioritize the artists and instead let us do the music we love in an environment where we can be genuinely happy. Is that really so hard to do? It’s hard to fully express what’s in my heart, but in the end, the five of us just want to continue our activities with Min Heejin Daepyonim, as we have done so far. 🐱: Personally, I want to continue working with the people around us who have helped me grow mentally and made me feel alive. However, I can't understand, nor do I think I should have to understand, why external forces are constantly obstructing and hindering us. I absolutely cannot comprehend what is truly in our best interest or what is supposed to help us grow. And I feel so sorry and heartbroken that our Bunnies, who found comfort in us and shared joyful memories with us, have to go through this ordeal and worry about things they shouldn't have to. We almost lost the work that symbolizes the relationship between NewJeans and Bunnies, and we don't want to lose anything else. I refuse to conform to or follow the values of the society those people belong to, and because I believe that direction is not the right one, I will not choose to go that way. 🐹: We found out about the CEO's dismissal through the news on the very day it happened. It was so sudden and unimaginable for all of us, and honestly, it was really difficult for us to process. As artists under HYBE, the company's unilateral notification made it clear to us that they don't respect us at all. In the midst of this confusion, we heard through our manager that the new CEO wanted to meet with us. From the very first action taken by the newly appointed Juyoung, it was clear that there was no consideration for us. He claimed to care for us, to prioritize NewJeans, but looking at everything that has happened, it's evident that his words were just that—empty words. HYBE’s actions, like publishing articles that painted us in a bad light just a week before our comeback, make us question how any of this is supposed to be in our best interest. 🐻: It's already been half a year of unnecessary and exhausting discussions about us and NewJeans, and even as a third party, it must be tiring. As the ones directly involved, it’s incredibly uncomfortable for us. We still have music we want to make and goals we want to achieve together, but as things stand now, it’s heartbreaking to think that we might lose not only the work we’ve created so far but also the identity of our team. That’s what makes us feel so helpless. We held this live stream to express our feelings because we sincerely want this tiresome conflict to end. 🐰: Like how we have our own and individual thoughts and feelings, we have the choice to choose how we will react to each situation, and we are not going to follow Hybe's every order blindly. We are more than well aware that this is getting in the way of our work, and that we should be treated much, much better than how we are right now. And it's very hard to believe that they are truly sincere about wanting to help us continue, to be able to continue to work with our Daepyonim, Min Heejin Daepyonim. Despite her being in the midst of all this current legal conflict, she's expected to plan and creatively produce our future endeavours in just only two months, which I personally think makes no sense at all. We don't want to hear all the empty words of how they're going to help us continue to work with Min Heejin, Daepyonim. And all we want is this legal conflict to be resolved and have our working environment returned back to normal the way it was before. 🐹: The way HYBE is operating right now feels dishonest and wrong to us. Please, stop interfering. Reinstating our CEO and returning us to the original ADOR environment we had before, with familiar people, not strangers, would make things right. We’re not asking for special treatment; we just want everyone to do their jobs well in their respective places. We’ll do our best in our roles too. We sincerely hope our request is heard. 🐶: From a human perspective, I hope you stop harassing our CEO, Min Hee Jin. Honestly, she seems so pitiful, and HYBE just comes across as an inhumane company. What can we possibly learn from a company like this? So, I really hope you stop bothering our CEO. 🐻: What we want is the original ADOR, where CEO Min Hee Jin leads both management and production. The reason we're making this request is because it's a way to coexist peacefully without conflict with HYBE. If our message has been conveyed properly, we hope Chairman Bang and HYBE make a wise decision to restore ADOR to its original state by the 25th. Thank you for listening to us. #하이브어도어_뉴진스지우기_작작해 #HYBE_STOP_SABOTAGING_NEWJEANS #HYBEによるNewJeansへの妨害に抗議します #NEWJEANS_NEVER_DIE

1tokki

3,757,113 次观看 • 1 年前

"I may be wrong about Elizondo...but I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature [and], potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort." ~Dolan (This is WAY too long, and I probably should have spent my time on something else. But here it is. The video clips give you a taste of Richard Dolan's excellent 31-minute video.) "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." ~Dolan "I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further." ~Dolan ~~~ Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public. You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." (As I've shown before, that's just not true. Did Gerb not do his research on that? I'll share A LOT of quotes from this Richard Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) podcast, and from my previous posts detailing the various times Lue has addressed crash retrievals. Plus, my take on various points. Dolan starts out by praising Gerb's research. I agree. Then he moves on to the Lue-was-brought-in-by Clapper claim.) Dolan: "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." Dolan: Gerb claims Elizondo had to adapt his public position on crash retrievals because Grusch coming forward changed the game. "Gerb called this, adapt or die. "I think I understand what [Gerb] means by the controlled narrative and what it was intended to reveal and what it was supposed to hide (crash retrievals). What I still do NOT understand is why anyone protecting a retrieval program would initiate this type of a strategy." Dolan: Before 2017, one of the most significant protections for any alleged Legacy program was ridicule, silence and ignoring. "As long as UFOs remained culturally disreputable, any claims of crash retrievals were easily just brushed aside without any bother to investigate. That didn't change until December of 2017," and the two NYT articles. "That kickstarted a major, mainstream, national-security discussion. "So, if this was a controlled-disclosure program, my question simply is: You get the government, eventually admitting, that non-human intelligence seem to be operating advanced craft here, who could not know that the next questions would be inevitable? Like, have any of these crashed? Were any of these recovered? Where did the material go? Who's been studying it? In other words, this would, obviously, increase pressure on the retrieval secret. It would not protect it in any logical way. The most safest option would have to be continued silence. "Maybe this strategy could become plausible if insiders believed that something was about to emerge beyond their control, right? Some kind of trigger. Maybe there would be an imminent whistleblower that we do not know about 'til this day, that they were afraid of and they wanted to get out ahead of the narrative. Or some kind of foreign disclosure. Some other reason, some other cause that would prompt the secret keepers to think, 'Okay, we need to get out a controlled disclosure.' But, there really is no evidence that's presented, in any of Gerb's analysis, for such a triggering event. Why would the custodians of this secret, voluntarily, weaken the whole system that had protected them for decades and decades?" (Agree. I've had this convo with friends over the years about the theory that TTSA was created to get ahead of a disclosure effort that was coming from someone/somewhere else. But it never made sense because we could never find anything (disclosure-wise) that was happening before 2017 that would force the hand of the gatekeepers into starting some type of controlled disclosure such as what TTSA was allegedly doing. Except maybe... Dolan talks about how, when Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2015 and 2016, she mentioned UFOs and UAP in various interviews on the campaign trail. Dolan: That was gradually making UFOs, "slightly, and I would say, very slightly, becoming more acceptable to discuss." Plus, John Podesta (her campaign manager) was pushing for declassification of UFO files. "There were people at that time who really did believe that Hillary Clinton would become the Disclosure president." (I wanted to vote 3rd party in 2016 and didn't want to vote for Hillary, but did so, in part, in the hopes (slim hopes) that she would engage in some sort of disclosure, if she won.) Dolan: "I've always interpreted [Hillary talking UFOs during her campaign] as a much more, just pragmatic, you could almost say, cynical, if you want, treatment of the [UFO] subject, just to win some votes. The most that she ever said as a candidate, I think was, she would try to get to the bottom of this, whatever that means." (Well, she said more than that... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ “I think we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” ~Hillary Clinton That was covered in the NYT in 2015 My full post on that Hillary quote is here. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ And let's not forget the photo of Hillary from August 1995 where she's with Laurance Rockefeller on his ranch and holding Paul Davies' book, "Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life." She and President Clinton have an interest in this subject.) ~~~ Dolan: "I just think that the leap from a political opportunity - talking about UFOs during the campaign - to a kind of, James Clapper-managed disclosure operation? I just don't think that's been demonstrated and I don't find it very persuasive." ~~~ Dolan then gets back to this claim by Gerb... Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public (in 2023). You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." Dolan: Gerb said that, "Elizondo, essentially, avoided discussing crash retrievals, except for Roswell, And that is just not accurate." (The Lue-avoided-crash-retrievals-until-Grusch quote from Gerb in March didn't include an exception about Roswell so maybe Gerb saw my posts on that and updated his claim? But it's still wrong. Dolan brought up Lue's comments on Tucker Carlson in May of 2019, but no other comments from Lue. I covered that and much more in various posts, which I'll share here.) Did Lue Avoid Talking About Crash Retrievals Before Grusch Went Public in 2023? From the 12/16/17 NYT article that started it all. "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, [BAASS] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (Not a direct quote, and not exactly "crash retrievals of vehicles" but the seed had been planted in that first article. We know now (allegedly) that at least one of those buildings was supposed to store exotic materials that Lockheed was going to divest itself from, but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.) ~May of 2019~ Tucker Carlson: "Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the U.S. government, on this question, that the U.S. government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?" Lue: "Whoa. Umm…I do, yes." Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?" Lue: "Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA. I really can’t go into a lot of…more detail than that." Tucker Carlson: "Okay." (And that could have been the end of the interview. But Lue decided to add this.) Lue: "But…simply put, yes." ~ NYT article in July of 2020... "Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~ "My personal belief in Roswell? 100%. But I cannot speak officially and I cannot discuss about anything else that may or may not have transcribed." ~Lue on "Disclosure Tonight in Feb. 2021 Source: ~ Lue on Clubhouse in July of 2021 Lue: "Am I aware of the notion that there was some sort of retrieval of biological samples? Yes, I am aware of that notion. Am I aware that there may have been some U.S. government involvement in that? Yes, I am aware of that as well. I am aware that people have talked about it and I have heard it as well...regarding, anecdotally, of biological recovery." Source and longer transcript... ~ Lue on Dossier X in April of 2021 Lue: "You said something...that (Roswell) was the 1st time the U.S. gov't was engaged, and I'll share with you, that may not necessarily be true. There may be anecdotal information that indicates that perhaps the U.S. government was involved even before that, in purported, recovery-type activities." Host: "You mean probably 1942, in Los Angeles or something?" Lue: "I don't wanna elaborate, yet. I think some information's gonna come to light here, probably pretty soon, about some interesting incidents. Again, it's not up to me...there are some people out there are willing to come forward, I think. I'm just providing you the information that was indicated to me. I think we need to be careful jumping to presumptions or assumptions that Roswell was the first event similar to what we're thinking about." Source: ~ "I think people would be surprised to know there's more to Roswell than I think most people are aware of. Some people are aware of it. But, you know, there's more to Roswell and there's other similar incidents that are equally compelling." ~Lue on UFO Garage in 2022 Source: ~~~ March of 2022 - My Interview with Lue Murgia: "You said you believe Roswell was real. Are you as confident in other incidents as you are with Roswell?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Yes?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Okay." Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: After you were on Tucker and said you believed the U.S. government had material and debris from a UFO, "Eric Davis came out and said, '100%!' And he said landed craft, too. Did you see that when that came out?" Lue: "I'm aware of that." Murgia: "(laughs) Okay." (Probably an inappropriate laugh by me as Lue was dead serious and probably pushing the limits of what he was allowed to say in public about crash retrievals. He later said this in his November 2024 congressional testimony.) Lue in 2024: "I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss, specifically, crash retrievals." (I wonder what would have happened if he had refused to sign that?) ~~~ Dolan: "Grusch definitely went further (than Lue), much further, yes. That's a lot different from claiming that Elizondo kept retrievals outside the public narrative until Grusch forced his hand. And you really have to ask, if Elizondo's job was NOT to reveal the crash retrieval program, why, in 2019 - again, four years before David Grusch, is he going on and putting it out there? It just seems like there's a chronology problem there." (1000%, Richard! Makes no sense. My June 29th post was entitled... If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job 🛸 Nice to see Richard and I on the same page with that. Richard speculates how the disclosure effort would look like right now if Lue hadn't gone public. Would we have several UAP hearings in the books by now? Would David Grusch had come forward? No way to know.) Dolan: "But I will say, or suggest, that it's entirely reasonable to think that Elizondo helped to create the institutional and cultural conditions that made someone like David Grusch possible. Elizondo did not keep retrieval out of the discussion." (In July of 2023, I directed this tweet to Lue.) "None of this would be happening without you." ~Murgia (Over the top and a bit fan-boyish? Probably. But... Knapp talking with Senator Harry Reid about Lazar and UFOs in 1989 - in a limo headed to the airport that would later bear Reid’s name - was a vital part of getting this whole thing started. Lacatski and Stratton launching the more recent effort around 2005, which eventually led to AAWSAP, AATIP and the UAPTF, was also REALLY important. But Lue going public in 2017 was MASSIVE. The media coverage that followed brought a ton of new people into the topic, and I’m not sure where we’d be today without it. Dolan goes on to talk about Clapper and how it's conceivable he would be on top of any alleged Legacy UAP/crash retrieval program. But he failed to note what Grusch said this past January on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Grusch: "General Clapper was well aware of the crash retrieval issue, managed the crash retrieval issue, and...he placed people in critical roles to manage this issue." (Is Lue one of the people Grusch was referring to? Does he have proof of that? From my own information, I have no doubt that Clapper was instrumental in Lue being connected to the UFO topic. But exactly how that went down and what did it entail? I don't know. I hope Clapper speaks to all of this in detail one day soon.) ~ Dolan: "Gerb has stated that Clapper gave cover to AATIP and, basically, directed the National Security Council retrieval activities. And that he selected Elizondo as the front man. Gerb described Clapper as the mob boss of the NSC crash-retrieval portfolio. "Those are very, very powerful allegations. I'm not saying they're NOT true, but that interview with Ross Coulthart, I would say, did not produce anything in the way that anyone would actually call evidence. Like, there was no documents...or firsthand witnesses that were named, or anything like that. "So you have this, basically, a link from Clapper, to the NSC operation, to AATIP, to Elizondo, to controlled disclosure. This could be true, but no one's seen any receipts on this, and I would like to. "And there's more things that I think raise questions about this whole scenario, frankly. I mean, I think of the Pentagon campaign against Lue Elizondo, which lasted for many years. Any theory that has Elizondo as a controlled-disclosure frontman, I think has to account for the documented, institutional effort by the Pentagon to undermine Lue Elizondo." (When the Pentagon spokespeople said that Lue had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP, it's not so clear cut to say they were trying to undermine Lue, since AAWSAP also had the nickname of AATIP, which I'll call AATIP 1. So, if we're talking about AATIP 1 (AAWSAP), Lue did NOT have any assigned responsibilities, except early on when he did some counter-intelligence. And if we're talking AATIP 2, which Stratton said he created in 2015, Knapp explained in 2019 that it was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies." And on April 8th of this year, Lacatski told Knapp that, "they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their uh...what would you describe that as, more lunchtime get togethers? And George Knapp is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it." That tells me Lacatski felt AATIP was REALLY informal, and that could explain why Lue's role wasn't clear cut in the minds of those spokespeople, and why so many of my contacts told me he wasn't the director of AATIP. But those same folks also told me Lue played in an important role in that effort. My guess is that, since AATIP was so informal, there really was NO official director, but that should be clarified when Stratton's book comes out. Semantics? Maybe.) Dolan: Gerb's hypothesis featuring, "the management of an approved public representative (Lue) of a controlled-disclosure narrative...just doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense to me is something like a factional conflict. I think [that's] much more of a logical explanation for everything that we have seen. You have one group that may have supported some kind of opening - not even necessarily a complete opening - while another fought to preserve the secrecy as much as possible. "But that's a bureaucratic struggle. That's not, necessarily, a unified, controlled-disclosure operation. So I think that is a contradiction that was not really adequately discussed in this hypothesis. "I may be wrong about Elizondo, and I'm not here, again, to be his defense attorney. But I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature. It strikes me also as, potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort, frankly. We can investigate serious allegations without first assigning everyone the role of either hero or villain. "So, I guess I would say that Gerb may have genuinely identified some real relationships and hidden activity. In fact, knowing his excellent research track record, I would be surprised if he didn't. "Elizondo - probably - does have undisclosed elements in his background, and I have no doubt he knows much more than he has said. When I look at the this idea of, like. you look at TTSA coming out at the end of 2016, and you see, basically, a kind of faction that had a very managed narrative indeed. Like, they did not come out and talk about crash retrievals. They did not at all. They talked about these military encounters and sensor readings and this type of thing. And that's a lot less interesting than crash retrievals. "But I try to look at it from, let's say you're a Pentagon insider and you are trying to fight for an opening in the public conversation. You're not gonna start with crash retrievals. First of all, you may not have the receipts on them yourself, to provide to the public. And also you're gonna know, right off the bat, that that's going to be a bigger hill to climb than just trying to get Congress to look at some of the more easily-verifiable reports that you probably have available. So, you're probably going to take it in a very tactical, strategic way. "That's not the same thing as saying that they're lying. It could simply be that was a strategy that was decided upon by these insiders. It's also possible they may not have believed in an uncontrolled, catastrophic disclosure. We can disagree with them on that, or you can agree with them on that. But again, I don't know that that's the same thing as saying that they're actually being dishonest. "If the factional thesis that I believe in is correct, then you'd have to assume that these people have to have their strategies and tactics in this broader struggle. Like, it would be ridiculous not to assume that. "So, I think, you know, it's entirely possible that someone like Elizondo has elements in his background that we would want to know about that are not there. It is very intriguing, and even plausible, perhaps, that someone like Clapper belongs somewhere in this deeper history. I would like to know what that is myself, and I would like to see something, you know, in the way of what we would call genuine evidence for that. Not saying it's not there. "I'm just suggesting that the current theory on Elizondo and controlled disclosure is asking us to accept several unsupported links, and, essentially, I would say a disclosure strategy that appears self-defeating and really illogical. Again, like, why initiate a disclosure program? Especially if you go back to the beginning of the AATIP era, like 2009-ish, 2010. Where was there any perceived need that we have to do disclosure?" (Not sure why Richard is not calling the 2009-ish, 2010-era, AAWSAP. I wonder if he knows that Stratton says he created AATIP in 2015? Could be relevant to this controversy.) Dolan: "Like, I look back at the situation at that time, and again, I was very, very on top of the scene at that time during those years, and I just was not aware of any public pressure, whatsoever, that would cause someone to say, 'We have to initiate a controlled disclosure of this, in order to protect crash retrievals.' "There's no logic there, it seems to me. It's, in fact, the exact opposite. "Also, the the current hypothesis, I think, really understates Elizondo's 2019 acknowledgement of recovered UFO material. That really has got to be understood. And it leaves the whole Pentagon campaign against Elizondo, in my view, anyway, largely unresolved and unexplained, and really not making sense. "And, I would just add, now that I'm thinking of it, this current hypothesis about Lue Elizondo, I think, actually reverses the the genuine historical sequence. In other words, I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further. "So, these are just logical questions that I have. You may have different questions. You may have rebuttals to what I have to say here. By all means, put them in a comment, I will read them. And again, I'm not here to defend Lue Elizondo, I am just questioning an account that does not yet, in my view, explain its own logic, or match the full chronology. "It is entirely possible that some of this story is well-known to researchers, including Gerb. I think, however, what has been presented so far does not show how all the pieces actually fit together, and I would like to see that. "And again, I say this with total respect to UAP Gerb and to Ross Coulthart, and in fairness to Lue Elizondo, who I think, if nothing else, this aspect of the history really needs to be understood by the broader community. So that is my statement. "And that doesn't mean that I'm right here, but I do think from time-to-time, it's okay to take a stand on a topic where I can see many people are going to disagree with this, but certain things I think need to be understood on this, and I hope that we can have a reasoned dialogue and discussion about this as we move forward with it, because it is a topic that we do need to understand. "My hypothesis has, pretty much, from the beginning, always been that what we are seeing and what we have been seeing since 2017 is, essentially, the result of a factional battle." (I believe Lue spoke about factions early on when he first went public.) "You go back through the history of this phenomenon, and if you read the old books going back to the 1950s, you see it then, too. You see that there were always factions within the Pentagon who did actually support some level of openness on the UFO subject. "You read the books of Donald Keyhoe, read the book by Edward Ruppelt from 1956: 'Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.' A lot of this is in there. And I think that's really never gone away. And so to somehow assume that there are no more factions in a massive labyrinthian structure as large as the U.S. military industrial complex, I think that's kind of ridiculous. There's always going to be factions. And I think that what we are seeing has always struck me as the result of a factional war that is taking place. "And that doesn't mean, by the way, that, you know, the two sides are just white hats and black hats. Everyone's got their own angle, everyone's got their own motivations. But I, nevertheless, tend to think that that is what we are looking at."
6:08

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

Joe Murgia

23,218 次观看 • 9 天前

Ron Unz (The Unz Review) discusses his intellectual upbringing and involvement in Holocaust research with Holocaust researcher Germar Rudolf (Germar Rudolf (* 1964)) and free market activist Jorge Besada. 00:28 Jorge introduces German chemist and leading Holocaust researcher Germar Rudolf who spent nearly 4 years in jail for writing a chemistry report that questions the mainstream mass-gassings narrative and thus allegedly “inciting racial hatred”. 02:54 Jorge introduces Jewish-born entrepreneur and author Ron Unz who has degrees in Physics and Ancient History from Harvard. Runs 05:00 Jorge briefly explains how from freedom emerges economic and intellectual competition which inadvertently turns mankind into a super-computer as companies innovate and copy each other’s innovations, as well as superior morals as hard-working people motivate everyone else to be likewise. 05:50 Ron tells us about his life, Jewish cultural influence-identity or lack thereof, early views on Holocaust. 09:15 Ron begins to get suspicious regarding Holocaust due to disastrous-flawed media coverage of Iraq war after 9/11. Mainstream media lost credibility. 10:42 Ron digitizes old publications and discusses ramifications of doing so. 14:20 Ron archives Reason magazine and eventually stumbles upon Holocaust-related issue and controversy surrounding it. 18:04 Ron praises issue and brings up fact that 2 leading editors were Jewish. 21:22 Arthur Butz, another prominent Holocaust mass-gassings doubter has Masters in Electrical Engineering from MIT. 21:50 Ron emphasizes how Libertarians were early prominent leaders in spreading Holocaust-doubt-revisionism. 23:28 Ron speculates that the Reason issue relating to the Holocaust was due to the coming release of Arthur Butz’s ‘The Hoax of the Twentieth Century’ 26:24 Ron praises Butz’s book and especially so Nicholas Kollerstrom’s ‘Breaking the Spell. The Holocaust: Myth & Reality’ 30:27 Jorge mentions how since Libertarians are better defenders of freedom, they get the benefits of superior competition of ideas and busting of myths-lies which helps explain why so many are Holocaust revisionists-deniers. Asks Ron a out how important was for him to lear that freedom giant Murray Rothbard, who is likely Milei’s favorite economist, was a revisiojnist-Denier. Ron elaborates. 34:55 Ron describes how it was books that were pro-mainstream-Holocast that persuaded him the most about the myth-story of the Holocaust. Discusses Deborah Lipstadt. 40:42 Ron brings up how lead soviet prosecutor in Nuremberg Trials , Andrey Vyshinsky, was same fraudulent prosecutor who oversaw Stalin’s bogus ‘Great Purge-‘Shows Trials’. 41:30 Ron brings up how aspects of Holocaust mythology are abandoned with time like alleged mass-gassings or death camps on German soil. 45:05 Ron mentions how Robert Faurisson(french revisionist) stressed how neither Churchill’s, nor, Eisenhower’s, nor Charles de Gaul’s massive post-war writings mentioned anything about the Holocaust. 48:56 Ron brings up book ‘The Jewish Threat: Anti-semitic Politics Of The U.s. Army’ by Joseph W. Bendersky, and how not a single American intelligence officer or top generals believed in holocaust stories. 50:15 Ron discusses John Beaty’s book ‘The Iron Curtain Over America’ 1:14:40 Ron argues that the reason why neither Churchill, nor Eisenhower, nor Charles de Gaul mentioned anything about the Holocaust is because they didn’t believe it and didn’t want to be seen as having fallen for war-time propaganda-myths in posterity. 1:17:29 Germar mentions how John Beaty may not have been able to better back his claims about intelligence officers not believing holocaust because it was not until year 2000 that UK finally released secret information about decrypts, so Beaty would have been breaking law. 1:19:18 Jorge brings up how Churchill knew the Soviets had committed the Katyn Forest massacre and introduced fake evidence at Nuremberg Trial blaming Germans for it, thus knew mass-gassings also likely fabrications thus not risk including them in his books to look like a fool in the future. 1:22:08 Ron discusses the Venona project, US spying on soviet spies working high up in Roosevelt admin. Even top American who kept project running and held erroneous anti-Jewish ideas, never believed anything about holocaust. 1:28:09 Jorge, backing Beaty’s claim that Jews were overwhelmingly responsible for bringing about WWII to destroy Hitler, brings up leading Zionist Chaim Weizmann stating that WWII “is our war..We are…giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are…providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going.” The solution to Hitler’s anti-Jewish fallacies was NOT a world war that killed 80+ million people. 1:29:39 Ron brings up how an increasing number of books today make similar point, but not as portraying Jews as dragging us into an unnecessary war, but as heroes helping annihilate the evil Hitler. 1:31:07 Ron disagrees with Jorge’s earlier statement and downplays Jew’s importance compared to Roosevelt's desire to have a war to allegedly get the US out of depression. 1:34:50 Ron brings up importance of Kristallnacht for getting Roosevelt and Jews to push war vs. Germany. 1:38:29 Germar further elaborates on how Nazi government’s cruel handling of Kristallnacht (forbade insurance companies to pay Jews, large collective fine on Jews as well) did make it easy for many to further vilify Nazi government and help move to war. 1:43:58 Jorge: ‘What are 3-5 major arguments the layperson came make to criticize mainstream holo myths?’ Ron mentions digging where hundreds of thousands of bodies are supposed to be buried. 1:49:12 Germar explains how ‘deep penetrating radar’ and other things have been tried and still no evidence to support mainstream claims. 1:52:43 Jorge summarizes simple arguments against mainstream myth discussed: 1) ground checks fail to show mass graves,2) Nuremberg Trial obvious fake evidence introduced by Soviets like brain bashing pedal-driven machine, atomic bomb-like device to blow up 20,000 Jews, etc. 3) Top Soviet prosecutor Andrey Vyshinsky being same liar as in Moscow ‘Show Trials’ 4) All secret communications from Auschwitz reveal nothing about gassings, 5) Nothing in Churchill, Eisenhower, Charles de Gaul writings, 6) Main Russian archivists admit there is nothing in archives supporting Holocaust, 7) Chemical analysis per Germar 8) massive continuous downward revisions of alleged exterminations. 1:58:52 Germar elaborates on history of massive downward revisions on total deaths. 2:05:28 Ron mentions how after creation of Israel and Israel’s pivot to America, Stalin-Soviets no longer pushed Holocaust. 2:10:55 Jorge summarizes how the mainstream Holocaust myth (NOT conspiracy) evolved. Holocaust exaggerations began as way for Poles-Soviets-Communists to punish Germany but understandably attracted and was amplified by Jews, especially Zionist ideology-believing ones. Per Germar, the key leading historian and judges who did most to create mainstream holocaust myth were not even Jewish. 2:13:00 Ron agrees with summary and believes that most of today’s Holocaust academics are not lying as part of some grand conspiracy by believe their mythical narrative. 2:14:26 Jorge brings up astute ending to Ron’s Holocaust article where he compared Holocaustianity to Socialist mythology and the USSR, both myths similarly superficially examined, sustained by coercion, and that could quickly collapse. 2:16:40 Jorge asks Ron: “Where do you see things headed?” 2:17:40 Jorge asks… Mahmoud Abbas, Bashar al Assad, Alexander Dugin, Judge Napolitano frequent guest Phil Giraldi all are prominent doubters, Sergey Lavrov loves watching Napolitano… How much of the Russia-Ukraine war is due to Zionism and are there significant chances that many high up in Russian government are Holocaust doubters-revisionists? 2:22:41 Jorge blames the seeming irrationality of US government looking for conflict with Russia and China as inevitable outgrowth of Holcaustianized Zionism which has made Bibi our Pope getting more than one standing ovation per minute in US congress. Ron mentions how of course everyone is a next Hitler to be militarily destroyed. 2:24:52 Ron sees massive collapse of the West which will bring down Holocaust myths with it. 2:25:55 Germar asks Ron about personal repercussions regarding his open Holocaust skepticism, lost friendships, etc. 2:34:15 Jorge brings up why Ron is such a vital intellectual. Unlike David Duke or Candace Owens who bring up good information about Jewish-related chaos, Ron is a secular Jew who does NOT make many fallacies Candace and David make like in Candace’s case referring to Bibi being influenced by Satan etc. And hopefully major podcasters like Joe Rogan soon host Ron. 2:36:06 Ron : “Maybe if one of these people had me on it could be the straw that breaks the camels back” 2:36:17 Jorge brings up how we are clearly seeing how similar to CovidMania, AntisemiteMania is about to emerge and fortunately this is leading more and more people to have the urgency and courage to deal with Zionist and Holocaust myths before it is too late. 2:39:30 Germar brings up Ron asking Germar to post his books. Ron explains he wanted to convert them to HTML but realized few were reading them that way to just abandoned the idea, especially since Germar’s site already provides all PDFs and more. 2:42:02 Jorge! “We almost went 3 hours! We will do this again!”
2:42:40

Ron Unz (The Unz Review) discusses his intellectual upbringing and involvement in Holocaust research with Holocaust researcher Germar Rudolf (Germar Rudolf (* 1964)) and free market activist Jorge Besada. 00:28 Jorge introduces German chemist and leading Holocaust researcher Germar Rudolf who spent nearly 4 years in jail for writing a chemistry report that questions the mainstream mass-gassings narrative and thus allegedly “inciting racial hatred”. 02:54 Jorge introduces Jewish-born entrepreneur and author Ron Unz who has degrees in Physics and Ancient History from Harvard. Runs 05:00 Jorge briefly explains how from freedom emerges economic and intellectual competition which inadvertently turns mankind into a super-computer as companies innovate and copy each other’s innovations, as well as superior morals as hard-working people motivate everyone else to be likewise. 05:50 Ron tells us about his life, Jewish cultural influence-identity or lack thereof, early views on Holocaust. 09:15 Ron begins to get suspicious regarding Holocaust due to disastrous-flawed media coverage of Iraq war after 9/11. Mainstream media lost credibility. 10:42 Ron digitizes old publications and discusses ramifications of doing so. 14:20 Ron archives Reason magazine and eventually stumbles upon Holocaust-related issue and controversy surrounding it. 18:04 Ron praises issue and brings up fact that 2 leading editors were Jewish. 21:22 Arthur Butz, another prominent Holocaust mass-gassings doubter has Masters in Electrical Engineering from MIT. 21:50 Ron emphasizes how Libertarians were early prominent leaders in spreading Holocaust-doubt-revisionism. 23:28 Ron speculates that the Reason issue relating to the Holocaust was due to the coming release of Arthur Butz’s ‘The Hoax of the Twentieth Century’ 26:24 Ron praises Butz’s book and especially so Nicholas Kollerstrom’s ‘Breaking the Spell. The Holocaust: Myth & Reality’ 30:27 Jorge mentions how since Libertarians are better defenders of freedom, they get the benefits of superior competition of ideas and busting of myths-lies which helps explain why so many are Holocaust revisionists-deniers. Asks Ron a out how important was for him to lear that freedom giant Murray Rothbard, who is likely Milei’s favorite economist, was a revisiojnist-Denier. Ron elaborates. 34:55 Ron describes how it was books that were pro-mainstream-Holocast that persuaded him the most about the myth-story of the Holocaust. Discusses Deborah Lipstadt. 40:42 Ron brings up how lead soviet prosecutor in Nuremberg Trials , Andrey Vyshinsky, was same fraudulent prosecutor who oversaw Stalin’s bogus ‘Great Purge-‘Shows Trials’. 41:30 Ron brings up how aspects of Holocaust mythology are abandoned with time like alleged mass-gassings or death camps on German soil. 45:05 Ron mentions how Robert Faurisson(french revisionist) stressed how neither Churchill’s, nor, Eisenhower’s, nor Charles de Gaul’s massive post-war writings mentioned anything about the Holocaust. 48:56 Ron brings up book ‘The Jewish Threat: Anti-semitic Politics Of The U.s. Army’ by Joseph W. Bendersky, and how not a single American intelligence officer or top generals believed in holocaust stories. 50:15 Ron discusses John Beaty’s book ‘The Iron Curtain Over America’ 1:14:40 Ron argues that the reason why neither Churchill, nor Eisenhower, nor Charles de Gaul mentioned anything about the Holocaust is because they didn’t believe it and didn’t want to be seen as having fallen for war-time propaganda-myths in posterity. 1:17:29 Germar mentions how John Beaty may not have been able to better back his claims about intelligence officers not believing holocaust because it was not until year 2000 that UK finally released secret information about decrypts, so Beaty would have been breaking law. 1:19:18 Jorge brings up how Churchill knew the Soviets had committed the Katyn Forest massacre and introduced fake evidence at Nuremberg Trial blaming Germans for it, thus knew mass-gassings also likely fabrications thus not risk including them in his books to look like a fool in the future. 1:22:08 Ron discusses the Venona project, US spying on soviet spies working high up in Roosevelt admin. Even top American who kept project running and held erroneous anti-Jewish ideas, never believed anything about holocaust. 1:28:09 Jorge, backing Beaty’s claim that Jews were overwhelmingly responsible for bringing about WWII to destroy Hitler, brings up leading Zionist Chaim Weizmann stating that WWII “is our war..We are…giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are…providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going.” The solution to Hitler’s anti-Jewish fallacies was NOT a world war that killed 80+ million people. 1:29:39 Ron brings up how an increasing number of books today make similar point, but not as portraying Jews as dragging us into an unnecessary war, but as heroes helping annihilate the evil Hitler. 1:31:07 Ron disagrees with Jorge’s earlier statement and downplays Jew’s importance compared to Roosevelt's desire to have a war to allegedly get the US out of depression. 1:34:50 Ron brings up importance of Kristallnacht for getting Roosevelt and Jews to push war vs. Germany. 1:38:29 Germar further elaborates on how Nazi government’s cruel handling of Kristallnacht (forbade insurance companies to pay Jews, large collective fine on Jews as well) did make it easy for many to further vilify Nazi government and help move to war. 1:43:58 Jorge: ‘What are 3-5 major arguments the layperson came make to criticize mainstream holo myths?’ Ron mentions digging where hundreds of thousands of bodies are supposed to be buried. 1:49:12 Germar explains how ‘deep penetrating radar’ and other things have been tried and still no evidence to support mainstream claims. 1:52:43 Jorge summarizes simple arguments against mainstream myth discussed: 1) ground checks fail to show mass graves,2) Nuremberg Trial obvious fake evidence introduced by Soviets like brain bashing pedal-driven machine, atomic bomb-like device to blow up 20,000 Jews, etc. 3) Top Soviet prosecutor Andrey Vyshinsky being same liar as in Moscow ‘Show Trials’ 4) All secret communications from Auschwitz reveal nothing about gassings, 5) Nothing in Churchill, Eisenhower, Charles de Gaul writings, 6) Main Russian archivists admit there is nothing in archives supporting Holocaust, 7) Chemical analysis per Germar 8) massive continuous downward revisions of alleged exterminations. 1:58:52 Germar elaborates on history of massive downward revisions on total deaths. 2:05:28 Ron mentions how after creation of Israel and Israel’s pivot to America, Stalin-Soviets no longer pushed Holocaust. 2:10:55 Jorge summarizes how the mainstream Holocaust myth (NOT conspiracy) evolved. Holocaust exaggerations began as way for Poles-Soviets-Communists to punish Germany but understandably attracted and was amplified by Jews, especially Zionist ideology-believing ones. Per Germar, the key leading historian and judges who did most to create mainstream holocaust myth were not even Jewish. 2:13:00 Ron agrees with summary and believes that most of today’s Holocaust academics are not lying as part of some grand conspiracy by believe their mythical narrative. 2:14:26 Jorge brings up astute ending to Ron’s Holocaust article where he compared Holocaustianity to Socialist mythology and the USSR, both myths similarly superficially examined, sustained by coercion, and that could quickly collapse. 2:16:40 Jorge asks Ron: “Where do you see things headed?” 2:17:40 Jorge asks… Mahmoud Abbas, Bashar al Assad, Alexander Dugin, Judge Napolitano frequent guest Phil Giraldi all are prominent doubters, Sergey Lavrov loves watching Napolitano… How much of the Russia-Ukraine war is due to Zionism and are there significant chances that many high up in Russian government are Holocaust doubters-revisionists? 2:22:41 Jorge blames the seeming irrationality of US government looking for conflict with Russia and China as inevitable outgrowth of Holcaustianized Zionism which has made Bibi our Pope getting more than one standing ovation per minute in US congress. Ron mentions how of course everyone is a next Hitler to be militarily destroyed. 2:24:52 Ron sees massive collapse of the West which will bring down Holocaust myths with it. 2:25:55 Germar asks Ron about personal repercussions regarding his open Holocaust skepticism, lost friendships, etc. 2:34:15 Jorge brings up why Ron is such a vital intellectual. Unlike David Duke or Candace Owens who bring up good information about Jewish-related chaos, Ron is a secular Jew who does NOT make many fallacies Candace and David make like in Candace’s case referring to Bibi being influenced by Satan etc. And hopefully major podcasters like Joe Rogan soon host Ron. 2:36:06 Ron : “Maybe if one of these people had me on it could be the straw that breaks the camels back” 2:36:17 Jorge brings up how we are clearly seeing how similar to CovidMania, AntisemiteMania is about to emerge and fortunately this is leading more and more people to have the urgency and courage to deal with Zionist and Holocaust myths before it is too late. 2:39:30 Germar brings up Ron asking Germar to post his books. Ron explains he wanted to convert them to HTML but realized few were reading them that way to just abandoned the idea, especially since Germar’s site already provides all PDFs and more. 2:42:02 Jorge! “We almost went 3 hours! We will do this again!”

Jorge Besada

16,100 次观看 • 9 个月前

THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT: In 2018 it was already decided to remove President Trump from the White House. Trump will never be allowed to win the 2024 Election. The Biden Administration is under the control of the Shadow Government. Facebook owned by U.S. Government. Covid-19 planned. The Shadow Government is the Committee of 300 and Bill Gates is one of the current members of the Committee of 300 which controls all the affairs of the world except for Russia and China. The Committee of 300 also controls the Pedophile systems around the world and all the major human trafficking networks which involve 8 million innocent children a year who are raped, tortured and murdered. There will never be fair elections in the United States and around the world until the Committee of 300 is removed from our society. They will not let President Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. become President of the United States in 2024. To understand the Committee of 300 completely I recommend you read the book Conspirator's Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman. Dr. John Coleman was an Intelligence Officer for over 45 years and his book of truth is based on 20 years of relentless research. Below are the goals and names of the Committee of 300 written from his book. There is also a video post on my page titled "Rulers Of Our World" in which Dr. John Coleman gives a detailed history of the Committee of 300. I strongly advise you to watch the full 60 minutes for the complete truth. Included in the Committee of 300 Membership: Are the old families of the European Black Nobility, the American Eastern Liberal Establishment (In Freemason hierarchy and the Order of Skull and Bone), the Illuminati, or as it is known by the Committee "MORIAH CONQUERING WIND," the Mumma Group, The National and World Council of Churches, the Circle of Initiates, the Nine Unknown Men, Lucis Trust, Jesuit Liberation Theologists, The Order of the Elders of Zion, the Nasi Princes, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the United Nations (U.N.), the Central, British Quator Coronati, Italian P2 Masonry—especially those in the Vatican hierarchy—the Central Intelligence Agency, Tavistock Institute selected personnel, various members of leading foundations and insurance companies named in the lists that follow, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, the Milner Group- Round Table, Cini Foundation, German Marshall Fund, Ditchley Foundation, NATO, Club of Rome, Environmentalists, The Order of St. John of Jerusalem, One World Government Church, Socialist International, Black Order, Thule Society, Anenherbe- Rosicrucianists, The Great Superior Ones, Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and literally hundreds of other organizations. Some Major Worldwide Committee of 300 Institutions and Organizations are as follows: Americans for a Safe Israel. Biblical Archaeology Review. Bilderbergers. British Petroleum. Canadian Institute of Foreign Relations. Christian Fundamentalism. Council on Foreign Relations, New York. Egyptian Exploration Society. Imperial Chemical Industries. International Institute for Strategic Studies. Order of Skull and Bones. Palestine Exploration Fund. Poor Knights of the Templars. Royal Dutch Shell Company. Socialist International. South Africa Foundation. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Temple Mount Foundation. The Atheist Club. The Fourth State of Consciousness Club. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The Milner Group. The Nasi Princes. The Order of Magna Mater. The Order of the Divine Disorder. The RIIA. The Round Table. Trilateral Commission. Universal Freemasonry. Universal Zionism. Vickers Armament Company. Warren Commission. Watergate Committee. Wilton Park. World Council of Churches. PAST AND PRESENT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300 AS OF 1991: BILL GATES A NEW MEMBER Abergavemy, Marquis of. Acheson, Dean. Adeane, Lord Michael. Agnelli, Giovanni. Alba, Duke of. Aldington, Lord. Aleman, Miguel. Allihone, Professor T. E. Alsop Family Designate. Amory, Houghton. Anderson, Charles A. Anderson, Robert 0. Andreas, Dwayne. Asquith, Lord. Astor, John Jacob and successor, Waldorf. Aurangzeb, Descendants of. Austin, Paul. Baco, Sir Ranulph BalFour, Arthur. Balogh, Lord. Bancroft, Baron Stormont. Baring. Barnato, B. Barran, Sir John. Baxendell, Sir Peter. Beatrice of Savoy, Princess. Beaverbrook, Lord. Beck, Robert. Beeley, Sir Harold. Beit, Alfred. Benn, Anthony Wedgewood. Bennet, John W. Benneton, Gilberto or alternate Carlo. Bertie, Andrew. Besant, Sir Walter. Bethal, Lord Nicholas. Bialkin, David. Biao, Keng. Bingham, William. Binny, J. F. Blunt, Wilfred. Bonacassi, Franco Orsini. Bottcher, Fritz. Bradshaw, Thornton. Brandt, Willy. Brewster, Kingman. Buchan, Alastair. Buffet, Warren. Bullitt, William C. Bulwer-Lytton, Edward. Bundy, McGeorge. Bundy, William. Bush, George. Cabot, John. Family Designate. Caccia, Baron Harold Anthony. Cadman, Sir John. Califano, Joseph. Carrington, Lord. Carter, Edward. Catlin, Donat. Catto, Lord. Cavendish, Victor C. W. Duke of Devonshire. Chamberlain, Houston Stewart. Chang, V. F. Chechirin, Georgi or Family Designate. Churchill, Winston. Cicireni, V. or Family Designate. Cini, Count Vittorio. Clark, Howard. Cleveland, Amory. Cleveland, Harland. Clifford, Clark. Cobold, Lord. Coffin, the Rev William Sloane. Constanti, House of Orange. Cooper, John. Family Designate. Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count. Cowdray, Lord. Cox, Sir Percy. Cromer, Lord Evelyn Baring. Crowther, Sir Eric. Cumming, Sir Mansfield. Curtis, Lionel. d'Arcy, William K. D'Avignon, Count Etienne. Danner, Jean Duroc. Davis, John W. de Benneditti, Carlo. De Bruyne, Dirk. De Gunzberg, Baron Alain. De Lamater, Major General Walter. De Menil, Jean. De Vries, Rimmer. de Zulueta, Sir Philip. de'Aremberg, Marquis Charles Louis. Delano. Family Designate. Dent, R. Deterding, Sir Henri. di Spadaforas, Count Guitierez, (House Douglas-Home, Sir Alec. Drake, Sir Eric. Duchene, Francois. DuPont. Edward, Duke of Kent. Eisenberg, Shaul. Elliott, Nicholas. Elliott, William Yandel. Elsworthy, Lord. Farmer, Victor. Forbes, John M. Foscaro, Pierre. France, Sir Arnold. Fraser, Sir Hugh. Frederik IX, King of Denmark Family Designate. Freres, Lazard. Frescobaldi, Lamberto. Fribourg, Michael. Gabor, Dennis. Gallatin, Albert. Family Designate. Gardner, Richard. Gates, William Henry III Geddes, Sir Auckland. Geddes, Sir Reay. George, Lloyd. Giffen, James. Gilmer, John D. Giustiniani, Justin. Gladstone, Lord. Gloucestor, The Duke of. Gordon, Walter Lockhart. Grace, Peter J. Greenhill, Lord Dennis Arthur. Greenhill, Sir Dennis. Grey, Sir Edward. Gyllenhammar, Pierres. Haakon, King of Norway. Haig, Sir Douglas. Hailsham, Lord. Haldane, Richard Burdone. Halifax, Lord. Hall, Sir Peter Vickers. Hambro, Sir Jocelyn. Hamilton, Cyril. Harriman, Averill. Hart, Sir Robert. Hartman, Arthur H. Healey, Dennis. Helsby, Lord. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty Queen Juliana. Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrix. Her Royal Highness Queen Margreta. Heseltine, Sir William. Hesse, Grand Duke descendants, Family Designate. Hoffman, Paul G. Holland, William. House of Braganza. House of Hohenzollern. House, Colonel Mandel. Howe, Sir Geoffrey. Hughes, Thomas H. Hugo, Thieman. Hutchins, Robert M. Huxley, Aldous. Inchcape, Lord. Jamieson, Ken. Japhet, Ernst Israel. Jay, John. Family Designate. Keynes, John Maynard. Jodry, J. J. Joseph, Sir Keith. Katz, Milton. Kaufman, Asher. Keith, Sir Kenneth. Keswick, Sir William Johnston, or Keswick, H.N.L. Keswick, William Johnston. Kimberly, Lord. King, Dr. Alexander. Kirk, Grayson L. Kissinger, Henry. Kitchener, Lord Horatio. Kohnstamm, Max. Korsch, Karl. Lambert, Baron Pierre. Lawrence, G. Lazar. Lehrman, Lewis. Lever, Sir Harold. Lewin, Dr. Kurt. Lippmann, Walter. Livingstone, Robert R. Family Designate. Lockhart, Bruce. Lockhart, Gordon. Linowitz, S. Loudon, Sir John. Luzzatto, Pieipaolo. Mackay, Lord, of Clasfern. Mackay-Tallack, Sir Hugh. Mackinder, Halford. MacMillan, Harold. Matheson, Jardine. Mazzini, Gueseppi. McClaughlin, W. E. McCloy, John J. McFadyean, Sir Andrew. McGhee, George. McMillan, Harold. Mellon, Andrew. Mellon, William Larimer or Family Designate. Meyer, Frank. Michener, Roland. Mikovan, Anastas. Milner, Lord Alfred. Mitterand, Francois. Monett, Jean. Montague, Samuel. Montefiore, Lord Sebag or Bishop Hugh. Morgan, John P. Mott, Stewart. Mountain, Sir Brian Edward. Mountain, Sir Dennis. Mountbatten, Lord Louis. Munthe, A., or family designate. Naisbitt, John. Neeman, Yuval. Newbigging, David. Nicols, Lord Nicholas of Bethal. Norman, Montague. O'Brien of Lotherby, Lord. Ogilvie, Angus. Okita, Saburo. Oldfield, Sir Morris. Oppenheimer, Sir Earnest, and successor, Harry. Ormsby Gore, David (Lord Harlech). Orsini, Franco Bonacassi. Ortolani. Umberto. Ostiguy, J.P.W. Paley, William S. Pallavacini. Palme, Olaf. Palmerston. Palmstierna, Jacob. Pao, Y.K. Pease, Richard T. Peccei, Aurellio. Peek, Sir Edmund. Pellegreno, Michael, Cardinal. Perkins, Nelson. Pestel, Eduard. Peterson, Rudolph. Petterson, Peter G. Petty, John R. Philip, Prince, Duke of Edinburgh. Piercy, George. Pinchott, Gifford. Pratt, Charles. Price Waterhouse, Designate. Radziwall. Ranier, Prince. Raskob, John Jacob. Recanati. Rees, John Rawlings. Rees, John. Rennie, Sir John. Rettinger, Joseph. Rhodes, Cecil John. Rockefeller, David. Role, Lord Eric of Ipsden. Rosenthal, Morton. Rostow, Eugene. Rothmere, Lord. Rothschild Elie de or Edmon de and/or Baron RothschiLd Runcie, Dr.Robert. Russell, Lord John. Russell, Sir Bertrand. Saint Gouers, Jean. Salisbury, Marquisse de Robert Gascoiugne Cecil. Shelburne, The Salisbury, Lord. Samuel, Sir Marcus. Sandberg, M. G. Sarnoff, Robert. Schmidheiny, Stephan or alternate brothers Thomas, Alexander. Schoenberg, Andrew. Schroeder. Schultz, George. Schwartzenburg, E. Shawcross, Sir Hartley. Sheridan, Walter. Shiloach, Rubin. Silitoe, Sir Percy. Simon, William. Sloan, Alfred P. Smuts, Jan. Spelman. Sproull, Robert. Stals, Dr. C. Stamp, Lord Family designate. Steel, David. Stiger, George. Strathmore, Lord. Strong, Sir Kenneth. Strong, Maurice. Sutherland. Swathling, Lord. Swire, J. K. Tasse, G. Or Family Designate. Temple, Sir R. Thompson, William Boyce. Thompson, Lord. Thyssen-Bornamisza, Baron Hans Henrich. Trevelyn, Lord Humphrey. Turner, Sir Mark. Turner, Ted. Tyron, Lord. Urquidi, Victor. Van Den Broek, H. Vanderbilt. Vance, Cyrus. Verity, William C. Vesty, Lord Amuel. Vickers, Sir Geoffrey. Villiers, Gerald Hyde family alternate. Volpi, Count. von Finck, Baron August. von Hapsburg, Archduke Otto, House of Hapsburg-Lorraine. Von Thurn and Taxis, Max. Wallenberg, Peter or Family Designate. Wang, Kwan Cheng, Dr. Warburg, S. C. Ward Jackson, Lady Barbara. Warner, Rawleigh. Warnke, Paul. Warren, Earl. Watson, Thomas. Webb, Sydney. Weill, David. Weill, Dr. Andrew. Weinberger, Sir Caspar. Weizman, Chaim. Wells, H. G. Wheetman, Pearson (Lord Cowdray). White, Sir Dick Goldsmith. Whitney, Straight. Wiseman, Sir William. Wittelsbach. Wolfson, Sir Isaac. Wood, Charles. Young, Owen. The Evil Intent and Purpose of the Committee of 300 is to Bring to Pass the Following Conditions: A One World Government and one-unit monetary system under permanent non-elected hereditary Oligarchists who self select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population. There will be no middle class, only rulers and servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simply be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited. Only one religion will be allowed and that will be in the form of a One World Government Church, which has been in existence since 1920 as we shall see. Satanism, Luciferianism and Witchcraft shall he recognized as legitimate One World Government curricula with no private or church schools. All Christian churches have already been subverted and Christianity will be a thing of the past in the One World Government. To induce a state where there is no individual freedom or any concept of liberty surviving, there shall be no such thing as republicanism, sovereignty or rights residing with the people. National pride and racial identity shall be stamped out and in the transition phase it shall be subject to the severest penalties to even mention one's racial origin. Each person shall be fully indoctrinated that he or she is a creature of the One World Government with an identification number clearly marked on their person so as to be readily accessible, which identifying number shall be in the master file of the NATO computer in Brussels, Belgium, subject to instant retrieval by any agency of the One World Government at any time. The master Files of the CIA, FBI, state and local police agencies, IRS, FEMA, Social Security shall be vastly expanded and form the basis of personal records of all individuals in the United States. Marriage shall be outlawed and there shall be no family life as we know it. Children will be removed from their parents at an early-age and brought up by wards as state property. Such an experiment was carried out in East Germany under Erich Honnecker when children were take away from parents considered by the state to be disloyal citizens. Women will be degraded through the continued process of "women's liberation" movements. Free sex shall be mandatory. Failure to comply at least once by the age of 20 shall be punishable by severe reprisals against her person. Self-abortion shall be taught and practiced after two children are born to a woman; such records shall be contained in the personal file of each woman in the One World Government's regional computers. If a woman falls pregnant after she has previously given birth to two children, she shall be forcibly removed to an abortion clinic for such an abortion and sterilization to be carried out. Pornography shall be promoted and be compulsory showing in every theater of cinema, including homosexual and lesbian pornography. The use of "recreational" drugs shall be compulsory, with each person allotted drug quotas which can be purchased at One World Government stores throughout the world. Mind control drugs will be expanded and usage become compulsory. Such mind control drugs shall be given in food and/or water supplies without the knowledge and/or consent of the people. Drug bars shall be set up, run by One World Government employees, where the slave-class shall be able to spend their free time. In this manner the non-elite masses will be reduced to the level and behavior of controlled animals with no will of their own and easily regimented and controlled. The economic system shall be based upon the ruling oligarchical class allowing just enough foods and services to be produced to keep the mass slave labor camps going. All wealth shall be aggregated in the hands of the elite members of the Committee of 300. Each individual shall be indoctrinated to understand that he or she is totally dependent upon the state for survival. The world shall be ruled by Committee of 300 Executive Decrees which become instant law. Courts of punishment and not courts of justice shall exist. Industry is to be totally destroyed along with nuclear powered energy systems. Only the Committee of 300 members and their elitists shall have the right to any of the earth's resources. Agriculture shall be solely in the hands of the Committee of 300 with food production strictly controlled. As these measures begin to take effect, large populations in the cities shall be forcibly removed to remote areas and those who refuse to go shall be exterminated in the manner of the One World Government experiment carried out by Pol Pot in Cambodia. Euthanasia for the terminally ill and the aged shall be compulsory. No cities shall be larger than a predetermined number as described in the work of Kalgeri. Essential workers will be moved to other cities if the one they are in becomes overpopulated. Other non-essential workers will be chosen at random and sent to underpopulated cities to fill "quotas." At least 4 billion "useless eaters" shall be eliminated by the year 2050 by means of limited wars, organized epidemics of fatal rapid-acting diseases and starvation. Energy, food and water shall be kept at subsistence levels for the non-elite, starting with the White populations of Western Europe and North America and then spreading to other races. The population of Canada, Western Europe and the United States will be decimated more rapidly than on other continents, until the world's population reaches a manageable level of 1 billion, of which 500 million will consist of Chinese and Japanese races, selected because they are people who have been regimented for centuries and who are accustomed to obeying authority without question. From time to time there shall be artificially contrived food and water shortages and medical care to remind the masses that their very existence depends on the goodwill of the Committee of 300. After the destruction of housing, auto, steel and heavy goods industries, there shall he limited housing, and industries of any kind allowed to remain shall be under the direction of NATO's Club of Rome as shall all scientific and space exploration development, limited to the elite under the control of the Committee of 300. Space weapons of all former nations shall be destroyed along with nuclear weapons. All essential and non-essential pharmaceutical products, doctors, dentists and health care workers will be registered in the central computer data bank and no medicine or medical care will he prescribed without express permission of regional controllers responsible for each city, town and village. The United States will be flooded by peoples of alien cultures who will eventually overwhelm White America, people with no concept of what the United States Constitution stands for and who will, in consequence, do nothing to defend it, and in whose minds the concept of liberty and justice is so weak as to matter little. Food and shelter shall be the main concern. No central bank save the Bank of International Settlement and the World Bank shall be allowed to operate. Private banks will be outlawed. Remuneration for work performed shall be under a uniform predetermined scale throughout the One World Government. There shall be no wage disputes allowed, nor any diversion from the standard uniform scales of pay laid down by the One World Government. Those who break the law will be instantly executed. There shall be no cash or coinage in the hands of the non- elite. All transactions shall be carried out by means of digital currency which shall bear the identification number of the holder. Any person who in any way infringes the rules and regulations of the Committee of 300 shall have the use of his or her digital currency suspended for varying times according to the nature and severity of the infringement. Such persons will find, when they go to make purchases, that their digital currency is blacklisted and they will not be able to obtain services of any kind. Attempts to trade "old" coins, that is to say silver coins of previous and now defunct nations, shall be treated as a capital crime subject to the death penalty. All such coinage shall be required to be surrendered within a given time along with guns, rifles, explosives and automobiles. Only the elite and One World Government high-ranking functionaries will be allowed private transport, weapons, coinage and automobiles. If the offense is a serious one, the digital currency will be shut off at the checking point where it is presented. Thereafter that person shall not be able to obtain food, water, shelter and employment medical services, and shall be officially listed as an outlaw. Large bands of outlaws will thus be created and they will live in regions that best afford subsistence, subject to being hunted down and shot on sight. Persons assisting outlaws in any way whatsoever, shall likewise be shot. Outlaws who fail to surrender to the police or military after a declared period of time, shall have a former family member selected at random to serve prison terms in their stead. Rival factions and groups such as Arabs and Jews and African tribes shall have differences magnified and allowed to wage wars of extermination against each other under the eyes of NATO and U.N. observers. The same tactics will be used in Central and South America. These wars of attrition shall take place before the take-over of the One World Government and shall be engineered on every continent where large groups of people with ethnic and religious differences live, such as the Sikhs, Moslem Pakistanis and the Hindu Indians. Ethnic and religious differences shall be magnified and exacerbated and violent conflict as a means of "settling" their differences shall be encouraged and fostered. All information services and print media shall be under the control of the One World Government. Regular brainwashing control measures shall be passed off as "entertainment" in the manner in which it was practiced and became a fine art in the United States. Youths removed from "disloyal parents," shall receive special education designed to brutalize them. Youth of both sexes shall receive training to qualify as prison guards for the One World labor camp system. The above was written in 1991 by Dr. John Coleman. We can already see many of these things happening today. We must act now to stop this from happening. Most Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world are controlled and were installed by the Committee of 300. The Committee of 300 also controls all the intelligence agencies such as MI6 and the CIA which are their most powerful tools to accomplish their goals. To restore America and humanity we must do away with the Committee of 300. This is the head of the snake that must be cut off. It will take a global effort of bravery and action. It must be done or we will lose America and the rest of the world to a global tyranny. They have already killed millions of innocent people and plan on killing millions more. They will not stop unless we physically stop them by force. This is the reality of humanities fate. Criminals and mass murderers do not surrender their power. It must be taken from them for the sake of all humanity.
13:58

THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT: In 2018 it was already decided to remove President Trump from the White House. Trump will never be allowed to win the 2024 Election. The Biden Administration is under the control of the Shadow Government. Facebook owned by U.S. Government. Covid-19 planned. The Shadow Government is the Committee of 300 and Bill Gates is one of the current members of the Committee of 300 which controls all the affairs of the world except for Russia and China. The Committee of 300 also controls the Pedophile systems around the world and all the major human trafficking networks which involve 8 million innocent children a year who are raped, tortured and murdered. There will never be fair elections in the United States and around the world until the Committee of 300 is removed from our society. They will not let President Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. become President of the United States in 2024. To understand the Committee of 300 completely I recommend you read the book Conspirator's Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman. Dr. John Coleman was an Intelligence Officer for over 45 years and his book of truth is based on 20 years of relentless research. Below are the goals and names of the Committee of 300 written from his book. There is also a video post on my page titled "Rulers Of Our World" in which Dr. John Coleman gives a detailed history of the Committee of 300. I strongly advise you to watch the full 60 minutes for the complete truth. Included in the Committee of 300 Membership: Are the old families of the European Black Nobility, the American Eastern Liberal Establishment (In Freemason hierarchy and the Order of Skull and Bone), the Illuminati, or as it is known by the Committee "MORIAH CONQUERING WIND," the Mumma Group, The National and World Council of Churches, the Circle of Initiates, the Nine Unknown Men, Lucis Trust, Jesuit Liberation Theologists, The Order of the Elders of Zion, the Nasi Princes, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the United Nations (U.N.), the Central, British Quator Coronati, Italian P2 Masonry—especially those in the Vatican hierarchy—the Central Intelligence Agency, Tavistock Institute selected personnel, various members of leading foundations and insurance companies named in the lists that follow, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, the Milner Group- Round Table, Cini Foundation, German Marshall Fund, Ditchley Foundation, NATO, Club of Rome, Environmentalists, The Order of St. John of Jerusalem, One World Government Church, Socialist International, Black Order, Thule Society, Anenherbe- Rosicrucianists, The Great Superior Ones, Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and literally hundreds of other organizations. Some Major Worldwide Committee of 300 Institutions and Organizations are as follows: Americans for a Safe Israel. Biblical Archaeology Review. Bilderbergers. British Petroleum. Canadian Institute of Foreign Relations. Christian Fundamentalism. Council on Foreign Relations, New York. Egyptian Exploration Society. Imperial Chemical Industries. International Institute for Strategic Studies. Order of Skull and Bones. Palestine Exploration Fund. Poor Knights of the Templars. Royal Dutch Shell Company. Socialist International. South Africa Foundation. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Temple Mount Foundation. The Atheist Club. The Fourth State of Consciousness Club. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The Milner Group. The Nasi Princes. The Order of Magna Mater. The Order of the Divine Disorder. The RIIA. The Round Table. Trilateral Commission. Universal Freemasonry. Universal Zionism. Vickers Armament Company. Warren Commission. Watergate Committee. Wilton Park. World Council of Churches. PAST AND PRESENT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300 AS OF 1991: BILL GATES A NEW MEMBER Abergavemy, Marquis of. Acheson, Dean. Adeane, Lord Michael. Agnelli, Giovanni. Alba, Duke of. Aldington, Lord. Aleman, Miguel. Allihone, Professor T. E. Alsop Family Designate. Amory, Houghton. Anderson, Charles A. Anderson, Robert 0. Andreas, Dwayne. Asquith, Lord. Astor, John Jacob and successor, Waldorf. Aurangzeb, Descendants of. Austin, Paul. Baco, Sir Ranulph BalFour, Arthur. Balogh, Lord. Bancroft, Baron Stormont. Baring. Barnato, B. Barran, Sir John. Baxendell, Sir Peter. Beatrice of Savoy, Princess. Beaverbrook, Lord. Beck, Robert. Beeley, Sir Harold. Beit, Alfred. Benn, Anthony Wedgewood. Bennet, John W. Benneton, Gilberto or alternate Carlo. Bertie, Andrew. Besant, Sir Walter. Bethal, Lord Nicholas. Bialkin, David. Biao, Keng. Bingham, William. Binny, J. F. Blunt, Wilfred. Bonacassi, Franco Orsini. Bottcher, Fritz. Bradshaw, Thornton. Brandt, Willy. Brewster, Kingman. Buchan, Alastair. Buffet, Warren. Bullitt, William C. Bulwer-Lytton, Edward. Bundy, McGeorge. Bundy, William. Bush, George. Cabot, John. Family Designate. Caccia, Baron Harold Anthony. Cadman, Sir John. Califano, Joseph. Carrington, Lord. Carter, Edward. Catlin, Donat. Catto, Lord. Cavendish, Victor C. W. Duke of Devonshire. Chamberlain, Houston Stewart. Chang, V. F. Chechirin, Georgi or Family Designate. Churchill, Winston. Cicireni, V. or Family Designate. Cini, Count Vittorio. Clark, Howard. Cleveland, Amory. Cleveland, Harland. Clifford, Clark. Cobold, Lord. Coffin, the Rev William Sloane. Constanti, House of Orange. Cooper, John. Family Designate. Coudenhove-Kalergi, Count. Cowdray, Lord. Cox, Sir Percy. Cromer, Lord Evelyn Baring. Crowther, Sir Eric. Cumming, Sir Mansfield. Curtis, Lionel. d'Arcy, William K. D'Avignon, Count Etienne. Danner, Jean Duroc. Davis, John W. de Benneditti, Carlo. De Bruyne, Dirk. De Gunzberg, Baron Alain. De Lamater, Major General Walter. De Menil, Jean. De Vries, Rimmer. de Zulueta, Sir Philip. de'Aremberg, Marquis Charles Louis. Delano. Family Designate. Dent, R. Deterding, Sir Henri. di Spadaforas, Count Guitierez, (House Douglas-Home, Sir Alec. Drake, Sir Eric. Duchene, Francois. DuPont. Edward, Duke of Kent. Eisenberg, Shaul. Elliott, Nicholas. Elliott, William Yandel. Elsworthy, Lord. Farmer, Victor. Forbes, John M. Foscaro, Pierre. France, Sir Arnold. Fraser, Sir Hugh. Frederik IX, King of Denmark Family Designate. Freres, Lazard. Frescobaldi, Lamberto. Fribourg, Michael. Gabor, Dennis. Gallatin, Albert. Family Designate. Gardner, Richard. Gates, William Henry III Geddes, Sir Auckland. Geddes, Sir Reay. George, Lloyd. Giffen, James. Gilmer, John D. Giustiniani, Justin. Gladstone, Lord. Gloucestor, The Duke of. Gordon, Walter Lockhart. Grace, Peter J. Greenhill, Lord Dennis Arthur. Greenhill, Sir Dennis. Grey, Sir Edward. Gyllenhammar, Pierres. Haakon, King of Norway. Haig, Sir Douglas. Hailsham, Lord. Haldane, Richard Burdone. Halifax, Lord. Hall, Sir Peter Vickers. Hambro, Sir Jocelyn. Hamilton, Cyril. Harriman, Averill. Hart, Sir Robert. Hartman, Arthur H. Healey, Dennis. Helsby, Lord. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty Queen Juliana. Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrix. Her Royal Highness Queen Margreta. Heseltine, Sir William. Hesse, Grand Duke descendants, Family Designate. Hoffman, Paul G. Holland, William. House of Braganza. House of Hohenzollern. House, Colonel Mandel. Howe, Sir Geoffrey. Hughes, Thomas H. Hugo, Thieman. Hutchins, Robert M. Huxley, Aldous. Inchcape, Lord. Jamieson, Ken. Japhet, Ernst Israel. Jay, John. Family Designate. Keynes, John Maynard. Jodry, J. J. Joseph, Sir Keith. Katz, Milton. Kaufman, Asher. Keith, Sir Kenneth. Keswick, Sir William Johnston, or Keswick, H.N.L. Keswick, William Johnston. Kimberly, Lord. King, Dr. Alexander. Kirk, Grayson L. Kissinger, Henry. Kitchener, Lord Horatio. Kohnstamm, Max. Korsch, Karl. Lambert, Baron Pierre. Lawrence, G. Lazar. Lehrman, Lewis. Lever, Sir Harold. Lewin, Dr. Kurt. Lippmann, Walter. Livingstone, Robert R. Family Designate. Lockhart, Bruce. Lockhart, Gordon. Linowitz, S. Loudon, Sir John. Luzzatto, Pieipaolo. Mackay, Lord, of Clasfern. Mackay-Tallack, Sir Hugh. Mackinder, Halford. MacMillan, Harold. Matheson, Jardine. Mazzini, Gueseppi. McClaughlin, W. E. McCloy, John J. McFadyean, Sir Andrew. McGhee, George. McMillan, Harold. Mellon, Andrew. Mellon, William Larimer or Family Designate. Meyer, Frank. Michener, Roland. Mikovan, Anastas. Milner, Lord Alfred. Mitterand, Francois. Monett, Jean. Montague, Samuel. Montefiore, Lord Sebag or Bishop Hugh. Morgan, John P. Mott, Stewart. Mountain, Sir Brian Edward. Mountain, Sir Dennis. Mountbatten, Lord Louis. Munthe, A., or family designate. Naisbitt, John. Neeman, Yuval. Newbigging, David. Nicols, Lord Nicholas of Bethal. Norman, Montague. O'Brien of Lotherby, Lord. Ogilvie, Angus. Okita, Saburo. Oldfield, Sir Morris. Oppenheimer, Sir Earnest, and successor, Harry. Ormsby Gore, David (Lord Harlech). Orsini, Franco Bonacassi. Ortolani. Umberto. Ostiguy, J.P.W. Paley, William S. Pallavacini. Palme, Olaf. Palmerston. Palmstierna, Jacob. Pao, Y.K. Pease, Richard T. Peccei, Aurellio. Peek, Sir Edmund. Pellegreno, Michael, Cardinal. Perkins, Nelson. Pestel, Eduard. Peterson, Rudolph. Petterson, Peter G. Petty, John R. Philip, Prince, Duke of Edinburgh. Piercy, George. Pinchott, Gifford. Pratt, Charles. Price Waterhouse, Designate. Radziwall. Ranier, Prince. Raskob, John Jacob. Recanati. Rees, John Rawlings. Rees, John. Rennie, Sir John. Rettinger, Joseph. Rhodes, Cecil John. Rockefeller, David. Role, Lord Eric of Ipsden. Rosenthal, Morton. Rostow, Eugene. Rothmere, Lord. Rothschild Elie de or Edmon de and/or Baron RothschiLd Runcie, Dr.Robert. Russell, Lord John. Russell, Sir Bertrand. Saint Gouers, Jean. Salisbury, Marquisse de Robert Gascoiugne Cecil. Shelburne, The Salisbury, Lord. Samuel, Sir Marcus. Sandberg, M. G. Sarnoff, Robert. Schmidheiny, Stephan or alternate brothers Thomas, Alexander. Schoenberg, Andrew. Schroeder. Schultz, George. Schwartzenburg, E. Shawcross, Sir Hartley. Sheridan, Walter. Shiloach, Rubin. Silitoe, Sir Percy. Simon, William. Sloan, Alfred P. Smuts, Jan. Spelman. Sproull, Robert. Stals, Dr. C. Stamp, Lord Family designate. Steel, David. Stiger, George. Strathmore, Lord. Strong, Sir Kenneth. Strong, Maurice. Sutherland. Swathling, Lord. Swire, J. K. Tasse, G. Or Family Designate. Temple, Sir R. Thompson, William Boyce. Thompson, Lord. Thyssen-Bornamisza, Baron Hans Henrich. Trevelyn, Lord Humphrey. Turner, Sir Mark. Turner, Ted. Tyron, Lord. Urquidi, Victor. Van Den Broek, H. Vanderbilt. Vance, Cyrus. Verity, William C. Vesty, Lord Amuel. Vickers, Sir Geoffrey. Villiers, Gerald Hyde family alternate. Volpi, Count. von Finck, Baron August. von Hapsburg, Archduke Otto, House of Hapsburg-Lorraine. Von Thurn and Taxis, Max. Wallenberg, Peter or Family Designate. Wang, Kwan Cheng, Dr. Warburg, S. C. Ward Jackson, Lady Barbara. Warner, Rawleigh. Warnke, Paul. Warren, Earl. Watson, Thomas. Webb, Sydney. Weill, David. Weill, Dr. Andrew. Weinberger, Sir Caspar. Weizman, Chaim. Wells, H. G. Wheetman, Pearson (Lord Cowdray). White, Sir Dick Goldsmith. Whitney, Straight. Wiseman, Sir William. Wittelsbach. Wolfson, Sir Isaac. Wood, Charles. Young, Owen. The Evil Intent and Purpose of the Committee of 300 is to Bring to Pass the Following Conditions: A One World Government and one-unit monetary system under permanent non-elected hereditary Oligarchists who self select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population. There will be no middle class, only rulers and servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simply be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited. Only one religion will be allowed and that will be in the form of a One World Government Church, which has been in existence since 1920 as we shall see. Satanism, Luciferianism and Witchcraft shall he recognized as legitimate One World Government curricula with no private or church schools. All Christian churches have already been subverted and Christianity will be a thing of the past in the One World Government. To induce a state where there is no individual freedom or any concept of liberty surviving, there shall be no such thing as republicanism, sovereignty or rights residing with the people. National pride and racial identity shall be stamped out and in the transition phase it shall be subject to the severest penalties to even mention one's racial origin. Each person shall be fully indoctrinated that he or she is a creature of the One World Government with an identification number clearly marked on their person so as to be readily accessible, which identifying number shall be in the master file of the NATO computer in Brussels, Belgium, subject to instant retrieval by any agency of the One World Government at any time. The master Files of the CIA, FBI, state and local police agencies, IRS, FEMA, Social Security shall be vastly expanded and form the basis of personal records of all individuals in the United States. Marriage shall be outlawed and there shall be no family life as we know it. Children will be removed from their parents at an early-age and brought up by wards as state property. Such an experiment was carried out in East Germany under Erich Honnecker when children were take away from parents considered by the state to be disloyal citizens. Women will be degraded through the continued process of "women's liberation" movements. Free sex shall be mandatory. Failure to comply at least once by the age of 20 shall be punishable by severe reprisals against her person. Self-abortion shall be taught and practiced after two children are born to a woman; such records shall be contained in the personal file of each woman in the One World Government's regional computers. If a woman falls pregnant after she has previously given birth to two children, she shall be forcibly removed to an abortion clinic for such an abortion and sterilization to be carried out. Pornography shall be promoted and be compulsory showing in every theater of cinema, including homosexual and lesbian pornography. The use of "recreational" drugs shall be compulsory, with each person allotted drug quotas which can be purchased at One World Government stores throughout the world. Mind control drugs will be expanded and usage become compulsory. Such mind control drugs shall be given in food and/or water supplies without the knowledge and/or consent of the people. Drug bars shall be set up, run by One World Government employees, where the slave-class shall be able to spend their free time. In this manner the non-elite masses will be reduced to the level and behavior of controlled animals with no will of their own and easily regimented and controlled. The economic system shall be based upon the ruling oligarchical class allowing just enough foods and services to be produced to keep the mass slave labor camps going. All wealth shall be aggregated in the hands of the elite members of the Committee of 300. Each individual shall be indoctrinated to understand that he or she is totally dependent upon the state for survival. The world shall be ruled by Committee of 300 Executive Decrees which become instant law. Courts of punishment and not courts of justice shall exist. Industry is to be totally destroyed along with nuclear powered energy systems. Only the Committee of 300 members and their elitists shall have the right to any of the earth's resources. Agriculture shall be solely in the hands of the Committee of 300 with food production strictly controlled. As these measures begin to take effect, large populations in the cities shall be forcibly removed to remote areas and those who refuse to go shall be exterminated in the manner of the One World Government experiment carried out by Pol Pot in Cambodia. Euthanasia for the terminally ill and the aged shall be compulsory. No cities shall be larger than a predetermined number as described in the work of Kalgeri. Essential workers will be moved to other cities if the one they are in becomes overpopulated. Other non-essential workers will be chosen at random and sent to underpopulated cities to fill "quotas." At least 4 billion "useless eaters" shall be eliminated by the year 2050 by means of limited wars, organized epidemics of fatal rapid-acting diseases and starvation. Energy, food and water shall be kept at subsistence levels for the non-elite, starting with the White populations of Western Europe and North America and then spreading to other races. The population of Canada, Western Europe and the United States will be decimated more rapidly than on other continents, until the world's population reaches a manageable level of 1 billion, of which 500 million will consist of Chinese and Japanese races, selected because they are people who have been regimented for centuries and who are accustomed to obeying authority without question. From time to time there shall be artificially contrived food and water shortages and medical care to remind the masses that their very existence depends on the goodwill of the Committee of 300. After the destruction of housing, auto, steel and heavy goods industries, there shall he limited housing, and industries of any kind allowed to remain shall be under the direction of NATO's Club of Rome as shall all scientific and space exploration development, limited to the elite under the control of the Committee of 300. Space weapons of all former nations shall be destroyed along with nuclear weapons. All essential and non-essential pharmaceutical products, doctors, dentists and health care workers will be registered in the central computer data bank and no medicine or medical care will he prescribed without express permission of regional controllers responsible for each city, town and village. The United States will be flooded by peoples of alien cultures who will eventually overwhelm White America, people with no concept of what the United States Constitution stands for and who will, in consequence, do nothing to defend it, and in whose minds the concept of liberty and justice is so weak as to matter little. Food and shelter shall be the main concern. No central bank save the Bank of International Settlement and the World Bank shall be allowed to operate. Private banks will be outlawed. Remuneration for work performed shall be under a uniform predetermined scale throughout the One World Government. There shall be no wage disputes allowed, nor any diversion from the standard uniform scales of pay laid down by the One World Government. Those who break the law will be instantly executed. There shall be no cash or coinage in the hands of the non- elite. All transactions shall be carried out by means of digital currency which shall bear the identification number of the holder. Any person who in any way infringes the rules and regulations of the Committee of 300 shall have the use of his or her digital currency suspended for varying times according to the nature and severity of the infringement. Such persons will find, when they go to make purchases, that their digital currency is blacklisted and they will not be able to obtain services of any kind. Attempts to trade "old" coins, that is to say silver coins of previous and now defunct nations, shall be treated as a capital crime subject to the death penalty. All such coinage shall be required to be surrendered within a given time along with guns, rifles, explosives and automobiles. Only the elite and One World Government high-ranking functionaries will be allowed private transport, weapons, coinage and automobiles. If the offense is a serious one, the digital currency will be shut off at the checking point where it is presented. Thereafter that person shall not be able to obtain food, water, shelter and employment medical services, and shall be officially listed as an outlaw. Large bands of outlaws will thus be created and they will live in regions that best afford subsistence, subject to being hunted down and shot on sight. Persons assisting outlaws in any way whatsoever, shall likewise be shot. Outlaws who fail to surrender to the police or military after a declared period of time, shall have a former family member selected at random to serve prison terms in their stead. Rival factions and groups such as Arabs and Jews and African tribes shall have differences magnified and allowed to wage wars of extermination against each other under the eyes of NATO and U.N. observers. The same tactics will be used in Central and South America. These wars of attrition shall take place before the take-over of the One World Government and shall be engineered on every continent where large groups of people with ethnic and religious differences live, such as the Sikhs, Moslem Pakistanis and the Hindu Indians. Ethnic and religious differences shall be magnified and exacerbated and violent conflict as a means of "settling" their differences shall be encouraged and fostered. All information services and print media shall be under the control of the One World Government. Regular brainwashing control measures shall be passed off as "entertainment" in the manner in which it was practiced and became a fine art in the United States. Youths removed from "disloyal parents," shall receive special education designed to brutalize them. Youth of both sexes shall receive training to qualify as prison guards for the One World labor camp system. The above was written in 1991 by Dr. John Coleman. We can already see many of these things happening today. We must act now to stop this from happening. Most Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world are controlled and were installed by the Committee of 300. The Committee of 300 also controls all the intelligence agencies such as MI6 and the CIA which are their most powerful tools to accomplish their goals. To restore America and humanity we must do away with the Committee of 300. This is the head of the snake that must be cut off. It will take a global effort of bravery and action. It must be done or we will lose America and the rest of the world to a global tyranny. They have already killed millions of innocent people and plan on killing millions more. They will not stop unless we physically stop them by force. This is the reality of humanities fate. Criminals and mass murderers do not surrender their power. It must be taken from them for the sake of all humanity.

Truth Justice ™

11,885,134 次观看 • 3 年前