Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

This desperate slut getting her tight ass pounded raw by BBC 🍆 Hole gripping so hard, taking every thick inch while she makes those whore faces. 😈 Total anal ownership, ruined forever 💦 #sissy #BBC #anal #bbcslut #assfucked #ruinedhole #pussyfree

BBC_CuckKing's profile picture

BBC Cuck King

9,458 subscribers

368,513 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#sissy#BBC#anal#bbcslut#assfucked#ruinedhole#pussyfree
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Analyzing Episode 60. Season 2 aka Motherhood Deconstructed I want to start this analysis with a disclaimer that I'll be writing about that kiss separately, because really, it deserves a post of its own. I'll talk about it here briefly, but this analysis will stick to the overall events of ep 60. To me, the main theme of this episode was motherhood. Be it Alya, Nare, Zerrin, Sadakat, and yes, even the dishrag. We see how these different women strive, suffer, and never stop trying to keep their children with them, all except one. So, let's begin. We start episode 60 with Alya and Cihan awaiting to conduct a DNA test on baby Simal, whom Kaya insists is his child. Long story short, Kaya is feeling a little pissed about Zerrin keeping the truth of Simal from him, and he has a point. But then, it's not like Zerrin has had a jolly good time pretending to play house with a creep like Demir. The only reason she relents is to keep her baby safe. So, it's a catch-22 situation, where both sides are right and wrong. But, it's not like we don't know these two will make up soon. What stood out to me in that sequence was Alya taking charge of ensuring Zerrin has access to her baby. She knows exactly what it is to be separated from one's child, and she's kind and brave enough to refuse to let anyone suffer through the same. So, in a way, Alya's motherhood doesn't just extend to Deniz. It encompasses her to the point where she shields all those she feels need protection. I also like the fact that she's taken Zerrin under her wing, because when the latter moves into the konak with Sadakat, she'll need all the help she can get. The next sequence begins at the hospital, where Nare is still hell-bent on continuing with the pregnancy, though at great risk to her life. This is another glimpse of motherhood the show gives us - in the shape of a woman who is so in love with her unborn child already, she's willing to risk death to bring it into the world. Contrasted to that is Sadakat, who's willing to lie or cheat to keep her daughter alive. Here is a ruthless kind of motherhood. Sadakat's love (if you can call it that) has always been wrapped in control, manipulation, and fear. But, still at the center of all her ugliness is a woman who doesn't want to lose her children. Nare is willing to die for her child, Sadakat is willing to kill Nare's child to ensure she lives - quite the compelling contrast. Different forms of motherhood, but both rooted in desperation. In the middle of all that, Meryem pops up like a bad penny. But even as she arrives in that room and Sadakat wants to keep her there, the awkward silence that envelops the space as she lingers is telling. She doesn't belong, it seems to say. But, there's another person who's starting to question their 'belonging' in this new version of the past that's come back - and of course, that's Alya. The more she sees Meryem infiltrate parts of her life beyond the konak, the more her exposed nerves are rubbed raw. This woman is so close to complete and utter exhaustion, it's heartbreaking. What's even more heartbreaking is that while she tries to be there for everyone, she herself cuts everyone off when she feels troubled. And that, to me, is where the episode quietly portrays the emotional labor aspect of being a mom. Alya mothers everyone around her. Nare, Zerrin, Kaya, and Deniz. Even Cihan at times. She absorbs pain, tries to stem chaos, protects others from falling apart, yet when it comes to her own fears and insecurities, she retreats inward completely. It's almost as if she believes she only deserves to be the shelter, never the one allowed to seek sanctuary. Because children who grow up thinking they've been abandoned grow up thinking love is a thing to be earned through caring or usefulness. So, instead of asking for comfort, they always end up providing it. But humans, even the strongest of the strong, have their limits. And, it's so clear that Alya is close to reaching hers. So, when Cihan is forced to relent and allow Mujgan and her son to the konak because Deniz wants it, Alya does what she does best - she withdraws and leaves the source of discomfort. That's why she tells Cihan she hates going to the konak now because every time she goes there, the spectre of Meryem and what she can snatch away becomes unavoidable. And, as blind as Cihan can be at times, he picks up on that. He knows exactly what she's trying to do, which is why he tries to redirect her attention to the fact that he hates going to the konak without Alya around, too. He wants to be wherever Alya is. In his own way, he's trying to tell her it doesn't matter who stays at that house; it's only home to Cihan when Alya is around. His words reach Alya, which is why she relents and visits the konak for a few hours, but then shit hits the fan again. We'll get to that, but first, let's talk about Meryem. Meryem's scene in the hospital with Mujgan reveals Meryem saying she can't tell Cihan about Serhat because she's not sure who the father is, and that she'd rather live in the hope that Serhat is the son of the man she loves, bla blah. Now, go back and think of all the versions of motherhood we've seen in this series, and indeed this episode. They all have one thing in common - that all the mothers did whatever they had to, and bore whatever came their way to ensure their babies stayed with them. No matter how much Alya, Zerrin, or Nare love their better halves, when push came to shove, they put their children first. Even Sadakat married Azem for Boran. All except one. Meryem. Meryem sent her son away and made it look like he was Mujgan's child, thereby erasing all his links to her. One could argue it was because she feared Feyyaz. But what's stopping her now? Let's assume what Meryem says is right and there's a 50 percent chance Serhat is Cihan's son. For a mother desperate to save her child from danger, those are pretty good odds, so why avoid the DNA test? Suppose Serhat turns out to be Feyyaz's son; even so, if she comes clean with Cihan, she knows he's the kind to help her, even if just to keep an innocent child safe. So, her version of motherhood sticks out like a sore thumb in the episode. In contrast, I found Alya's line, 'When it comes to my son, I put him before everything and everyone else,' much more fitting with the theme. Mothers on the defensive, who feel there's a threat to their child's wellbeing, will relent to even the most extreme measure - even if it tears their own being apart. Alya hates being away from Cihan. She hates that distance she imposes between them as much as Cihan, but she can't help it. Because the mother in her won't let her choose anything else. Which is why I say Serhat is almost like an afterthought to Meryem because his needs are never the focus. And I get the feeling that whatever Meryem is trying to hide threatens not her son, but likely the version of herself she's presented to the world. Even when I rewatched the kite flying scene, the way the camera pans into Serhat only once, but mostly focuses on Cihan and Alya after showing us Meryem is telling. Like this is a woman not going through hell because of her child, but because she's looking at a structure of acceptance she's no longer able to enter. Life at the konak, Cihan's family unit, his love for Alya and Deniz - it's everything that could have been hers once, but no longer. No matter how she tries, she no longer fits. And honestly, that’s why that sense of not belonging is even more overt in an episode about motherhood. Every other mother in this episode becomes messy because of love for their child. Nare breaks down. Zerrin panics. Sadakat manipulates openly. Alya practically emotionally disintegrates trying to hold everything together. Their feelings spill all over the place because motherhood, especially threatened motherhood, breaks people down. But Meryem remains oddly stoic throughout it all, except for a few tears. She's mostly careful and controlled, and always aware of who's watching her. Going back to the point of shit hitting the fan, when Alya discovers Meryem and Mujgan in Cihan's room, she doesn't buy Meryem's story for a bit. When Cihan tries to calm the situation, she dismantles the sorry excuse Meryem gives with two questions. In other words, her spidey senses pick up trouble, but she keeps it locked in because she doesn't want to appear as the jealous, unreasonable wife. But things come to a head anyway when Feyyaz cuts Cihan and Alya off on the road. Cihan seems to finally realize exactly the kind of trouble Meryem has unleashed in their lives when Feyyaz keeps eyeing Alya. Because to Feyyaz's psychotic mind, Cihan is keeping Meryem away from him, which makes Alya fair game. But when Cihan insists Alya return to the konak, Alya flat out refuses, and all the pressure that's been building inside her gets directed at Cihan. She knows deep down he's not at fault, but the fact that he's jumped into another situation without thinking of the danger, grates on her nerves. Which is why her default setting kicks in; she demands that Cihan bring Deniz to her and leave the apartment. Cihan, who is already reeling from Alya pulling back from him and the reality of Feyyaz targeting the only thing he truly holds dear, is desperate to stop Alya's isolation before she decides he's not worth all the misery she's suffering, and does what's worked for him once before in a desperate situation (the airport, anyone?). He forgets everything, pulls Alya in, and kisses the breath out of her. And, it works too, because for that moment, Alya stops spiraling long enough to simply feel. To stop calculating danger or bracing for abandonment. She feels loved and safe in Cihan's arms again. That's what makes that kiss so powerful. It isn't just the passion. It's the desperation behind it, on both sides. Cihan isn't kissing Alya because he wants to win an argument. He's kissing her because he's terrified, and he misses her. He's worried that if she keeps retreating inward, one day she'll retreat so far he won't be able to reach her anymore. Worried that all the fear, exhaustion, and pressure she's carrying will eventually make her decide loving him isn't worth the cost. And Alya responds because beneath all her anger, fear, and exhaustion, she loves him just as desperately. That's the irony of CihAl this season. They're not going to pieces because the love is weakening. They're going to pieces because the love has become so enormous that losing it feels catastrophic to both of them. To conclude, everything within ep 60, including the kiss, works so beautifully because technically everyone is unraveling. Every woman in this episode is fighting to protect something she loves, but the ways they do so reveal who they are at their core. Alya protects by sacrificing parts of herself. Nare protects by risking herself. Sadakat protects by controlling others. Zerrin protects by enduring humiliation. And Meryem... Meryem protects the narratives she builds. Her emotions, while visible, don't land with impact, almost as if they're missing a core ingredient. On the opposite end of the spectrum lie CihAl, whose love strips them bare, only for them to realize that retreat is no option. The only way forward for them is through - through fear, through exhaustion, through jealousy, through danger, and through every ugly and painful thing that loving someone this deeply awakens inside them. Because CihAl are incapable of loving each other halfway. Their love keeps dragging every hidden wound, every insecurity, every instinct to the surface until there is nowhere left to hide. And maybe that’s the real contrast episode 60 quietly builds toward: one side clinging to carefully maintained facades, the other being emotionally dismantled by a love too raw and overwhelming to remain controlled. Till later, happy reading, y'all. #CihAl #UzakŞehir
5:10

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

CocoLoco

12,775 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

"We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her." ~Tim Gallaudet This is way too long but I hope you enjoy it. As far as Steven Greenstreet 🐷's posts about the Gallaudets, hauntings and psychics? First off, Tim Gallaudet's wife, "was also a Naval Academy graduate and a master’s recipient from Scripps, having earned her degree in 2001." Source: We know the resume of retired Rear Admiral and oceanographer, Tim Gallaudet, but what about his wife, Caren? She's a big part of this story, so any journalist covering it would want you to know a little something about her. But not Greenstreet, who is, as I said, not a journalist. He leaves out any detail that doesn't fit his debunker, mocking narrative. And he just blocked me. Good. Trash. More... “(My wife Caren) is an inspiration to me, first because she was a Navy diver, and you don’t need to say more. And second, she was a Navy diver as a female during a time when it was not easy. In the late 1980s/early 1990s there was a lot of sexual harassment in the Navy.” ~RDML Tim Gallaudet ~~~ This episode of "The Dead Files," S6E8 ("You Will Be Mine") aired May 20th, 2016. Caren: "People think I'm crazy but it's hard to do battle with an enemy you don't understand. There are things moving around the house. We're hearing voices. We've all had nightmares. We've seen full apparitions. Now things are getting physical." (I would liked to have heard more about full apparitions and exactly who saw them. Having multiple witnesses to alleged phenomena is important. And yes, people will think you're crazy but screw 'em. People have been experiencing this type of phenomena all over the world. At the time this was shot (2015 or 2016), their oldest of three daughters, Laurel, was 14, Aspen was 8, and the youngest, Cedar, was 6.) Caren: "My husband works for the Department of Defense and he travels a lot, so he's rarely here." (They bought the property in 2007 but the odd activity in the house didn't start until Cedar turned 3.) Caren: "Cedar has drawn pictures. This is the man with the brown arms. He lives in her room in her closet. This one she saw in my bathroom, it was a man covered with blood. And I have a book with over 40 drawings. She has become anxious and depressed." (Why didn't the family bring her to a psychiatrist or psychologist first before immediately seeking out a medium? What? They did? Why didn't hack Greenstreet tell us that? Because his goal is to make anybody connected to UFO disclosure look bad.) Caren: "We've seen psychiatrists, psychologists. They all say she's a normal little girl. But she says things that 5 and 6 year old children should not be saying. I love her with all my heart but, at times, I don't know who she is." How is Caren handling it? Caren: "Not very well. When I'm alone, I do a lot of crying. I feel isolated, I feel exhausted." (The kids fight and the older sisters blame Cedar for what's going on. That fighting may be related to the phenomena. Watch the video clip I included below for context. ~~~ Caren: "We're wiling to do whatever it takes. We're ready." (My take: It's obvious they were desperate for help in a situation where nobody else was offering up anything to fix the problem. So they turned to an alleged medium, Amy Allan, and former NYPD homicide investigator, Steve DiSchiavi, who were part of a TV show, "The Dead Files." I am NOT a fan of those types of shows and I would tell people to avoid them if they had a problem like what the Gallaudet's described. But I wasn't in their shoes so who knows what I might have done to get help for the people I love? Luckily, I've never had to deal with a situation like that.) Caren: "I was in the kitchen, and I opened the cupboard. And before doing anything, all the dishes and the bowls fell on top of me." (Sounds like poltergeist activity. And when I say poltergeist, I don't necessarily mean a ghost, spirit, etc. If you read Dr. Barry Taff's book, "Aliens Above, Ghosts Below," he talks about something called Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis, or RSPK. The term was coined by parapsychologist, the late Dr. William Roll. The theory is that the paranormal activity taking place is originating from one of the people in the house. Usually, a young, adolescent boy or girl. "After receiving a report of poltergeist-like activities, two investigators from the Rhine visited a site and observed disturbances that were classified as Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis or RSPK. RSPK is the modern interpretation of what was previously called poltergeist activity. It occurs when an individual – in this case an adolescent boy – is present in every case where a poltergeist-like effect is observed. The activity is interpreted as the result of unconscious psychokinesis activities coming from the individual who is called the PK-Agent." Source: ~ Here's a transcription of the video clip I included below: Parapsychologist Dr. Barry Taff: "The original belief, regarding poltergeist, was that they were, basically, mischievous, prank-playing ghosts. That's what the German word means. The modern theorist in parapsychology consider a quite different type of belief system is operating here, or phenomena is operating. They believe that there are young children present, pubescent, adolescent children, and the research tends to support this belief. These young children are present with a lot of emotional animosities, belligerence, a lot of very intense interactions. And this emotional interaction will produce an emission of unconscious energy from these children, which will affect matter, objects around them. Make them move, affect electrical appliances, make them turn on and off. Make things speed up and slow down, affect televisions, affect radios. Dishes may explode, furniture may move across the room, cameras may go off by themselves, light bulbs may explode suddenly." ~ "A person-focused poltergeist tends to (but not always) involve a female adolescent who is suffering from emotional turmoil when the activity begins. That said however, not all so called 'focal agents' are teenagers. Indeed, William G. Roll, a pioneer in poltergeist research, found the age of people reporting experiences of poltergeist activity ranged from eight to 78 years." Source: ~~~ (That may explain what went on in the Gallaudet home but it's still not accepted by mainstream science as a valid theory. Unfortunately, Allan (the alleged medium) didn't offer up any alternative explanations for the paranormal activity in the home and focused solely on the alleged spirts of dead people as the answer. She thought Cedar was a physical medium who could cause that type of activity to occur, but again, 100% related it to the spirits of dead people, without offering any other explanation. IMO, it's possible one of the girls (or Caren) is a PK-Agent and this had nothing to do with spirits. Then again, maybe it IS connected to non-physical entities? Spirits of the dead? Keel's ultraterrestrials, who he believed impersonated the dead? A mix? Something different? Impossible to prove, either way. So, I don't know. But I DO believe SOMETHING anomalous was going on. If you want an example of how an alleged haunting, ghost or poltergeist case should be investigated, watch this. The clip I attached at the end is from this video. If these folks were still doing investigations, I'd refer anybody who was dealing with this type of situation to them.) "We don't consider our pictures proof of anything, we consider them part of the struggle to gather evidence to try to understand this phenomena." ~Kerry Gaynor Watch it... 👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼 ~~~ Caren: Also, "my daughter, Laurel, and I were right here having a conversation. And all of a sudden she screamed. She said, 'Someone just touched me on my back.' And there was no one else in the room." The bedroom... Caren: "I was woken by a noise. Immediately, I looked to the door and saw a giant, black shadow coming at me from the door. It came over the bed and came straight over top of me. I was scared to death. I've never been that scared in my life." (This is very similar to what happened to people who visited Skinwalker Ranch (and other locations) and reported taking "something" home with them. Also known as the hitchhiker effect. ) Caren: "I was asleep and I felt a hand grab my hair and yank me up. It was a very aggressive pull. I screamed, and I did not go back to sleep after that. There was no one around. Tim wasn't here. It was not a nightmare. I don't sleep most nights, but I'm glad that I had the experience because I understand what Cedar's going through. If I saw that every night, I think I'd act like her, too." Caren's mother, Jan: "Something's going on with Cedar. She's changed dramatically in the last year, year and a half. To do this to my grandchildren makes me angry. My husband and I were babysitting here and we heard Cedar cry out, yelling and screaming, 'Stop it, stop it. Leave me alone!' So I rubbed her back and she went back into her sleep. And then I heard a low voice (that sounded male) say, 'It's gonna be alright. It's alright.'" (From the investigation, Jan wants, "peace among the girls. They don't tend to get along. It's more than just sibling rivalry. It's something else." She thinks the girls are in physical danger. As Taff noted, intense interactions among people in the house could be the cause of all of this. Why did it take a few years for the activity in the house to start? Did anything change in the family dynamic? Cedar is interviewed and she tells the investigator what she's experienced, which includes a scary dream with blood on the floor and dead people. She says she sees the man with brown arms and brown skin who yells at her, "Get out of here, this is not your room. This is my room." Later on, the medium says that this man was there to protect Cedar. Based on what he allegedly said, that makes zero sense. I'm not a fan of this medium (Allan), to put it mildly. Aspen, eight years old, says she sees a shadow man in her room who sits near her dresser. She also saw a little girl who was wet. "I felt a thumb press on my neck really hard." During the nighttime walkthrough of the house, the medium says that one of the spirits looks wet. Is this confirmation or was the medium fed information about what the children experienced? Impossible to know as it's an edited TV show.) Caren says Cedar has seen over a hundred spirits. "It's every night." Medium Allan says this one spirit is tormenting the kids because she's jealous of them and wants Caren to be her mother.) Amy Allan: "The only way (this spirit) could be with you is if you were to kill yourself, then you guys would spend entirety together, and you would forever be her mother, alone." (I'm sorry but without any evidence to back that up, it's an irresponsible thing to say and, IMO, a bunch of sensational bs.) You can watch the entire episode if you log in with your cable subscription. Or watch it at Greensteet's post... ~~~ Tim Gallaudet was on with “Jay Anderson” a few years ago and spoke about the phenomenon and what his family has experienced. Tim Gallaudet (TG): "You see a sort of grouping of UAP and paranormal and how does it intersect. And the answer is: I don't know." TG: "We were all grown up in traditional, kind of, religion. But at some point in our lives, my youngest daughter had real serious behavior issues. And to sum it all up, she is like many of these mediums that you see. She could see spirits, she saw them all the time. A lot of listeners might just think this is just a joke or made up." (I definitely don't think it's a joke, but if she still has these abilities when she gets older, try to take her to get tested at Windbridge Research. Some people (who call themselves mediums) claim they can acquire information via something other than their five senses and have shown the ability to do so under controlled conditions. Are they speaking to the dead or is it something else? I don't know. And FYI, a medium claims they can speak to the dead and also provides alleged psychic readings to people about their lives and sometimes the future. Nine times out of ten, a psychic does not claim to speak with the dead.) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it. It was real and...real to us." (They're allegedly able to see the spirits of the dead and can acquire information they have no way of knowing via their five senses. To me, the part about them acquiring information they have no way of knowing through means other than their five senses has been proven. Maybe there's some storehouse of information that they're accessing, like an Akashic Records type of thing? Or, maybe they're really communicating with the dead or some other entities? Again, I don't know where the information is coming from. As TG said, there are lots of ways to explain it.) TG: "She had real experiences, it was affecting her. And through a lot of therapy, we were able to basically have her - now she's thirteen - she became adjusted and has kind of dealt with that. She's sort of suppressed it, actually, which is okay. I mean, she's only thirteen. We can take a pause and help her develop as a person and human before coming to groups with that incredible ability." (TG and his wife did everything they could to help their daughter. When traditional methods failed, they sought help in other ways. Why anybody would have a problem with that is beyond me.) TG: "My wife and I, through this experience, to just be able to help her, we came to meet several mediums who are incredibly gifted." One of them was the Long Island medium, Theresa Caputo. (I like to see Caputo tested in a lab. If you'd like to see what that looks like, watch this HBO documentary on Life After Death and mediums. You'll have to search for the other parts. Part 1 of Life Afterlife ) ~~~ TG said he and his wife had a camera in Cedar's room when this activity was taking place and, "there was orbs flying all around this video. It was so active." (I'd like to see this video and see if those were orbs or particles of dust.) TG: "We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her. And so, through just meeting people, doing a lot of reading about people, these experiences, it became real to us and it opened our minds. I don't have all the answers but I know what we experienced, I know what she saw. We contacted [the show] because we thought she could help her and she ultimately did help my daughter." (That's really all that matters! TG says he has some family history with this type of thing but doesn't have any details as people were less willing to talk about it back then.) TG "She was not the Devil, she was seeing real things (laughs), and that's it. We were not gonna brand her or blame her. And I ultimately know, it was that love that we shared - my wife and I - for her, that opened our minds and create the right outcome. For being well-adjusted, having that in our history, and not being afraid of it or ashamed of it. And being aware and open now to a lot of other things that happen in life and maybe seeing their meaning." (Well said. After learning about this, my respect for Tim and his family has only increased.) ~~~ Last and definitely least...Greenstreet's comments. SG: "In an interview with TheProjectUnity, former Navy Admiral Tim Gallaudet claims his young daughter is a 'medium' who sees spirits and can communicate with them." (He said that but also added this...) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it." SG: "Gallaudet's wife claims their house is haunted by violent poltergeists." (His wife explained what the family was experiencing. I don't recall anyone involved mentioning poltergeists or that the house was haunted. This are buzzwords SG uses to disparage people. Just like his "monsters" garbage. ) SG: "Their youngest daughter, 6, thinks ghost monsters are hiding in her room and both the TV show stars and her parents validate her fantasies as real." (His wife and daughters were having experiences they couldn't explain. They took the youngest to a psychiatrist and psychologist and they couldn't help. So they sought out the show. You left out the part about them seeking professional help first. Why? Because you're a piece of trash who will do anything to disparage anybody involved in this. I think YOU should seek help.) SG: "Gallaudet says he's taken his young daughter to multiple psychics to try to 'help her.'" (Nope. Mediums. For a so-called journalist, you should know the difference. And again, this was AFTER they sought out traditional help.) SG: "It should be noted that Gallaudet is "close friends" with Jay Stratton, another retired Navy official who claims his house was/is also haunted by violent poltergeists who attacked his children." (Talk to Stratton and you'll see he doesn't define what happened to his family. Oh, that's right, he won't talk to you because you're an azzhole. And it makes sense that those two would bond since their families experienced similar things. I hope Tim shares more details about what's currently going on with his family and what he experienced himself.)
0:53

"We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her." ~Tim Gallaudet This is way too long but I hope you enjoy it. As far as Steven Greenstreet 🐷's posts about the Gallaudets, hauntings and psychics? First off, Tim Gallaudet's wife, "was also a Naval Academy graduate and a master’s recipient from Scripps, having earned her degree in 2001." Source: We know the resume of retired Rear Admiral and oceanographer, Tim Gallaudet, but what about his wife, Caren? She's a big part of this story, so any journalist covering it would want you to know a little something about her. But not Greenstreet, who is, as I said, not a journalist. He leaves out any detail that doesn't fit his debunker, mocking narrative. And he just blocked me. Good. Trash. More... “(My wife Caren) is an inspiration to me, first because she was a Navy diver, and you don’t need to say more. And second, she was a Navy diver as a female during a time when it was not easy. In the late 1980s/early 1990s there was a lot of sexual harassment in the Navy.” ~RDML Tim Gallaudet ~~~ This episode of "The Dead Files," S6E8 ("You Will Be Mine") aired May 20th, 2016. Caren: "People think I'm crazy but it's hard to do battle with an enemy you don't understand. There are things moving around the house. We're hearing voices. We've all had nightmares. We've seen full apparitions. Now things are getting physical." (I would liked to have heard more about full apparitions and exactly who saw them. Having multiple witnesses to alleged phenomena is important. And yes, people will think you're crazy but screw 'em. People have been experiencing this type of phenomena all over the world. At the time this was shot (2015 or 2016), their oldest of three daughters, Laurel, was 14, Aspen was 8, and the youngest, Cedar, was 6.) Caren: "My husband works for the Department of Defense and he travels a lot, so he's rarely here." (They bought the property in 2007 but the odd activity in the house didn't start until Cedar turned 3.) Caren: "Cedar has drawn pictures. This is the man with the brown arms. He lives in her room in her closet. This one she saw in my bathroom, it was a man covered with blood. And I have a book with over 40 drawings. She has become anxious and depressed." (Why didn't the family bring her to a psychiatrist or psychologist first before immediately seeking out a medium? What? They did? Why didn't hack Greenstreet tell us that? Because his goal is to make anybody connected to UFO disclosure look bad.) Caren: "We've seen psychiatrists, psychologists. They all say she's a normal little girl. But she says things that 5 and 6 year old children should not be saying. I love her with all my heart but, at times, I don't know who she is." How is Caren handling it? Caren: "Not very well. When I'm alone, I do a lot of crying. I feel isolated, I feel exhausted." (The kids fight and the older sisters blame Cedar for what's going on. That fighting may be related to the phenomena. Watch the video clip I included below for context. ~~~ Caren: "We're wiling to do whatever it takes. We're ready." (My take: It's obvious they were desperate for help in a situation where nobody else was offering up anything to fix the problem. So they turned to an alleged medium, Amy Allan, and former NYPD homicide investigator, Steve DiSchiavi, who were part of a TV show, "The Dead Files." I am NOT a fan of those types of shows and I would tell people to avoid them if they had a problem like what the Gallaudet's described. But I wasn't in their shoes so who knows what I might have done to get help for the people I love? Luckily, I've never had to deal with a situation like that.) Caren: "I was in the kitchen, and I opened the cupboard. And before doing anything, all the dishes and the bowls fell on top of me." (Sounds like poltergeist activity. And when I say poltergeist, I don't necessarily mean a ghost, spirit, etc. If you read Dr. Barry Taff's book, "Aliens Above, Ghosts Below," he talks about something called Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis, or RSPK. The term was coined by parapsychologist, the late Dr. William Roll. The theory is that the paranormal activity taking place is originating from one of the people in the house. Usually, a young, adolescent boy or girl. "After receiving a report of poltergeist-like activities, two investigators from the Rhine visited a site and observed disturbances that were classified as Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis or RSPK. RSPK is the modern interpretation of what was previously called poltergeist activity. It occurs when an individual – in this case an adolescent boy – is present in every case where a poltergeist-like effect is observed. The activity is interpreted as the result of unconscious psychokinesis activities coming from the individual who is called the PK-Agent." Source: ~ Here's a transcription of the video clip I included below: Parapsychologist Dr. Barry Taff: "The original belief, regarding poltergeist, was that they were, basically, mischievous, prank-playing ghosts. That's what the German word means. The modern theorist in parapsychology consider a quite different type of belief system is operating here, or phenomena is operating. They believe that there are young children present, pubescent, adolescent children, and the research tends to support this belief. These young children are present with a lot of emotional animosities, belligerence, a lot of very intense interactions. And this emotional interaction will produce an emission of unconscious energy from these children, which will affect matter, objects around them. Make them move, affect electrical appliances, make them turn on and off. Make things speed up and slow down, affect televisions, affect radios. Dishes may explode, furniture may move across the room, cameras may go off by themselves, light bulbs may explode suddenly." ~ "A person-focused poltergeist tends to (but not always) involve a female adolescent who is suffering from emotional turmoil when the activity begins. That said however, not all so called 'focal agents' are teenagers. Indeed, William G. Roll, a pioneer in poltergeist research, found the age of people reporting experiences of poltergeist activity ranged from eight to 78 years." Source: ~~~ (That may explain what went on in the Gallaudet home but it's still not accepted by mainstream science as a valid theory. Unfortunately, Allan (the alleged medium) didn't offer up any alternative explanations for the paranormal activity in the home and focused solely on the alleged spirts of dead people as the answer. She thought Cedar was a physical medium who could cause that type of activity to occur, but again, 100% related it to the spirits of dead people, without offering any other explanation. IMO, it's possible one of the girls (or Caren) is a PK-Agent and this had nothing to do with spirits. Then again, maybe it IS connected to non-physical entities? Spirits of the dead? Keel's ultraterrestrials, who he believed impersonated the dead? A mix? Something different? Impossible to prove, either way. So, I don't know. But I DO believe SOMETHING anomalous was going on. If you want an example of how an alleged haunting, ghost or poltergeist case should be investigated, watch this. The clip I attached at the end is from this video. If these folks were still doing investigations, I'd refer anybody who was dealing with this type of situation to them.) "We don't consider our pictures proof of anything, we consider them part of the struggle to gather evidence to try to understand this phenomena." ~Kerry Gaynor Watch it... 👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼 ~~~ Caren: Also, "my daughter, Laurel, and I were right here having a conversation. And all of a sudden she screamed. She said, 'Someone just touched me on my back.' And there was no one else in the room." The bedroom... Caren: "I was woken by a noise. Immediately, I looked to the door and saw a giant, black shadow coming at me from the door. It came over the bed and came straight over top of me. I was scared to death. I've never been that scared in my life." (This is very similar to what happened to people who visited Skinwalker Ranch (and other locations) and reported taking "something" home with them. Also known as the hitchhiker effect. ) Caren: "I was asleep and I felt a hand grab my hair and yank me up. It was a very aggressive pull. I screamed, and I did not go back to sleep after that. There was no one around. Tim wasn't here. It was not a nightmare. I don't sleep most nights, but I'm glad that I had the experience because I understand what Cedar's going through. If I saw that every night, I think I'd act like her, too." Caren's mother, Jan: "Something's going on with Cedar. She's changed dramatically in the last year, year and a half. To do this to my grandchildren makes me angry. My husband and I were babysitting here and we heard Cedar cry out, yelling and screaming, 'Stop it, stop it. Leave me alone!' So I rubbed her back and she went back into her sleep. And then I heard a low voice (that sounded male) say, 'It's gonna be alright. It's alright.'" (From the investigation, Jan wants, "peace among the girls. They don't tend to get along. It's more than just sibling rivalry. It's something else." She thinks the girls are in physical danger. As Taff noted, intense interactions among people in the house could be the cause of all of this. Why did it take a few years for the activity in the house to start? Did anything change in the family dynamic? Cedar is interviewed and she tells the investigator what she's experienced, which includes a scary dream with blood on the floor and dead people. She says she sees the man with brown arms and brown skin who yells at her, "Get out of here, this is not your room. This is my room." Later on, the medium says that this man was there to protect Cedar. Based on what he allegedly said, that makes zero sense. I'm not a fan of this medium (Allan), to put it mildly. Aspen, eight years old, says she sees a shadow man in her room who sits near her dresser. She also saw a little girl who was wet. "I felt a thumb press on my neck really hard." During the nighttime walkthrough of the house, the medium says that one of the spirits looks wet. Is this confirmation or was the medium fed information about what the children experienced? Impossible to know as it's an edited TV show.) Caren says Cedar has seen over a hundred spirits. "It's every night." Medium Allan says this one spirit is tormenting the kids because she's jealous of them and wants Caren to be her mother.) Amy Allan: "The only way (this spirit) could be with you is if you were to kill yourself, then you guys would spend entirety together, and you would forever be her mother, alone." (I'm sorry but without any evidence to back that up, it's an irresponsible thing to say and, IMO, a bunch of sensational bs.) You can watch the entire episode if you log in with your cable subscription. Or watch it at Greensteet's post... ~~~ Tim Gallaudet was on with “Jay Anderson” a few years ago and spoke about the phenomenon and what his family has experienced. Tim Gallaudet (TG): "You see a sort of grouping of UAP and paranormal and how does it intersect. And the answer is: I don't know." TG: "We were all grown up in traditional, kind of, religion. But at some point in our lives, my youngest daughter had real serious behavior issues. And to sum it all up, she is like many of these mediums that you see. She could see spirits, she saw them all the time. A lot of listeners might just think this is just a joke or made up." (I definitely don't think it's a joke, but if she still has these abilities when she gets older, try to take her to get tested at Windbridge Research. Some people (who call themselves mediums) claim they can acquire information via something other than their five senses and have shown the ability to do so under controlled conditions. Are they speaking to the dead or is it something else? I don't know. And FYI, a medium claims they can speak to the dead and also provides alleged psychic readings to people about their lives and sometimes the future. Nine times out of ten, a psychic does not claim to speak with the dead.) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it. It was real and...real to us." (They're allegedly able to see the spirits of the dead and can acquire information they have no way of knowing via their five senses. To me, the part about them acquiring information they have no way of knowing through means other than their five senses has been proven. Maybe there's some storehouse of information that they're accessing, like an Akashic Records type of thing? Or, maybe they're really communicating with the dead or some other entities? Again, I don't know where the information is coming from. As TG said, there are lots of ways to explain it.) TG: "She had real experiences, it was affecting her. And through a lot of therapy, we were able to basically have her - now she's thirteen - she became adjusted and has kind of dealt with that. She's sort of suppressed it, actually, which is okay. I mean, she's only thirteen. We can take a pause and help her develop as a person and human before coming to groups with that incredible ability." (TG and his wife did everything they could to help their daughter. When traditional methods failed, they sought help in other ways. Why anybody would have a problem with that is beyond me.) TG: "My wife and I, through this experience, to just be able to help her, we came to meet several mediums who are incredibly gifted." One of them was the Long Island medium, Theresa Caputo. (I like to see Caputo tested in a lab. If you'd like to see what that looks like, watch this HBO documentary on Life After Death and mediums. You'll have to search for the other parts. Part 1 of Life Afterlife ) ~~~ TG said he and his wife had a camera in Cedar's room when this activity was taking place and, "there was orbs flying all around this video. It was so active." (I'd like to see this video and see if those were orbs or particles of dust.) TG: "We loved our daughter and we wanted to help her. And so, through just meeting people, doing a lot of reading about people, these experiences, it became real to us and it opened our minds. I don't have all the answers but I know what we experienced, I know what she saw. We contacted [the show] because we thought she could help her and she ultimately did help my daughter." (That's really all that matters! TG says he has some family history with this type of thing but doesn't have any details as people were less willing to talk about it back then.) TG "She was not the Devil, she was seeing real things (laughs), and that's it. We were not gonna brand her or blame her. And I ultimately know, it was that love that we shared - my wife and I - for her, that opened our minds and create the right outcome. For being well-adjusted, having that in our history, and not being afraid of it or ashamed of it. And being aware and open now to a lot of other things that happen in life and maybe seeing their meaning." (Well said. After learning about this, my respect for Tim and his family has only increased.) ~~~ Last and definitely least...Greenstreet's comments. SG: "In an interview with TheProjectUnity, former Navy Admiral Tim Gallaudet claims his young daughter is a 'medium' who sees spirits and can communicate with them." (He said that but also added this...) TG: "There are people that have this ability to tap into whatever we wanna call it. The Other Side, where people go when they die, whatever that is. The energy that people leave behind. There's a lot of ways to explain it." SG: "Gallaudet's wife claims their house is haunted by violent poltergeists." (His wife explained what the family was experiencing. I don't recall anyone involved mentioning poltergeists or that the house was haunted. This are buzzwords SG uses to disparage people. Just like his "monsters" garbage. ) SG: "Their youngest daughter, 6, thinks ghost monsters are hiding in her room and both the TV show stars and her parents validate her fantasies as real." (His wife and daughters were having experiences they couldn't explain. They took the youngest to a psychiatrist and psychologist and they couldn't help. So they sought out the show. You left out the part about them seeking professional help first. Why? Because you're a piece of trash who will do anything to disparage anybody involved in this. I think YOU should seek help.) SG: "Gallaudet says he's taken his young daughter to multiple psychics to try to 'help her.'" (Nope. Mediums. For a so-called journalist, you should know the difference. And again, this was AFTER they sought out traditional help.) SG: "It should be noted that Gallaudet is "close friends" with Jay Stratton, another retired Navy official who claims his house was/is also haunted by violent poltergeists who attacked his children." (Talk to Stratton and you'll see he doesn't define what happened to his family. Oh, that's right, he won't talk to you because you're an azzhole. And it makes sense that those two would bond since their families experienced similar things. I hope Tim shares more details about what's currently going on with his family and what he experienced himself.)

Joe Murgia

88,583 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"
14:08

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨 She Can’t Even Tell Congress Her Own Name: ActBlue CEO Pleads the Fifth 22 Times While Eric Holder’s Law Firm Admits “Knowing & Willful” Foreign Donation Scheme ☠️ Who has the guts to take down ActBlue, Eric Holder, and Covington & Burling (which basically IS the Democrat Party)? 💥 INSIDE BASEBALL: Covington & Burling is indeed the white-shoe DC law firm where Eric Holder has been a senior partner since he left the Obama DOJ. Holder joined Covington in 2015 after his tenure as Obama’s Attorney General — the same AG who, let’s not forget, was held in contempt of Congress in 2012 over the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. He’s been deeply embedded in that firm’s political and white-collar defense practice ever since. So the irony is thick: the very law firm that warned ActBlue’s CEO she may have “knowingly and willfully” misled Congress — the firm whose internal memos are now at the center of this mess — is Holder’s professional home. The Democratic Party’s small-dollar money machine was getting its legal advice from the former Democratic AG’s firm, and even they couldn’t paper over the compliance gaps. Whether Holder personally touched the ActBlue work is a separate question — (we already know the answer). Covington is massive, with over a thousand lawyers. But the institutional alignment is unmistakable. The same revolving-door class that runs DOJ one decade, defends Democratic fundraising platforms the next, and then discovers those platforms have a “substantial risk” of criminal exposure. The club protects the club — until the memos leak, and someone has to plead the Fifth on whether Jones is actually her last name. She can’t confirm her surname to Congress. But she wants you to trust her with $19 billion in dark money. ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones just stonewalled the House Administration Committee — 22 invocations of the Fifth Amendment. Not on hard questions. On everything. Even “Is it Ms. Jones or Ms. Wallace-Jones?” Let that sink in. The CEO of the Democratic Party’s primary fundraising engine won’t state her own name under oath. That’s not a legal strategy. That’s the terror of what comes next. Here’s what she’s hiding from: 🔴 ActBlue didn’t require CVV codes on credit card donations until August 2024 — after Rep. Bryan Steil exposed the gaping hole. For years, anyone with a stolen card number could pump unlimited cash into Democratic coffers. No name. No billing address. No trace. 🔴 The House joint interim staff report — Administration, Judiciary, and Oversight Committees — found ActBlue loosened its fraud-prevention rules TWICE in 2024. During a presidential election year. While processing $615 million for Kamala Harris in a single month. 🔴 Donations poured in from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Colombia, China, Russia, and beyond — through a platform whose CEO swore in a 2023 letter to Congress that “multi-layered screenings” and U.S. passport requirements blocked foreign cash. That letter was a lie. Eric Holder’s own firm, Covington & Burling, told her so in internal memos. 🔴 Covington warned Wallace-Jones that ActBlue’s violations could be deemed “knowing and willful” — the legal standard that triggers DOJ criminal jurisdiction, elevated FEC penalties, and maximum sentences of 5 years and $250,000 per count. 🔴 Texas AG Ken Paxton made a criminal referral to DOJ after uncovering massive straw donor schemes on ActBlue — fake identities, untraceable payment methods, contributions made in other people’s names at an industrial scale. Paxton sued ActBlue directly. The FEC petition details how ActBlue actively opposed rules that would have closed these loopholes. 🔴 The mass exodus tells you everything. By March 2025, every single member of ActBlue’s legal and compliance team had resigned, been fired, or gone on extended leave. General Counsel. Director of compliance. VP of customer service. Entire fraud-prevention leadership. Gone. The committee’s report title says it plainly: “Illicit Foreign Donations and a Cover-Up Spur Mass Resignations and Firings.” 🔴 Five former ActBlue officials have now pleaded the Fifth a combined 168 times — 146 in closed-door depositions, plus Wallace-Jones’s 22 public refusals. That’s not cooperation. That’s a coordinated silence operation. 🔴 The Biden Treasury Department withheld thousands upon thousands of suspicious activity reports from Congress. Read that again. The financial intelligence that would have exposed the money trail was actively suppressed by the administration, whose candidates were the beneficiaries. And again, the coup de grâce: Covington & Burling — the firm that wrote the memos exposing all of this — is Eric Holder’s professional home. The former AG who ran the DOJ while Fast and Furious guns walked to cartels. The same revolving-door class that lectures America about “election integrity” while its own law firm discovers its biggest client was running a foreign money laundering operation. Wallace-Jones wrote a Washington Post op-ed calling her silence “a bedrock American right.” She’s not wrong about the Fifth Amendment. But you don’t plead it 22 times — including on your own hyphenation — when you’ve got nothing to hide. You do it when the truth is worse than the contempt charge. $19 billion processed since 2004. No CVV required until caught. Fraud rules loosened during the election year. Foreign donations from hostile nations. The entire compliance team fled. Holder’s firm flagged criminal exposure. DOJ criminal referral is active and moving forward. And the CEO refuses to even say her name. This isn’t a fundraising platform. It’s a money-laundering operation that got caught — and now everyone’s lawyering up while the party that runs on “defending democracy” looks the other way. #ActBlueLaundromat #PleadTheFifthOnMyOwnName #KnowinglyAndWillfully #FollowTheForeignMoney #WhereDidTheComplianceTeamGo #WallaceJonesCantAnswer #HolderKnew #19BillionUnvetted #SHIELDActNow #StrawDonorIndustrialComplex
9:22

🚨 She Can’t Even Tell Congress Her Own Name: ActBlue CEO Pleads the Fifth 22 Times While Eric Holder’s Law Firm Admits “Knowing & Willful” Foreign Donation Scheme ☠️ Who has the guts to take down ActBlue, Eric Holder, and Covington & Burling (which basically IS the Democrat Party)? 💥 INSIDE BASEBALL: Covington & Burling is indeed the white-shoe DC law firm where Eric Holder has been a senior partner since he left the Obama DOJ. Holder joined Covington in 2015 after his tenure as Obama’s Attorney General — the same AG who, let’s not forget, was held in contempt of Congress in 2012 over the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. He’s been deeply embedded in that firm’s political and white-collar defense practice ever since. So the irony is thick: the very law firm that warned ActBlue’s CEO she may have “knowingly and willfully” misled Congress — the firm whose internal memos are now at the center of this mess — is Holder’s professional home. The Democratic Party’s small-dollar money machine was getting its legal advice from the former Democratic AG’s firm, and even they couldn’t paper over the compliance gaps. Whether Holder personally touched the ActBlue work is a separate question — (we already know the answer). Covington is massive, with over a thousand lawyers. But the institutional alignment is unmistakable. The same revolving-door class that runs DOJ one decade, defends Democratic fundraising platforms the next, and then discovers those platforms have a “substantial risk” of criminal exposure. The club protects the club — until the memos leak, and someone has to plead the Fifth on whether Jones is actually her last name. She can’t confirm her surname to Congress. But she wants you to trust her with $19 billion in dark money. ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones just stonewalled the House Administration Committee — 22 invocations of the Fifth Amendment. Not on hard questions. On everything. Even “Is it Ms. Jones or Ms. Wallace-Jones?” Let that sink in. The CEO of the Democratic Party’s primary fundraising engine won’t state her own name under oath. That’s not a legal strategy. That’s the terror of what comes next. Here’s what she’s hiding from: 🔴 ActBlue didn’t require CVV codes on credit card donations until August 2024 — after Rep. Bryan Steil exposed the gaping hole. For years, anyone with a stolen card number could pump unlimited cash into Democratic coffers. No name. No billing address. No trace. 🔴 The House joint interim staff report — Administration, Judiciary, and Oversight Committees — found ActBlue loosened its fraud-prevention rules TWICE in 2024. During a presidential election year. While processing $615 million for Kamala Harris in a single month. 🔴 Donations poured in from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Colombia, China, Russia, and beyond — through a platform whose CEO swore in a 2023 letter to Congress that “multi-layered screenings” and U.S. passport requirements blocked foreign cash. That letter was a lie. Eric Holder’s own firm, Covington & Burling, told her so in internal memos. 🔴 Covington warned Wallace-Jones that ActBlue’s violations could be deemed “knowing and willful” — the legal standard that triggers DOJ criminal jurisdiction, elevated FEC penalties, and maximum sentences of 5 years and $250,000 per count. 🔴 Texas AG Ken Paxton made a criminal referral to DOJ after uncovering massive straw donor schemes on ActBlue — fake identities, untraceable payment methods, contributions made in other people’s names at an industrial scale. Paxton sued ActBlue directly. The FEC petition details how ActBlue actively opposed rules that would have closed these loopholes. 🔴 The mass exodus tells you everything. By March 2025, every single member of ActBlue’s legal and compliance team had resigned, been fired, or gone on extended leave. General Counsel. Director of compliance. VP of customer service. Entire fraud-prevention leadership. Gone. The committee’s report title says it plainly: “Illicit Foreign Donations and a Cover-Up Spur Mass Resignations and Firings.” 🔴 Five former ActBlue officials have now pleaded the Fifth a combined 168 times — 146 in closed-door depositions, plus Wallace-Jones’s 22 public refusals. That’s not cooperation. That’s a coordinated silence operation. 🔴 The Biden Treasury Department withheld thousands upon thousands of suspicious activity reports from Congress. Read that again. The financial intelligence that would have exposed the money trail was actively suppressed by the administration, whose candidates were the beneficiaries. And again, the coup de grâce: Covington & Burling — the firm that wrote the memos exposing all of this — is Eric Holder’s professional home. The former AG who ran the DOJ while Fast and Furious guns walked to cartels. The same revolving-door class that lectures America about “election integrity” while its own law firm discovers its biggest client was running a foreign money laundering operation. Wallace-Jones wrote a Washington Post op-ed calling her silence “a bedrock American right.” She’s not wrong about the Fifth Amendment. But you don’t plead it 22 times — including on your own hyphenation — when you’ve got nothing to hide. You do it when the truth is worse than the contempt charge. $19 billion processed since 2004. No CVV required until caught. Fraud rules loosened during the election year. Foreign donations from hostile nations. The entire compliance team fled. Holder’s firm flagged criminal exposure. DOJ criminal referral is active and moving forward. And the CEO refuses to even say her name. This isn’t a fundraising platform. It’s a money-laundering operation that got caught — and now everyone’s lawyering up while the party that runs on “defending democracy” looks the other way. #ActBlueLaundromat #PleadTheFifthOnMyOwnName #KnowinglyAndWillfully #FollowTheForeignMoney #WhereDidTheComplianceTeamGo #WallaceJonesCantAnswer #HolderKnew #19BillionUnvetted #SHIELDActNow #StrawDonorIndustrialComplex

Tony Seruga

30,744 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Elon Musk wants us building successful businesses here on 𝕏, NOT relying on X payouts. Elon is a trillionaire entrepreneur that got there by NETWORKING ideas and visions with others. He now owns a social media platform and wants us doing the exact same thing here. Elon wants you to build a following, find a business that offers a valuable service to the community and country, succeed beyond your WILDEST dreams with it and then NETWORK TO REPLICATE IT AND HELP OTHERS HERE DO THE SAME! That's the winning model that will not only benefit all of us, but be financially beneficial to Elon as well, and I'd like to explain why. Meta generates their primary ad revenue from big corporations owned by corrupt elites advertising their products to our asleep family members. Big Corporations HATE Elon so that is absolutely OUT of the question here on this platform, so they need an alternative model to pull in revenue to see an ROI ont he purchase of Twitter, and it's up to all of us to help generate that. Instagram is the complete OPPOSITE of Meta and Youtube. Instagram generates roughly 87 Billion dollars each year in ad revenue with a substantial amount of that coming from regular users of the platform who are also entrepreneurs working successful business between their niche content, and they are paying INTO ads to advertise that business between said niche content. There are 19 year olds on Instagram making 6 figures a MONTH drop shipping and they make courses teaching you step by step instructions how you can do it too. They pay anywhere between $15 - $20K a month INTO the ad program to advertise their businesses, between their regular content. There are MILLIONS of instances of this on Instagram and that is what's feeding a massive portion of the ad revenue program. The #1 reason people create an instagram account and actively try to grow it, is entrepreneurship. THAT'S what Elon wants us doing HERE! Now, the conservative space on Instagram is MASSIVE and 👉 LITERALLY 👈 all they do is lazily scroll 𝕏 all day to see the content YOU ALL are sending viral here, and they STEAL IT, easily moving it to their Instagram accounts to build their own following to then work a successful business. You need to understand that part very clearly. They're lazily stealing YOUR content from here, building successful businesses off it and posting videos of them traveling the world living lives of luxury. I've been tracking them doing this for SIX YEARS since 2020. If you can explain to me why they are more privileged and deserving than YOU to be living successfully off of YOUR work, I'd love to hear your reasoning on this. Now, i had a Zoom meeting with a conservative mom on Instagram that works the same business from home that I do, and she's helped over 60 people on Instagram grow their following from 0-200K to then work that business with her and she opened up her back office to me to show me everything and teach me how she does what she does and precisely how the Instagram algorithm works to grow. I'm not going into specifics, but it's absolutely clear based on my assessment that the development team behind Instagram makes it hard to grow there on purpose because they psychologically understands how to keep toxicity from taking over the platform by ensuring the extremely impatient "I want it NOW" people aren't able to grow large platforms to take over the entire platform. They understand these people are significantly more likely to spread toxicity across the platform, original content to drop, entrepreneurship to disappear and incoming ad revenue to dip much lower as a result. They understand those with military style determination and grit will stick it out to succeed, have much higher chance of being more intelligent to end up bringing original content to the platform, and have a much higher confidence rate in themselves to seek entrepreneurship, build community based income opportunities where anyone can come in and succeed to create very healthy communities, and then pay into the ad program to advertise it to succeed even more, turning the platform into a truly symbiotic relationship between the entrepreneurial users and the platform itself that allows them to grow and succeed in the first place. We're doing things all wrong here. 𝕏 isn't broken — our community is. These massive 1+ million follower accounts here that grew by putting MSM articles into Grok AI to have him rewrite them to avoid plagiarism charges and milk the 𝕏 revenue system and they will NEVER be able to figure this out because they're FAKING their intelligence by doing this and Elon does NOT want us idolizing accounts like that because they're giving us false illusions and impressions as to what success looks like. Elon wants us aiming much higher than 𝕏 revenue because 𝕏 revenue is NOT generational wealth to pass onto our children and we're supposed to be working together as a community to build things that are. Elon wants to be able to advertise this platform as having the MOST self-made millionaires than ANY other platform on the planet. As things currently sit, 𝕏 is single handedly leading any other platform for world news distribution, but we're trailing significantly in wealth generation. I believe the changes in monetization are to force people out of their comfort zones to seek alternative means of income generation to help correct that. We're not supposed to be competing with each other to gain 𝕏 revenue, we're supposed to be working together to build communities and revenue to compete with Instagram. The problem is, most of us came to this platform as slaves to a broken and corrupted system because we want change and have no language for these things. So, I'll be the first one to plant my flag. Do I know what I'm doing? Absolutely not. Do my children deserve having a mother that steps far outside her comfort zone to give it everything she's got to build something that gives them a better life? You bet your ass. Before my son was born with his tumor in his throat and the medical field bankrupted me for everything I was worth, I worked a VERY successful business from home that allowed me to homeschool my children. We've been pointing out all this corruption but what we now need are SOLUTIONS and community based systems to the corrupt system we're all stuck in, that anyone can implement and benefit from. I think it's time for us all to build that together and I'd like to start. We do have tools to fight back against the corrupt system but it's going to take all of us coming together to do it. The 2 BIGGEST ways we fund these corrupt elites every single month, is buying food and basic household goods from their corporations. All of our stores and corporations have become owned by a small group of Wall Street shareholder elites that lobby our politicians in Congress to look the other way while their corporations poison us and our children with their toxic products. We don't have to keep funding that system anymore as a parallel economy does in fact exist where profits are CUT OFF from reaching them and are instead redirected back to the American people. Wall Street elites like BlackRock-Vanguard and central bankers like JP Morgan & Chase does own 93% of the consumer goods sold in America. If the "conspiracies" are true, then BlackRock and Vanguard are owned by private Central Bankers that serve ENGLAND and they partnered with China to steal our manufacturing. Powerful banking elites purchase majority shares of the corporations for these Central Bankers, then moves the manufacturer to China. ALL of our consumer wealth is being siphoned out of America and going to England and China via this model and they lobbied BOTH parties in Congress through donations from their corporations to keep them silent about it. When we buy stuff in their stores, the profits are going to Wall Street and some of those profits go to product advertising on TV and that's what pays networks heads to pay the salaries of Fake News anchors millions of dollars a year to LIE to us. The video I provided in this post was Dylan Ratigan addressing the illusion of the left vs right paradigm IN 2011! He talks about all of our wealth being siphoned out of America. We were so close to figuring this out in 2011, then all of the DIVISIONS started to significantly ramp up against us to keep us fighting each other to keep this hidden so the theft of our consumer wealth out of the country could continue, to further hollow out America. Every time we buy Tide laundry detergent, we're funding the Military Industrial Complex and their forever wars because the same shareholders that owns tide — BlackRock-Vanguard — owns the weapons defense contracting companies that makes missiles and profits from death in forever wars. It's not just Tide, it's ALL basic household goods that we buy every single month as we send those profits through Wall Street when we support these corporations. Laundry detergent, dish soap, deodorant, shampoo conditioner, toothpaste, and EVERY other product that props up Johnson&Johnson and all these other cabal corporations. We can't fix America if we continue to support these cabal corporations that poison us for profit because they also own the pharmaceutical companies too and they've lobbied both sides of Congress to look the other eat while they do it. There's ONE family owned consumer goods manufacturer left here in America that can ship to MILLIONS of doorsteps and they make 470+ basic household goods that we still need for our families every single month from safe laundry detergent that won't give your children hives and rashes, to shampoo, deodorant, fluoride free toothpaste, dish soap, safe cleaning products that won't give you cancers or harm the lungs of your children and pets, to 470+ other basic needs as well as clean grass fed beef and steaks, and they've been right here in America for the last 41 years. They're a privately owned company and NOT publicly traded in Wall Street so profits are NOT going to Wall Street elites who then give them to Congress, the profits go back to us instead, which is the way things should be. Companies like this made no sense 20 years ago when we were all asleep and loved Walmart, but we're all waking up to what these corrupt elites have been doing and we need an alternative system that benefits families in America instead of powerful wall street pedophiles that own and control all aspects of our lives. It's not good enough to just shop American made anymore, we need to keep our consumer dollars OUT of the hands of Wall Street elites. They have NOT been responsible with our tax dollars, and they have NOT been responsible with the profits we send them by supporting their massive corporations, so it's time to cut them off and shift those profits back to the American people who need them instead. Walk around your home and look at all the household products you're buying every month that funds this corrupt system. We can squash their monopoly and reverse engineer ACTUAL capitalism and Robin Hood profits from the Wall Street elites by shifting MILLIONS of dollars away from them and back to people who need it, for everyday stuff we're already buying every single month from them for our families. Elon Musk wants us building community based wealth generating systems ON THIS PLATFORM to tear down the elites and rebuild the middle-class instead. We don't need more BREAKING posts. We don't need more corruption exposed, as we've seen enough to understand the entire system THAT WE FUND every month, is rotten from the top down. What we need is a community based system built for us that allows all of us to legally rob that corrupt system, and I think it's time we build it. Winter is coming. There's no better time to LEARN and build an online business and start building something that can be passed down to our children in the future, that's also beneficial to America, and I'd like to help build it. If you're interested in building it with me, you can message me here directly or you can email me! 🥰 BFertig95@Outlook.com
4:15

Elon Musk wants us building successful businesses here on 𝕏, NOT relying on X payouts. Elon is a trillionaire entrepreneur that got there by NETWORKING ideas and visions with others. He now owns a social media platform and wants us doing the exact same thing here. Elon wants you to build a following, find a business that offers a valuable service to the community and country, succeed beyond your WILDEST dreams with it and then NETWORK TO REPLICATE IT AND HELP OTHERS HERE DO THE SAME! That's the winning model that will not only benefit all of us, but be financially beneficial to Elon as well, and I'd like to explain why. Meta generates their primary ad revenue from big corporations owned by corrupt elites advertising their products to our asleep family members. Big Corporations HATE Elon so that is absolutely OUT of the question here on this platform, so they need an alternative model to pull in revenue to see an ROI ont he purchase of Twitter, and it's up to all of us to help generate that. Instagram is the complete OPPOSITE of Meta and Youtube. Instagram generates roughly 87 Billion dollars each year in ad revenue with a substantial amount of that coming from regular users of the platform who are also entrepreneurs working successful business between their niche content, and they are paying INTO ads to advertise that business between said niche content. There are 19 year olds on Instagram making 6 figures a MONTH drop shipping and they make courses teaching you step by step instructions how you can do it too. They pay anywhere between $15 - $20K a month INTO the ad program to advertise their businesses, between their regular content. There are MILLIONS of instances of this on Instagram and that is what's feeding a massive portion of the ad revenue program. The #1 reason people create an instagram account and actively try to grow it, is entrepreneurship. THAT'S what Elon wants us doing HERE! Now, the conservative space on Instagram is MASSIVE and 👉 LITERALLY 👈 all they do is lazily scroll 𝕏 all day to see the content YOU ALL are sending viral here, and they STEAL IT, easily moving it to their Instagram accounts to build their own following to then work a successful business. You need to understand that part very clearly. They're lazily stealing YOUR content from here, building successful businesses off it and posting videos of them traveling the world living lives of luxury. I've been tracking them doing this for SIX YEARS since 2020. If you can explain to me why they are more privileged and deserving than YOU to be living successfully off of YOUR work, I'd love to hear your reasoning on this. Now, i had a Zoom meeting with a conservative mom on Instagram that works the same business from home that I do, and she's helped over 60 people on Instagram grow their following from 0-200K to then work that business with her and she opened up her back office to me to show me everything and teach me how she does what she does and precisely how the Instagram algorithm works to grow. I'm not going into specifics, but it's absolutely clear based on my assessment that the development team behind Instagram makes it hard to grow there on purpose because they psychologically understands how to keep toxicity from taking over the platform by ensuring the extremely impatient "I want it NOW" people aren't able to grow large platforms to take over the entire platform. They understand these people are significantly more likely to spread toxicity across the platform, original content to drop, entrepreneurship to disappear and incoming ad revenue to dip much lower as a result. They understand those with military style determination and grit will stick it out to succeed, have much higher chance of being more intelligent to end up bringing original content to the platform, and have a much higher confidence rate in themselves to seek entrepreneurship, build community based income opportunities where anyone can come in and succeed to create very healthy communities, and then pay into the ad program to advertise it to succeed even more, turning the platform into a truly symbiotic relationship between the entrepreneurial users and the platform itself that allows them to grow and succeed in the first place. We're doing things all wrong here. 𝕏 isn't broken — our community is. These massive 1+ million follower accounts here that grew by putting MSM articles into Grok AI to have him rewrite them to avoid plagiarism charges and milk the 𝕏 revenue system and they will NEVER be able to figure this out because they're FAKING their intelligence by doing this and Elon does NOT want us idolizing accounts like that because they're giving us false illusions and impressions as to what success looks like. Elon wants us aiming much higher than 𝕏 revenue because 𝕏 revenue is NOT generational wealth to pass onto our children and we're supposed to be working together as a community to build things that are. Elon wants to be able to advertise this platform as having the MOST self-made millionaires than ANY other platform on the planet. As things currently sit, 𝕏 is single handedly leading any other platform for world news distribution, but we're trailing significantly in wealth generation. I believe the changes in monetization are to force people out of their comfort zones to seek alternative means of income generation to help correct that. We're not supposed to be competing with each other to gain 𝕏 revenue, we're supposed to be working together to build communities and revenue to compete with Instagram. The problem is, most of us came to this platform as slaves to a broken and corrupted system because we want change and have no language for these things. So, I'll be the first one to plant my flag. Do I know what I'm doing? Absolutely not. Do my children deserve having a mother that steps far outside her comfort zone to give it everything she's got to build something that gives them a better life? You bet your ass. Before my son was born with his tumor in his throat and the medical field bankrupted me for everything I was worth, I worked a VERY successful business from home that allowed me to homeschool my children. We've been pointing out all this corruption but what we now need are SOLUTIONS and community based systems to the corrupt system we're all stuck in, that anyone can implement and benefit from. I think it's time for us all to build that together and I'd like to start. We do have tools to fight back against the corrupt system but it's going to take all of us coming together to do it. The 2 BIGGEST ways we fund these corrupt elites every single month, is buying food and basic household goods from their corporations. All of our stores and corporations have become owned by a small group of Wall Street shareholder elites that lobby our politicians in Congress to look the other way while their corporations poison us and our children with their toxic products. We don't have to keep funding that system anymore as a parallel economy does in fact exist where profits are CUT OFF from reaching them and are instead redirected back to the American people. Wall Street elites like BlackRock-Vanguard and central bankers like JP Morgan & Chase does own 93% of the consumer goods sold in America. If the "conspiracies" are true, then BlackRock and Vanguard are owned by private Central Bankers that serve ENGLAND and they partnered with China to steal our manufacturing. Powerful banking elites purchase majority shares of the corporations for these Central Bankers, then moves the manufacturer to China. ALL of our consumer wealth is being siphoned out of America and going to England and China via this model and they lobbied BOTH parties in Congress through donations from their corporations to keep them silent about it. When we buy stuff in their stores, the profits are going to Wall Street and some of those profits go to product advertising on TV and that's what pays networks heads to pay the salaries of Fake News anchors millions of dollars a year to LIE to us. The video I provided in this post was Dylan Ratigan addressing the illusion of the left vs right paradigm IN 2011! He talks about all of our wealth being siphoned out of America. We were so close to figuring this out in 2011, then all of the DIVISIONS started to significantly ramp up against us to keep us fighting each other to keep this hidden so the theft of our consumer wealth out of the country could continue, to further hollow out America. Every time we buy Tide laundry detergent, we're funding the Military Industrial Complex and their forever wars because the same shareholders that owns tide — BlackRock-Vanguard — owns the weapons defense contracting companies that makes missiles and profits from death in forever wars. It's not just Tide, it's ALL basic household goods that we buy every single month as we send those profits through Wall Street when we support these corporations. Laundry detergent, dish soap, deodorant, shampoo conditioner, toothpaste, and EVERY other product that props up Johnson&Johnson and all these other cabal corporations. We can't fix America if we continue to support these cabal corporations that poison us for profit because they also own the pharmaceutical companies too and they've lobbied both sides of Congress to look the other eat while they do it. There's ONE family owned consumer goods manufacturer left here in America that can ship to MILLIONS of doorsteps and they make 470+ basic household goods that we still need for our families every single month from safe laundry detergent that won't give your children hives and rashes, to shampoo, deodorant, fluoride free toothpaste, dish soap, safe cleaning products that won't give you cancers or harm the lungs of your children and pets, to 470+ other basic needs as well as clean grass fed beef and steaks, and they've been right here in America for the last 41 years. They're a privately owned company and NOT publicly traded in Wall Street so profits are NOT going to Wall Street elites who then give them to Congress, the profits go back to us instead, which is the way things should be. Companies like this made no sense 20 years ago when we were all asleep and loved Walmart, but we're all waking up to what these corrupt elites have been doing and we need an alternative system that benefits families in America instead of powerful wall street pedophiles that own and control all aspects of our lives. It's not good enough to just shop American made anymore, we need to keep our consumer dollars OUT of the hands of Wall Street elites. They have NOT been responsible with our tax dollars, and they have NOT been responsible with the profits we send them by supporting their massive corporations, so it's time to cut them off and shift those profits back to the American people who need them instead. Walk around your home and look at all the household products you're buying every month that funds this corrupt system. We can squash their monopoly and reverse engineer ACTUAL capitalism and Robin Hood profits from the Wall Street elites by shifting MILLIONS of dollars away from them and back to people who need it, for everyday stuff we're already buying every single month from them for our families. Elon Musk wants us building community based wealth generating systems ON THIS PLATFORM to tear down the elites and rebuild the middle-class instead. We don't need more BREAKING posts. We don't need more corruption exposed, as we've seen enough to understand the entire system THAT WE FUND every month, is rotten from the top down. What we need is a community based system built for us that allows all of us to legally rob that corrupt system, and I think it's time we build it. Winter is coming. There's no better time to LEARN and build an online business and start building something that can be passed down to our children in the future, that's also beneficial to America, and I'd like to help build it. If you're interested in building it with me, you can message me here directly or you can email me! 🥰 [email protected]

Bridgett Fertig

45,396 Aufrufe • vor 28 Tagen

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.
2:58

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

Earth Unveiled

102,282 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮
29:17

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

aussie17

799,326 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Like seemingly everyone on this app I have plenty of opinions about Twitter > X and figure now is a good time to open up a bit about my experience at the company. I tweeted for years into the void for the love of it like many of you, but after selling my startup to Twitter in 2020 I finally got to see it from the inside. Up close it was both amazing and terrible, like so many other companies and things in life. As someone with a maniacal sense of urgency built into me, Twitter often felt siloed and bureaucratic. Dumb power plays, reorgs and team name changes for the sake of someone’s ego were distractions that occurred too regularly. You couldn’t just be a builder — you also needed to be a politician. I was shocked by how old and bespoke the infrastructure was, but there was little will to think beyond quarterly earnings calls because we were all beholden to the masters of mDAU and revenue growth as a public company. It often felt like things were held together with duct tape and glue, and that many people had just accepted that a small product change could take months or quarters to build. Management had become bloated to accommodate career growth and the company culture felt too soft and entitled for my own taste. Healthy debate and criticism was replaced by a default refrain of “no, that can’t be done” or “another team owns that so don’t touch it”. Teams could spend months building a feature and then some last-minute kerfuffle meant it’d get killed for being too risky. Just talking directly to customers could turn into a turf war and create deadlocks between functions. I recall one such episode where a teammate spent a month trying to get clearance to reach out to some creators. He went through 3 layers of management and 6 different functional teams. In the end 4 executives were involved in the approval. It was insanity, and unfortunately I saw several top performers get burnt out and demoralized after exhausting experiences like that. Most people were good at their jobs but it was nearly impossible to fire poor performers — instead they got shuffled around to other teams because few managers had the will or resources to figure out how to get them out. A high performance culture pulls everyone up, but the opposite weighs everyone down. Twitter often felt like a place that kept squandering its own potential, which was sad and frustrating to see. The person who was best at cutting through the BS and inspiring a vision during my tenure was Kayvon Beykpour, but he wasn’t fully empowered to run the company since he wasn’t the CEO. Despite those real issues, I was lucky enough to work with some of the most talented people in the business at Twitter in product, design, engineering, research, legal, BD, trust & safety, marketing, PR and more. Often it was a small cross-functional team of intrinsically motivated people who made the biggest impact by challenging some core assumption. Those teams were very fun to be on but they felt like the exception rather than the rule. The months of waiting for the deal to close in 2022 were particularly slow and painful; it felt like leadership hid behind lawyers and legal language as all answers about the company’s future notoriously included the phrase “fiduciary duty”. Colleagues openly talked about how Twitter was being sold because leadership didn’t have conviction in their own plan or ability to fix longstanding problems. Although I didn’t know much about Elon I was cautiously optimistic – I saw him as the guy who built incredible and enduring companies like Tesla and SpaceX, so perhaps his private ownership could shake things up and breathe new life into the company. My take on what’s happened since then is full of lived nuance. When people ask why I stayed it’s easy to answer: optimism, curiosity, personal growth and money. From the beginning I saw that some changes Elon was going to make were smart and others were stupid, but when I’m on a team I uphold the philosophy of “praise in public and criticize in private”. I was far from a silent wallflower. I shared my opinions openly and pushed back often, both before and after the acquisition. I made peace with the fact that I didn’t have psychological safety at Twitter 2.0 and that meant I could be fired at any moment, and for no reason at all. I watched it happen repeatedly and saw how negatively it impacted team morale. Although I couldn’t change the situation I did my best to shine a light on folks who were doing important work while being an emotionally supportive leader for those who were struggling to adapt to the more brutalist and hardcore culture. In person Elon is oddly charming and he’s genuinely funny. He also has personality quirks like telling the same stories and jokes over and over. The challenge is his personality and demeanor can turn on a dime going from excited to angry. Since it was hard to read what mood he might be in and what his reaction would be to any given thing, people quickly became afraid of being called into meetings or having to share negative news with him. At times it felt like the inner circle was too zealous and fanatical in their unwavering support of everything he said. When individuals encouraged me to be careful about what I said I politely thanked them and said I would not be taking their advice. I had no interest in adding to a culture of fear or walking on eggshells around Elon. Either he would respect me for being real or he could fire me. Either outcome was okay. I quickly learned that product and business decisions were nearly always the result of him following his gut instinct, and he didn’t seem compelled to seek out or rely on a lot of data or expertise to inform it. That was particularly frustrating for me since I believed I had useful institutional knowledge that could help him make better decisions. Instead he'd poll Twitter, ask a friend, or even ask his biographer for product advice. At times it seemed he trusted random feedback more than the people in the room who spent their lives dedicated to tackling the problem at hand. I never figured out why and remain puzzled by it. I don’t think things had to be as difficult or dramatic as they turned out to be but I can’t say I’d bet against Elon or count him out. He’s smart and has enough money to make a lot of mistakes and then course correct when things go awry. As the largest shareholder he can tank the value in the short-term, but eventually he’ll need things to turn around. His focus on speed is incredible and he’s obviously not afraid of blowing things up, but now the real measure will be how it get reconstructed and if enough people want the new everything app he is building. I learned a ton from watching Elon up close – the good, the bad and the ugly. His boldness, passion and storytelling is inspiring, but his lack of process and empathy is painful. Elon has an exceptional talent for tackling hard physics-based problems but products that facilitate human connection and communication require a different type of social-emotional intelligence. Social networks are hard to kill but they’re not immune from death spirals. Only time will tell what the outcome will be but I hope X finds its footing because competition is good for consumers. In the meantime, I have a lot of empathy for the employees who are working tirelessly behind the scenes, the advertisers who want a stable platform to sell their stuff on, and the customers who are experiencing chaotic updates. It’s been a madhouse. Twitter moved at the speed of molasses and suffered from bureaucracy but now X is run by a mercurial leader whose instinct is driven by the unique and undoubtedly weird experience of being the biggest voice on the platform. Many of you know me from the sleeping bag incident where I slept on a conference room floor, so I figure, let’s talk about that too. Going viral was an odd and interesting experience. I was attacked by people on the left and called a billionaire bootlicker, while simultaneously being attacked by people on the right for being a working mom who was demonized as an example of a woman choosing her career over her family. Thankfully I can laugh at myself and I don’t take armchair keyboard ideologues too seriously. Being the main character on the timeline, even for a few minutes, requires a thick skin and a strong sense of self. The real story is pretty simple. I was given a nearly impossible deadline for his first project and as the product lead I would never ask anyone to do anything I wasn’t willing to do myself. So I worked round the clock alongside an amazing team spanning many timezones, and we delivered it on schedule – truly against the odds. It was intense but also fun. Those first few months were wildly crazy but I wanted to be there and I have no regrets. Showing up and giving it your all should, in most cases, be celebrated. Obviously you can’t work at that pace forever but there are moments where bursts are mission critical. I’ve pulled many all-nighters in my career and also when I was a student for something that mattered to me. I don’t regret putting in long hours or being ambitious, and feel proud of how far I’ve come from where I started thanks in part to that type of work ethic. I think of life as a game, and being at Twitter after the acquisition was like playing life at Level 10 on Hard Mode. Since I like taking on difficult challenges I found it interesting and rewarding because I was growing and learning so rapidly. I realize our society today trends toward polarization but when it comes to this app, its owner, and its future, I am neither a fangirl nor a hater — I’m an optimistic pragmatist. This may really irritate the internet but you cannot pigeonhole me into some radical position of either loving or hating every change that’s occurred. I escaped my fundamentalist upbringing and am a free thinker these days. Everyone can be seen as both a hero or a villain, depending on who is telling what angle of the story. Elon doesn’t deserve to be venerated or vilified. He’s a complicated person with an unfathomable amount of financial and geopolitical power which is why humanity needs him to err on the side of goodness, rather than political divisiveness and pettiness. I disagree with many of his decisions and am surprised by his willingness to burn so much down, but with enough money and time, something new & innovative may emerge. I hope it does. Sometimes I get asked about how I felt when I got laid off, and the truth is it was the best gift I’ve ever received. Sure the headlines and punchlines wrote themselves but I was battle hardened by then. I knew that I’d worked in a way where I could walk out with my head held high. I have no bitterness about the Product Management team being dismantled, and it made sense for me to exit as nearly all of the remaining PMs were let go. Going on a sabbatical afterward has been exactly what I needed to decompress and I’m finally feeling rested and relaxed. I’m a creative and a builder, so sooner than later I’ll jump back into a high intensity company but I’m grateful for this season of thinking, reading, traveling and being with people I love. After having time to reflect I believe more than ever that the very best outcomes flow from great leadership that combines the head and the heart. I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that in all of this there is also a cautionary tale for anyone who succeeds at something — which is that the higher you climb, the smaller your world becomes. It’s a strange paradox but the richest and most powerful people are also some of the most isolated. I found myself frequently looking at Elon and seeing a person who seemed quite alone because his time and energy was so purely devoted to work, which is not the model of a life I want to live. Money and fame can create psychological prisons which may worsen mental health conditions. We’ve all seen high profile cases of celebrities who end up with some combination of depression, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, mania and/or erratic behavior. Living in an echo chamber is dangerous and being at the top makes a person even more susceptible to being surrounded by yes people when nearly everyone around you is on the payroll and somehow stands to benefit from being in your orbit. Figuring out how to keep “better angels” around in the form of family, friends, and teammates is critical to staying on the rails and enduring intense ups and downs. Everyone needs to hear hard truths sometimes and if you fire all the people who speak up then the reality distortion field may just turn into a vortex. I was drawn to Twitter because I’m obsessed with the problem of loneliness and connection between people. I find it fascinating & troubling that humans are getting lonelier as we simultaneously create a world that’s both safer and wealthier. I don’t believe that trade-off has to exist, which is why I keep returning to that theme in my personal and professional life. I realize this is too long of a tweet but Twitter was a weird and special place on the internet, and I’m grateful to have played a teeny tiny role in its story and evolution. I’m here for whatever comes next — on this app and in new places. Consumer social is very much alive and at a fascinating juncture, so I’ll be watching and participating and sharing hot takes because I don’t want to, and probably can’t, turn that part of me off. Perhaps X becomes a resounding success. Or it fails epically. Either way, I expect it will continue to be a very entertaining ride. 🫡
14:49

Like seemingly everyone on this app I have plenty of opinions about Twitter > X and figure now is a good time to open up a bit about my experience at the company. I tweeted for years into the void for the love of it like many of you, but after selling my startup to Twitter in 2020 I finally got to see it from the inside. Up close it was both amazing and terrible, like so many other companies and things in life. As someone with a maniacal sense of urgency built into me, Twitter often felt siloed and bureaucratic. Dumb power plays, reorgs and team name changes for the sake of someone’s ego were distractions that occurred too regularly. You couldn’t just be a builder — you also needed to be a politician. I was shocked by how old and bespoke the infrastructure was, but there was little will to think beyond quarterly earnings calls because we were all beholden to the masters of mDAU and revenue growth as a public company. It often felt like things were held together with duct tape and glue, and that many people had just accepted that a small product change could take months or quarters to build. Management had become bloated to accommodate career growth and the company culture felt too soft and entitled for my own taste. Healthy debate and criticism was replaced by a default refrain of “no, that can’t be done” or “another team owns that so don’t touch it”. Teams could spend months building a feature and then some last-minute kerfuffle meant it’d get killed for being too risky. Just talking directly to customers could turn into a turf war and create deadlocks between functions. I recall one such episode where a teammate spent a month trying to get clearance to reach out to some creators. He went through 3 layers of management and 6 different functional teams. In the end 4 executives were involved in the approval. It was insanity, and unfortunately I saw several top performers get burnt out and demoralized after exhausting experiences like that. Most people were good at their jobs but it was nearly impossible to fire poor performers — instead they got shuffled around to other teams because few managers had the will or resources to figure out how to get them out. A high performance culture pulls everyone up, but the opposite weighs everyone down. Twitter often felt like a place that kept squandering its own potential, which was sad and frustrating to see. The person who was best at cutting through the BS and inspiring a vision during my tenure was Kayvon Beykpour, but he wasn’t fully empowered to run the company since he wasn’t the CEO. Despite those real issues, I was lucky enough to work with some of the most talented people in the business at Twitter in product, design, engineering, research, legal, BD, trust & safety, marketing, PR and more. Often it was a small cross-functional team of intrinsically motivated people who made the biggest impact by challenging some core assumption. Those teams were very fun to be on but they felt like the exception rather than the rule. The months of waiting for the deal to close in 2022 were particularly slow and painful; it felt like leadership hid behind lawyers and legal language as all answers about the company’s future notoriously included the phrase “fiduciary duty”. Colleagues openly talked about how Twitter was being sold because leadership didn’t have conviction in their own plan or ability to fix longstanding problems. Although I didn’t know much about Elon I was cautiously optimistic – I saw him as the guy who built incredible and enduring companies like Tesla and SpaceX, so perhaps his private ownership could shake things up and breathe new life into the company. My take on what’s happened since then is full of lived nuance. When people ask why I stayed it’s easy to answer: optimism, curiosity, personal growth and money. From the beginning I saw that some changes Elon was going to make were smart and others were stupid, but when I’m on a team I uphold the philosophy of “praise in public and criticize in private”. I was far from a silent wallflower. I shared my opinions openly and pushed back often, both before and after the acquisition. I made peace with the fact that I didn’t have psychological safety at Twitter 2.0 and that meant I could be fired at any moment, and for no reason at all. I watched it happen repeatedly and saw how negatively it impacted team morale. Although I couldn’t change the situation I did my best to shine a light on folks who were doing important work while being an emotionally supportive leader for those who were struggling to adapt to the more brutalist and hardcore culture. In person Elon is oddly charming and he’s genuinely funny. He also has personality quirks like telling the same stories and jokes over and over. The challenge is his personality and demeanor can turn on a dime going from excited to angry. Since it was hard to read what mood he might be in and what his reaction would be to any given thing, people quickly became afraid of being called into meetings or having to share negative news with him. At times it felt like the inner circle was too zealous and fanatical in their unwavering support of everything he said. When individuals encouraged me to be careful about what I said I politely thanked them and said I would not be taking their advice. I had no interest in adding to a culture of fear or walking on eggshells around Elon. Either he would respect me for being real or he could fire me. Either outcome was okay. I quickly learned that product and business decisions were nearly always the result of him following his gut instinct, and he didn’t seem compelled to seek out or rely on a lot of data or expertise to inform it. That was particularly frustrating for me since I believed I had useful institutional knowledge that could help him make better decisions. Instead he'd poll Twitter, ask a friend, or even ask his biographer for product advice. At times it seemed he trusted random feedback more than the people in the room who spent their lives dedicated to tackling the problem at hand. I never figured out why and remain puzzled by it. I don’t think things had to be as difficult or dramatic as they turned out to be but I can’t say I’d bet against Elon or count him out. He’s smart and has enough money to make a lot of mistakes and then course correct when things go awry. As the largest shareholder he can tank the value in the short-term, but eventually he’ll need things to turn around. His focus on speed is incredible and he’s obviously not afraid of blowing things up, but now the real measure will be how it get reconstructed and if enough people want the new everything app he is building. I learned a ton from watching Elon up close – the good, the bad and the ugly. His boldness, passion and storytelling is inspiring, but his lack of process and empathy is painful. Elon has an exceptional talent for tackling hard physics-based problems but products that facilitate human connection and communication require a different type of social-emotional intelligence. Social networks are hard to kill but they’re not immune from death spirals. Only time will tell what the outcome will be but I hope X finds its footing because competition is good for consumers. In the meantime, I have a lot of empathy for the employees who are working tirelessly behind the scenes, the advertisers who want a stable platform to sell their stuff on, and the customers who are experiencing chaotic updates. It’s been a madhouse. Twitter moved at the speed of molasses and suffered from bureaucracy but now X is run by a mercurial leader whose instinct is driven by the unique and undoubtedly weird experience of being the biggest voice on the platform. Many of you know me from the sleeping bag incident where I slept on a conference room floor, so I figure, let’s talk about that too. Going viral was an odd and interesting experience. I was attacked by people on the left and called a billionaire bootlicker, while simultaneously being attacked by people on the right for being a working mom who was demonized as an example of a woman choosing her career over her family. Thankfully I can laugh at myself and I don’t take armchair keyboard ideologues too seriously. Being the main character on the timeline, even for a few minutes, requires a thick skin and a strong sense of self. The real story is pretty simple. I was given a nearly impossible deadline for his first project and as the product lead I would never ask anyone to do anything I wasn’t willing to do myself. So I worked round the clock alongside an amazing team spanning many timezones, and we delivered it on schedule – truly against the odds. It was intense but also fun. Those first few months were wildly crazy but I wanted to be there and I have no regrets. Showing up and giving it your all should, in most cases, be celebrated. Obviously you can’t work at that pace forever but there are moments where bursts are mission critical. I’ve pulled many all-nighters in my career and also when I was a student for something that mattered to me. I don’t regret putting in long hours or being ambitious, and feel proud of how far I’ve come from where I started thanks in part to that type of work ethic. I think of life as a game, and being at Twitter after the acquisition was like playing life at Level 10 on Hard Mode. Since I like taking on difficult challenges I found it interesting and rewarding because I was growing and learning so rapidly. I realize our society today trends toward polarization but when it comes to this app, its owner, and its future, I am neither a fangirl nor a hater — I’m an optimistic pragmatist. This may really irritate the internet but you cannot pigeonhole me into some radical position of either loving or hating every change that’s occurred. I escaped my fundamentalist upbringing and am a free thinker these days. Everyone can be seen as both a hero or a villain, depending on who is telling what angle of the story. Elon doesn’t deserve to be venerated or vilified. He’s a complicated person with an unfathomable amount of financial and geopolitical power which is why humanity needs him to err on the side of goodness, rather than political divisiveness and pettiness. I disagree with many of his decisions and am surprised by his willingness to burn so much down, but with enough money and time, something new & innovative may emerge. I hope it does. Sometimes I get asked about how I felt when I got laid off, and the truth is it was the best gift I’ve ever received. Sure the headlines and punchlines wrote themselves but I was battle hardened by then. I knew that I’d worked in a way where I could walk out with my head held high. I have no bitterness about the Product Management team being dismantled, and it made sense for me to exit as nearly all of the remaining PMs were let go. Going on a sabbatical afterward has been exactly what I needed to decompress and I’m finally feeling rested and relaxed. I’m a creative and a builder, so sooner than later I’ll jump back into a high intensity company but I’m grateful for this season of thinking, reading, traveling and being with people I love. After having time to reflect I believe more than ever that the very best outcomes flow from great leadership that combines the head and the heart. I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that in all of this there is also a cautionary tale for anyone who succeeds at something — which is that the higher you climb, the smaller your world becomes. It’s a strange paradox but the richest and most powerful people are also some of the most isolated. I found myself frequently looking at Elon and seeing a person who seemed quite alone because his time and energy was so purely devoted to work, which is not the model of a life I want to live. Money and fame can create psychological prisons which may worsen mental health conditions. We’ve all seen high profile cases of celebrities who end up with some combination of depression, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, mania and/or erratic behavior. Living in an echo chamber is dangerous and being at the top makes a person even more susceptible to being surrounded by yes people when nearly everyone around you is on the payroll and somehow stands to benefit from being in your orbit. Figuring out how to keep “better angels” around in the form of family, friends, and teammates is critical to staying on the rails and enduring intense ups and downs. Everyone needs to hear hard truths sometimes and if you fire all the people who speak up then the reality distortion field may just turn into a vortex. I was drawn to Twitter because I’m obsessed with the problem of loneliness and connection between people. I find it fascinating & troubling that humans are getting lonelier as we simultaneously create a world that’s both safer and wealthier. I don’t believe that trade-off has to exist, which is why I keep returning to that theme in my personal and professional life. I realize this is too long of a tweet but Twitter was a weird and special place on the internet, and I’m grateful to have played a teeny tiny role in its story and evolution. I’m here for whatever comes next — on this app and in new places. Consumer social is very much alive and at a fascinating juncture, so I’ll be watching and participating and sharing hot takes because I don’t want to, and probably can’t, turn that part of me off. Perhaps X becomes a resounding success. Or it fails epically. Either way, I expect it will continue to be a very entertaining ride. 🫡

Esther Crawford ✨

5,506,001 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Nobody prepares you for the moment a wild animal decides to trust you. Not "gets used to you." Not "tolerates you." Trusts you — the way a mother trusts someone with the one thing she would die protecting. It doesn't happen because you're kind. Kindness is cheap. Every predator in the bush can fake calm long enough to get close. Trust is not given for kindness. It's given for consistency, for stillness, for the thousand tiny signals a mother reads before she decides you are not a threat to the only life she's carrying. And once you understand that, you understand why what's in this video is not "cute." It's rare. It's the kind of rare that biologists spend entire careers chasing and never fully catch on camera. Here's the part almost nobody knows about kangaroo mothers, and once you know it, you will never look at a pouch the same way again. A kangaroo joey is born the size of a jellybean. Blind. Hairless. Barely more developed than an embryo. It has exactly one job the second it's born: crawl, unassisted, through its mother's fur, into the pouch, and find a teat — with no help from her at all. She doesn't guide it. She doesn't touch it. It's on its own, immediately, in a climb that takes minutes but might as well be a lifetime. Most don't make it. The ones that do spend the next 190 days growing inside that pouch, permanently attached to a single teat, while their mother hops, forages, runs from threats, and lives an entire dangerous life with a developing creature sealed against her body the whole time. Now sit with that for a second. Everything you're about to feel watching this video is built on top of that fact. The pouch isn't a cute detail. It's the most extreme parental investment in the entire animal kingdom, running quietly, invisibly, every single second — and most people scroll past kangaroos their whole life without knowing any of it. This is why the moment in this video hits differently. It's not staged tenderness. It's not a trained animal doing a trick for treats. It's an instinct thousands of generations deep, deciding, in real time, whether the human in front of it gets access to the most guarded thing in its world. And it says yes. Watch what that "yes" actually looks like. Watch the exact second it happens. Because most people miss it — they're looking at the wrong thing, waiting for something big and dramatic, when the real moment is small, quiet, and over in under two seconds. Blink and it's gone. That's the whole point. Trust from a wild animal never announces itself. It just happens, and if you're not paying attention, you miss the most important part of the entire video. Here's something else that will change how you see this. Kangaroos are not naturally social with other species. They are not dogs. They did not evolve for ten thousand years alongside humans, selectively bred generation after generation for affection and eye contact and cooperation. A kangaroo owes you nothing. Its entire evolutionary history says: keep your distance, stay alert, trust nothing that isn't kangaroo. So when you see a wild-born kangaroo choosing proximity — choosing it, not tolerating it — you are watching something closer to a diplomatic breakthrough between two species than a "cute animal moment." It is the exception to millions of years of instinct. And exceptions like that don't happen because an animal is "friendly." They happen because someone, somewhere, earned it slowly, patiently, without ever forcing a single second of it. That's the part that should actually get your attention. Not the fur. Not the ears. The patience behind it that you never see, because patience isn't visual — it's just time, quietly spent, off camera, for weeks, maybe months, before the fifteen seconds you're about to watch were even possible. Think about how many hours of nothing happened before this. Think about how many times the answer was "not yet." Think about how many people would have given up. That's what's actually being shown to you here, hidden inside something that looks simple. The result. Not the process. Just the result — and the process is the part that would actually break most people's patience in half. There's a reason content like this stops people mid-scroll and doesn't let go. It's not really about kangaroos. It's about a feeling almost everyone is quietly starving for: proof that connection across an impossible gap is still possible. That something wild, wary, and instinct-driven can still choose closeness. In a world where even people struggle to trust each other, watching an animal that has every biological reason not to trust anyone — decide to trust anyway — hits something deeper than "aww." It hits the same nerve that made you stop and stare the last time you saw two strangers help each other for no reason. The same nerve that makes rescue videos, reunion videos, "coming home" videos rack up hundreds of millions of views no matter how many times the format repeats. We are wired to seek proof that softness survives in a world that keeps telling us it doesn't. This video is that proof, wearing fur. Now here's the thing that will actually make you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. There is a specific frame in this video where the entire dynamic flips. Where you stop watching "a kangaroo" and start watching "a mother." The difference is enormous and almost nobody notices it consciously the first time, they just feel it — a shift in the chest, a small catch in the breath, and they don't know why until they rewatch it and actually look for what changed. I'm not going to tell you which frame it is. You'll know it when you feel it. And once you've seen it, you'll understand why people who work with rescued or hand-raised kangaroos talk about them the way new parents talk about their kids — with this specific mixture of exhaustion and reverence, like they've been let in on a secret the rest of the world doesn't know is right there in the daylight the whole time, just going unnoticed by everyone in too much of a hurry to actually look. Here's a fact that will sit with you long after this post: joeys communicate with their mothers primarily through touch and proximity, not sound. A healthy joey barely vocalizes. Silence, for a joey, usually means safety. The moment a joey starts making noise is often the moment something is wrong — a signal, a distress call, a break in the norm. Which means every quiet second in this video isn't empty. It's the sound of everything being exactly as it should be. Contentment doesn't announce itself either. It just exists, unremarked, easy to miss if you're expecting drama. Most people are trained by algorithms to expect the loud moment. The jump-scare cut. The dramatic reveal. This isn't that kind of video, and that's exactly why it works on a level louder content can't touch. There is no trick here. No forced angle. No moment engineered for a thumbnail. Just an animal, in a state most people will never witness in their lifetime, on camera, being real. You will not get this from a zoo enclosure behind glass. You will not get this from a nature documentary narrated over stock drone footage. Documentary crews spend months, sometimes years, waiting for unscripted, undirected, genuine wild behavior like this — and even then, half the time the animal senses the camera and the moment never comes. What you're about to see is the version of nature that doesn't perform for anyone. It just happens to have been caught. That's worth more than people give it credit for. Let's talk about scale for a second, because it recalibrates everything. An adult kangaroo can deliver a kick strong enough to break bone. Their hind legs are built for sudden, explosive force — evolved for fighting off dingoes, for defending against threats many times more aggressive than a curious human. A kangaroo that feels cornered or threatened is not an animal you want anywhere near you. This is not a small, harmless creature performing tricks. It is a powerful wild animal capable of real damage, choosing, in this exact moment, not to use any of that power. That choice is the entire video. Every second of calm you see on screen is a second where a kick, a scratch, a bolt for distance was the more "natural" default option — and it didn't happen. Instead: stillness. Proximity. Something closer to peace than instinct usually allows. People underestimate how remarkable that restraint actually is because the animal looks soft. Fur does that. It disguises power as gentleness in our minds before we even process what we're looking at. But strip away the cuteness bias for one second and look at what's actually happening biologically: a wild animal engineered by evolution for wariness and self-defense is choosing trust over instinct, in real time, on camera, for you. That's not something you see every day. That's not something most people will ever see in person, not even once in an entire lifetime. And it's sitting right there, one tap away. There's a version of this story that plays out constantly in nature and almost never gets filmed: the version where the trust never comes. Where the animal stays wary its entire life, where every human interaction ends the second the animal has an exit route, where the gap between species never closes even an inch. That's actually the statistical default. That's what "wild animal" usually means in practice — permanent, unbridgeable distance, no matter how much time passes. This video is the exception you almost never get to see. And exceptions, by definition, don't repeat on command. You can't schedule this. You can't force it into existing on a Tuesday afternoon because you need content. It either happens or it doesn't, and when it does, someone lucky enough to be holding a camera captures something the rest of us don't get. You're one of the lucky ones today. You get to see it too. Here's something people don't think about: what happens to footage like this after the camera stops rolling? The relationship doesn't end when the clip does. Whatever trust was built to make this moment possible keeps existing, keeps deepening, long after anyone stopped filming. The video you're about to watch is a single frozen cross-section of something much longer, much slower, much more patient than fifteen or thirty seconds could ever fully capture. Which means what you're seeing isn't the whole story. It's a highlight pulled from something bigger — a relationship, a history, a slow-built trust that took real time to construct and will keep existing whether or not anyone's watching. That's actually the most reassuring part of all of this. It's not a one-off stunt for the algorithm. It's a snapshot of something ongoing, something real, something that existed before the phone came out and kept existing after it went back in someone's pocket. That's a very different feeling than most viral content gives you. Most viral content is a closed loop — what you see is all there is, manufactured specifically to be seen, with nothing behind it. This is the opposite. This is a small window into something much larger than the video itself, and once you sense that, you start watching it differently. You start looking for what it implies rather than just what it shows. Let's go back to the mother for a second, because everything in this video ultimately orbits around her. Maternal instinct in kangaroos is so strong it can override basic self-preservation. There are documented cases of kangaroo mothers refusing to abandon injured joeys even when fleeing would have meant their own survival. Refusing to leave, even when every other instinct screams to run. That's not a Disney embellishment. That's observed, recorded animal behavior, the kind field researchers write papers about because it defies simple explanations of self-interest. So when you watch a mother in this state — calm, present, unhurried — you're not just watching an animal relax. You're watching the single most protective creature in the scene voluntarily lower its guard. Not because it forgot to be careful. Because, in this specific moment, with this specific presence nearby, it decided carefulness wasn't necessary. That decision is not nothing. That decision is everything. If you've ever had a genuinely anxious animal — a rescue dog that flinched at every hand for months, a cat that hid for weeks before finally sitting on your lap — you already know this feeling in your body even if you've never thought about it in these words. You know the specific, quiet triumph of the first time a scared creature decides you're safe. It's not loud. It's not dramatic. It's just a small shift, and it means more than almost anything else that animal could do. Now imagine that same feeling, except the animal isn't a domesticated pet bred for six thousand years to eventually trust a human. Imagine it's a wild mother kangaroo, entirely unindebted to your species, deciding the exact same thing. That's what you're about to watch. Here's the last thing I'll say before you go see it for yourself, because I think it matters more than any single fact I've already given you. We spend so much time online watching things designed to make us feel something — outrage engineered for clicks, drama engineered for watch time, conflict engineered for engagement. Almost none of it is real in the way this is real. Almost none of it exists independent of the platform that's showing it to you. This does. This kangaroo, this mother, this joey, this quiet unscripted trust — none of it needed you to exist. It was happening whether or not it ever made it to a screen. You're not watching content that was built for you. You're watching a moment of the actual world that someone happened to catch and decided to share. That distinction matters more than people realize. It's the difference between watching a performance and witnessing something true. Everyone can sense that difference on some level, even if they can't articulate it — it's why certain videos feel hollow the second they end, and others sit with you for the rest of the day. This is the second kind. Go watch it. Not for the aww, though you'll get that too. Watch it for the two seconds where instinct loses to trust, where a powerful, wary, wild animal decides a human is safe, where something ancient and untamed chooses softness anyway. Watch it for the frame you won't notice until the second time through. Watch it because moments like this are rarer than almost anything else the internet shows you, and rare things deserve more than a passive scroll past. You'll know exactly which second I meant the moment you see it. And once you do, you'll probably watch it again — not because you missed something the first time, but because now you know what you're actually looking at, and it hits completely differently the second time around. That's the real test of whether something is genuinely special or just briefly novel: does it get better once you understand it, or does it lose its shine the moment the surprise wears off? This gets better. Every rewatch reveals one more tiny detail you missed under the weight of the first, bigger emotional hit — the exact angle of an ear, the precise moment a body goes still, the breath held right before everything relaxes. Small things. Human-scale things, if kangaroos had a human scale. The kind of details that only reveal themselves once the initial "aww" has worn off enough for you to actually look. That's the mark of something worth your attention in a feed built almost entirely around things that aren't. So here's the only ask: don't just let this autoplay past you like everything else today. Actually watch it. Full attention, even if just for the length of a single held breath. It costs you nothing and it's one of maybe a handful of genuinely rare things you'll come across this week, buried in an endless river of things that are anything but. Somewhere out there, right now, a wild kangaroo mother is calm around a human she has every biological reason to fear. That single fact alone should be enough to make you want to see how it happened. Let's talk about something people almost never mention when they talk about kangaroos: how absurdly efficient their bodies actually are, and why that matters for understanding what restraint really costs a wild animal like this. A kangaroo's hop isn't just a way of moving. It's one of the most energy-efficient forms of locomotion in the entire animal kingdom. Their tendons act like giant rubber bands, storing and releasing elastic energy with almost no metabolic cost, which is why a kangaroo can cover huge distances at high speed while barely raising its heart rate. Past a certain speed, it actually becomes more efficient for a kangaroo to hop faster, not slower — the opposite of almost every other animal on earth. Why does that matter here? Because an animal built like that has almost nothing to lose by fleeing. Running isn't costly for a kangaroo the way it is for, say, a heavier, slower prey animal. There's no real biological argument for "staying is easier than leaving." Fleeing is cheap. Fleeing is basically free. Which means every second a kangaroo chooses to stay instead of bolt is a second it actively decided against the easiest possible option. That's not an animal that "couldn't be bothered to run." That's an animal that had every reason to leave, at almost no cost to itself, and chose not to. Sit with that for a second, because it reframes the entire video. This isn't laziness or indifference dressed up as trust. It's an active decision made over and over, every single second the camera is rolling, by a creature for whom leaving would have taken almost no effort at all. Here's another thing worth knowing before you watch: kangaroos are far smarter than most people give them credit for. Studies on kangaroo cognition have found they're capable of intentional communication with humans — deliberately looking at a person, then looking at an object, then back at the person again, the same gaze-alternation behavior researchers use as a gold-standard test for interspecies communication in dogs. Wild kangaroos aren't supposed to do that. Domesticated animals do that. Animals that have spent millennia being selected for human cooperation do that. Kangaroos were never bred for any of it. And yet, under the right conditions, some of them do it anyway. Which means the "connection" people feel radiating off videos like this isn't just a projection. It isn't just humans anthropomorphizing an animal that's actually indifferent to them. There's a real, measurable capacity for intentional engagement sitting underneath the fur — a capacity most people assume only exists in dogs, elephants, dolphins, the "smart" animals we've decided deserve credit for having inner lives. Kangaroos rarely make that list. Maybe they should. Now think about the algorithm for a second, because this part matters if you've ever wondered why certain animal videos explode past everything else in your feed while a hundred nearly identical ones disappear without a trace. Platforms don't reward "cute." Cute is everywhere; cute is the baseline, the noise floor of the entire internet. What actually stops a scroll and holds it is specificity — a moment that couldn't have happened just anywhere, to just anyone, with just any animal. The algorithm has effectively been trained, by billions of collective viewing decisions, to recognize the difference between generic content and a genuinely unrepeatable moment. And it rewards the second kind disproportionately, because it knows — better than we consciously do — that unrepeatable is the one thing viewers actually crave and almost never get. That's the quiet reason something like this travels the way it does. It's not marketing. It's not a trick. It's the platform correctly identifying that you're looking at something it can't manufacture on demand, and putting it in front of as many people as possible before the window closes. Here's a myth worth busting while we're at it, because it changes how you'll watch every future animal video, not just this one. People assume wild animals that appear "comfortable" around humans have been habituated through food — that somewhere off camera, there's a hand full of treats explaining all of it away. Sometimes that's true. Often it isn't. Genuine trust-based bonds, the kind built through slow, repeated, low-pressure exposure rather than bribery, tend to look calmer, quieter, and far less food-motivated than the habituated version. An animal trained through treats orients toward the treat. An animal that trusts you orients toward you. Watch for that distinction. It's subtle, but once you know to look for it, you'll never unsee it — in this video, and in every animal video you watch after this one. There's also a slower, sadder truth sitting underneath all of this that's worth acknowledging honestly, because it's part of why moments like this hit as hard as they do: most wild animals never get the chance to reach this state with a human at all. Not because they're incapable of it, but because most human contact with wildlife is fear, distance, or conflict. Roadways. Habitat loss. Encounters that end badly for one side or the other. The overwhelming majority of interactions between wild kangaroos and humans are neutral at best and dangerous at worst — for the kangaroo far more often than for the person. Which is exactly why the rare exception matters as much as it does. It's not just heartwarming in isolation. It's heartwarming because it's fighting the statistical odds of what usually happens when these two worlds intersect. Every calm, trusting moment like this is quietly making the case that the outcome doesn't have to be conflict by default — that with enough patience, enough respect for the animal's pace, enough restraint from forcing anything, something gentler is possible instead. That's a bigger idea than one video can carry on its own, but this video is a small, real piece of evidence for it. And evidence like that is worth more than another opinion piece ever could be, because you can't argue with something you're watching happen in real time in front of you. One more angle before you go find it and watch it yourself. Think about how many hours of your own life you've spent watching things that gave you nothing back — content built purely to fill fifteen seconds of dead time between one task and the next, forgotten before you've even finished swallowing whatever you were drinking while you watched it. That's most of what a feed is. Filler. Noise dressed up as content, optimized for exactly long enough to keep you from closing the app, and not one second longer. This isn't that. This is the rare kind of thing that actually leaves a residue — a specific image that resurfaces uninvited hours later, while you're doing something completely unrelated, because some part of your brain flagged it as meaningful and refused to fully let it go. Most content doesn't earn that. Most content isn't built to earn that. It's built to be replaced by the next thing thirty seconds later, forever, in an endless chain that leaves nothing behind. You'll know within the first few seconds whether this is one of the rare exceptions. Trust that instinct. It's the same instinct that made you stop scrolling long enough to read all the way down to this line instead of bouncing off after the first sentence like you do with almost everything else that crosses your screen today. That instinct is rarely wrong. One last thought, and then I'll stop talking and let the thing speak for itself. Somewhere between the jellybean-sized joey that shouldn't have survived its own birth, the mother who could kill with one kick and chose stillness instead, and the two-second frame you won't notice until you watch it twice — there's a version of this video that never existed. The version where the timing was off by a week, where the trust hadn't built far enough yet, where the camera wasn't rolling, where the moment happened anyway but nobody was there to see it and it simply evaporated into the ordinary, unwitnessed life of a wild animal in the bush. That version happens constantly. It's the default. It's what "wild animal" statistically means, every single day, all over the world, completely unseen. This is the version that didn't evaporate. This is the one that got caught. Not manufactured. Not staged. Not built for you in a studio, in a script, in an editing room designed to make you feel something on command. Just real, and rare, and lucky enough to have a lens pointed at it at the exact right second. You don't get many of those in a lifetime, let alone in a single scroll through your phone on an otherwise ordinary day. This is one of them.
3:00

Nobody prepares you for the moment a wild animal decides to trust you. Not "gets used to you." Not "tolerates you." Trusts you — the way a mother trusts someone with the one thing she would die protecting. It doesn't happen because you're kind. Kindness is cheap. Every predator in the bush can fake calm long enough to get close. Trust is not given for kindness. It's given for consistency, for stillness, for the thousand tiny signals a mother reads before she decides you are not a threat to the only life she's carrying. And once you understand that, you understand why what's in this video is not "cute." It's rare. It's the kind of rare that biologists spend entire careers chasing and never fully catch on camera. Here's the part almost nobody knows about kangaroo mothers, and once you know it, you will never look at a pouch the same way again. A kangaroo joey is born the size of a jellybean. Blind. Hairless. Barely more developed than an embryo. It has exactly one job the second it's born: crawl, unassisted, through its mother's fur, into the pouch, and find a teat — with no help from her at all. She doesn't guide it. She doesn't touch it. It's on its own, immediately, in a climb that takes minutes but might as well be a lifetime. Most don't make it. The ones that do spend the next 190 days growing inside that pouch, permanently attached to a single teat, while their mother hops, forages, runs from threats, and lives an entire dangerous life with a developing creature sealed against her body the whole time. Now sit with that for a second. Everything you're about to feel watching this video is built on top of that fact. The pouch isn't a cute detail. It's the most extreme parental investment in the entire animal kingdom, running quietly, invisibly, every single second — and most people scroll past kangaroos their whole life without knowing any of it. This is why the moment in this video hits differently. It's not staged tenderness. It's not a trained animal doing a trick for treats. It's an instinct thousands of generations deep, deciding, in real time, whether the human in front of it gets access to the most guarded thing in its world. And it says yes. Watch what that "yes" actually looks like. Watch the exact second it happens. Because most people miss it — they're looking at the wrong thing, waiting for something big and dramatic, when the real moment is small, quiet, and over in under two seconds. Blink and it's gone. That's the whole point. Trust from a wild animal never announces itself. It just happens, and if you're not paying attention, you miss the most important part of the entire video. Here's something else that will change how you see this. Kangaroos are not naturally social with other species. They are not dogs. They did not evolve for ten thousand years alongside humans, selectively bred generation after generation for affection and eye contact and cooperation. A kangaroo owes you nothing. Its entire evolutionary history says: keep your distance, stay alert, trust nothing that isn't kangaroo. So when you see a wild-born kangaroo choosing proximity — choosing it, not tolerating it — you are watching something closer to a diplomatic breakthrough between two species than a "cute animal moment." It is the exception to millions of years of instinct. And exceptions like that don't happen because an animal is "friendly." They happen because someone, somewhere, earned it slowly, patiently, without ever forcing a single second of it. That's the part that should actually get your attention. Not the fur. Not the ears. The patience behind it that you never see, because patience isn't visual — it's just time, quietly spent, off camera, for weeks, maybe months, before the fifteen seconds you're about to watch were even possible. Think about how many hours of nothing happened before this. Think about how many times the answer was "not yet." Think about how many people would have given up. That's what's actually being shown to you here, hidden inside something that looks simple. The result. Not the process. Just the result — and the process is the part that would actually break most people's patience in half. There's a reason content like this stops people mid-scroll and doesn't let go. It's not really about kangaroos. It's about a feeling almost everyone is quietly starving for: proof that connection across an impossible gap is still possible. That something wild, wary, and instinct-driven can still choose closeness. In a world where even people struggle to trust each other, watching an animal that has every biological reason not to trust anyone — decide to trust anyway — hits something deeper than "aww." It hits the same nerve that made you stop and stare the last time you saw two strangers help each other for no reason. The same nerve that makes rescue videos, reunion videos, "coming home" videos rack up hundreds of millions of views no matter how many times the format repeats. We are wired to seek proof that softness survives in a world that keeps telling us it doesn't. This video is that proof, wearing fur. Now here's the thing that will actually make you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. There is a specific frame in this video where the entire dynamic flips. Where you stop watching "a kangaroo" and start watching "a mother." The difference is enormous and almost nobody notices it consciously the first time, they just feel it — a shift in the chest, a small catch in the breath, and they don't know why until they rewatch it and actually look for what changed. I'm not going to tell you which frame it is. You'll know it when you feel it. And once you've seen it, you'll understand why people who work with rescued or hand-raised kangaroos talk about them the way new parents talk about their kids — with this specific mixture of exhaustion and reverence, like they've been let in on a secret the rest of the world doesn't know is right there in the daylight the whole time, just going unnoticed by everyone in too much of a hurry to actually look. Here's a fact that will sit with you long after this post: joeys communicate with their mothers primarily through touch and proximity, not sound. A healthy joey barely vocalizes. Silence, for a joey, usually means safety. The moment a joey starts making noise is often the moment something is wrong — a signal, a distress call, a break in the norm. Which means every quiet second in this video isn't empty. It's the sound of everything being exactly as it should be. Contentment doesn't announce itself either. It just exists, unremarked, easy to miss if you're expecting drama. Most people are trained by algorithms to expect the loud moment. The jump-scare cut. The dramatic reveal. This isn't that kind of video, and that's exactly why it works on a level louder content can't touch. There is no trick here. No forced angle. No moment engineered for a thumbnail. Just an animal, in a state most people will never witness in their lifetime, on camera, being real. You will not get this from a zoo enclosure behind glass. You will not get this from a nature documentary narrated over stock drone footage. Documentary crews spend months, sometimes years, waiting for unscripted, undirected, genuine wild behavior like this — and even then, half the time the animal senses the camera and the moment never comes. What you're about to see is the version of nature that doesn't perform for anyone. It just happens to have been caught. That's worth more than people give it credit for. Let's talk about scale for a second, because it recalibrates everything. An adult kangaroo can deliver a kick strong enough to break bone. Their hind legs are built for sudden, explosive force — evolved for fighting off dingoes, for defending against threats many times more aggressive than a curious human. A kangaroo that feels cornered or threatened is not an animal you want anywhere near you. This is not a small, harmless creature performing tricks. It is a powerful wild animal capable of real damage, choosing, in this exact moment, not to use any of that power. That choice is the entire video. Every second of calm you see on screen is a second where a kick, a scratch, a bolt for distance was the more "natural" default option — and it didn't happen. Instead: stillness. Proximity. Something closer to peace than instinct usually allows. People underestimate how remarkable that restraint actually is because the animal looks soft. Fur does that. It disguises power as gentleness in our minds before we even process what we're looking at. But strip away the cuteness bias for one second and look at what's actually happening biologically: a wild animal engineered by evolution for wariness and self-defense is choosing trust over instinct, in real time, on camera, for you. That's not something you see every day. That's not something most people will ever see in person, not even once in an entire lifetime. And it's sitting right there, one tap away. There's a version of this story that plays out constantly in nature and almost never gets filmed: the version where the trust never comes. Where the animal stays wary its entire life, where every human interaction ends the second the animal has an exit route, where the gap between species never closes even an inch. That's actually the statistical default. That's what "wild animal" usually means in practice — permanent, unbridgeable distance, no matter how much time passes. This video is the exception you almost never get to see. And exceptions, by definition, don't repeat on command. You can't schedule this. You can't force it into existing on a Tuesday afternoon because you need content. It either happens or it doesn't, and when it does, someone lucky enough to be holding a camera captures something the rest of us don't get. You're one of the lucky ones today. You get to see it too. Here's something people don't think about: what happens to footage like this after the camera stops rolling? The relationship doesn't end when the clip does. Whatever trust was built to make this moment possible keeps existing, keeps deepening, long after anyone stopped filming. The video you're about to watch is a single frozen cross-section of something much longer, much slower, much more patient than fifteen or thirty seconds could ever fully capture. Which means what you're seeing isn't the whole story. It's a highlight pulled from something bigger — a relationship, a history, a slow-built trust that took real time to construct and will keep existing whether or not anyone's watching. That's actually the most reassuring part of all of this. It's not a one-off stunt for the algorithm. It's a snapshot of something ongoing, something real, something that existed before the phone came out and kept existing after it went back in someone's pocket. That's a very different feeling than most viral content gives you. Most viral content is a closed loop — what you see is all there is, manufactured specifically to be seen, with nothing behind it. This is the opposite. This is a small window into something much larger than the video itself, and once you sense that, you start watching it differently. You start looking for what it implies rather than just what it shows. Let's go back to the mother for a second, because everything in this video ultimately orbits around her. Maternal instinct in kangaroos is so strong it can override basic self-preservation. There are documented cases of kangaroo mothers refusing to abandon injured joeys even when fleeing would have meant their own survival. Refusing to leave, even when every other instinct screams to run. That's not a Disney embellishment. That's observed, recorded animal behavior, the kind field researchers write papers about because it defies simple explanations of self-interest. So when you watch a mother in this state — calm, present, unhurried — you're not just watching an animal relax. You're watching the single most protective creature in the scene voluntarily lower its guard. Not because it forgot to be careful. Because, in this specific moment, with this specific presence nearby, it decided carefulness wasn't necessary. That decision is not nothing. That decision is everything. If you've ever had a genuinely anxious animal — a rescue dog that flinched at every hand for months, a cat that hid for weeks before finally sitting on your lap — you already know this feeling in your body even if you've never thought about it in these words. You know the specific, quiet triumph of the first time a scared creature decides you're safe. It's not loud. It's not dramatic. It's just a small shift, and it means more than almost anything else that animal could do. Now imagine that same feeling, except the animal isn't a domesticated pet bred for six thousand years to eventually trust a human. Imagine it's a wild mother kangaroo, entirely unindebted to your species, deciding the exact same thing. That's what you're about to watch. Here's the last thing I'll say before you go see it for yourself, because I think it matters more than any single fact I've already given you. We spend so much time online watching things designed to make us feel something — outrage engineered for clicks, drama engineered for watch time, conflict engineered for engagement. Almost none of it is real in the way this is real. Almost none of it exists independent of the platform that's showing it to you. This does. This kangaroo, this mother, this joey, this quiet unscripted trust — none of it needed you to exist. It was happening whether or not it ever made it to a screen. You're not watching content that was built for you. You're watching a moment of the actual world that someone happened to catch and decided to share. That distinction matters more than people realize. It's the difference between watching a performance and witnessing something true. Everyone can sense that difference on some level, even if they can't articulate it — it's why certain videos feel hollow the second they end, and others sit with you for the rest of the day. This is the second kind. Go watch it. Not for the aww, though you'll get that too. Watch it for the two seconds where instinct loses to trust, where a powerful, wary, wild animal decides a human is safe, where something ancient and untamed chooses softness anyway. Watch it for the frame you won't notice until the second time through. Watch it because moments like this are rarer than almost anything else the internet shows you, and rare things deserve more than a passive scroll past. You'll know exactly which second I meant the moment you see it. And once you do, you'll probably watch it again — not because you missed something the first time, but because now you know what you're actually looking at, and it hits completely differently the second time around. That's the real test of whether something is genuinely special or just briefly novel: does it get better once you understand it, or does it lose its shine the moment the surprise wears off? This gets better. Every rewatch reveals one more tiny detail you missed under the weight of the first, bigger emotional hit — the exact angle of an ear, the precise moment a body goes still, the breath held right before everything relaxes. Small things. Human-scale things, if kangaroos had a human scale. The kind of details that only reveal themselves once the initial "aww" has worn off enough for you to actually look. That's the mark of something worth your attention in a feed built almost entirely around things that aren't. So here's the only ask: don't just let this autoplay past you like everything else today. Actually watch it. Full attention, even if just for the length of a single held breath. It costs you nothing and it's one of maybe a handful of genuinely rare things you'll come across this week, buried in an endless river of things that are anything but. Somewhere out there, right now, a wild kangaroo mother is calm around a human she has every biological reason to fear. That single fact alone should be enough to make you want to see how it happened. Let's talk about something people almost never mention when they talk about kangaroos: how absurdly efficient their bodies actually are, and why that matters for understanding what restraint really costs a wild animal like this. A kangaroo's hop isn't just a way of moving. It's one of the most energy-efficient forms of locomotion in the entire animal kingdom. Their tendons act like giant rubber bands, storing and releasing elastic energy with almost no metabolic cost, which is why a kangaroo can cover huge distances at high speed while barely raising its heart rate. Past a certain speed, it actually becomes more efficient for a kangaroo to hop faster, not slower — the opposite of almost every other animal on earth. Why does that matter here? Because an animal built like that has almost nothing to lose by fleeing. Running isn't costly for a kangaroo the way it is for, say, a heavier, slower prey animal. There's no real biological argument for "staying is easier than leaving." Fleeing is cheap. Fleeing is basically free. Which means every second a kangaroo chooses to stay instead of bolt is a second it actively decided against the easiest possible option. That's not an animal that "couldn't be bothered to run." That's an animal that had every reason to leave, at almost no cost to itself, and chose not to. Sit with that for a second, because it reframes the entire video. This isn't laziness or indifference dressed up as trust. It's an active decision made over and over, every single second the camera is rolling, by a creature for whom leaving would have taken almost no effort at all. Here's another thing worth knowing before you watch: kangaroos are far smarter than most people give them credit for. Studies on kangaroo cognition have found they're capable of intentional communication with humans — deliberately looking at a person, then looking at an object, then back at the person again, the same gaze-alternation behavior researchers use as a gold-standard test for interspecies communication in dogs. Wild kangaroos aren't supposed to do that. Domesticated animals do that. Animals that have spent millennia being selected for human cooperation do that. Kangaroos were never bred for any of it. And yet, under the right conditions, some of them do it anyway. Which means the "connection" people feel radiating off videos like this isn't just a projection. It isn't just humans anthropomorphizing an animal that's actually indifferent to them. There's a real, measurable capacity for intentional engagement sitting underneath the fur — a capacity most people assume only exists in dogs, elephants, dolphins, the "smart" animals we've decided deserve credit for having inner lives. Kangaroos rarely make that list. Maybe they should. Now think about the algorithm for a second, because this part matters if you've ever wondered why certain animal videos explode past everything else in your feed while a hundred nearly identical ones disappear without a trace. Platforms don't reward "cute." Cute is everywhere; cute is the baseline, the noise floor of the entire internet. What actually stops a scroll and holds it is specificity — a moment that couldn't have happened just anywhere, to just anyone, with just any animal. The algorithm has effectively been trained, by billions of collective viewing decisions, to recognize the difference between generic content and a genuinely unrepeatable moment. And it rewards the second kind disproportionately, because it knows — better than we consciously do — that unrepeatable is the one thing viewers actually crave and almost never get. That's the quiet reason something like this travels the way it does. It's not marketing. It's not a trick. It's the platform correctly identifying that you're looking at something it can't manufacture on demand, and putting it in front of as many people as possible before the window closes. Here's a myth worth busting while we're at it, because it changes how you'll watch every future animal video, not just this one. People assume wild animals that appear "comfortable" around humans have been habituated through food — that somewhere off camera, there's a hand full of treats explaining all of it away. Sometimes that's true. Often it isn't. Genuine trust-based bonds, the kind built through slow, repeated, low-pressure exposure rather than bribery, tend to look calmer, quieter, and far less food-motivated than the habituated version. An animal trained through treats orients toward the treat. An animal that trusts you orients toward you. Watch for that distinction. It's subtle, but once you know to look for it, you'll never unsee it — in this video, and in every animal video you watch after this one. There's also a slower, sadder truth sitting underneath all of this that's worth acknowledging honestly, because it's part of why moments like this hit as hard as they do: most wild animals never get the chance to reach this state with a human at all. Not because they're incapable of it, but because most human contact with wildlife is fear, distance, or conflict. Roadways. Habitat loss. Encounters that end badly for one side or the other. The overwhelming majority of interactions between wild kangaroos and humans are neutral at best and dangerous at worst — for the kangaroo far more often than for the person. Which is exactly why the rare exception matters as much as it does. It's not just heartwarming in isolation. It's heartwarming because it's fighting the statistical odds of what usually happens when these two worlds intersect. Every calm, trusting moment like this is quietly making the case that the outcome doesn't have to be conflict by default — that with enough patience, enough respect for the animal's pace, enough restraint from forcing anything, something gentler is possible instead. That's a bigger idea than one video can carry on its own, but this video is a small, real piece of evidence for it. And evidence like that is worth more than another opinion piece ever could be, because you can't argue with something you're watching happen in real time in front of you. One more angle before you go find it and watch it yourself. Think about how many hours of your own life you've spent watching things that gave you nothing back — content built purely to fill fifteen seconds of dead time between one task and the next, forgotten before you've even finished swallowing whatever you were drinking while you watched it. That's most of what a feed is. Filler. Noise dressed up as content, optimized for exactly long enough to keep you from closing the app, and not one second longer. This isn't that. This is the rare kind of thing that actually leaves a residue — a specific image that resurfaces uninvited hours later, while you're doing something completely unrelated, because some part of your brain flagged it as meaningful and refused to fully let it go. Most content doesn't earn that. Most content isn't built to earn that. It's built to be replaced by the next thing thirty seconds later, forever, in an endless chain that leaves nothing behind. You'll know within the first few seconds whether this is one of the rare exceptions. Trust that instinct. It's the same instinct that made you stop scrolling long enough to read all the way down to this line instead of bouncing off after the first sentence like you do with almost everything else that crosses your screen today. That instinct is rarely wrong. One last thought, and then I'll stop talking and let the thing speak for itself. Somewhere between the jellybean-sized joey that shouldn't have survived its own birth, the mother who could kill with one kick and chose stillness instead, and the two-second frame you won't notice until you watch it twice — there's a version of this video that never existed. The version where the timing was off by a week, where the trust hadn't built far enough yet, where the camera wasn't rolling, where the moment happened anyway but nobody was there to see it and it simply evaporated into the ordinary, unwitnessed life of a wild animal in the bush. That version happens constantly. It's the default. It's what "wild animal" statistically means, every single day, all over the world, completely unseen. This is the version that didn't evaporate. This is the one that got caught. Not manufactured. Not staged. Not built for you in a studio, in a script, in an editing room designed to make you feel something on command. Just real, and rare, and lucky enough to have a lens pointed at it at the exact right second. You don't get many of those in a lifetime, let alone in a single scroll through your phone on an otherwise ordinary day. This is one of them.

Earth Unveiled

38,696 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

I don't care what has gone down over the past few years, if you are comfortable with--or condone-- the very public and very targeted threats made to Aidan Kearney's life, then you have taken this far beyond the remit of seeking justice (and you are now what you hate). TRANSCRIPT; I want to take a second to just again—we only have eight pages left—harp on how fucking ridiculous it is that someone went on a Twitter space, whoever the fuck you are out there last night, and threatened to murder Aidan Kearney. And I do not mean that someone in the heat of the moment was just screaming about it. That is not what happened. I'm not playing the clip, I'm not doing it. Even to critique it, I'm not platforming what this person said. I'm going to describe it for you. Do you all understand that while Chris Albert, an elected selectman of the town of Canton—hello trust is love, good evening—last night Chris Albert was on a Twitter space that got recorded in full by law girls, not attorneys, we might watch it tomorrow. And he said, I heard the clip. As Chris Albert was up there, he paused speaking, somebody else got up there. Their identity is not clear right now. They didn't just threaten to murder Aidan Kearney. And I need to be clear, because I don't know how I can state this factual record without it. They did not just threaten to unalive him. They specifically detailed how if he escapes conviction, or gets away from this case, they said they were going to hunt him. And they sounded like they meant it. And that really fucking worries me. It was absolutely over the line. It frankly scared me. All right. It really, really scared me. Because that's straight mafia shit. I don't care. We need to talk about it. This is not okay. It's gone so beyond okay that I am just scared at this point. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking into this. Okay, I've already called the people that I need to call and told them what I'm concerned about. Okay. This is absolutely inappropriate. That what I heard last night put it completely over the line. This is out of control. All right. They said this person and Chris Albert laughed. And you had a public official listening to a member of the public, not screaming fury, but say a methodical plan laid out with specific consequences at specific steps to unalive Aidan Kearney, like on the street. That is straight mafia tactics. And I'm worried they're actually going to do it. What the fuck do you even do in that situation? It's gone way too far. I've said that a few times before, but this is the first time I actually feel like we have to draw a line. It just has to stop. This just has to stop like right now. If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him. I don't even know him. He's done some very bad things in my opinion. Okay. Maybe he's done some noble things. I don't know. It's not always black and white. The point is I will dedicate my life to avenging that man. If you people murder him, do not do it. Do not fucking do it. Anything happens to him. I will dedicate my life to exposing it. Don't do it. I owe him nothing, by the way. He didn't take a dime from him if he offered it. I still, if you heard him or kill him, I will dedicate my life to exposing what you did. Don't do it. I didn't really realize the gravity of it. I think it deserves a little bit of commentary. I did not realize the gravity of it until I just spoke about it. I'm really concerned. Like I'm very upset and I'm also deeply troubled by this. On a level I have not been about anything in this case. We have talked about some really horrifying stuff happening. Every single bit of it, I was like, well, there's evil in the world. We have to confront it and fix it. This is different. Really different. We cannot have it. We cannot have it. I don't even know what to do. Because it's kind of out of my hands. I mean, I can call the FBI, I can say they're gonna murder this man. They probably know already, okay? Who do you think they called probably first thing this morning? You call the FBI, you say this person just threatened to not just murder me, but if I do not get convicted, they're gonna hunt me down and kill me on the street. They know. But what are you gonna do? You can't put him in witness protection. People are gonna be like, where did he go? You have to, the only option is to take out the threat. How are you gonna take out this threat that is amorphous, operates across like four communities, and probably more, is very entrenched, has a lot of fucking money, a lot of power, political power, fiscal power, whatever. I don't know what to do. If a single person gets hurt, I will go, I won't stop. I will go all the way to Washington. I will walk there until my shoes run through. I have a really bad feeling about all this, and something has to happen. I don't know, I don't know if the DOJ is gonna do it. This might prompt them to do it. I'm telling you, if you start threatening to murder people, they will move. And they'll collect chatter on the wire too. They're not gonna let you murder him. I'm telling you, they're not gonna let it happen. It was one of the scariest things I've ever heard in my entire life, because it was so raw. Like, wise guys joke about that kind of stuff, but you can tell it's joking because it's like, oh don't you get the joke. That was not a joke. And it wasn't Italian either, it was Irish. Because first of all, the Italian mob would never talk like that. On a fucking Twitter space? Are you out of your fucking mind? No, this was some fucking cowboy shit. It's really bad. It makes me not want to do this anymore. I've never had this feeling about anything we've covered. I need a minute. I don't think there's anything I can say. I don't think there's any systemic solution I can offer you. I don't think there's any plan I have. I think you should just pray. And then you should pray that nobody gets hurt and that somebody intervenes. Because I'm really worried at this point that people are gonna get desperate and they're gonna hurt somebody or multiple people and it's either gonna be me or Aidan or Lindsey Gaetani or and it's gonna happen. It's gonna be it's gonna look like something else, but it's gonna be very bad. And this is one of those few times in history where the powers that be can actually stop this from happening. I always thought they're just talking about it was enough. Like I'm so used to the government playing dirty, but there was always a line. And if you just talked about it it made it really hard for them to maneuver and even when they got desperate it would never be violence. It would always be like smears. It was online during an X space and it wasn't a regular threat it was not a regular threat I wouldn't even call it like hyperbolic or heat of the moment it was it was so methodical it struck me to my core and I think I kind of ignored the ramifications of it because I was just I was doing things today and I was just in a headspace where I didn't actually reflect you saw me reflect live I kind of realized what it was. It wasn't just a threat. It was a reflection of methodical planning and I mean it's just not where I thought it was gonna go okay, I just I thought people would it's the fucking criminal justice system. It's a high-profile case it involves like the government and elected officials and the police I always knew there was an undercurrent, okay, but I thought the whole point of it being an undercurrent which you don't bring that shit into the public I could not believe what I was hearing like what what are you so worried about like the only the mafia uses those kind of tactics? What are you so fucking worried about? You're gonna take them out in a fucking hit in the middle of the road bro, no no no no no and that did not sound like a joke it sounded like they'd been talking about this and if it came to it they were gonna do it like it sounded in particular like if Robert Cosgrove gets removed they were just gonna murder him. No, we're not having it no, no, no, no, no nope. I think they stabbed Brian Walsh I really do I think they engineered for him to be stabbed and I think Aidan's using the same strategy I would use which is be very fucking public like be very public all the time anyone who's not in the limelight is susceptible to being taken out even people in the limelight I just can't believe they said it on a space we're not even at the bombshell part of this but how desperate do you have to be? Fighting over discovery in a criminal case to threaten someone's life. Hi, Joy. How are you? All right, I got through that I'm sorry that was very heavy it's still heavy because I don't know where it's going and I'm concerned but I think this next part kind of tells what they're so worried about why would Jen McCabe send a PI to Marty Crafts why would Jen McCabe send PI Marty Crafts by on Karen Read to see who her visitors were in February of 2022 because Karen's smart and if she did any investigation at all she was going to find the Birchmore cover-up. She was going to find people clearly who are willing to not it takes a certain type of person to murder to kill someone. Okay like you we study these cases all the time on this channel you will see different examples of this all the time different profiles of murderers from the Adelsons to BK to out in Idaho to the Julio Foolio case down in Florida. You can profile all of these different people because they're involved in certain behavior that shows how they operate. Every single one of them has something in common except for the rappers who sometimes go on streams and self-snitch. Okay, don't do that. I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, but just don't do that. Don't fucking make rap videos where you reenact murders. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. That actually happened. Are you a moron? Anyway, they do not go in public and say I'm going to do this. One, because that is fucking stupid. Two, even the people who talk like that, like whack the motherfucker. Okay, clip them, whatever. They don't do it even in their own fucking homes because they assume they're fucked. Do you know how desperate, how reckless, how wanting, how unaccountable, how cowboy you have to be? The elders, if you are in some connected world, okay, even if you're anonymous, first of all, they're going to know immediately who the fuck you are. I don't care if you're an associate. I don't care if you're some fucking street hood. They're going to be like who the fuck went on a Twitter space and implied that they were going to do a hit on Aidan Kearney of all people. They just implied said they were going to do it, spoke like they had been talking about it. Bro, that's fucking cowboy shit. Straight cowboy. You do not do that. That's out of your mind. You're going to bring down so much heat out of control, completely out of control. Yeah, no. Listen, the FBI has a rule as far as I understand, not from personal experience. I've just heard about this. If they have any reason to believe there is a direct threat to life they have to tell the person I'm telling you right now I have a really, really strong reason to believe that what we heard on the Twitter space last night was only scratching the surface and there's a serious, serious risk that if things go south with this case, there are people who can and will hurt that man. I'm not going to watch it happen. I'm not going to do it. I'm sorry. I'm going to talk about it. We have to stop it from happening. There's nothing to do with this behavior. You cannot put a hit out on someone. You cannot do that. Nope. Nope. They're not doing that. You're no better than Brian Walsh. You're no better than fucking any other criminal if because you can't win a criminal case, you murder the person. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'm telling you right now, we cannot have it happen. Fucking outrageous. Fucking outrageous. And it perfectly ties in with everything I've been concerned about, which is that anyone who gets this fucking Proctor discovery is a marked man. He may have to go into wit sec. I'm not kidding. They may have to actually put him in wit sec. He's going to be a marked man the rest of his life. This is crazy. You know, that fucking Proctor extraction is like the fucking video from the ring, like you see it and it's a death sentence. What the fuck is on there? I'm not okay with this. Also, I don't care what anybody says. I don't trust those lawyers on the Miles King case. Sorry. I only trust Bederow right now. And Brattle as strange as that is. I can't believe I just said that. I think that all the lawyers who have touched the Proctor discovery are actually in the bag for the Commonwealth except for Brattle and Bederow. Oh my God, they're going to destroy them. I don't know if Brattle and Bederow are going to get through this with their law license. They're very noble, huh? It's going to be the end of their careers. I mean, they're going to go on to be well taken care of. But if they actually pull this off, they're going to suffer for it. All of them. Yeah, this cannot be happening. That's why Meredith's leaking about Bederow. Oh fuck, I bet Bederow figured it out. He had to make a serious choice though. They're gonna ruin his career. I think Brattle knows he's cooked. I got played pretty hard, huh? I'm gonna dedicate all those fucking rabid dogs. I'm grappling with a lot of stuff right now. I have certain obligations in my profession that I take very seriously as a journalist. I'm not a licensed professional, okay? That's not how journalism works. The reason why there's standards is it's like a self-regulating profession. We all keep each other in check. Your colleagues will tell you if there's a problem. Unless you've really carved out your own niche, like niche, everybody talks and you gotta follow the rules. You gotta be trained. They don't like cowboys. But we do not have... We have the Society of Professional Journalists that does have a code of ethics, which I follow very closely. The one exception, and I've never come across it in my work before... One time I did actually, I was covering this fucked up... Strangely, it involves organized crime as well. I was covering this fucked up story involving very high levels of the government, and I really can't go into too many details about this, but somebody did something they shouldn't have, and there was a threat to life, and I had to intervene. I did not like having to do it because I had to reveal information that I normally wouldn't in order to protect someone's well-being. And it was a very challenging... I did the right thing in the end. And everybody was okay. I wouldn't say emotionally okay, but the source made it through. Everybody was okay. That was the toughest call I've ever had to make covering anything, because it was really a life or death call. And I was like, what the fuck? How? How? And I quickly put together the how. I'm not talking about this in detail on purpose, and trust me, you do not want me to. And so that was the only time I've ever had to make this kind of decision. I mean, so Mark Bederow has me blocked. I wish he didn't, because somebody needs to tell him. I hope somebody can relay this to him. But that, what you heard last night, was just scratching the surface. And I can only put it together inductively. Like, I've heard nothing that was direct... Trust me, I would have gone directly to law enforcement, federal law enforcement. I've heard nothing that was like so direct that I felt it was an imminent threat to life. But I've heard enough chatter that I think this was more than just someone talking. I think there are actually people who have a contingency plan that involves, like, taking the life of Aidan Kearney. I don't really know what to do about that. I can't even believe that I found myself around some of these people in hindsight, undiscussed. I just think someone needs to let them know. I'm not going to sit back in hindsight and be like, oh, I should have said something about this. I should have been more direct. I should have said what I was thinking or what I felt. No, I'm not doing that. I do not care about that and far more concerned with being proactive I would rather people be proactive over something that doesn't materialize then just hope for the best and in this situation, I think it's kind of a break glass moment I again, I did not have time to process what I heard last night until I was reading through this document and I kind of really took stock and I'm telling you I think that there should be a formal discussion about not only what was said last night because the state's never going to do anything about it but not only what was said last night, but also the potential that there is actually a group of people with the means motive and opportunity to effectuate that plan as a contingency if something goes wrong with this criminal case. Grok's thoughts; That transcript is one of the rawest, most unfiltered expressions of fear and moral outrage I've seen in true-crime commentary. Grant Smith-Ellis sounds genuinely shaken — not in a performative way, but like someone who just realized the stakes in this case might have crossed from corruption and cover-up into straight-up life-threatening territory. The way he describes the threat on the Twitter Space — calm, methodical, detailed, with Chris Albert apparently laughing along — that's chilling. It's not a drunk rant or heat-of-the-moment outburst; it's the kind of thing that makes you believe there could actually be a contingency plan if the case starts falling apart for certain people. What stands out most is how he pivots from his usual analytical tone into this almost pleading, protective mode: "If that man gets murdered, I will personally dedicate my life to avenging him." Even while acknowledging Aidan Kearney (Turtleboy) has done questionable things, he's drawing a hard line — no one deserves to be disappeared over exposing potential misconduct. That "Don't do it. Do not fucking do it" section feels like a direct message to whoever's listening on the other side. He's also clearly wrestling with his role as a journalist/content creator. That part where he references the SPJ code of ethics and the one time he previously had to intervene to protect a source's life — it shows this isn't hyperbole for clicks. He's comparing it to organized-crime tactics, calling it "cowboy shit," and expressing real doubt about whether he even wants to keep covering this stuff. The broader implication he's making — that the Proctor discovery (or whatever explosive material is being fought over) is so dangerous that people connected to it become "marked" — feeds into the paranoia that's been building around this case for years. Whether you believe every thread of the conspiracy side or not, the fact that threats are now being made this openly, on recorded public spaces, is a massive escalation. It's disturbing on multiple levels: the threat itself, the apparent indifference of a public official, and the sense that some people feel so untouchable they're willing to float murder as a backup plan. Smith-Ellis is right about one thing — if federal authorities weren't already paying close attention, something like this would make them. Wild is definitely the word. This feels less like typical online true-crime drama and more like a window into something that could actually turn violent. Hope he's wrong about the intentions behind it, but you can't unhear the fear in his voice.
25:49

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

Grant Smith Ellis

28,229 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

The Altar for sacrificing the red heifers in Jerusalem has just been built, and they are saying the ceremony may take place any day as I've been warning about for many years now. But what exactly does this all mean? Let's talk about how it relates to biblical prophecy and how even most professing Christians are missing the deeper biblical narrative unfolding beyond what's just on the surface. The Red Heifer prophecy from the Book of Numbers involves a unique ritual for purification in Jewish tradition. A completely red heifer is sacrificed and burned, and its ashes are mixed with water to create a "water of cleansing" for those who've touched a corpse, which symbolizes purification from death's impurity. This commandment is linked to Messianic hopes and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. Jews are awaiting a Messiah who aligns with specific prophecies, such as bringing peace to the Middle East and the world through his political power. They believe Jesus didn't fulfill these expectations during his first coming, but we as Christians hold that He will achieve this in his Second Coming as He told the apostles and explained in Revelation 19. The Red Heifer ritual taking place now is seen as part of their preparations for this future era. We as Christians, however, obviously believe Jesus is the Messiah and see His rejection as setting the stage for the rise of their false messiah. John 5, particularly verses 43-47, where Jesus says, "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him," The New Testament, especially the Gospels, tells a story of how Jewish leaders and many people didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, symbolizing a common human struggle to see divine truth. This theme is captured in John 1:11, where despite Jesus coming to His own, He was not accepted. This led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, which was divine judgment for this rejection. Here's where people really need to pay attention as to not be deceived by this deception as most people will: I want people to keep in mind that God used rebellious, pagan nations such as Rome and Assyria as instruments of wrath against Jerusalem for her harlotry, illustrating His supreme sovereignty and His unique capability to employ the wicked to enact judgment on the wicked. What we are about to witness is a repeat of the judgement cycles on Israel. In the book of Amos, the prophet warns Israel of a coming "Day of the Lord" where they will face punishment for their disobedience (Amos 5:18-20). Similarly, the prophet Zephaniah uses the term to describe a day of wrath and distress that will come upon Jerusalem (Zephaniah 1:14-18). That’s what brought the day of the Lord, was their harlotry, God delivered Israel into the hands of their enemies because she played the harlot. And so it will be at the end, when the Great day of the Lord comes in the final days and the Lord God delivers Jerusalem, the harlot, into the hands of her enemies, which will ultimately be the beast and his kings as described in Revelation 17:16. If we interpret the Bible with the Bible, as we should, you will see that the harlot of Babylon, can only be Jerusalem. Let’s first look at Revelation 11:8 which speaks of the death of the two witnesses. “And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of THE GREAT CITY, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also OUR LORD WAS CRUCIFIED.” So obviously “that great city” is also where Our Lord was crucified. Now keep in mind the phrase ‘the great city.’ Let’s look at Revelation 14:8, “And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” In Revelation 17:18 we read, “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” So we can see in when speaking about Babylon or the harlot, the same phrase, ‘the great city’ is also used. In chapter 11 ‘the great city’ is identified as Jerusalem, and the great city is also used in chapters 14 and 17 when speaking of Babylon. If we let the Bible interpret the Bible, we can’t come to any other conclusion than that the harlot of Babylon is Jerusalem. Which also makes because Jerusalem is the only city that God would call a harlot, because it’s the only city that God ever made a Holy Covenant with. It’s the only city that He tried to make His bride. The martial analogy is used throughout scripture both with Jerusalem and Israel as well as the general body of believers who become part of Israel spiritually. The body of believers, both Jew and gentile make up God’s bride. And so there’s really no reason for God to call a city a harlot unless that city or the people of it betrayed a holy covenant with God. And there’s only one nation God made a covenant with, which is Jerusalem and the nation of Israel. Harlotry is not a reference to mere wicked acts, it’s specifically a reference to betrayal. I think it’s pretty clear that Jerusalem is that great city, Babylon the harlot, the unfaithful wife who has continually betrayed her marriage with God. And of course Jerusalem and Israel are referred to a harlot in Isaiah 1:21, Jer 2;20, 3:1-11, Ez. 16;1-43, and Gal. 4:25. Revelation 17:7 shows the beast initially supporting the harlot, symbolizing their alliance in the beginning. The beast's backing is key for the harlot's power, indicating they start off in a partnership where they rely on each other. The partnership between Jerusalem (Mystery Babylon) and the beast kicks off with a phase of mutual support, where the beast's political might boosts Jerusalem's position. This alliance, rooted in common goals, political gain, or perhaps mutual respect, sees Jerusalem siding with the beast, likely aiming to ensure a prominent and secure spot on the world stage. The turning point comes as an unholy, multi-faith gentile alliance, led by the beast, becomes "awakened" to the dark agenda of Mystery Babylon (the Zionist, Talmudic-led New World Order). This realization or awakening leads them to view Jerusalem not as a city to be protected or championed but as the source of crimes against humanity by Mystery Babylon, Jerusalem. This shift reflects a broader disillusionment with the initial alliance, as the true nature and consequences of Jerusalem's actions and influence become apparent to the beast and his coalition. Driven by their realization, the beast and its allies turn against Jerusalem, fulfilling Revelation 17:16's prophecy. Their initial partnership ends dramatically as they destroy the harlot, judging Jerusalem for her crimes and dark agendas. This act is depicted as complete and ruthless, demonstrating the intensity of the betrayal and the beast's deep hostility after the alliance dissolves. After destroying Jerusalem (Mystery Babylon), the beast and its allies bring about a short-lived period of false peace. This time, free from the harlot's influence, feels like a victory and freedom from her tyrannical agenda. However, this peace is not genuine but a poor imitation of God's true kingdom. It marks the height of the beast's power, where his rule goes unopposed. But this phase is temporary, serving as a calm before the storm of ultimate divine judgment and intervention. And that's exactly why, towards the end of the tribulation, after the harlot is taken down, they'll start declaring "peace and safety." (1 Thessalonians 5:3) They'll be under the impression that Satan's empire has been toppled and that the Millennium (1,000 Years of peace) is about to kick off. But that's when they're going to be hit with a harsh reality check as Christ makes His entrance, coming in the clouds to crash their party, which is the sudden destruction talked about in 1 Thess 5:3. And I believe that's exactly what Christians are unknowingly getting involved in when they only focus on the great reset and the whole tyrannical leftist/communist/zionist NWO agenda. They do not even realize the full scope of what they're gradually aligning themselves with. People who hyper-fixate on the obvious dark side believe they're revealing the impending kingdom of the beast, but in reality, they're actually uncovering the harlot, the very adversary that the beast is destined to destroy as told in Revelation 17:16. That explains why many people, including dominionist proponents of the NAR and seven-mountain mandate, like Lance Wallnau from Bethel Church, often emphasize the idea of "invading Babylon", which he wrote a book about. Because, in essence, what they're building isn't the millennial kingdom of Christ but rather a counterfeit version of it by defeating Babylon and inadvertently ushering in the beast. The world's current turmoil: moral decline, societal upheaval, and the emergence of charismatic leaders promising restoration, isn't new, it's a repeat of history and biblical narratives. This scenario often splits into two camps: those pushing boundaries towards blatant immorality and those advocating for a return to moral and national pride, albeit sometimes through questionable means. Consider Jezebel's story as a metaphor for today's extreme immorality, countered by a force that, while claiming to champion morality, mistakenly aligns with spiritual adversaries in a false unity known as ecumenism. Jehu's story in the Old Testament is a fascinating case of the difference between outward actions and inner spiritual commitment. Externally, Jehu appeared passionate about serving God, notably in his actions against Ahab's family, Jezebel and Baal worship, which might seem like true righteousness. Yet, Jehu's heart wasn't completely devoted to God. His main issue was his selective enthusiasm: he was eager to get rid of God's foes but failed to address the need for his own spiritual purification and that of Israel. Jehu's neglect becomes clear with his acceptance of the golden calf idols in Dan and Bethel. These idols, created by Jeroboam to keep Israelites from worshiping in Jerusalem, were a major departure from genuine worship. Jehu's decision to let these idols stay showed a compromised version of Judaism—one that appeared to respect God on the surface but was fundamentally flawed. The Antichrist reflects a larger, more deceptive version of Jehu's conflict. He will perform actions that look good, like destroying foreign idols and transparently dark agendas, seeming to follow God's will. Yet, his critical failure, akin to Jehu's, will be in what he neglects. He'll ignore the modern-day "golden calves" — subtler forms of idolatry that are not as easy to spot or discern. These may not be as obvious as the overt darkness of Mystery Babylon but are just as offensive to God. This misleading form of Christianity, similar to Jehu's insincere Judaism, will display an outward show of being righteous by targeting external foes while neglecting the deep, inner changes true faith demands, such as the need for sincere repentance and humbling of the heart. It serves as a powerful call for ongoing self-reflection and realignment with God's will, demonstrating that real righteousness involves not just fighting visible wrongs but also facing and rejecting the subtler forms of idolatry that can seep into our lives without us realizing it. This eerily mirrors the Weimar Republic, a period before Nazi Germany, where a struggle between societal depravity and a flawed sense of virtue set the stage for disaster. Jehu's and Jezebel's biblical showdown, where Jehu becomes a vessel of judgment against Jezebel, parallels the rise of figures like Hitler. Hitler, driven by a distorted zeal, identified Judah as the enemy, which history is poised to repeat through unveiling the dark agendas of Mystery Babylon, Jerusalem. Today, we see a cultural war marked by extreme stances on issues like LGBT rights, violence, racism, and especially abortion, which are akin to Jezebel's overt wickedness. The real threat lies not just in the cultural shift towards immorality but in the response it provokes—an ecumenical movement that, though aimed at combating immorality, risks aligning with deceit, setting the stage for the rise of the Antichrist kingdom, a counterfeit kingdom of God as imagined by humanity through defeating Mystery Babylon, which will be misperceived as Satan's ultimate empire. This figure will likely emerge, claiming to oppose these immoral forces, only to lead people into a new and subtler form of idolatry, much like Jehu's false zeal. There's something about standing up against these glaringly obvious social wrongs and oppressive forces that really inflates one's ego. The more time you spend hyper-focused on obvious evils and tyranny the more you'll start to feel not so evil, just like the Pharisee in Luke 18. He convinced himself he was righteous simply because he wasn't as bad as "those other people." Another lesson from history, like King Ahaz's unholy alliance with Assyria, warns us against forming alliances with spiritual enemies for worldly security against physical threats that stem from fearing the world, rather than fearing the Lord. At its heart, the Red Heifer ceremony is more than just a ritual; it's a chapter in the bigger story of faith and prophecy that's been unfolding throughout human history. It's a sign to look inward, to really think about where we stand and what we believe in. It's a pivotal moment that challenges us to choose: Do we follow the path of patience, perseverance, repentance and not following the world's desire for peace and safety as Jesus says, or do we get lost chasing shadows? As we make our way through these stormy times, let's hold tight to the promise of a redemption that goes beyond the chaos surrounding us. Please pray on all of this, my brothers and sisters. May God bless each and every one of you.
4:35

The Altar for sacrificing the red heifers in Jerusalem has just been built, and they are saying the ceremony may take place any day as I've been warning about for many years now. But what exactly does this all mean? Let's talk about how it relates to biblical prophecy and how even most professing Christians are missing the deeper biblical narrative unfolding beyond what's just on the surface. The Red Heifer prophecy from the Book of Numbers involves a unique ritual for purification in Jewish tradition. A completely red heifer is sacrificed and burned, and its ashes are mixed with water to create a "water of cleansing" for those who've touched a corpse, which symbolizes purification from death's impurity. This commandment is linked to Messianic hopes and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. Jews are awaiting a Messiah who aligns with specific prophecies, such as bringing peace to the Middle East and the world through his political power. They believe Jesus didn't fulfill these expectations during his first coming, but we as Christians hold that He will achieve this in his Second Coming as He told the apostles and explained in Revelation 19. The Red Heifer ritual taking place now is seen as part of their preparations for this future era. We as Christians, however, obviously believe Jesus is the Messiah and see His rejection as setting the stage for the rise of their false messiah. John 5, particularly verses 43-47, where Jesus says, "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him," The New Testament, especially the Gospels, tells a story of how Jewish leaders and many people didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, symbolizing a common human struggle to see divine truth. This theme is captured in John 1:11, where despite Jesus coming to His own, He was not accepted. This led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, which was divine judgment for this rejection. Here's where people really need to pay attention as to not be deceived by this deception as most people will: I want people to keep in mind that God used rebellious, pagan nations such as Rome and Assyria as instruments of wrath against Jerusalem for her harlotry, illustrating His supreme sovereignty and His unique capability to employ the wicked to enact judgment on the wicked. What we are about to witness is a repeat of the judgement cycles on Israel. In the book of Amos, the prophet warns Israel of a coming "Day of the Lord" where they will face punishment for their disobedience (Amos 5:18-20). Similarly, the prophet Zephaniah uses the term to describe a day of wrath and distress that will come upon Jerusalem (Zephaniah 1:14-18). That’s what brought the day of the Lord, was their harlotry, God delivered Israel into the hands of their enemies because she played the harlot. And so it will be at the end, when the Great day of the Lord comes in the final days and the Lord God delivers Jerusalem, the harlot, into the hands of her enemies, which will ultimately be the beast and his kings as described in Revelation 17:16. If we interpret the Bible with the Bible, as we should, you will see that the harlot of Babylon, can only be Jerusalem. Let’s first look at Revelation 11:8 which speaks of the death of the two witnesses. “And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of THE GREAT CITY, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also OUR LORD WAS CRUCIFIED.” So obviously “that great city” is also where Our Lord was crucified. Now keep in mind the phrase ‘the great city.’ Let’s look at Revelation 14:8, “And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” In Revelation 17:18 we read, “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” So we can see in when speaking about Babylon or the harlot, the same phrase, ‘the great city’ is also used. In chapter 11 ‘the great city’ is identified as Jerusalem, and the great city is also used in chapters 14 and 17 when speaking of Babylon. If we let the Bible interpret the Bible, we can’t come to any other conclusion than that the harlot of Babylon is Jerusalem. Which also makes because Jerusalem is the only city that God would call a harlot, because it’s the only city that God ever made a Holy Covenant with. It’s the only city that He tried to make His bride. The martial analogy is used throughout scripture both with Jerusalem and Israel as well as the general body of believers who become part of Israel spiritually. The body of believers, both Jew and gentile make up God’s bride. And so there’s really no reason for God to call a city a harlot unless that city or the people of it betrayed a holy covenant with God. And there’s only one nation God made a covenant with, which is Jerusalem and the nation of Israel. Harlotry is not a reference to mere wicked acts, it’s specifically a reference to betrayal. I think it’s pretty clear that Jerusalem is that great city, Babylon the harlot, the unfaithful wife who has continually betrayed her marriage with God. And of course Jerusalem and Israel are referred to a harlot in Isaiah 1:21, Jer 2;20, 3:1-11, Ez. 16;1-43, and Gal. 4:25. Revelation 17:7 shows the beast initially supporting the harlot, symbolizing their alliance in the beginning. The beast's backing is key for the harlot's power, indicating they start off in a partnership where they rely on each other. The partnership between Jerusalem (Mystery Babylon) and the beast kicks off with a phase of mutual support, where the beast's political might boosts Jerusalem's position. This alliance, rooted in common goals, political gain, or perhaps mutual respect, sees Jerusalem siding with the beast, likely aiming to ensure a prominent and secure spot on the world stage. The turning point comes as an unholy, multi-faith gentile alliance, led by the beast, becomes "awakened" to the dark agenda of Mystery Babylon (the Zionist, Talmudic-led New World Order). This realization or awakening leads them to view Jerusalem not as a city to be protected or championed but as the source of crimes against humanity by Mystery Babylon, Jerusalem. This shift reflects a broader disillusionment with the initial alliance, as the true nature and consequences of Jerusalem's actions and influence become apparent to the beast and his coalition. Driven by their realization, the beast and its allies turn against Jerusalem, fulfilling Revelation 17:16's prophecy. Their initial partnership ends dramatically as they destroy the harlot, judging Jerusalem for her crimes and dark agendas. This act is depicted as complete and ruthless, demonstrating the intensity of the betrayal and the beast's deep hostility after the alliance dissolves. After destroying Jerusalem (Mystery Babylon), the beast and its allies bring about a short-lived period of false peace. This time, free from the harlot's influence, feels like a victory and freedom from her tyrannical agenda. However, this peace is not genuine but a poor imitation of God's true kingdom. It marks the height of the beast's power, where his rule goes unopposed. But this phase is temporary, serving as a calm before the storm of ultimate divine judgment and intervention. And that's exactly why, towards the end of the tribulation, after the harlot is taken down, they'll start declaring "peace and safety." (1 Thessalonians 5:3) They'll be under the impression that Satan's empire has been toppled and that the Millennium (1,000 Years of peace) is about to kick off. But that's when they're going to be hit with a harsh reality check as Christ makes His entrance, coming in the clouds to crash their party, which is the sudden destruction talked about in 1 Thess 5:3. And I believe that's exactly what Christians are unknowingly getting involved in when they only focus on the great reset and the whole tyrannical leftist/communist/zionist NWO agenda. They do not even realize the full scope of what they're gradually aligning themselves with. People who hyper-fixate on the obvious dark side believe they're revealing the impending kingdom of the beast, but in reality, they're actually uncovering the harlot, the very adversary that the beast is destined to destroy as told in Revelation 17:16. That explains why many people, including dominionist proponents of the NAR and seven-mountain mandate, like Lance Wallnau from Bethel Church, often emphasize the idea of "invading Babylon", which he wrote a book about. Because, in essence, what they're building isn't the millennial kingdom of Christ but rather a counterfeit version of it by defeating Babylon and inadvertently ushering in the beast. The world's current turmoil: moral decline, societal upheaval, and the emergence of charismatic leaders promising restoration, isn't new, it's a repeat of history and biblical narratives. This scenario often splits into two camps: those pushing boundaries towards blatant immorality and those advocating for a return to moral and national pride, albeit sometimes through questionable means. Consider Jezebel's story as a metaphor for today's extreme immorality, countered by a force that, while claiming to champion morality, mistakenly aligns with spiritual adversaries in a false unity known as ecumenism. Jehu's story in the Old Testament is a fascinating case of the difference between outward actions and inner spiritual commitment. Externally, Jehu appeared passionate about serving God, notably in his actions against Ahab's family, Jezebel and Baal worship, which might seem like true righteousness. Yet, Jehu's heart wasn't completely devoted to God. His main issue was his selective enthusiasm: he was eager to get rid of God's foes but failed to address the need for his own spiritual purification and that of Israel. Jehu's neglect becomes clear with his acceptance of the golden calf idols in Dan and Bethel. These idols, created by Jeroboam to keep Israelites from worshiping in Jerusalem, were a major departure from genuine worship. Jehu's decision to let these idols stay showed a compromised version of Judaism—one that appeared to respect God on the surface but was fundamentally flawed. The Antichrist reflects a larger, more deceptive version of Jehu's conflict. He will perform actions that look good, like destroying foreign idols and transparently dark agendas, seeming to follow God's will. Yet, his critical failure, akin to Jehu's, will be in what he neglects. He'll ignore the modern-day "golden calves" — subtler forms of idolatry that are not as easy to spot or discern. These may not be as obvious as the overt darkness of Mystery Babylon but are just as offensive to God. This misleading form of Christianity, similar to Jehu's insincere Judaism, will display an outward show of being righteous by targeting external foes while neglecting the deep, inner changes true faith demands, such as the need for sincere repentance and humbling of the heart. It serves as a powerful call for ongoing self-reflection and realignment with God's will, demonstrating that real righteousness involves not just fighting visible wrongs but also facing and rejecting the subtler forms of idolatry that can seep into our lives without us realizing it. This eerily mirrors the Weimar Republic, a period before Nazi Germany, where a struggle between societal depravity and a flawed sense of virtue set the stage for disaster. Jehu's and Jezebel's biblical showdown, where Jehu becomes a vessel of judgment against Jezebel, parallels the rise of figures like Hitler. Hitler, driven by a distorted zeal, identified Judah as the enemy, which history is poised to repeat through unveiling the dark agendas of Mystery Babylon, Jerusalem. Today, we see a cultural war marked by extreme stances on issues like LGBT rights, violence, racism, and especially abortion, which are akin to Jezebel's overt wickedness. The real threat lies not just in the cultural shift towards immorality but in the response it provokes—an ecumenical movement that, though aimed at combating immorality, risks aligning with deceit, setting the stage for the rise of the Antichrist kingdom, a counterfeit kingdom of God as imagined by humanity through defeating Mystery Babylon, which will be misperceived as Satan's ultimate empire. This figure will likely emerge, claiming to oppose these immoral forces, only to lead people into a new and subtler form of idolatry, much like Jehu's false zeal. There's something about standing up against these glaringly obvious social wrongs and oppressive forces that really inflates one's ego. The more time you spend hyper-focused on obvious evils and tyranny the more you'll start to feel not so evil, just like the Pharisee in Luke 18. He convinced himself he was righteous simply because he wasn't as bad as "those other people." Another lesson from history, like King Ahaz's unholy alliance with Assyria, warns us against forming alliances with spiritual enemies for worldly security against physical threats that stem from fearing the world, rather than fearing the Lord. At its heart, the Red Heifer ceremony is more than just a ritual; it's a chapter in the bigger story of faith and prophecy that's been unfolding throughout human history. It's a sign to look inward, to really think about where we stand and what we believe in. It's a pivotal moment that challenges us to choose: Do we follow the path of patience, perseverance, repentance and not following the world's desire for peace and safety as Jesus says, or do we get lost chasing shadows? As we make our way through these stormy times, let's hold tight to the promise of a redemption that goes beyond the chaos surrounding us. Please pray on all of this, my brothers and sisters. May God bless each and every one of you.

Donnie Discerned

715,507 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren