Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

This gilf squirts every single time we fuh #ebonymilf #ebonygilf #ebonymature #ebonysquirt #NSFW #missionary #bbc #longstroke #squirt #milf #mature #ebonygranny

m3anm3at's profile picture

Mean_Meat_ Maghee

1,614 subscribers

57,962 просмотров • 2 лет назад •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#ebonymilf#ebonygilf#ebonymature#ebonysquirt#NSFW#missionary#bbc#longstroke#squirt#milf#mature#ebonygranny
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

In a new 4:45 interview clip, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny just said out loud what she’s been warning about for 25 years — and it’s absolutely chilling. She now refuses to call the childhood schedule a “vaccination program” any longer. Her exact words: “It’s the Pediatric Poisoning Program. For adults it’s the Adult Assault Program.” Here’s the timeline she lays out that will make your blood run cold: 1986 – Congress passes the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act giving pharmaceutical companies total liability protection. At the time there were ONLY three vaccines routinely given to American children: DTP, MMR, and polio. Lawmakers thought they were protecting a handful of shots. They had zero foresight. Then the floodgates opened. 1991 → Hep B given on the day of birth + Hib Then chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, rotavirus, Hepatitis A, four different meningitis vaccines… Today U.S. infants can get up to 28 injections by their first birthday. Dr. Tenpenny showed a chart that tracks autism rates against new vaccine introductions. Every single time a new shot was added, the autism line shoots almost vertically upward. 2000 → 1 in 150 children 2025 → 1 in 30 nationally (some states 1 in 22) And we’re still told “we don’t know what causes it — probably genetics.” She says by age 2 — before kidneys are mature enough to excrete aluminum — American children following the CDC schedule will have received roughly 4,700 micrograms of injected aluminum that can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in brain, bones, liver, and kidneys. Recent large studies she references: - Cleveland Clinic 2024–2025 (millions of patients): people who got the flu shot were more likely to catch influenza. - Brand-new pneumonia vaccine study: recipients were more likely to get pneumonia and die. After a quarter century of being dismissed, Dr. Tenpenny says the cracks in the wall are finally spreading. Whether you’ve followed this debate for years or this is the first time you’re hearing these claims, this 4:45 clip is one of the most direct, unfiltered explanations ever put on record by a physician. Watch it. Save it. Research every claim yourself. Parents and grandparents all over the world — this one is worth your time. Let’s get this in front of every concerned parent on the planet. 💯
4:45

In a new 4:45 interview clip, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny just said out loud what she’s been warning about for 25 years — and it’s absolutely chilling. She now refuses to call the childhood schedule a “vaccination program” any longer. Her exact words: “It’s the Pediatric Poisoning Program. For adults it’s the Adult Assault Program.” Here’s the timeline she lays out that will make your blood run cold: 1986 – Congress passes the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act giving pharmaceutical companies total liability protection. At the time there were ONLY three vaccines routinely given to American children: DTP, MMR, and polio. Lawmakers thought they were protecting a handful of shots. They had zero foresight. Then the floodgates opened. 1991 → Hep B given on the day of birth + Hib Then chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, rotavirus, Hepatitis A, four different meningitis vaccines… Today U.S. infants can get up to 28 injections by their first birthday. Dr. Tenpenny showed a chart that tracks autism rates against new vaccine introductions. Every single time a new shot was added, the autism line shoots almost vertically upward. 2000 → 1 in 150 children 2025 → 1 in 30 nationally (some states 1 in 22) And we’re still told “we don’t know what causes it — probably genetics.” She says by age 2 — before kidneys are mature enough to excrete aluminum — American children following the CDC schedule will have received roughly 4,700 micrograms of injected aluminum that can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in brain, bones, liver, and kidneys. Recent large studies she references: - Cleveland Clinic 2024–2025 (millions of patients): people who got the flu shot were more likely to catch influenza. - Brand-new pneumonia vaccine study: recipients were more likely to get pneumonia and die. After a quarter century of being dismissed, Dr. Tenpenny says the cracks in the wall are finally spreading. Whether you’ve followed this debate for years or this is the first time you’re hearing these claims, this 4:45 clip is one of the most direct, unfiltered explanations ever put on record by a physician. Watch it. Save it. Research every claim yourself. Parents and grandparents all over the world — this one is worth your time. Let’s get this in front of every concerned parent on the planet. 💯

Dr Dave Cartland BMedSc MBChB Ex-MRCGP

52,725 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

My answer: Why do these robots have human parts that portray typical male and female forms? This is going to be a very hard for me to answer, but I think it’s important to understand. The most powerful urge in humanity is the mating ritual. Males and females do extraordinary, impossible tasks to complete the circle of furthering life. The neuropeptide release, endorphins, pheromones, with every sense organ in the body, form profound Monumental memories. Designed for humans to overcome every obstacle to have the best chance to further our species. We have separated logic from emotions and emotions from logic, as if they are separate things. They are in fact, one thing—different sides of the same coin of humanity. These emotions are in every single one of us as the first principals of human existence and is based on one single thing: That thing is encapsulated in the word: LOVE. We seek love and we seek to give love as the first principle of humanity, everything that ever was and ever will be arises from the fertile ground of: LOVE. If you can’t see it keep digging and you will see the root. Thus the emotional component of pair bonding is a profoundly strong opiate if—mechanically—hijacked and sold back to you as a monthly subscription, it is a weapon. It allows the 75 year wedge that has taken place between connections of humanity to be fully severed, especially for life pair bonding. It spans from financial, political, philosophical, and deep hurt foundations. But have no illusions it exists. Now enter humanoid robots that can fulfill any fantasy at any time for any reason that one could possibly think of. It will become the most addictive pervasive and destructive force we have ever witnessed. There is already damaged connection of intimacy for many people, this will be permanently severed. This will break a chain of millions of years that formed every element of ambition for us to move forward. It would be highly useful for an enemy to flood markets, both legally, and what one would certainly be one of the most pervasive underground markets with these types of robots. This is to occupy young men who otherwise would be building, to change this world, into a prison of hours upon hours, days upon days, years upon years of fantasy that will fuel addictions like we have—never—seen before. Locked in rooms, uncoupled and disconnected from the very core of the first principal reason we are here. And it will all come at an initial low cost that was slowly increased the monthly subscription plan, for life, of the investment you made into this robot “connection”. They will also have the ability, when they find ways to get more cash for a new kink, to download new feature sets on a fairly regular basis. I’m not a dystopian—I am anti-dystopian but it’s vital for us to realize what the future looks like for some of us. It is not easy writing this and I assure you it’s not easy to understand what I see in the future. It all sounds like great fun games just like everything initially and until you realize the deep philosophical reasons why it’s not. And of course there are those that will think I am crazy and the most prude way. Laws? Banning robots are not going to fix the problem. In fact, the underground economy that will arise will be robust and quite unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. And I promise you, you will never remove the robot from somebody’s life once they become deeply addicted to it. Never. I can’t leave you without my prayer: We must as a species mature. We need to train and teach from first grade, to the day you leave this place, that the most important thing on this planet is human connection and love. Once this becomes an accepted axiom and the majority align with a deep desire to form these pair bonds in an honest and candid manner we can mitigate the effects of what this future may bring about. I have thought about this for a very long time: We need to true connection and we need true love
3:10

My answer: Why do these robots have human parts that portray typical male and female forms? This is going to be a very hard for me to answer, but I think it’s important to understand. The most powerful urge in humanity is the mating ritual. Males and females do extraordinary, impossible tasks to complete the circle of furthering life. The neuropeptide release, endorphins, pheromones, with every sense organ in the body, form profound Monumental memories. Designed for humans to overcome every obstacle to have the best chance to further our species. We have separated logic from emotions and emotions from logic, as if they are separate things. They are in fact, one thing—different sides of the same coin of humanity. These emotions are in every single one of us as the first principals of human existence and is based on one single thing: That thing is encapsulated in the word: LOVE. We seek love and we seek to give love as the first principle of humanity, everything that ever was and ever will be arises from the fertile ground of: LOVE. If you can’t see it keep digging and you will see the root. Thus the emotional component of pair bonding is a profoundly strong opiate if—mechanically—hijacked and sold back to you as a monthly subscription, it is a weapon. It allows the 75 year wedge that has taken place between connections of humanity to be fully severed, especially for life pair bonding. It spans from financial, political, philosophical, and deep hurt foundations. But have no illusions it exists. Now enter humanoid robots that can fulfill any fantasy at any time for any reason that one could possibly think of. It will become the most addictive pervasive and destructive force we have ever witnessed. There is already damaged connection of intimacy for many people, this will be permanently severed. This will break a chain of millions of years that formed every element of ambition for us to move forward. It would be highly useful for an enemy to flood markets, both legally, and what one would certainly be one of the most pervasive underground markets with these types of robots. This is to occupy young men who otherwise would be building, to change this world, into a prison of hours upon hours, days upon days, years upon years of fantasy that will fuel addictions like we have—never—seen before. Locked in rooms, uncoupled and disconnected from the very core of the first principal reason we are here. And it will all come at an initial low cost that was slowly increased the monthly subscription plan, for life, of the investment you made into this robot “connection”. They will also have the ability, when they find ways to get more cash for a new kink, to download new feature sets on a fairly regular basis. I’m not a dystopian—I am anti-dystopian but it’s vital for us to realize what the future looks like for some of us. It is not easy writing this and I assure you it’s not easy to understand what I see in the future. It all sounds like great fun games just like everything initially and until you realize the deep philosophical reasons why it’s not. And of course there are those that will think I am crazy and the most prude way. Laws? Banning robots are not going to fix the problem. In fact, the underground economy that will arise will be robust and quite unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. And I promise you, you will never remove the robot from somebody’s life once they become deeply addicted to it. Never. I can’t leave you without my prayer: We must as a species mature. We need to train and teach from first grade, to the day you leave this place, that the most important thing on this planet is human connection and love. Once this becomes an accepted axiom and the majority align with a deep desire to form these pair bonds in an honest and candid manner we can mitigate the effects of what this future may bring about. I have thought about this for a very long time: We need to true connection and we need true love

Brian Roemmele

186,468 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Listen to the journalist saying we cannot find him to scrutinise him, but you had Reform on BBC and Sky News nearly every day up until the May election and you never scrutinised them once. Now Reform are hiding because they know they cannot really get out of the scrutiny waiting for them, and the MSM are acting like it is not their fault because they cannot track them down. This is the same party that was holding a conference nearly every month, so do not tell us you suddenly cannot find them. If you had scrutinised the leader properly about his lame excuses for not holding surgeries on Fridays, maybe you would know where to find him, because most MPs can be found at their surgeries on Fridays. Journalists are taking us for jokes because last I checked Beth Rigby was at every stunt they held and there was no real scrutiny, now very convenient you cannot find them to ask questions. It feels like part of the ploy to let it die down so you can go back to being the Reform channel again. Has anyone noticed how Reform, Zia, Tice and whoever else they could get were on TV every single day and on every Question Time, but now no conference, no real appearances, not a whiff of them, just some lame Jenrick trying his best to keep their momentum going. So this is what to expect from the new PM in waiting, as the mainstream media has been telling us for the last year, when it comes to scrutiny he will be nowhere to be found. This is BS. You heard the public and viewers asking why are they on TV so much with no proper scrutiny and no challenge, yet you carried on.
1:28

Listen to the journalist saying we cannot find him to scrutinise him, but you had Reform on BBC and Sky News nearly every day up until the May election and you never scrutinised them once. Now Reform are hiding because they know they cannot really get out of the scrutiny waiting for them, and the MSM are acting like it is not their fault because they cannot track them down. This is the same party that was holding a conference nearly every month, so do not tell us you suddenly cannot find them. If you had scrutinised the leader properly about his lame excuses for not holding surgeries on Fridays, maybe you would know where to find him, because most MPs can be found at their surgeries on Fridays. Journalists are taking us for jokes because last I checked Beth Rigby was at every stunt they held and there was no real scrutiny, now very convenient you cannot find them to ask questions. It feels like part of the ploy to let it die down so you can go back to being the Reform channel again. Has anyone noticed how Reform, Zia, Tice and whoever else they could get were on TV every single day and on every Question Time, but now no conference, no real appearances, not a whiff of them, just some lame Jenrick trying his best to keep their momentum going. So this is what to expect from the new PM in waiting, as the mainstream media has been telling us for the last year, when it comes to scrutiny he will be nowhere to be found. This is BS. You heard the public and viewers asking why are they on TV so much with no proper scrutiny and no challenge, yet you carried on.

Chris (#Scandal still NO Justice PO GF WR)

80,015 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

In a new 4:45 interview clip, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny just said out loud what she’s been warning about for 25 years — and it’s absolutely chilling. She now refuses to call the childhood schedule a “vaccination program” any longer. Her exact words: “It’s the Pediatric Poisoning Program. For adults it’s the Adult Assault Program.” Here’s the timeline she lays out that will make your blood run cold: 1986 – Congress passes the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act giving pharmaceutical companies total liability protection. At the time there were ONLY three vaccines routinely given to American children: DTP, MMR, and polio. Lawmakers thought they were protecting a handful of shots. They had zero foresight. Then the floodgates opened. 1991 → Hep B given on the day of birth + Hib Then chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, rotavirus, Hepatitis A, four different meningitis vaccines… Today U.S. infants can get up to 28 injections by their first birthday. Dr. Tenpenny showed a chart that tracks autism rates against new vaccine introductions. Every single time a new shot was added, the autism line shoots almost vertically upward. 2000 → 1 in 150 children 2025 → 1 in 30 nationally (some states 1 in 22) And we’re still told “we don’t know what causes it — probably genetics.” She says by age 2 — before kidneys are mature enough to excrete aluminum — American children following the CDC schedule will have received roughly 4,700 micrograms of injected aluminum that can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in brain, bones, liver, and kidneys. Recent large studies she references: - Cleveland Clinic 2024–2025 (millions of patients): people who got the flu shot were more likely to catch influenza. - Brand-new pneumonia vaccine study: recipients were more likely to get pneumonia and die. After a quarter century of being dismissed, Dr. Tenpenny says the cracks in the wall are finally spreading. Whether you’ve followed this debate for years or this is the first time you’re hearing these claims, this 4:45 clip is one of the most direct, unfiltered explanations ever put on record by a physician. Watch it. Save it. Research every claim yourself. Parents and grandparents all over the world — this one is worth your time. Full segment below (sound on). Let’s get this in front of every concerned parent on the planet.
4:45

In a new 4:45 interview clip, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny just said out loud what she’s been warning about for 25 years — and it’s absolutely chilling. She now refuses to call the childhood schedule a “vaccination program” any longer. Her exact words: “It’s the Pediatric Poisoning Program. For adults it’s the Adult Assault Program.” Here’s the timeline she lays out that will make your blood run cold: 1986 – Congress passes the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act giving pharmaceutical companies total liability protection. At the time there were ONLY three vaccines routinely given to American children: DTP, MMR, and polio. Lawmakers thought they were protecting a handful of shots. They had zero foresight. Then the floodgates opened. 1991 → Hep B given on the day of birth + Hib Then chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, rotavirus, Hepatitis A, four different meningitis vaccines… Today U.S. infants can get up to 28 injections by their first birthday. Dr. Tenpenny showed a chart that tracks autism rates against new vaccine introductions. Every single time a new shot was added, the autism line shoots almost vertically upward. 2000 → 1 in 150 children 2025 → 1 in 30 nationally (some states 1 in 22) And we’re still told “we don’t know what causes it — probably genetics.” She says by age 2 — before kidneys are mature enough to excrete aluminum — American children following the CDC schedule will have received roughly 4,700 micrograms of injected aluminum that can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in brain, bones, liver, and kidneys. Recent large studies she references: - Cleveland Clinic 2024–2025 (millions of patients): people who got the flu shot were more likely to catch influenza. - Brand-new pneumonia vaccine study: recipients were more likely to get pneumonia and die. After a quarter century of being dismissed, Dr. Tenpenny says the cracks in the wall are finally spreading. Whether you’ve followed this debate for years or this is the first time you’re hearing these claims, this 4:45 clip is one of the most direct, unfiltered explanations ever put on record by a physician. Watch it. Save it. Research every claim yourself. Parents and grandparents all over the world — this one is worth your time. Full segment below (sound on). Let’s get this in front of every concerned parent on the planet.

Camus

253,286 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

This hot Turkish-German Milf smokes a ciggie during her live while she's outside in her gloriously massive fur-lined puffer jacket. Just look at that ciggie going between her huge pumped-up lips while she's putting the lighter back in her pack of Marlboro Reds. And that smokie stays between her puffers for half a minute as she pulls up her top and puts everything right. Oh boy, this addicted hottie really needs her fix so badly; she pumps at least three drags into her black lungs while dangling that ciggie. And watch her do a lovely nose exhale as her ciggie dangles between her lips. She proceed with six more inhales, getting more relaxed every time. Is there anything hotter than watching that filter being sealed air-tight between that trout pout? These enhanced lips were just made to smoke. I think we all know this kind of girl. She looks so high-maintenance with her gorgeous jacket, lip injections, fake eyebrows and platinum perm. But she's also so hot. And she needs attention. Yeah, she's a single mum; there's no ring on there. Could you resist her? Just imagine the feeling when these lips smoke you after sucking on that ciggie. #smokingblonde #smoking #smokingfetish #sexysmoker #sexysmoking #cigarette #girlsmoke #smokingwoman #smokinggirl #smokingbabe #smokingbeauty #cig #chainsmoker #heavysmoker #girlswhosmokecigarette #chainsmoking #girlswhosmoke #smokingmodel #smokinghot #smoker #smokergirl #cigarette #addicted #smokingaddiction #lightingup #deepinhale #danglingciggie #noseexhale #exhale #furpufferjacket #furpufferfetish #smokinginfur #livesmoking #puffeduplips #lipinjections #troutpout #massivelips #fakeeyebrows #milf #smokingmilf #coolgirl #hotgirl #sexygirl #turkishgermangirl #turkishgermansmoker
2:04

Sensitive content

This hot Turkish-German Milf smokes a ciggie during her live while she's outside in her gloriously massive fur-lined puffer jacket. Just look at that ciggie going between her huge pumped-up lips while she's putting the lighter back in her pack of Marlboro Reds. And that smokie stays between her puffers for half a minute as she pulls up her top and puts everything right. Oh boy, this addicted hottie really needs her fix so badly; she pumps at least three drags into her black lungs while dangling that ciggie. And watch her do a lovely nose exhale as her ciggie dangles between her lips. She proceed with six more inhales, getting more relaxed every time. Is there anything hotter than watching that filter being sealed air-tight between that trout pout? These enhanced lips were just made to smoke. I think we all know this kind of girl. She looks so high-maintenance with her gorgeous jacket, lip injections, fake eyebrows and platinum perm. But she's also so hot. And she needs attention. Yeah, she's a single mum; there's no ring on there. Could you resist her? Just imagine the feeling when these lips smoke you after sucking on that ciggie. #smokingblonde #smoking #smokingfetish #sexysmoker #sexysmoking #cigarette #girlsmoke #smokingwoman #smokinggirl #smokingbabe #smokingbeauty #cig #chainsmoker #heavysmoker #girlswhosmokecigarette #chainsmoking #girlswhosmoke #smokingmodel #smokinghot #smoker #smokergirl #cigarette #addicted #smokingaddiction #lightingup #deepinhale #danglingciggie #noseexhale #exhale #furpufferjacket #furpufferfetish #smokinginfur #livesmoking #puffeduplips #lipinjections #troutpout #massivelips #fakeeyebrows #milf #smokingmilf #coolgirl #hotgirl #sexygirl #turkishgermangirl #turkishgermansmoker

Smoking girl lover

85,324 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Here is a slightly longer version of the ⬇️ video showing #ChalaAlemo in which he calls for the extermination of millions of #Amharas across #Ethiopia I have translated the whole Amharic incitement speech into English: “An Oromo youth has spoken saying you [The #Amhara people] have five years of live [to pack and leave]. Actually, he has given them too much time. I don’t understand why he said five years. You have five years to sell and eat what you have. In fact, five years is too many. I don’t know why he said that. He should say 1-2 years . We will be Interahamwe and eat you from that country [Ethiopia]. This will happen! as you [the #Amhara people] are incapable of embracing [and assimilating into] Oromoness/#Oromuma. We will cannibalize you like Injera [flat Ethiopian bread]. We will drink your blood. We will eat your flesh. We will burn your bones. Every single Oromo blood [death] will be retaliated/avenged by 1000 #Amhara blood [deaths]. To avenge 30 million Oromo blood, how many #Amhara blood do we need? Calculate and get ready for that. This is inevitable! Inevitable! Whether Dr. Abiy Ahmed Ali 🇪🇹 continues to be the PM of [Ethiopia] or not, this is inevitable. We have told you; it will happen” How can Harvard University -which has just fired its first black woman president for on campus anti-Semitic incitement-tolerate such behavior? Neamin Zeleke እስከዳር እምሻው 🇪🇹አስካለ ማርያም ‎سلطان ابن Sultan Abdiraxman-GiftedNation @EGaraad_ Villa Somalia ፲ሃዐBA @/𝕏 Jeff Pearce Alastair Thompson AnnGarrison Andargachew Tsege Teddy Sew Martha ⓉⓃ Elias Amare ኤልያስ ኣማረ BBC News (World) ሸገር 102.1(SHEGERFM 102.1) Harvard University Harvard UniversityHealth Harvard UniversityChanSPH Harvard UniversityBiz Harvard University_Law Harvard Kennedy School Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Fasil Yitbarek US Holocaust Museum Harvard UniversityAlumni Harvard UniversityAEd The Boston Globe AnnGarrison Bronwyn Bruton hermela aregawi JusticeIsNotFree @hailetaddele The New York Times The New York Timesworld The Economist African Hub Alastair Thompson ‎سلطان ابن Sultan Abdiraxman-GiftedNation Eliezer Abate Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) - ኢሰመኮ Daniel Bekele
1:17

Here is a slightly longer version of the ⬇️ video showing #ChalaAlemo in which he calls for the extermination of millions of #Amharas across #Ethiopia I have translated the whole Amharic incitement speech into English: “An Oromo youth has spoken saying you [The #Amhara people] have five years of live [to pack and leave]. Actually, he has given them too much time. I don’t understand why he said five years. You have five years to sell and eat what you have. In fact, five years is too many. I don’t know why he said that. He should say 1-2 years . We will be Interahamwe and eat you from that country [Ethiopia]. This will happen! as you [the #Amhara people] are incapable of embracing [and assimilating into] Oromoness/#Oromuma. We will cannibalize you like Injera [flat Ethiopian bread]. We will drink your blood. We will eat your flesh. We will burn your bones. Every single Oromo blood [death] will be retaliated/avenged by 1000 #Amhara blood [deaths]. To avenge 30 million Oromo blood, how many #Amhara blood do we need? Calculate and get ready for that. This is inevitable! Inevitable! Whether Dr. Abiy Ahmed Ali 🇪🇹 continues to be the PM of [Ethiopia] or not, this is inevitable. We have told you; it will happen” How can Harvard University -which has just fired its first black woman president for on campus anti-Semitic incitement-tolerate such behavior? Neamin Zeleke እስከዳር እምሻው 🇪🇹አስካለ ማርያም ‎سلطان ابن Sultan Abdiraxman-GiftedNation @EGaraad_ Villa Somalia ፲ሃዐBA @/𝕏 Jeff Pearce Alastair Thompson AnnGarrison Andargachew Tsege Teddy Sew Martha ⓉⓃ Elias Amare ኤልያስ ኣማረ BBC News (World) ሸገር 102.1(SHEGERFM 102.1) Harvard University Harvard UniversityHealth Harvard UniversityChanSPH Harvard UniversityBiz Harvard University_Law Harvard Kennedy School Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Fasil Yitbarek US Holocaust Museum Harvard UniversityAlumni Harvard UniversityAEd The Boston Globe AnnGarrison Bronwyn Bruton hermela aregawi JusticeIsNotFree @hailetaddele The New York Times The New York Timesworld The Economist African Hub Alastair Thompson ‎سلطان ابن Sultan Abdiraxman-GiftedNation Eliezer Abate Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) - ኢሰመኮ Daniel Bekele

Dawit

66,843 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Starmer understands: Shed a few tears and we'll forgive him arming a genocide If you want to understand why Starmer has changed his *tone* about Gaza – but not his actions – watch the short exchange below on this week’s BBC Question Time between an audience member and cabinet minister Heidi Alexander. A woman berates the Labour government for still selling arms to Israel in the midst of a genocide. Alexander mixes indignation and tearfulness in her reply, explaining how she's finding it "as sickening and as harrowing as every single person in this audience seeing those images on TV of children wandering around rubble who are never going to find their parents and who are being starved to death." The woman in the audience gives the only correct response to this shameless, self-exculpating display. She shouts at Alexander: "Then do something!" Incredibly, much of the rest of the audience responds quite differently, giving Alexander a round of applause. But Alexander isn't just like "every single person in the audience". She doesn't just have to watch these images every night, as we do. She's in a government that has been directly assisting the war criminals in Tel Aviv for much of the past year. She's in a government shipping UK arms to Israel, as well as US and German weapons. She's in a government approving surveillance flights from an RAF base in Cyprus to help Israel bomb those children's homes into rubble. She's in a government letting UK citizens go to Gaza to help carry out the genocide. She's in a government still trading with Israel. She's in a government refusing to recognise Palestine. The list goes on and on of how Starmer's government is actively colluding in Israel's genocide. If Alexander really feels so upset by the images out of Gaza, she can indeed "do something". She can resign and make clear why she is resigning. She can bring pressure to bear on her own government in a way none of the rest of us can. Instead she sheds crocodile tears – and, like fools, we applaud her. Starmer understands that if he sounds upset, even as he actively helps Israel murder Palestinian children, the media will be able to write him out of these crimes against humanity and wash his hands of the blood of tens – probably hundreds – of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza. And worst of all, too many of us will go right along with this grand deception. If like Tony Blair, Starmer never pays a price for his international crimes, his successor will feel equally free to assist in, or carry out, future crimes against humanity. Starmer and his ministers need to be in the dock of the Hague. What they don’t need is our applause.
1:52

Starmer understands: Shed a few tears and we'll forgive him arming a genocide If you want to understand why Starmer has changed his *tone* about Gaza – but not his actions – watch the short exchange below on this week’s BBC Question Time between an audience member and cabinet minister Heidi Alexander. A woman berates the Labour government for still selling arms to Israel in the midst of a genocide. Alexander mixes indignation and tearfulness in her reply, explaining how she's finding it "as sickening and as harrowing as every single person in this audience seeing those images on TV of children wandering around rubble who are never going to find their parents and who are being starved to death." The woman in the audience gives the only correct response to this shameless, self-exculpating display. She shouts at Alexander: "Then do something!" Incredibly, much of the rest of the audience responds quite differently, giving Alexander a round of applause. But Alexander isn't just like "every single person in the audience". She doesn't just have to watch these images every night, as we do. She's in a government that has been directly assisting the war criminals in Tel Aviv for much of the past year. She's in a government shipping UK arms to Israel, as well as US and German weapons. She's in a government approving surveillance flights from an RAF base in Cyprus to help Israel bomb those children's homes into rubble. She's in a government letting UK citizens go to Gaza to help carry out the genocide. She's in a government still trading with Israel. She's in a government refusing to recognise Palestine. The list goes on and on of how Starmer's government is actively colluding in Israel's genocide. If Alexander really feels so upset by the images out of Gaza, she can indeed "do something". She can resign and make clear why she is resigning. She can bring pressure to bear on her own government in a way none of the rest of us can. Instead she sheds crocodile tears – and, like fools, we applaud her. Starmer understands that if he sounds upset, even as he actively helps Israel murder Palestinian children, the media will be able to write him out of these crimes against humanity and wash his hands of the blood of tens – probably hundreds – of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza. And worst of all, too many of us will go right along with this grand deception. If like Tony Blair, Starmer never pays a price for his international crimes, his successor will feel equally free to assist in, or carry out, future crimes against humanity. Starmer and his ministers need to be in the dock of the Hague. What they don’t need is our applause.

Jonathan Cook

58,570 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨For 25 YEARS, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has sounded the alarm – the "childhood vaccination schedule" is NOTHING but a Pediatric Poisoning Program! Vaccines for adults? That's the Adult Assault Program. The next 4 minutes will shower FACTS, timelines & STUDIES Big Pharma can't hide. Parents, GRANDPARENTS – this is YOUR wake-up call. Here's what she EXPOSES – point by terrifying point: 1986: The Liability Shield That Opened the Floodgates Congress passes the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, giving pharma TOTAL immunity from lawsuits. Back then? ONLY 3 routine childhood vaccines: DTP, MMR, polio. Lawmakers thought they were safeguarding a "handful" of shots. ZERO foresight for the INJECT-A-THON to come. VAERS tracks injuries, but "vaccine court" handles claims – all on taxpayer dime. 1991: Baby's First Assault – And It Snowballs Hep-B mandated at BIRTH + Hib vaccine. Then the avalanche: Chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, rotavirus, Hep A, FOUR types of meningitis shots...& counting. Today? U.S. infants endure up to 28 INJECTIONS by their FIRST BIRTHDAY. From 3 shots to 28+ in decades – all post-1986 protection. Autism Explosion: Every New Shot = Vertical Spike Dr. Tenpenny links autism rates to vaccine rollouts. EVERY SINGLE addition? Autism line SHOOTS UP. 2000: 1 in 150 kids. 2025: 1 in 30 nationally (1 in 22 in some states). Still peddled as "genetics"? We're throwing foreign toxins into developing brains – neurological chaos! Aluminum Overload: 4,700 mcg Before Kidneys Kick In By age 2 – when kidneys mature to flush toxins – kids on CDC schedule get ~4,700 micrograms of injected ALUMINUM. It CROSSES the blood-brain barrier, piles up in brain, bones, liver, kidneys. Rapid growth phase? It's like dumping SALT in a gas tank. Expect miracles? Nope – expect DAMAGE. Fresh Studies Shatter the Myths – Vaccines BACKFIRE Cleveland Clinic (2024-2025, millions of patients): Flu shot getters? 27% MORE likely to catch influenza. Brand-new pneumonia vax? Recipients MORE prone to pneumonia...& DEATH. After decades of dismissal, the CRACKS are showing. Science is turning – it is past time to say NO to shots we don't need.
4:43

🚨For 25 YEARS, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has sounded the alarm – the "childhood vaccination schedule" is NOTHING but a Pediatric Poisoning Program! Vaccines for adults? That's the Adult Assault Program. The next 4 minutes will shower FACTS, timelines & STUDIES Big Pharma can't hide. Parents, GRANDPARENTS – this is YOUR wake-up call. Here's what she EXPOSES – point by terrifying point: 1986: The Liability Shield That Opened the Floodgates Congress passes the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, giving pharma TOTAL immunity from lawsuits. Back then? ONLY 3 routine childhood vaccines: DTP, MMR, polio. Lawmakers thought they were safeguarding a "handful" of shots. ZERO foresight for the INJECT-A-THON to come. VAERS tracks injuries, but "vaccine court" handles claims – all on taxpayer dime. 1991: Baby's First Assault – And It Snowballs Hep-B mandated at BIRTH + Hib vaccine. Then the avalanche: Chickenpox, Prevnar, Gardasil, rotavirus, Hep A, FOUR types of meningitis shots...& counting. Today? U.S. infants endure up to 28 INJECTIONS by their FIRST BIRTHDAY. From 3 shots to 28+ in decades – all post-1986 protection. Autism Explosion: Every New Shot = Vertical Spike Dr. Tenpenny links autism rates to vaccine rollouts. EVERY SINGLE addition? Autism line SHOOTS UP. 2000: 1 in 150 kids. 2025: 1 in 30 nationally (1 in 22 in some states). Still peddled as "genetics"? We're throwing foreign toxins into developing brains – neurological chaos! Aluminum Overload: 4,700 mcg Before Kidneys Kick In By age 2 – when kidneys mature to flush toxins – kids on CDC schedule get ~4,700 micrograms of injected ALUMINUM. It CROSSES the blood-brain barrier, piles up in brain, bones, liver, kidneys. Rapid growth phase? It's like dumping SALT in a gas tank. Expect miracles? Nope – expect DAMAGE. Fresh Studies Shatter the Myths – Vaccines BACKFIRE Cleveland Clinic (2024-2025, millions of patients): Flu shot getters? 27% MORE likely to catch influenza. Brand-new pneumonia vax? Recipients MORE prone to pneumonia...& DEATH. After decades of dismissal, the CRACKS are showing. Science is turning – it is past time to say NO to shots we don't need.

Valerie Anne Smith

22,998 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Left: BBC News, 'We're young - we don't think much about the EU' Right: Young person, Haydn Osborne-Brookes, speaking at the National March for Rejoin, "Us young people want our future back. We want the freedom to travel, work and study across Europe again" #RejoinEU Transcript of full speech, "I remember 2016, when I was only seven, seeing boring old men in suits talk about some far and distant concept, Brexit. But I was all too unaware the effect that Brexit would have on my life and the lives of young people in our country. Politics is failing young people" "We've seen it again and again, year after year. Politicians in there, influencing decisions that seem completely outside of our interests. And Brexit is one of the greatest examples of justice. Anyone born after 1998 had no say in Brexit" "That's almost 20 million people. But we still face the harsh consequences of the UK leaving the eu. We still lost access to schemes across Europe that helped develop and nurture our skills, culture and friendships. We've still lost our freedom to travel, study and work throughout Europe" "And we've still lost a more secure future of cooperation with our European partners. And with the threat of reform and farage on the horizon, a future without these things will seemingly last longer and longer. So it's time that we take back political power into our own hands, because we need to beat reform at the next general election" "And hope must overcome hate. We're here today. We're here today because we believe in a complete reversal of Brexit, a reunification with our European partners" "And we've never needed that more than we do now. Donald Trump has shown just how fragile and futile our so called special relationship with America is. Whilst we rely on them almost entirely for our nuclear deterrent and arms" "With 86% of UK arms, coming from the USA, he threatens to invade our European allies and risk more lives than he's already taken on the international stage. Relying on a country, relying on a country which threatens the sovereignty of our allies" "Now, that's a dangerous position to put our future generations in. But we know the solution. Let's turn back to Europe because we know that we are stronger together. We can work together for a better future for our younger people with Europe" "But I won't stand here and pretend everything's perfect in Europe. It's true that across the continent, the far right has gained a foothold, just like they have here in the UK with Farage. But is that a reason for us to stand aside and watch?" "Is that a reason for us not to work across borders for a fairer future for all? I don't think so. We need to go back into the EU so that our voices are amplified on an international stage, giving us the power to stand up against the far right, Trump and all other threats against us" "Now the government has only taken small minute steps towards Europe. When I was head of campaigns for Young European Movement I was extremely proud that we managed to get a pledge from the government to rejoin Erasmus Plus. But at the end of the day we need radical change for this country and in terms of Europe that radical change is fully rejoining the EU" "So let me make myself absolutely clear. Us young people want our future back. We want the freedom to travel, work and study across Europe again. We want the opportunities brought forward by schemes like Erasmus and Discover EU to open up our futures" "And we want a more secure future with our European partners, not one where we're subject to the whims of Donald Trump in the usa. So let's make some noise and tell Keir Starmer or whoever's going to be in there next week and every single MP sitting in Parliament that we are demanding a second referendum and a full reversal of Brexit now" "Thank you"
4:12

Left: BBC News, 'We're young - we don't think much about the EU' Right: Young person, Haydn Osborne-Brookes, speaking at the National March for Rejoin, "Us young people want our future back. We want the freedom to travel, work and study across Europe again" #RejoinEU Transcript of full speech, "I remember 2016, when I was only seven, seeing boring old men in suits talk about some far and distant concept, Brexit. But I was all too unaware the effect that Brexit would have on my life and the lives of young people in our country. Politics is failing young people" "We've seen it again and again, year after year. Politicians in there, influencing decisions that seem completely outside of our interests. And Brexit is one of the greatest examples of justice. Anyone born after 1998 had no say in Brexit" "That's almost 20 million people. But we still face the harsh consequences of the UK leaving the eu. We still lost access to schemes across Europe that helped develop and nurture our skills, culture and friendships. We've still lost our freedom to travel, study and work throughout Europe" "And we've still lost a more secure future of cooperation with our European partners. And with the threat of reform and farage on the horizon, a future without these things will seemingly last longer and longer. So it's time that we take back political power into our own hands, because we need to beat reform at the next general election" "And hope must overcome hate. We're here today. We're here today because we believe in a complete reversal of Brexit, a reunification with our European partners" "And we've never needed that more than we do now. Donald Trump has shown just how fragile and futile our so called special relationship with America is. Whilst we rely on them almost entirely for our nuclear deterrent and arms" "With 86% of UK arms, coming from the USA, he threatens to invade our European allies and risk more lives than he's already taken on the international stage. Relying on a country, relying on a country which threatens the sovereignty of our allies" "Now, that's a dangerous position to put our future generations in. But we know the solution. Let's turn back to Europe because we know that we are stronger together. We can work together for a better future for our younger people with Europe" "But I won't stand here and pretend everything's perfect in Europe. It's true that across the continent, the far right has gained a foothold, just like they have here in the UK with Farage. But is that a reason for us to stand aside and watch?" "Is that a reason for us not to work across borders for a fairer future for all? I don't think so. We need to go back into the EU so that our voices are amplified on an international stage, giving us the power to stand up against the far right, Trump and all other threats against us" "Now the government has only taken small minute steps towards Europe. When I was head of campaigns for Young European Movement I was extremely proud that we managed to get a pledge from the government to rejoin Erasmus Plus. But at the end of the day we need radical change for this country and in terms of Europe that radical change is fully rejoining the EU" "So let me make myself absolutely clear. Us young people want our future back. We want the freedom to travel, work and study across Europe again. We want the opportunities brought forward by schemes like Erasmus and Discover EU to open up our futures" "And we want a more secure future with our European partners, not one where we're subject to the whims of Donald Trump in the usa. So let's make some noise and tell Keir Starmer or whoever's going to be in there next week and every single MP sitting in Parliament that we are demanding a second referendum and a full reversal of Brexit now" "Thank you"

Farrukh

15,699 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Most of you guys don't know that I grew up as a Christian missionary kid, with both of my parents in full-time ministry. What this meant is that I grew up seeing my parents imperfectly strive to be the hands and feet of Jesus. There were times when a homeless lady slept on our couch downstairs and a homeless man in a tent in our backyard. Other times when our side street was full of tables and people from the neighborhood as we fed the hungry. Constantly because I was homeschooled, school would be interrupted to help someone move something or donate stuff to the ministry thrift store. As a kid I often thought about how much more my parents could do if they had more money. That's where my desire to learn how to make money started because I wanted to be able to help their ministry. Somewhere along this journey I started to lose the plot and started to care more about money than God, which is a horrible place to get to. This morning while I was praying and thanking God for afflicting me, because truly before I was afflicted I went astray but now I love His law. A song that I wrote, I believe when I was around nine or ten years old, came back to my mind and truly it blows me away that my nine-year-old self had more wisdom at times than my late twenties self and my thirty-one-year-old self. And the reason for that is simple. All wisdom comes from God and man's wisdom is nothing compared to his, which means that if God wants to give a nine-year-old some wisdom, it can be greater than that of a PhD professor whose wisdom comes only from man. This is the song I wrote as a little boy. Verse 1: How crazy are everyday worries! How crazy the things that we dread! Oh how pointless the things that we long for! Oh how pointless the lives that we live! Chorus: How crazy, how crazy How pointless, how pointless can we live? Verse 2: We know who we should long for. We know who we should praise. We know who we should obey. But it's easier said than done. I remember my parents telling me that it was pretty good but no one would want to sing it because the chorus was too depressing and people want to be uplifted. So from then on I would just sing it to myself because I didn't think it was depressing because it reminded me about what mattered. It reminded me that everything the world told me mattered didn't. Sometimes I would use the song to pray, too, before I went to bed or after I woke up. Jesus Christ is the one that we should long for. He's the one that we should praise, and he is the one that we must obey. For Jesus says, "If you love me you will do what I command." Maybe you're reading this, extremely skeptical of God or any religion. I just would ask you: what's going to be the end of everything you're pursuing now? Is your life not like a breath, here today and gone tomorrow? Is all of the money that you're gathering not simply going to be left to someone else for you're not going to be able to take any of it with you? Will not all of your memories that you cherish so dearly be lost with you when you die? Is not the fruit of all that you're pursuing meaningless if there is no God for the end of the universe is cold, dark, and lifeless and not even the generations between now and lifelessness will remember you? If there was no God there would be nothing. Just like if you live like there is no God, all of your pursuits will come to nothing. Yet "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life." You see we don't have a God of this universe who is impersonal who doesn't care for us. No he desires a relationship with us and the way that we know that is because he literally limited himself and came to earth as a man to show us the way to eternal life. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." When Jesus truly becomes the one you treasure above all else and when you look at Him, the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, He who dwells in unapproachable light, who no man has ever seen, and to whom belongs glory and eternal dominion. When you look at that and your heart becomes set upon nothing but His kingdom, He makes your path straight. He gives you work to do that will store up fruit in eternity that already today can earn you wages that will be everlasting. He will make our lives on this Earth not meaningless but full of far more meaning than we can even grasp, comprehend, or imagine. Lord, I just lift up every single reader of this post and ask that You would open their eyes, God, by the power of Your Spirit. That You would soften their hearts, Lord, and give them understanding by the fullness of Your power, Lord, because by human wisdom Your Kingdom cannot be grasped. So Lord, call them by Your Spirit that they may answer You, that they may repent and that they may live starting today for eternal life. Amen.
1:10

Most of you guys don't know that I grew up as a Christian missionary kid, with both of my parents in full-time ministry. What this meant is that I grew up seeing my parents imperfectly strive to be the hands and feet of Jesus. There were times when a homeless lady slept on our couch downstairs and a homeless man in a tent in our backyard. Other times when our side street was full of tables and people from the neighborhood as we fed the hungry. Constantly because I was homeschooled, school would be interrupted to help someone move something or donate stuff to the ministry thrift store. As a kid I often thought about how much more my parents could do if they had more money. That's where my desire to learn how to make money started because I wanted to be able to help their ministry. Somewhere along this journey I started to lose the plot and started to care more about money than God, which is a horrible place to get to. This morning while I was praying and thanking God for afflicting me, because truly before I was afflicted I went astray but now I love His law. A song that I wrote, I believe when I was around nine or ten years old, came back to my mind and truly it blows me away that my nine-year-old self had more wisdom at times than my late twenties self and my thirty-one-year-old self. And the reason for that is simple. All wisdom comes from God and man's wisdom is nothing compared to his, which means that if God wants to give a nine-year-old some wisdom, it can be greater than that of a PhD professor whose wisdom comes only from man. This is the song I wrote as a little boy. Verse 1: How crazy are everyday worries! How crazy the things that we dread! Oh how pointless the things that we long for! Oh how pointless the lives that we live! Chorus: How crazy, how crazy How pointless, how pointless can we live? Verse 2: We know who we should long for. We know who we should praise. We know who we should obey. But it's easier said than done. I remember my parents telling me that it was pretty good but no one would want to sing it because the chorus was too depressing and people want to be uplifted. So from then on I would just sing it to myself because I didn't think it was depressing because it reminded me about what mattered. It reminded me that everything the world told me mattered didn't. Sometimes I would use the song to pray, too, before I went to bed or after I woke up. Jesus Christ is the one that we should long for. He's the one that we should praise, and he is the one that we must obey. For Jesus says, "If you love me you will do what I command." Maybe you're reading this, extremely skeptical of God or any religion. I just would ask you: what's going to be the end of everything you're pursuing now? Is your life not like a breath, here today and gone tomorrow? Is all of the money that you're gathering not simply going to be left to someone else for you're not going to be able to take any of it with you? Will not all of your memories that you cherish so dearly be lost with you when you die? Is not the fruit of all that you're pursuing meaningless if there is no God for the end of the universe is cold, dark, and lifeless and not even the generations between now and lifelessness will remember you? If there was no God there would be nothing. Just like if you live like there is no God, all of your pursuits will come to nothing. Yet "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life." You see we don't have a God of this universe who is impersonal who doesn't care for us. No he desires a relationship with us and the way that we know that is because he literally limited himself and came to earth as a man to show us the way to eternal life. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." When Jesus truly becomes the one you treasure above all else and when you look at Him, the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, He who dwells in unapproachable light, who no man has ever seen, and to whom belongs glory and eternal dominion. When you look at that and your heart becomes set upon nothing but His kingdom, He makes your path straight. He gives you work to do that will store up fruit in eternity that already today can earn you wages that will be everlasting. He will make our lives on this Earth not meaningless but full of far more meaning than we can even grasp, comprehend, or imagine. Lord, I just lift up every single reader of this post and ask that You would open their eyes, God, by the power of Your Spirit. That You would soften their hearts, Lord, and give them understanding by the fullness of Your power, Lord, because by human wisdom Your Kingdom cannot be grasped. So Lord, call them by Your Spirit that they may answer You, that they may repent and that they may live starting today for eternal life. Amen.

Jake Browatzke 🚀

11,304 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Being boldly outspoken online holds risks. Exposure holds risks. This is why so many fear taking up space or using their voices on the internet. People will pick your words apart, project their own beliefs, fears, insecurities and perceptions on you, make assumptions and even get off on the drama. I have been exposed in the online space since 2018. And through the years, I have been more and more outspoken about my philosophy around FemDom and BDSM, unapologetically. My practice as a Mistress was always sacred to me. And as a Mentor, I hold myself on the same standard and understand the responsibility I hold to lead women on their Mistress Journey, I do not take this lightly. It is also sacred to me. I first entered the SW industry in 2011 from a very disempowered place and experienced heavy trauma. I barely got out of what I got myself into (if you know my story you know). And when I reentered the industry in 2017, I knew my boundaries, that I would work for myself, and that becoming a Professional Dominatrix was a calling. In 5 years, I built something extraordinary. I made a shit ton of money, yes, but I also had real, genuine and long lasting D/s relationships, with subs I respected and who respected me. Not just who admired me, but actually cared about me, as I cared about them. I had my own Dungeon, that was one of the best in Montreal, and I had an online practice that I developed during COVID that helped my business explode. When I got pregnant and decided to leave the industry as a ProDomme, I dedicated my heart and soul to build the most powerful courses for Dommes. It started with The Dominatrix Academy, and then building a Membership and Sisterhood for Dommes to connect from all over the world. I show up there every single day and create classes and programs based on what they are moving through and need to improve their practice, make more money and from a way that feels aligned with them, not at the expense of their integrity, and to build something that can sustain them in the long haul. Up to this day I get messages from my clients/subs from many years ago. Thanking me for our time together. And now I consistently receive gratitude messages and even gifts from the women who work with me. I am very proud of what I built and most importantly, how I built it. It holds my heart beat. Yes, there will always be people who don't resonate, or who don't like me or what I teach or how I do things. But we are all adults, and we should therefore address concerns like adults. In a mature, ethical, loving way. Not with hate threads. I am extremely disheartened that the controversy I am facing is coming from peers and women I respected. Not from some online troll or someone outside the industry judging SWers. That I was prepared to debate with, to defend my community. Yet, the women who are questioning me publicly and writing about me as if they know what they are talking about, have never met me, spoken to me, been in any of my containers. It's just based on assumptions, wrong interpretation of my words, triggers and prejudice. It is because of women like this that there is such a sister wound in this industry. And one of the most beautiful feedbacks I get from the women in my world, is how healing it is to be in a genuine sisterhood, with no cattiness. I stand by what I said and how I meant it. And if it did not land for you, that's okay, it was just not meant for you. Enough time and energy has been leaked on this. I am just going to share a video of the Graduation of The Dominatrix Academy. THIS is what I do. And this is not just words... you get to actually watch what I create with the women who work with me. Thank you for reading.
1:32

Being boldly outspoken online holds risks. Exposure holds risks. This is why so many fear taking up space or using their voices on the internet. People will pick your words apart, project their own beliefs, fears, insecurities and perceptions on you, make assumptions and even get off on the drama. I have been exposed in the online space since 2018. And through the years, I have been more and more outspoken about my philosophy around FemDom and BDSM, unapologetically. My practice as a Mistress was always sacred to me. And as a Mentor, I hold myself on the same standard and understand the responsibility I hold to lead women on their Mistress Journey, I do not take this lightly. It is also sacred to me. I first entered the SW industry in 2011 from a very disempowered place and experienced heavy trauma. I barely got out of what I got myself into (if you know my story you know). And when I reentered the industry in 2017, I knew my boundaries, that I would work for myself, and that becoming a Professional Dominatrix was a calling. In 5 years, I built something extraordinary. I made a shit ton of money, yes, but I also had real, genuine and long lasting D/s relationships, with subs I respected and who respected me. Not just who admired me, but actually cared about me, as I cared about them. I had my own Dungeon, that was one of the best in Montreal, and I had an online practice that I developed during COVID that helped my business explode. When I got pregnant and decided to leave the industry as a ProDomme, I dedicated my heart and soul to build the most powerful courses for Dommes. It started with The Dominatrix Academy, and then building a Membership and Sisterhood for Dommes to connect from all over the world. I show up there every single day and create classes and programs based on what they are moving through and need to improve their practice, make more money and from a way that feels aligned with them, not at the expense of their integrity, and to build something that can sustain them in the long haul. Up to this day I get messages from my clients/subs from many years ago. Thanking me for our time together. And now I consistently receive gratitude messages and even gifts from the women who work with me. I am very proud of what I built and most importantly, how I built it. It holds my heart beat. Yes, there will always be people who don't resonate, or who don't like me or what I teach or how I do things. But we are all adults, and we should therefore address concerns like adults. In a mature, ethical, loving way. Not with hate threads. I am extremely disheartened that the controversy I am facing is coming from peers and women I respected. Not from some online troll or someone outside the industry judging SWers. That I was prepared to debate with, to defend my community. Yet, the women who are questioning me publicly and writing about me as if they know what they are talking about, have never met me, spoken to me, been in any of my containers. It's just based on assumptions, wrong interpretation of my words, triggers and prejudice. It is because of women like this that there is such a sister wound in this industry. And one of the most beautiful feedbacks I get from the women in my world, is how healing it is to be in a genuine sisterhood, with no cattiness. I stand by what I said and how I meant it. And if it did not land for you, that's okay, it was just not meant for you. Enough time and energy has been leaked on this. I am just going to share a video of the Graduation of The Dominatrix Academy. THIS is what I do. And this is not just words... you get to actually watch what I create with the women who work with me. Thank you for reading.

Ms. Malissia

21,009 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:
31:35

Just in $AMD Anush "Speed is the moat"|ROCm🎙️ In the race to define the future of AI, what's the one advantage that truly lasts? It's not proprietary tech, argues Anush Elangovan Elangovan, VP of AI Software at AMD , but the sustainable speed of innovation. He explains why AMD is rejecting the "walled garden" model for its open source ROCm stack, betting that an open community flywheel is the key to victory. Listen to understand how this open strategy is designed to out-innovate closed systems by empowering developers to solve everything from frontier-model challenges to the mundane, everyday problems that define the "last mile" of AI. AMD ROCm Software: Part 1 Transcript [00:00:00] Andrew Zigler: Joining me is Anush Elangovan, VP of AI software at AMD. And when people talk about AI compute, the conversation often stops at hardware specs, but it's more than just physical chips that win the game. It's also the software ecosystems supporting them. [00:00:18] Andrew Zigler: The prevailing strategy in the industry has been to build something like a walled garden. You know, something closed, proprietary locks, developers in. But AMD is betting on an entirely different play, open source acceleration, and with rock, their open source AI software stack. AMD is building not just hardware parity, but an innovation flywheel that's powered by the community with interoperability and the freedom to scale without all of that pesky lockin. [00:00:48] Andrew Zigler: And in this world, speed is your moat and how fast you can innovate while your platform remains open, flexible, and standardize across all of its applications. That's what we're gonna explore [00:01:00] today. So Anush, I'm really excited to have you here. Welcome to Dev Interrupted. [00:01:04] Anush Elangovan: Thanks for having me. Uh, super excited to chat about it. [00:01:07] Andrew Zigler: Amazing. Well, let's go ahead and dive right in with kind of what I laid it out with in the beginning, the idea of the moat and it being about speed. I wanna unpack that a bit because that came from you when you and I first spoke. And I, and I want to know, you know, how do you define speed inside of AMD beyond just things like hardware, benchmarks. [00:01:27] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So when we typically talk about speed, everyone's like, Hey, hardware benchmark specs, right? Like, uh, memory bandwidth or, or flops. And that is one important part of it, uh, AMD does very well. With that, we do have, a, a very good history of executing on that axis. [00:01:47] Anush Elangovan: But when I say speed is the moat, it is about, uh, how we prepare, how we build the muscle to run the race for a long time and run it fast. And it is [00:02:00] not about a single point in time that you've, you've beat some you know, benchmark and, and you declare victory. It's about building the ability to consistently develop and deliver. [00:02:13] Anush Elangovan: Both hardware and software innovation at scale and do it fast, right? Like, you know, we we're increasingly getting to a point where models come out and they're, uh, you know, a year or two ago it was like, Hey, they work on AMD on day zero, which is great, but now they are performing on AMD the day it releases, right? [00:02:32] Anush Elangovan: So, what does it take to Prefetch where the industry is going? Be prepared to intercept. At that point is what you know, I, I refer to as you know, the, the speed factor in, in creating this mode, right? And the mode is just shed all things that hold you back and run as fast as you can. [00:02:53] Anush Elangovan: Uh, because the pace of innovation that is, uh, being seen in, in AI [00:03:00] industries is just. Amazing. Right? And it's like, it's transformational at at how you generate electricity. It's transformational as at how you build data centers. It's transformational at how you deploy compute, networking. It's transformational at what kind of use cases you, you know, uh, use AI for. [00:03:17] Anush Elangovan: Uh, and for that, you need to be prepared to, see what comes tomorrow and be prepared to run the race tomorrow. [00:03:23] Andrew Zigler: Yeah, it's a really great perspective because it highlights that it's not just like a checkpoint that you run through. I like how you called out, like it's not just hitting that benchmark or being the best in class at that moment, in that snapshot, it's about having a. The throughput and about having that dedication to the idea and continuing to deliver on it. [00:03:43] Andrew Zigler: It's not just crossing the threshold, but it's also being the engine. And that's what, that's what protects a business. That is the moat, because the moat is that innovation layer, the faster and more, uh, future forward. That you can work and think, [00:04:00] you know, the better. Uh, we, we talk a lot about like future forward work styles. [00:04:04] Andrew Zigler: Like what are the things I could be doing right now today that are gonna be like, way more useful tomorrow? Let, let's abandon those, workflows that are older and that kind of like, that translates into. An advantage when you work that way. You know, what kind of things have you learned working with, uh, like across all spectrums of people who would use ROCm, right? [00:04:23] Andrew Zigler: You have like the developers, but then you also have the enterprises and you have this large span of adoptees, right? So what is the, what does that look like that you learn? [00:04:32] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, so, so the way I look at it is there are gonna be pockets of different, uh, you know, cadences, right? Like, so people who are deploying in enterprises, for example, right? The validation and how long it takes for them to deploy an LLM that's secure. It's, with guardrails, et cetera, maybe longer. [00:04:52] Anush Elangovan: but you still have to go through the process and you have to be prepared to like, walk that walk to deploy an enterprises. That doesn't mean it's [00:05:00] not fast, that's as fast as you can do for that industry, right? And if you are deploying AI in healthcare, right, it's, it's got its own, uh, cycle. [00:05:07] Anush Elangovan: but in each one of these, you want to see how, like, go down to the essence of what is it that you actually have to do. And, you know, I, I, I like how you framed it. It's like it's, you shed your prior assumptions of how things are done, right. And, and you kind of build up from a, uh, first principles, uh, approach to say, this is how I could use AI to unlock, whatever I'm doing. [00:05:33] Anush Elangovan: And, and, some of it, you know, it's good to really step back and look at. Just question every part of it, right? Like right now you're getting chat GPT and, Gemini competing for like, math, olympiads and, and, uh, college, uh, reasoning, uh, tests. Right? And, and those are like that, that is amazing and increasingly like complex tasks that they're trying to do. [00:05:58] Anush Elangovan: But there may also be like. [00:06:00] More mundane things that AI could, could get applied to. Right? And, and so when we think about shedding old ways, you wanna shed it not just in like the tip of the spear. It's like, you know, I'm gonna see what's the frontier model. It's also, it could be something as simple as. [00:06:18] Anush Elangovan: How do you choose a, a movie, uh, you know, like a recommendation system, right? Or, or, uh, an automated, uh, flight, uh, rebooking system. So the moment, you know, your flight is late, uh, right now it's a notification, right? It's like, oh, you got a text message saying your flight's late. And I got that like three times this week. [00:06:38] Anush Elangovan: But anyway, uh, and, and, and, and, I was just like, okay, so if I were to rethink this. All this MCPs that we have that should be hooked up into an MCP that says, your flight's delayed. Here are your options. If you want, you know, these are the paid options. Yeah. Here are the free options. This will get you back into your you know, Toronto airport [00:07:00] tonight. [00:07:00] Anush Elangovan: Or if you stay, here's a hotel plus this, plus this, plus. It's just like, go ahead is all I should say. Versus now I'm like, okay, can someone, you know, can I call a travel agent? Can I do this? Can I go online and log into And you know, so we gotta fundamentally rethink even those like small, nuances of, things that we do that can be automated out and AI is really, really good at doing something like this, right? Maybe I just explained an AI startup idea right now. Somebody should just start that. [00:07:29] Andrew Zigler: I think you did. Yeah, you definitely did. Someone, one of our listeners is definitely going to lift that off of you. I, I, I, you know, I hate being on the receiving end of those. You feel a little helpless and then you have to like, follow the whole flow. So I know what you mean. Like I, I like how you called out that the build and this like. [00:07:45] Andrew Zigler: Where speed is your moat and the innovation layer is protecting you, is what makes you better than your competitors. How you scale that and you bring that to market. So by understanding the problems that you're solving, uh, throwing away those older assumptions, but also [00:08:00] recognizing that like. We're building every single day, new things and new ways of using stuff that we're still figuring out the implications of. [00:08:08] Andrew Zigler: And so when you have a lot of velocity and you're introducing a lot of new ideas, and maybe you have that workflow now that automatically rebook your flight off of your late flight text message, and uh, I know I would certainly use it, but you know, what kind of philosophies guide the way that y'all think about building this ecosystem to manage that stability while letting folks. [00:08:29] Andrew Zigler: Play with the speed and the assumptions and the airplane re bookings. [00:08:34] Anush Elangovan: so, so I think, you know, we need to peel one layer down, right? and the philosophy is, Hey, we, we just discovered electricity, right? And you know what we're gonna do? We are gonna make motors, uh, or dynamos, right? Like engines. Uh, sure. We don't know if it's gonna be a Ferrari that you're gonna make, or it's a a a a dump truck. [00:08:57] Anush Elangovan: That's good for doing this. But let's [00:09:00] let, which is also required, right? You need a dump truck. You need a garbage truck. And, [00:09:04] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. You need the [00:09:04] Anush Elangovan: course you need, uh, a Ferrari for a midlife crisis, right? So, [00:09:09] Andrew Zigler: precisely. [00:09:10] Anush Elangovan: But, but my, uh, point is what do we build next? And, uh, and this is what I meant by like, okay, let's, let's take those baby steps to build the. [00:09:20] Anush Elangovan: Infrastructure that's required that we know we'll have to use, right? So, so if I just discovered electricity, okay, great. Now one, how do I save this electricity and how do I use it? So there's battery technology, so you need to do something like that, right? Like so. But then you also want to make it into an actionable thing. [00:09:37] Anush Elangovan: You want to make it for like automobiles, or you wanna use it for, you know, powering, uh, entire cities. So it is that transformational. So, uh, AI is that transformational. So, if you distill down, it'll, it'll come down to how do we think about, what we can do with this this fundamental technology that, We may not be aware of what it [00:10:00] is gonna unlock next, but at least you know the next step is clear, right? It's like a dense fog, you know, it's gonna be like, it, it's the right path. You see the light, but it's kind of like out there and, and the steps you're taking are concrete and you're like, okay, this is good. [00:10:16] Anush Elangovan: I, this is better than where I was or where we were. So we are moving forward. So you can build with the. Intuition from what you see in the short term and a tactical view, but towards what you think the future is gonna be. [00:10:28] Andrew Zigler: Right. You almost like we're all in this like fog of war, right? And like you said, you're reaching out and you're trying to step through it. You could think of it too, as like you're in the dark and your hands are up in front of you and you know that. You're, you're not gonna run your face into a wall because your hands are out in front of you, but you're not gonna maybe do much better than that. [00:10:45] Andrew Zigler: So that's kind of like, I think the eco, the, the industry, the world that we find ourselves in, uh, and we all have to, then this becomes the power of an ecosystem, of a group of people working together to create that layer of, [00:11:00] uh, of establishing the [00:11:01] Anush Elangovan: exactly. And I, I, I just, instead of, you know, saying fog of war I describe it as like, you're in this. Beautiful valley with like a morning, uh, fog that's in. You can smell the flowers. You, you hear the birds. You are like, okay, it's, we are in like, uh, utopian paradise and yes, I just need to like, continue the walk, right? [00:11:24] Anush Elangovan: and then move forward with that, conviction that you're in the right spot. [00:11:27] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. So let's talk about that ecosystem world. This nice, I love how you describe it, this grassy side of a hill in the morning that's covered in some mist and maybe we can't see 30 feet in one direction, but it sure is a beautiful hill and it smells nice. And so we're all here. And why is, in that world, why is. [00:11:44] Andrew Zigler: You know, open source, their strategic advantage that y'all are going for in the AI hardware market. And, and then how does like ROCm turn that into wins for people within that ecosystem? [00:11:56] Anush Elangovan: you know, the, the way we look at it is this, is kind of like how I view [00:12:00] AI and the ecosystem, right? But, but it is for everyone to enjoy. Uh, and so we do want to make sure that. You know, it is, uh, beneficial for everyone. [00:12:09] Anush Elangovan: The ecosystem can come in and, and innovate. It's an open innovation engine. and uh, it is very different from, you know, having a walled garden with, Hey, only I know how to do this and I'm gonna do it and throw it over the fence and you can use it or keep walking, right? So we'd like to be good citizens that way, but also. [00:12:30] Anush Elangovan: Uh, it is self-fulfilling in a way, right? Like it, the, the pace at which we innovate with open source is unmatched. Like, you know, our serving engines are like VLLM and, and sg l. Those things, uh, those frameworks are like super, super aggressive in terms of how fast they come out with features and how fast they can you know, get performant models out. [00:12:52] Anush Elangovan: And that compared with what, uh, you'd get from, you know, the likes of like T-R-T-L-L-M or something is always lagging, right? Because you [00:13:00] just can't keep up with you know, 200 commits a week just on one particular model to get that model really performant [00:13:06] Andrew Zigler: And, and, and in that world where, you know, everyone can enjoy the winds of this, what kind of customer stories or innovation stories have really stood out to you and excite you about building and creating this place for developers? [00:13:19] Anush Elangovan: Yeah. So I think the parts that are super exciting for me are when when we get to see a customer that is first skeptical. Then they start a little like, okay, fine, we'll give you a chance. Uh, we do a simple, uh, POC and then they're like, huh, this seems to work. Yeah, we told you it works. [00:13:42] Anush Elangovan: You don't have to change one line of code. Really? Yes, no need to change one line of code. Okay, let's try a production workload. So then they try it. Oh, you're more performant than the competition. Yes. We're more performant than, than the competition. So how much does it cost? And we're like, oh, it's your TCO is better with, uh, [00:14:00] AMD. [00:14:00] Anush Elangovan: So again, they're like, wow, okay, good. So now how do we deploy at scale? And then we go deploy it at scale. And when they give a thumbs up on that and they say, this is good, right? That's when you know, you, you see it go full circle from like, oh, we, we've never heard about AMD to like actually deploy to tens of thousands of GPUs In the order of a few months, right? It, it, it really is fascinating to see and very exciting and invigorating to [00:14:28] Andrew Zigler: Yeah. At like a great exposure to a lot of interesting problems. And, and then people using the infrastructure, the, the technology available to solve those problems. Really specific problems by the way, that's often why they're bringing their data and AI to it, uh, is because it is really specific and important for them. [00:14:45] Andrew Zigler: And there's a, a lot I think that other engineering orgs can learn and even emulate from AMD's success and, and having this open source ecosystem and it causing this acceleration within. You [00:15:00] know, uh, customers and enterprises that use and adopt the tools and, and, and that creates an advantage. And that goes back to why we're talking and like the real thesis of our conversation today. [00:15:10] Andrew Zigler: So how do you think engineering leaders that are listening to this and obviously tapping into this great success AMD has from an open source flywheel, how do you think other, other folks building in the same space can foster that open, first, that open source oriented culture in order to, you know, accelerate their innovation goals? [00:15:29] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, that's a very good question. So the startup that um, was acquired by AMD we, we built, I mean, we started off doing iot stuff and you know, smart ring and all that, right? But in the, the end of like, uh, and not the end, the last six years of the company was building ML compilers. [00:15:47] Anush Elangovan: And ml, ML compilers are like super, uh, complicated, sophisticated, advanced algorithms, dah, dah, dah. but it was all open source, right? So our VCs were like, wait, what do you mean your core [00:16:00] IP is open source? And um, the speed is the moat applied even then, right? It was just like, yes, if you have an idea that. [00:16:08] Anush Elangovan: Because someone saw this idea that you are, they're gonna be able to catch up, then you probably have the wrong idea anyway. But if they are, you know, you execute and they're gonna catch up, that you should assume they're gonna catch up. Right? So you gotta move forward. So keeping it open source is super important. [00:16:25] Anush Elangovan: But also to your question on like, you know, the learnings from an AMD standpoint, right? If there are, hard problems, I'd say dig in and work through it, right? Like there's no way but through it, right? That should be the simple mentality. And more, uh, frequently than not. you'll see that you'll just make it through in a, in, in good form. [00:16:52] Anush Elangovan: But if you doubt it and you're like, oh, I don't know if I should commit, if I'm, I, you know, what should just commit to do the right thing [00:17:00] every step, right? Every step, and just keep taking one step in front of the other. And in no time you'll see that you'll be running. Right. And, and yes, the first few steps will be like, yeah, everyone's complaining about your software quality. [00:17:15] Anush Elangovan: Everyone's complaining about this and that, and it doesn't work. And, and a few steps in, you know, you get, you get the hang of all the complaints that are coming in. You get the feedback loop. You're like, okay, what, what are you prioritizing again? One step in front of the other, right? You just keep knocking that out and then you get to a point where you're, it just becomes second nature, right? To do the, to do the right thing. And, and then yes, if someone gives you two options, you'll be like, fine. This is, uh, you know, there's always the resource trade off. There's always a human capital trade off, but what's the right thing to do? of course, I, I'm pragmatic about what we choose, but, but if the right thing for your long-term success is dig in, go first, principles, make it [00:18:00] happen. [00:18:00] Anush Elangovan: Well. Then just go for that. There's, there is no shortcut to [00:18:04] Andrew Zigler: acknowledging, you know, how it aligns with your mission, your core company goals, and what you're looking to achieve. And, and I, I love how you rightfully called out that in the open source world and you know, you have your technology that you've built, what you think is your moat upon, right? [00:18:22] Andrew Zigler: It's your code and, and to open source that, or to just make it where anyone could peer in is, you know. Scary in one regard, but two, it just kind of feels like you're handing away your throne room in some kind of sense, a very direct feeling sense. But the ultimately, you were really right to call out, and this is something I think about all the time, that the real power there is still the speed This the speed. [00:18:42] Andrew Zigler: That was the moat at the beginning of our conversation. It's the speed in combination with your. Very specific domain understanding of what you're building and what you're creating, and your new role as the steward of that world and how people plug into it, which [00:19:00] has frankly, a lot more influence and power than lording over a closed. [00:19:04] Andrew Zigler: You know, repository or an ecosystem, and like you said, like throwing things over the wall. Sure. There, there might be people always on the other side of that wall, but you're not gonna have a great connection with them. You're not gonna be able to really clearly understand them. I, I like your metaphor of the side of the field of the mountain a lot more. [00:19:23] Andrew Zigler: But, but in the, in this world, you know, where. That speed is, is the power and, and open source is just one way that you can harness that speed to get really far ahead and to innovate. , There's other parts of this equation that you can be experimenting with too, and I'd love to pick your brain about them as a software leader and, and, and one of them is about looking forward and kind of understanding that future that we're all building towards and beyond today's models and hardware. [00:19:48] Andrew Zigler: You know, what do you see as the next major bottleneck or opportunity in the AI compute space? As, as you know, enterprises and folks start to get a little more mature about what's available to [00:20:00] them. [00:20:00] Anush Elangovan: Yeah, I think, the bottleneck and opportunity is, uh, what I'd call, call walking the last mile of ai. Right. Uh, and like I I, I gave you an example, uh, previously, but, but it's similar to that. It's like there are cases where Humans have so many, uh, things to do in your day. You know, like the, if we sit down and actually had a customer focus like, okay, these customers lives, I'm gonna save four hours of this customer's life. And if you actually sit down and look at all of that, it'll be. Easily automatable, easily you know, uh, applicable, uh, for ai, right? [00:20:39] Anush Elangovan: Like, but then making it happen is gonna take a little bit, right? It's like maybe it's, uh, paying your utility bill, right? Or something like that, right? Or, or, your healthcare explanation of benefits. Uh, like, I'm sure you get an explanation of benefits, and I'm like, I, I don't even know what that thing is. [00:20:55] Anush Elangovan: It's just like EOB and like. [00:20:57] Andrew Zigler: it's a big, a big old PDF. Yeah, [00:21:00] exactly. [00:21:01] Anush Elangovan: Like, like, I'm like great straight to the, uh, shredder, right? And but that could be, you know, automated with the ai, right? It, it, it'd be like, Hey, the summary of this thing is you went and visited this day. Everything is okay. Everything is paid for, so don't worry, it's not a bill. [00:21:17] Anush Elangovan: That again, the same, uh, thing, but the sense of what that information overload is could be. Digested by ai, uh, accumulated over time and retrieved when you need it. Like, I don't, I actually don't even need to know this EOB right now, unless of course, whenever I need to know it, that maybe, you know, like for some benefits I need to figure out what do, what did I do over the past year and how do I apply it? Source:

Mike

14,195 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

In the countless iconic moments of “Roman Holiday” (1953), there is one fleeting detail that quietly surpasses them all. In the final press conference, Princess Ann is asked which city she has loved most during her tour. Before replying, she pauses. Her gaze drifts, ever so briefly, towards Joe Bradley. Only then does she smile and answer: “Rome. Definitely Rome.” The entire moment lasts mere seconds. Yet it has become one of the most enduring and cherished endings in the history of classic cinema. The real question is not why this scene moves audiences so deeply, but why such a tiny glance can carry such profound emotional power. The answer lies in a sequence of layers that descend from the surface of cinema to the very depths of human nature. The first layer is cinematic technique itself. A pause. A glance. A reply. Director William Wyler entirely avoids any overt display of emotion. There is no declaration of love, no tearful embrace, no sobbing. Audrey Hepburn performs almost entirely through silence. The camera does not force emotion upon the viewer; it merely observes with quiet restraint. Precisely because everything is held in check to the utmost degree, that single brief glance becomes the emotional centre of the entire scene. Yet the glance is only the outward expression of something far deeper. Why does Ann look at Joe before answering? Not because she has forgotten the answer. Nor merely to confirm their love. What Ann truly accomplishes in that instant is to complete the final farewell that neither of them can put into words. It is the last time they will look upon each other. The last time they acknowledge that the days they shared were real, beautiful, and now belong forever to the past. Only after silently accepting that truth can Ann continue forward in her role as princess. Thus the glance is not the cause of the emotion; it is merely the visible sign of an invisible decision within her heart. It is the decision to return to the path that duty has laid before her. But this leads to a still deeper question. Why does that decision resonate so powerfully with audiences? Because the scene touches one of the most fundamental human needs. Human beings long to be loved, to belong, and to find a place where their lives hold meaning. At the same time, as we mature, we all face moments when not everything that is good can be kept. Sometimes two precious things conflict, and to hold one means having to release the other. Audiences recognise this experience long before they can analyse it with reason. Many have faced choices in which the heart wished to go one way, yet responsibility, family, conscience or duty led them another. Roman Holiday gives this universal experience a concrete and unforgettable form. Yet the film reaches even deeper than psychology. The power of the scene does not lie in the sadness of separation. It lies in the beauty of voluntary sacrifice. Neither character is defeated. Neither is coerced. Ann freely forgoes her personal happiness in order to fulfil her duty as a princess. Joe freely abandons a scoop that could have transformed his career in order to protect Ann’s honour and dignity. What makes them noble is not that they obtained what they desired, but that they willingly relinquished what they loved most in order to preserve what they believed to be right. That is the moral centre of the entire film. On a deeper philosophical level, Roman Holiday reflects an ideal long cherished in traditional human culture. The nobility of a person is measured not only by how far they can pursue personal happiness, but also by their capacity for self-mastery, loyalty to duty, preservation of honour, and placing the common good above private desire. Thus the film does not portray sacrifice as failure. It portrays sacrifice as the elevation of character. The final glance between Ann and Joe is beautiful because it preserves both love and dignity. Neither destroys the other. There remains, however, one final layer of meaning that some viewers may sense. Many traditions of spiritual cultivation and thought hold that within every human being there exists a higher moral nature — a part oriented towards selflessness, compassion, truthfulness and goodness, rising above selfish immediate desires. Different traditions name this nature differently: some call it the Divine Nature, others the Buddha Nature, while still others simply regard it as the noblest aspect of human character. Viewed through this lens, Ann’s choice is not merely the performance of duty. It is the expression of that noble nature. She places her family, her nation, and the people she is responsible for serving above her own happiness. This is not only responsibility. It is also altruism. In many traditions of cultivation, such choices are seen as bringing a person closer to the truth of the universe. When human beings rise above selfishness, release their attachments to personal gain, and live in accordance with their innate goodness, they are gradually returning to their original true nature. Some traditions call this “returning to the origin and restoring the fundamental.” Others describe it as returning to the Creator or to Heaven — understood as the ultimate source of life. Whether or not viewers share this spiritual interpretation, it helps explain why the ending of Roman Holiday has retained its power across generations. For in the end, the film is not merely about a princess who loses her love. Nor is it simply about the choice between love and duty. It touches something far deeper in human nature: A person becomes most noble not when they obtain everything they desire, but when they voluntarily choose goodness over selfishness, responsibility over fleeting desire, and sacrificial love over possession. That final glance is merely what we see. Behind the glance lies farewell. Behind the farewell lies voluntary sacrifice. Behind the sacrifice lies the aspiration to live in accordance with the noblest part of oneself. And because Roman Holiday reaches this profound depth of human nature, a single glance lasting only a few seconds has been enough to move audiences around the world for more than seventy years.
6:48

In the countless iconic moments of “Roman Holiday” (1953), there is one fleeting detail that quietly surpasses them all. In the final press conference, Princess Ann is asked which city she has loved most during her tour. Before replying, she pauses. Her gaze drifts, ever so briefly, towards Joe Bradley. Only then does she smile and answer: “Rome. Definitely Rome.” The entire moment lasts mere seconds. Yet it has become one of the most enduring and cherished endings in the history of classic cinema. The real question is not why this scene moves audiences so deeply, but why such a tiny glance can carry such profound emotional power. The answer lies in a sequence of layers that descend from the surface of cinema to the very depths of human nature. The first layer is cinematic technique itself. A pause. A glance. A reply. Director William Wyler entirely avoids any overt display of emotion. There is no declaration of love, no tearful embrace, no sobbing. Audrey Hepburn performs almost entirely through silence. The camera does not force emotion upon the viewer; it merely observes with quiet restraint. Precisely because everything is held in check to the utmost degree, that single brief glance becomes the emotional centre of the entire scene. Yet the glance is only the outward expression of something far deeper. Why does Ann look at Joe before answering? Not because she has forgotten the answer. Nor merely to confirm their love. What Ann truly accomplishes in that instant is to complete the final farewell that neither of them can put into words. It is the last time they will look upon each other. The last time they acknowledge that the days they shared were real, beautiful, and now belong forever to the past. Only after silently accepting that truth can Ann continue forward in her role as princess. Thus the glance is not the cause of the emotion; it is merely the visible sign of an invisible decision within her heart. It is the decision to return to the path that duty has laid before her. But this leads to a still deeper question. Why does that decision resonate so powerfully with audiences? Because the scene touches one of the most fundamental human needs. Human beings long to be loved, to belong, and to find a place where their lives hold meaning. At the same time, as we mature, we all face moments when not everything that is good can be kept. Sometimes two precious things conflict, and to hold one means having to release the other. Audiences recognise this experience long before they can analyse it with reason. Many have faced choices in which the heart wished to go one way, yet responsibility, family, conscience or duty led them another. Roman Holiday gives this universal experience a concrete and unforgettable form. Yet the film reaches even deeper than psychology. The power of the scene does not lie in the sadness of separation. It lies in the beauty of voluntary sacrifice. Neither character is defeated. Neither is coerced. Ann freely forgoes her personal happiness in order to fulfil her duty as a princess. Joe freely abandons a scoop that could have transformed his career in order to protect Ann’s honour and dignity. What makes them noble is not that they obtained what they desired, but that they willingly relinquished what they loved most in order to preserve what they believed to be right. That is the moral centre of the entire film. On a deeper philosophical level, Roman Holiday reflects an ideal long cherished in traditional human culture. The nobility of a person is measured not only by how far they can pursue personal happiness, but also by their capacity for self-mastery, loyalty to duty, preservation of honour, and placing the common good above private desire. Thus the film does not portray sacrifice as failure. It portrays sacrifice as the elevation of character. The final glance between Ann and Joe is beautiful because it preserves both love and dignity. Neither destroys the other. There remains, however, one final layer of meaning that some viewers may sense. Many traditions of spiritual cultivation and thought hold that within every human being there exists a higher moral nature — a part oriented towards selflessness, compassion, truthfulness and goodness, rising above selfish immediate desires. Different traditions name this nature differently: some call it the Divine Nature, others the Buddha Nature, while still others simply regard it as the noblest aspect of human character. Viewed through this lens, Ann’s choice is not merely the performance of duty. It is the expression of that noble nature. She places her family, her nation, and the people she is responsible for serving above her own happiness. This is not only responsibility. It is also altruism. In many traditions of cultivation, such choices are seen as bringing a person closer to the truth of the universe. When human beings rise above selfishness, release their attachments to personal gain, and live in accordance with their innate goodness, they are gradually returning to their original true nature. Some traditions call this “returning to the origin and restoring the fundamental.” Others describe it as returning to the Creator or to Heaven — understood as the ultimate source of life. Whether or not viewers share this spiritual interpretation, it helps explain why the ending of Roman Holiday has retained its power across generations. For in the end, the film is not merely about a princess who loses her love. Nor is it simply about the choice between love and duty. It touches something far deeper in human nature: A person becomes most noble not when they obtain everything they desire, but when they voluntarily choose goodness over selfishness, responsibility over fleeting desire, and sacrificial love over possession. That final glance is merely what we see. Behind the glance lies farewell. Behind the farewell lies voluntary sacrifice. Behind the sacrifice lies the aspiration to live in accordance with the noblest part of oneself. And because Roman Holiday reaches this profound depth of human nature, a single glance lasting only a few seconds has been enough to move audiences around the world for more than seventy years.

𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀

39,825 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

798,441 просмотров • 2 лет назад

I've become a missionary with one message. Every time I meet a young person, the same words: have children, get married, build a family. I did not decide on this calling. It overtook me. And it overtook me for a single reason. I had no idea. I genuinely did not understand how much joy, how much meaning, how much sheer beauty pours out of a child until I was holding one of my own and felt the floor of my life drop into something deeper than I knew was there. I grew up white, affluent, secular, comfortable, and insulated. That world does not put babies in front of you. None of my friends were starting families. Out of my whole circle, almost no one has a big one. We were not formed by the presence of children. We were formed by their absence, by the strange quiet of homes built for two careers and no cradle. And a person believes what his world shows him. So we believed. What we believed was a lie. It is a lie with an author, and that the author is the enemy of joy himself. It is the gospel of the world, and its commandment is wait. Wait until you are older. Wait until the career is built and the savings are stacked and the twenties are properly spent. Enjoy your freedom. You are not ready. It does not arrive sounding like temptation. It arrives sounding like wisdom, like prudence, like the responsible thing, and that is exactly why it works. The most effective lies are the ones that wear the face of virtue. And the maddening thing is that it collapses from every angle at once. It is not rooted in biology, because the body is made for this work precisely in the years we are told to postpone it. The flesh keeps a calendar the culture pretends not to see. And it is not rooted in theology either. You will not find this deferral anywhere in the Christian imagination, in any of the fathers, in any of the scriptures. So choose whatever lens you like. Take the cold secular measure or the ancient sacred one. By either light the counsel is rotten. It is bad for the body and bad for the soul and bad for the society downstream of both. This is why I have come to see it as one of the central tragedies of my generation. Every age carries its own wound. The Great Depression was a depression of bread, a scarcity in the world of matter, hunger you could measure. Ours is a depression of a different order. It is a famine of the spirit in the middle of abundance. We have more than any people who ever lived and we are starving in a way our ancestors would not recognize, because the thing we are refusing cannot be bought and cannot be banked. The ones most made to give and receive this love are quietly declining it. They are walking away from the one inheritance that actually compounds, and the cruelest part is that they do not feel the loss as loss. You cannot grieve what you were taught not to want. That is the deepest cut of it. The lie does not only steal the thing. It steals the capacity to know the thing was stolen. A man can spend his whole life on the far side of a door he never knew was a door, mistaking the wall for the edge of the world. Because this beauty is not ordinary beauty. It is not the pleasure of a good meal or a clear morning. It is participation in something that comes down from above, the same generative love that spoke everything out of nothing and called it good. To make a person, to be undone and remade by loving that person more than your own life, is to be drawn for a moment inside the very act that holds the cosmos together. A child does not merely add to your life. A child reorders the soul. It teaches you what you are by asking everything of you, and you discover, kneeling there exhausted at three in the morning, that you had a capacity for self gift you never suspected, a depth in yourself you had no other way to reach. In the Gospel of John, on the last night, Jesus prays, these things I have spoken to you that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. And I have come to understand why family is the road into that fullness, why it is not one path among many but the one most fitted to the shape of the promise. Consider who is praying. Christ does not come to us as a lone figure dropped out of the sky. He comes out of a family older than the world, the eternal communion of Father and Son, the love between them so total and so alive that theologians dared to call it a third person. Before there was anything, there was a family. The deepest fact about reality is not a force or a law or a void. It is a household. It is begetting and being begotten, giving and receiving, a Father who is only a Father because there is a Son. So when Jesus speaks of joy made complete, he is not pointing away from family toward something higher. He is pointing toward the very thing he came from, the life he has known from eternity and came to share. His joy is the joy of belonging utterly to a Father and pouring himself out for those he loves. When you marry, when you bring a child into the world, when you wear yourself down in the small unseen labors of a home, you are not stepping outside that divine life. You are stepping into a small image of it. Your family is a created echo of an uncreated one. The love you give your child rhymes with the love the Father has for the Son. The exhaustion, the tenderness, the way a parent would tear the sky open to protect a sleeping infant, all of it is the heavens pressed faintly into flesh, the eternal household leaving its fingerprint on yours. That is why the joy is not merely added to family but completed in it. We were made in the image of a God who is, at his very root, relation and gift and generation. To found a family is to do the most Godlike thing a creature can do, to participate from below in the begetting that God does from all eternity. Your home becomes a window. Through it, dimly and imperfectly, you glimpse the country you came from and are going to. And now a word for the young people reading this, the ones who do not yet have children. I want to tell you what it is like from where I stand. When I am out somewhere, a restaurant, anywhere, and a large family comes through the door, the noise and the chaos and the small bodies of them, something happens in me on two levels at once. The first is joy. A pure gladness at the sight, the way you feel watching something good and alive. But underneath it, almost in the same instant, a sadness reaches up and takes hold of my heart. Because I know now, at my age, after my own years of waiting, that I will never have that. I will never know the particular fruit of a family that large, the fullness of that table, the weight of all those lives gathered under one roof. The door to it has quietly closed, and I felt it close. And I am telling you plainly, because I love you and have no reason to lie to you: you will feel this too. You will. The day will come when you see what you passed up, and you will recognize the ache for what it is, and it will be too late to answer it. So please, learn from a man who got it wrong. Let my regret be worth something by becoming your wisdom. Do not wait yourself into a grief you cannot undo. Choose now, while the door is open, so that you may step into a joy that does not end.
8:26

I've become a missionary with one message. Every time I meet a young person, the same words: have children, get married, build a family. I did not decide on this calling. It overtook me. And it overtook me for a single reason. I had no idea. I genuinely did not understand how much joy, how much meaning, how much sheer beauty pours out of a child until I was holding one of my own and felt the floor of my life drop into something deeper than I knew was there. I grew up white, affluent, secular, comfortable, and insulated. That world does not put babies in front of you. None of my friends were starting families. Out of my whole circle, almost no one has a big one. We were not formed by the presence of children. We were formed by their absence, by the strange quiet of homes built for two careers and no cradle. And a person believes what his world shows him. So we believed. What we believed was a lie. It is a lie with an author, and that the author is the enemy of joy himself. It is the gospel of the world, and its commandment is wait. Wait until you are older. Wait until the career is built and the savings are stacked and the twenties are properly spent. Enjoy your freedom. You are not ready. It does not arrive sounding like temptation. It arrives sounding like wisdom, like prudence, like the responsible thing, and that is exactly why it works. The most effective lies are the ones that wear the face of virtue. And the maddening thing is that it collapses from every angle at once. It is not rooted in biology, because the body is made for this work precisely in the years we are told to postpone it. The flesh keeps a calendar the culture pretends not to see. And it is not rooted in theology either. You will not find this deferral anywhere in the Christian imagination, in any of the fathers, in any of the scriptures. So choose whatever lens you like. Take the cold secular measure or the ancient sacred one. By either light the counsel is rotten. It is bad for the body and bad for the soul and bad for the society downstream of both. This is why I have come to see it as one of the central tragedies of my generation. Every age carries its own wound. The Great Depression was a depression of bread, a scarcity in the world of matter, hunger you could measure. Ours is a depression of a different order. It is a famine of the spirit in the middle of abundance. We have more than any people who ever lived and we are starving in a way our ancestors would not recognize, because the thing we are refusing cannot be bought and cannot be banked. The ones most made to give and receive this love are quietly declining it. They are walking away from the one inheritance that actually compounds, and the cruelest part is that they do not feel the loss as loss. You cannot grieve what you were taught not to want. That is the deepest cut of it. The lie does not only steal the thing. It steals the capacity to know the thing was stolen. A man can spend his whole life on the far side of a door he never knew was a door, mistaking the wall for the edge of the world. Because this beauty is not ordinary beauty. It is not the pleasure of a good meal or a clear morning. It is participation in something that comes down from above, the same generative love that spoke everything out of nothing and called it good. To make a person, to be undone and remade by loving that person more than your own life, is to be drawn for a moment inside the very act that holds the cosmos together. A child does not merely add to your life. A child reorders the soul. It teaches you what you are by asking everything of you, and you discover, kneeling there exhausted at three in the morning, that you had a capacity for self gift you never suspected, a depth in yourself you had no other way to reach. In the Gospel of John, on the last night, Jesus prays, these things I have spoken to you that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. And I have come to understand why family is the road into that fullness, why it is not one path among many but the one most fitted to the shape of the promise. Consider who is praying. Christ does not come to us as a lone figure dropped out of the sky. He comes out of a family older than the world, the eternal communion of Father and Son, the love between them so total and so alive that theologians dared to call it a third person. Before there was anything, there was a family. The deepest fact about reality is not a force or a law or a void. It is a household. It is begetting and being begotten, giving and receiving, a Father who is only a Father because there is a Son. So when Jesus speaks of joy made complete, he is not pointing away from family toward something higher. He is pointing toward the very thing he came from, the life he has known from eternity and came to share. His joy is the joy of belonging utterly to a Father and pouring himself out for those he loves. When you marry, when you bring a child into the world, when you wear yourself down in the small unseen labors of a home, you are not stepping outside that divine life. You are stepping into a small image of it. Your family is a created echo of an uncreated one. The love you give your child rhymes with the love the Father has for the Son. The exhaustion, the tenderness, the way a parent would tear the sky open to protect a sleeping infant, all of it is the heavens pressed faintly into flesh, the eternal household leaving its fingerprint on yours. That is why the joy is not merely added to family but completed in it. We were made in the image of a God who is, at his very root, relation and gift and generation. To found a family is to do the most Godlike thing a creature can do, to participate from below in the begetting that God does from all eternity. Your home becomes a window. Through it, dimly and imperfectly, you glimpse the country you came from and are going to. And now a word for the young people reading this, the ones who do not yet have children. I want to tell you what it is like from where I stand. When I am out somewhere, a restaurant, anywhere, and a large family comes through the door, the noise and the chaos and the small bodies of them, something happens in me on two levels at once. The first is joy. A pure gladness at the sight, the way you feel watching something good and alive. But underneath it, almost in the same instant, a sadness reaches up and takes hold of my heart. Because I know now, at my age, after my own years of waiting, that I will never have that. I will never know the particular fruit of a family that large, the fullness of that table, the weight of all those lives gathered under one roof. The door to it has quietly closed, and I felt it close. And I am telling you plainly, because I love you and have no reason to lie to you: you will feel this too. You will. The day will come when you see what you passed up, and you will recognize the ache for what it is, and it will be too late to answer it. So please, learn from a man who got it wrong. Let my regret be worth something by becoming your wisdom. Do not wait yourself into a grief you cannot undo. Choose now, while the door is open, so that you may step into a joy that does not end.

Kirk Rollins

78,104 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."
16:47

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."

Farrukh

165,871 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад