Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

This seems like a conversation between two comedians, but really it’s a deep reflection of the fundamental difference between the Aryan and the Jew. Norm Macdonald- “Life is what is not what we think it is.” As in reality is what matters not perception. Jerry Seinfeld- “I would say... it’s the exact opposite.” As in perception is what matters not reality. The Aryan has long believed that life/ nature has come with a certain set of rules and we are to learn from those rules. That is the foundation of western thought. We observe the world as it is. The Jew believes that he can create his own reality. Create the world the way he wishes to see it, as he does with social science professors and Hollywood. This is why the Aryan pushes for what he sees as “normal.” 2 parent relationships, strong male Leadership, etc. while the Jew pushes for transgenderism, homosexuality, multiculturalism.show more

Uncommon Sense

318,164 subscribers

214,248 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Komedi Haberler & Politika

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Bilbo Baggins: When a Life Is Stretched to Its Limit There is a line spoken by Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings that has stayed with me: “I’m old, Gandalf. I know I don’t look it, but I’m beginning to feel it in my heart. I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.” At first, this might sound like nothing more than the complaint of someone who has lived too long. But what caught my attention was not that Bilbo says he is old. It is the way he describes that feeling: “I feel thin.” He does not say that he is in pain. He says that he is being stretched. And from there, I began to see this line as an image of a being carrying a burden greater than the scope of an ordinary life. This is my personal interpretation. Tolkien does not directly present a concept of “capacity” or “the elasticity of a life” in the way I am using those ideas here. I am simply taking Bilbo’s own image of “butter and bread” and using it to look more deeply into the feeling he is describing. Too Much Bread and Too Little Butter If I had to imagine that feeling through another image, I would think of a balloon. When it is in its natural state, it has a certain shape. As the pressure increases, it begins to stretch. It has not burst. But it is no longer in its original state. And I think Bilbo is much the same. He has possessed the Ring for sixty years. Yet what is remarkable is that, after all that time, Bilbo is still Bilbo. He still loves the Shire, loves Bag End, cares about Frodo, writes books, smokes, and talks with Gandalf. The Ring has affected him, but it has not completely taken over who he is. That is why I do not think Bilbo’s endurance should simply be understood as: “He was so strong that the Ring could not affect him.” Quite the opposite. The words “I feel thin, sort of stretched...” show that he has already begun to feel that pressure from within. And this is where the image of “butter and bread” becomes especially interesting. The piece of bread does not necessarily have to be understood as the Ring itself. In the way I see it, it is something broader. It is the entire scope of what Bilbo is carrying: the passing years, his unusual existence, the pressure of the Ring, and everything that comes with it. The butter, meanwhile, is Bilbo himself. A finite being with finite capacity. A little butter is enough for a reasonably sized piece of bread. But when it has to be spread across a piece of bread that is too large, it has to become thinner. And that is what I feel in Bilbo. It is not that he suddenly becomes weak. It is that the same being is having to stretch itself to accommodate a burden that has grown beyond the boundaries of an ordinary life. “Stretched” Does Not Mean Destroyed This is the part I find most important. Bilbo is still alive. He is still himself. He still has things he loves and still has the ability to experience the world around him. But something has appeared within him that perhaps was not there before: He feels that he is being stretched too thin. So, being “stretched” does not mean that Bilbo has been destroyed. It shows that he is still enduring, but that his endurance has begun to leave a mark. Being able to endure does not mean being unaffected. A person can endure something for a very long time and still become tired. Someone can continue living almost normally while inwardly feeling that they are being stretched too thin. Bilbo is in precisely that state. And perhaps that is why his next words feel so natural: “I need a holiday, a very long holiday...” I like the way Bilbo says this. He does not try to prove that he can endure more. He simply realizes that he needs to leave. To me, this is a remarkable form of awareness. Bilbo does not wait until he has completely lost himself before recognizing the problem. He realizes that he is being stretched. And from that realization, he wants to step away from the circumstances creating that pressure. Recognizing Your Limit Is Also a Form of Strength If we continue with the image of the balloon, Bilbo has enough elasticity to withstand that pressure for decades. But that elasticity is not infinite. The more it is stretched, the farther it moves from its original state. And what catches my attention most is that Bilbo is still aware enough to recognize this. From this perspective, I see Bilbo’s decision to leave in a different way. He does not leave because he has failed. He leaves because he has recognized his limit. To me, this is much more meaningful than simply saying that Bilbo is “strong” because he was able to possess the Ring for so long. A being can be remarkably resilient and still have limits. And being able to recognize those limits is not weakness. It is awareness. Bilbo does not say: “I can endure more.” He says, in a very different way: “I need a holiday.” Perhaps that simplicity is exactly what makes the line so thought-provoking. He does not need to prove how strong he is. He only needs to be honest about what he is feeling. Why Is the Image of the “Butter” So Sad? That is also why I find Bilbo’s image of the butter so sad. Bilbo is still there. He has not disappeared. He has not been destroyed. But he feels as though he has been spread too thin. The image does not describe a moment of collapse. It describes a process. The burden creates pressure. The pressure forces Bilbo to adapt. That prolonged adaptation makes him feel increasingly stretched. And eventually, he realizes that he cannot continue that way forever. That is what makes the words “I feel thin” so important. “Thin” is not a declaration of weakness. It is a sign that a being has been pulled away from its natural state for too long. And recognizing that opens a choice for Bilbo: To leave. It makes me see Bilbo differently: “Bilbo is not a being that cannot be stretched; he is a being that has endured pressure for a very long time, yet remained aware enough to recognize that his capacity to stretch is not infinite.” And perhaps that is what I like most about this line. Strength is not always about enduring more. Sometimes, strength is knowing that you have endured enough.

Bilbo Baggins: When a Life Is Stretched to Its Limit There is a line spoken by Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings that has stayed with me: “I’m old, Gandalf. I know I don’t look it, but I’m beginning to feel it in my heart. I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.” At first, this might sound like nothing more than the complaint of someone who has lived too long. But what caught my attention was not that Bilbo says he is old. It is the way he describes that feeling: “I feel thin.” He does not say that he is in pain. He says that he is being stretched. And from there, I began to see this line as an image of a being carrying a burden greater than the scope of an ordinary life. This is my personal interpretation. Tolkien does not directly present a concept of “capacity” or “the elasticity of a life” in the way I am using those ideas here. I am simply taking Bilbo’s own image of “butter and bread” and using it to look more deeply into the feeling he is describing. Too Much Bread and Too Little Butter If I had to imagine that feeling through another image, I would think of a balloon. When it is in its natural state, it has a certain shape. As the pressure increases, it begins to stretch. It has not burst. But it is no longer in its original state. And I think Bilbo is much the same. He has possessed the Ring for sixty years. Yet what is remarkable is that, after all that time, Bilbo is still Bilbo. He still loves the Shire, loves Bag End, cares about Frodo, writes books, smokes, and talks with Gandalf. The Ring has affected him, but it has not completely taken over who he is. That is why I do not think Bilbo’s endurance should simply be understood as: “He was so strong that the Ring could not affect him.” Quite the opposite. The words “I feel thin, sort of stretched...” show that he has already begun to feel that pressure from within. And this is where the image of “butter and bread” becomes especially interesting. The piece of bread does not necessarily have to be understood as the Ring itself. In the way I see it, it is something broader. It is the entire scope of what Bilbo is carrying: the passing years, his unusual existence, the pressure of the Ring, and everything that comes with it. The butter, meanwhile, is Bilbo himself. A finite being with finite capacity. A little butter is enough for a reasonably sized piece of bread. But when it has to be spread across a piece of bread that is too large, it has to become thinner. And that is what I feel in Bilbo. It is not that he suddenly becomes weak. It is that the same being is having to stretch itself to accommodate a burden that has grown beyond the boundaries of an ordinary life. “Stretched” Does Not Mean Destroyed This is the part I find most important. Bilbo is still alive. He is still himself. He still has things he loves and still has the ability to experience the world around him. But something has appeared within him that perhaps was not there before: He feels that he is being stretched too thin. So, being “stretched” does not mean that Bilbo has been destroyed. It shows that he is still enduring, but that his endurance has begun to leave a mark. Being able to endure does not mean being unaffected. A person can endure something for a very long time and still become tired. Someone can continue living almost normally while inwardly feeling that they are being stretched too thin. Bilbo is in precisely that state. And perhaps that is why his next words feel so natural: “I need a holiday, a very long holiday...” I like the way Bilbo says this. He does not try to prove that he can endure more. He simply realizes that he needs to leave. To me, this is a remarkable form of awareness. Bilbo does not wait until he has completely lost himself before recognizing the problem. He realizes that he is being stretched. And from that realization, he wants to step away from the circumstances creating that pressure. Recognizing Your Limit Is Also a Form of Strength If we continue with the image of the balloon, Bilbo has enough elasticity to withstand that pressure for decades. But that elasticity is not infinite. The more it is stretched, the farther it moves from its original state. And what catches my attention most is that Bilbo is still aware enough to recognize this. From this perspective, I see Bilbo’s decision to leave in a different way. He does not leave because he has failed. He leaves because he has recognized his limit. To me, this is much more meaningful than simply saying that Bilbo is “strong” because he was able to possess the Ring for so long. A being can be remarkably resilient and still have limits. And being able to recognize those limits is not weakness. It is awareness. Bilbo does not say: “I can endure more.” He says, in a very different way: “I need a holiday.” Perhaps that simplicity is exactly what makes the line so thought-provoking. He does not need to prove how strong he is. He only needs to be honest about what he is feeling. Why Is the Image of the “Butter” So Sad? That is also why I find Bilbo’s image of the butter so sad. Bilbo is still there. He has not disappeared. He has not been destroyed. But he feels as though he has been spread too thin. The image does not describe a moment of collapse. It describes a process. The burden creates pressure. The pressure forces Bilbo to adapt. That prolonged adaptation makes him feel increasingly stretched. And eventually, he realizes that he cannot continue that way forever. That is what makes the words “I feel thin” so important. “Thin” is not a declaration of weakness. It is a sign that a being has been pulled away from its natural state for too long. And recognizing that opens a choice for Bilbo: To leave. It makes me see Bilbo differently: “Bilbo is not a being that cannot be stretched; he is a being that has endured pressure for a very long time, yet remained aware enough to recognize that his capacity to stretch is not infinite.” And perhaps that is what I like most about this line. Strength is not always about enduring more. Sometimes, strength is knowing that you have endured enough.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

15,306 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

You all might not like it or agree with it, but what we are witnessing is Trump negotiating on the world stage. It reminds me of when Trump threatened Kim Jong Un with “fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen”. The next year Trump and KJU held a peace summit after the MSM said he would start nuclear war and WW3. Trump turned the entire situation around and accomplished something the world once believed to be impossible. I’m not saying the current situation is exactly like North Korea, but it’s just a reminder that these situations are NEVER initially as they seem. It may have appeared liked we were on the brink of destruction, but really we were not. Trump’s objective is not war, but as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military ever assembled, he is going to flex his muscle when he needs to, in order to achieve his desired result. You might not like it, but this is the reality of the situation. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows in the real world.

You all might not like it or agree with it, but what we are witnessing is Trump negotiating on the world stage. It reminds me of when Trump threatened Kim Jong Un with “fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen”. The next year Trump and KJU held a peace summit after the MSM said he would start nuclear war and WW3. Trump turned the entire situation around and accomplished something the world once believed to be impossible. I’m not saying the current situation is exactly like North Korea, but it’s just a reminder that these situations are NEVER initially as they seem. It may have appeared liked we were on the brink of destruction, but really we were not. Trump’s objective is not war, but as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military ever assembled, he is going to flex his muscle when he needs to, in order to achieve his desired result. You might not like it, but this is the reality of the situation. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows in the real world.

Clandestine

1,076,079 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

the camera being in a tight close up on both ilya and shane for the entirety of this scene, except for the moment when ilya is working up the courage to say he’s in love. it’s like for the whole conversation it’s just the two of them, there’s nobody else who matters, and then for a brief moment the shot widens as ilya considers the implications of the fact he’s in love with shane. the fact that the rest of the world DOES matter and will always be a presence in their relationship. we’ve been held in this moment between the two of them and by widening the shot, that intimacy is broken just for a second as we’re reminded that there is a world beyond the two of them and ilya is still in russia. what he’s doing is incredibly dangerous. then the camera tightens back into a close up as he realises he needs to say it anyway because all that matters is that he’s on the phone with shane and he’s in love with him. it really is just the two of them in this moment and he doesn’t want to let anyone else in.

the camera being in a tight close up on both ilya and shane for the entirety of this scene, except for the moment when ilya is working up the courage to say he’s in love. it’s like for the whole conversation it’s just the two of them, there’s nobody else who matters, and then for a brief moment the shot widens as ilya considers the implications of the fact he’s in love with shane. the fact that the rest of the world DOES matter and will always be a presence in their relationship. we’ve been held in this moment between the two of them and by widening the shot, that intimacy is broken just for a second as we’re reminded that there is a world beyond the two of them and ilya is still in russia. what he’s doing is incredibly dangerous. then the camera tightens back into a close up as he realises he needs to say it anyway because all that matters is that he’s on the phone with shane and he’s in love with him. it really is just the two of them in this moment and he doesn’t want to let anyone else in.

fran🏒

295,103 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.

Shruti

16,844 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Kamala Harris: Donald Trump is the first President of the United States since World War II who does not believe in the alliances that we have with friendly nations. Look what he did as it relates and what he has been doing as it relates to Ukraine.

Kamala Harris: Donald Trump is the first President of the United States since World War II who does not believe in the alliances that we have with friendly nations. Look what he did as it relates and what he has been doing as it relates to Ukraine.

Kate from Kharkiv

19,454 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

15,487 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Elon keeps the hours with Lil X that the companies do not get to vote on. He has said he only has him every other week and tries to use as much of that time as he can. He did not grow up with a stable father in the house. The rule he set for himself is the opposite. Stay. Do the ordinary thing. People can call him a bad father from outside the clip. The boy inside it is not being left. The headline can say what it wants. He is spending the week he actually has.

Elon keeps the hours with Lil X that the companies do not get to vote on. He has said he only has him every other week and tries to use as much of that time as he can. He did not grow up with a stable father in the house. The rule he set for himself is the opposite. Stay. Do the ordinary thing. People can call him a bad father from outside the clip. The boy inside it is not being left. The headline can say what it wants. He is spending the week he actually has.

Astro Greek

46,219 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce

Matthew Brown: “You are not free. This reality has far more to it than you are allowed to believe. God is real.” That is the exact answer the Immaculate Constellation UFO whistleblower gave when asked what he wants people to know if he vanished tomorrow. Brown has described secret government programs tracking unidentified craft, claimed humanity shares Earth with other intelligent life, and said the full picture of reality has been deliberately withheld. He presented this statement as his core message, not a side comment. UAP disclosure is no longer just about technology or national security. It now collides with the oldest questions about what this world actually is and who or what exists beyond what we are shown. What does it mean when someone with that access says the truth is larger than we have been allowed to believe?

Matthew Brown: “You are not free. This reality has far more to it than you are allowed to believe. God is real.” That is the exact answer the Immaculate Constellation UFO whistleblower gave when asked what he wants people to know if he vanished tomorrow. Brown has described secret government programs tracking unidentified craft, claimed humanity shares Earth with other intelligent life, and said the full picture of reality has been deliberately withheld. He presented this statement as his core message, not a side comment. UAP disclosure is no longer just about technology or national security. It now collides with the oldest questions about what this world actually is and who or what exists beyond what we are shown. What does it mean when someone with that access says the truth is larger than we have been allowed to believe?

Interstellar

27,425 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

“Iran is not going to declare an end to the war while Israel is still attacking Lebanon. It has to be part of the deal. And of course, Bibi won’t play ball because he doesn’t want the war to end. And Trump is just waking up to that fact three months into the war, and he’s not happy about it.” “A lot of what he’s saying is that Bibi should do everything that he says. And now he’s learning that that’s not the way the world works. So constantly over the past three months, Trump is confronted by reality, which totally contradicts the made up story he has about the Iran war in his head. And guess what? In the end, reality is winning out.” “And that’s why we’re in the quagmire we’re in. Because Trump won’t accept the reality. He only wants the world to bend to what’s in his head. In this case, he’s not getting what he wants, so he’s throwing a tantrum.”

“Iran is not going to declare an end to the war while Israel is still attacking Lebanon. It has to be part of the deal. And of course, Bibi won’t play ball because he doesn’t want the war to end. And Trump is just waking up to that fact three months into the war, and he’s not happy about it.” “A lot of what he’s saying is that Bibi should do everything that he says. And now he’s learning that that’s not the way the world works. So constantly over the past three months, Trump is confronted by reality, which totally contradicts the made up story he has about the Iran war in his head. And guess what? In the end, reality is winning out.” “And that’s why we’re in the quagmire we’re in. Because Trump won’t accept the reality. He only wants the world to bend to what’s in his head. In this case, he’s not getting what he wants, so he’s throwing a tantrum.”

Josh Rogin

13,279 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

AOC on Vance/Watergate: I think what it reveals more is about what JD Vance’s vision for America is, is that he wants more of the same. He doesn't want anything to change in this country. He wants to continue the reality that corruption is banal, normal. And he loves the way that the country is being governed right now. He loves that you can start an illegal war and make tons of people rich, send Americans into harm's way, and that it'll barely be a blip in on people's radar. He loves that we can engage in record levels of corruption and get away with it. And so in that statement, it's less about the acknowledgment of the reality, but it's that his vision for the future is exactly the same, and that your life won't change if so long as he's in charge.

AOC on Vance/Watergate: I think what it reveals more is about what JD Vance’s vision for America is, is that he wants more of the same. He doesn't want anything to change in this country. He wants to continue the reality that corruption is banal, normal. And he loves the way that the country is being governed right now. He loves that you can start an illegal war and make tons of people rich, send Americans into harm's way, and that it'll barely be a blip in on people's radar. He loves that we can engage in record levels of corruption and get away with it. And so in that statement, it's less about the acknowledgment of the reality, but it's that his vision for the future is exactly the same, and that your life won't change if so long as he's in charge.

Acyn

82,210 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

“One of the things this ideology has done is for the individual is to set a very low bar as to what it means to achieve something. We are cultivating a subculture that believes play acting as the other sex is their life goal…” Similarly, it is such a low bar to be thought of as smart or brave for just saying “men aren’t women”. It’s not smart or brave. It’s obvious. It’s normal. It’s the absolute bare minimum.

“One of the things this ideology has done is for the individual is to set a very low bar as to what it means to achieve something. We are cultivating a subculture that believes play acting as the other sex is their life goal…” Similarly, it is such a low bar to be thought of as smart or brave for just saying “men aren’t women”. It’s not smart or brave. It’s obvious. It’s normal. It’s the absolute bare minimum.

Sall Grover

47,582 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

The Christian kvetching over this clip is pathetic. Here is the full context. In the interview Spielberg is not calling for the abolition or subversion of Christianity or the Church. The film literally includes a cardinal, a nun quoting scripture, and believers wrestling with what alien life would mean for their faith. Spielberg's conclusion is not that Christianity is false, but that god would still have dominion over alien life just as he does over humanity. This is directly out of mainstream Catholic theology. His point is the opposite of what people are claiming. He is suggesting that the creator god shared by Jews and Christians rules the entire universe, and that aliens or other unexplained phenomena would ultimately fall under that god's authority and reinforce it. That is the psyop, not "Christianity is being destroyed/subverted." Jews are not trying to destroy Christianity. Enough of this insecurity and persecution complex. Even by arguing this it shows that you have no idea what is going on.

The Christian kvetching over this clip is pathetic. Here is the full context. In the interview Spielberg is not calling for the abolition or subversion of Christianity or the Church. The film literally includes a cardinal, a nun quoting scripture, and believers wrestling with what alien life would mean for their faith. Spielberg's conclusion is not that Christianity is false, but that god would still have dominion over alien life just as he does over humanity. This is directly out of mainstream Catholic theology. His point is the opposite of what people are claiming. He is suggesting that the creator god shared by Jews and Christians rules the entire universe, and that aliens or other unexplained phenomena would ultimately fall under that god's authority and reinforce it. That is the psyop, not "Christianity is being destroyed/subverted." Jews are not trying to destroy Christianity. Enough of this insecurity and persecution complex. Even by arguing this it shows that you have no idea what is going on.

NeedMoreAmalek

18,305 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

.Kamala Harris: "This is the first president in the United States since World War II, who does not believe in the alliances we have with friendly nations…look what he did as it relates, and what he has been doing as it relates to Ukraine."

.Kamala Harris: "This is the first president in the United States since World War II, who does not believe in the alliances we have with friendly nations…look what he did as it relates, and what he has been doing as it relates to Ukraine."

CSPAN

26,960 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

In a World full of actors, Elon Musk is real “What I care about is the reality of goodness, not the perception of it, and what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil”

In a World full of actors, Elon Musk is real “What I care about is the reality of goodness, not the perception of it, and what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil”

SMX 🇺🇸

28,178 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Many remember Vito Corleone's final conversation with Michael as the moment a father passes his empire to his son. But if that had truly been Francis Ford Coppola's central point, the scene would never have taken place in a garden. He would have set it in the office. That is where power is built. It is also where power is transferred. Instead, Coppola does the opposite. He removes Vito from every symbol that has defined him throughout the film. The dark office is gone. The desk where life-and-death decisions were made is gone. The men waiting for his orders are gone. Even Don Corleone's black suit is gone. What remains is an elderly man in a simple cardigan, sitting among trees, speaking with his son in the soft light of late afternoon. At first glance, it seems like nothing more than a change of location. In cinematic terms, however, it is the most important choice in the entire sequence. For nearly three hours, Coppola carefully builds Vito through the language of power. In this scene, he deliberately strips those layers away. Not to make the character appear weaker. But to stop us from seeing Don Corleone—and allow us to see Vito. Just as importantly, Michael is never framed as a subordinate receiving instructions. The two men sit at eye level. The camera refuses to establish dominance. There is no composition of command and obedience. Because this is not staged as a transfer of authority. It is staged as a meeting. One man has almost reached the end of his journey. The other is about to begin its most difficult chapter. What Vito offers is not a collection of strategies for victory. Strategy belongs to its own time and circumstance. What he passes on is something deeper—a sense of direction that can endure even when circumstances inevitably change. That is why the rhythm of the scene becomes remarkably quiet. There is no conflict. No dramatic climax. No speech designed to astonish the audience. Coppola lets everything settle. Because some truths can only be heard after the noise has faded. That is also why he chooses the garden. Throughout The Godfather, it is the place closest to nature. A garden is where human beings care for life, but never create it. A gardener cannot force a seed to grow. He can only cultivate the conditions in which the life already within the seed may flourish. In a deeper sense, Vito is doing the same. He cannot live Michael's life for him. He cannot make the choices Michael will one day face. The only thing he can do is preserve what time has already proven to be enduring, and entrust it to the next generation. This is no longer instruction. It is continuity. Perhaps that is why Coppola refuses to place the conversation inside a room. He places it among trees. Because nature has always followed a simple law. A tree does not keep its fruit for itself. The fruit bears seeds. The seeds become new trees. Life does not continue through possession. Life continues through what is given away. And it is here that Coppola completes Vito Corleone's journey. For most of the film, Vito is a Don. He commands. He judges. He protects his family. He carries an entire order upon his shoulders. But in the garden, every one of those roles quietly falls away. What remains is not a crime boss. It is a man. A man no longer concerned with how much power he can hold. Only with what is worthy of living on after he is gone. Perhaps that is why this sequence leaves such a lasting impression. It does not ask us to admire Vito Corleone. It invites us to examine ourselves. One day our work will end. Our status will end. Our reputation will end. Even the roles life has entrusted to us will come to an end. When that day arrives, what will remain? Francis Ford Coppola never answers that question with dialogue. He answers it with images. He quietly removes a man from every symbol of power, returns him to the natural world, and lets life speak for itself. Perhaps that is why, more than half a century later, the garden scene still leaves audiences in silence. Not because it is about a Mafia family. But because it reminds us of something every human heart instinctively recognizes. A life is not ultimately measured by what we keep for ourselves, but by what is most true within us that continues to live on in the lives of others. Name movie: The Godfather (1972)

Many remember Vito Corleone's final conversation with Michael as the moment a father passes his empire to his son. But if that had truly been Francis Ford Coppola's central point, the scene would never have taken place in a garden. He would have set it in the office. That is where power is built. It is also where power is transferred. Instead, Coppola does the opposite. He removes Vito from every symbol that has defined him throughout the film. The dark office is gone. The desk where life-and-death decisions were made is gone. The men waiting for his orders are gone. Even Don Corleone's black suit is gone. What remains is an elderly man in a simple cardigan, sitting among trees, speaking with his son in the soft light of late afternoon. At first glance, it seems like nothing more than a change of location. In cinematic terms, however, it is the most important choice in the entire sequence. For nearly three hours, Coppola carefully builds Vito through the language of power. In this scene, he deliberately strips those layers away. Not to make the character appear weaker. But to stop us from seeing Don Corleone—and allow us to see Vito. Just as importantly, Michael is never framed as a subordinate receiving instructions. The two men sit at eye level. The camera refuses to establish dominance. There is no composition of command and obedience. Because this is not staged as a transfer of authority. It is staged as a meeting. One man has almost reached the end of his journey. The other is about to begin its most difficult chapter. What Vito offers is not a collection of strategies for victory. Strategy belongs to its own time and circumstance. What he passes on is something deeper—a sense of direction that can endure even when circumstances inevitably change. That is why the rhythm of the scene becomes remarkably quiet. There is no conflict. No dramatic climax. No speech designed to astonish the audience. Coppola lets everything settle. Because some truths can only be heard after the noise has faded. That is also why he chooses the garden. Throughout The Godfather, it is the place closest to nature. A garden is where human beings care for life, but never create it. A gardener cannot force a seed to grow. He can only cultivate the conditions in which the life already within the seed may flourish. In a deeper sense, Vito is doing the same. He cannot live Michael's life for him. He cannot make the choices Michael will one day face. The only thing he can do is preserve what time has already proven to be enduring, and entrust it to the next generation. This is no longer instruction. It is continuity. Perhaps that is why Coppola refuses to place the conversation inside a room. He places it among trees. Because nature has always followed a simple law. A tree does not keep its fruit for itself. The fruit bears seeds. The seeds become new trees. Life does not continue through possession. Life continues through what is given away. And it is here that Coppola completes Vito Corleone's journey. For most of the film, Vito is a Don. He commands. He judges. He protects his family. He carries an entire order upon his shoulders. But in the garden, every one of those roles quietly falls away. What remains is not a crime boss. It is a man. A man no longer concerned with how much power he can hold. Only with what is worthy of living on after he is gone. Perhaps that is why this sequence leaves such a lasting impression. It does not ask us to admire Vito Corleone. It invites us to examine ourselves. One day our work will end. Our status will end. Our reputation will end. Even the roles life has entrusted to us will come to an end. When that day arrives, what will remain? Francis Ford Coppola never answers that question with dialogue. He answers it with images. He quietly removes a man from every symbol of power, returns him to the natural world, and lets life speak for itself. Perhaps that is why, more than half a century later, the garden scene still leaves audiences in silence. Not because it is about a Mafia family. But because it reminds us of something every human heart instinctively recognizes. A life is not ultimately measured by what we keep for ourselves, but by what is most true within us that continues to live on in the lives of others. Name movie: The Godfather (1972)

Love Classical Music and Movies 🎺🎻💖🎥🎬

33,163 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Andrew Huberman explains why we don’t experience reality exactly as it is. Our brains are constantly building an abstraction of the world from the limited information our senses can detect. We can’t see infrared. We can’t hear every frequency. And even what we do perceive is filtered and interpreted by the brain. What if our perception of reality is only a tiny piece of the bigger picture?

Andrew Huberman explains why we don’t experience reality exactly as it is. Our brains are constantly building an abstraction of the world from the limited information our senses can detect. We can’t see infrared. We can’t hear every frequency. And even what we do perceive is filtered and interpreted by the brain. What if our perception of reality is only a tiny piece of the bigger picture?

Joe Rogan Podcast News

31,093 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?

Terri Green

13,029 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce