Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Time to talk about Schengen. Seriously. Why does it exist? Why did the Swiss (!) join? Because Schengen (> 16.000 km of invisible land borders) is NOT an idea of „open-border“ romantics. It is based on a key insight: to stop irregular migration, you need very high fences. Nobody...

rumeliobserver's profile picture

Gerald Knaus

32,126 subscribers

25,644 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the country is going to be in for quite a surprise. When Trump himself tells you about the saying.. "Trump was right about everything" .. Don't you question, how? Does it make sense that he walked away if he caught them all? If he walked away, then why did he say we are in his second term now? If we are sort of in his second term now, doesn't the 2020 inauguration make more sense? 25k National Guard, fences and barbed wire and no crowd.. When Trump himself tells you about the PAUSE and the drops tell you shown not told.. Doesn't it all start to fit together? Why does nothing make sense? Why does Joe look so different? Why does Trump have 45-47 on his hat? Is that a mistake? Nothing is as it seems.. Why? Is Trump keeping his promise? Is he actually draining the swamp? Has the process motivated the country to do what must be done? Just as Trump suggested it would do? Answer these questions, and consider 5GW .. And I believe you might start to see something that can't be unseen. NCSWIC frens. "Let's see what happens" -DJT
1:07

I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the country is going to be in for quite a surprise. When Trump himself tells you about the saying.. "Trump was right about everything" .. Don't you question, how? Does it make sense that he walked away if he caught them all? If he walked away, then why did he say we are in his second term now? If we are sort of in his second term now, doesn't the 2020 inauguration make more sense? 25k National Guard, fences and barbed wire and no crowd.. When Trump himself tells you about the PAUSE and the drops tell you shown not told.. Doesn't it all start to fit together? Why does nothing make sense? Why does Joe look so different? Why does Trump have 45-47 on his hat? Is that a mistake? Nothing is as it seems.. Why? Is Trump keeping his promise? Is he actually draining the swamp? Has the process motivated the country to do what must be done? Just as Trump suggested it would do? Answer these questions, and consider 5GW .. And I believe you might start to see something that can't be unseen. NCSWIC frens. "Let's see what happens" -DJT

Joe Rambo

1,178,342 views • 2 years ago

to be clear, the only reason the genocidal Zionist Israeli death-cult did not kill Greta Thunberg, Rima Hassan and the others is because of the global attention that was on the Madleen Gaza freedom flotilla. This is why their pathetic propaganda is focused on trying to mock it as a "celeb selfie yacht", because they want the next ones to have less prominent people on them so they can kill them with full impunity. The very fact that they did not dare do to them what they did to Rachel Corrie, Shireen Abu Akleh, Tom Hurndall and so many others with Western citizenship proves that the model of deterrence adopted by the freedom flotilla movement works. And now it must be replicated a hundred, a thousand times over, with freedom convoys travelling from sea and land and having prominent people on board of them, spread out and dispersed. There is already a land convoy under way toward Rafah. They will not dare touch you at the borders on land and on route on sea, at most they will kidnap you. But remember, they killed those on the last flotilla. They will have to expend massive resources trying to stop you all, and one of you will eventually get through, and then two, and then three, then ten, twenty, fifty, and the genocidal decades-long siege is broken. They are afraid now, it is the time to begin a mass flotilla convoy movement to finally break through the genocidal blockade and free Gaza, and free Palestine!
3:11

to be clear, the only reason the genocidal Zionist Israeli death-cult did not kill Greta Thunberg, Rima Hassan and the others is because of the global attention that was on the Madleen Gaza freedom flotilla. This is why their pathetic propaganda is focused on trying to mock it as a "celeb selfie yacht", because they want the next ones to have less prominent people on them so they can kill them with full impunity. The very fact that they did not dare do to them what they did to Rachel Corrie, Shireen Abu Akleh, Tom Hurndall and so many others with Western citizenship proves that the model of deterrence adopted by the freedom flotilla movement works. And now it must be replicated a hundred, a thousand times over, with freedom convoys travelling from sea and land and having prominent people on board of them, spread out and dispersed. There is already a land convoy under way toward Rafah. They will not dare touch you at the borders on land and on route on sea, at most they will kidnap you. But remember, they killed those on the last flotilla. They will have to expend massive resources trying to stop you all, and one of you will eventually get through, and then two, and then three, then ten, twenty, fifty, and the genocidal decades-long siege is broken. They are afraid now, it is the time to begin a mass flotilla convoy movement to finally break through the genocidal blockade and free Gaza, and free Palestine!

☀️👀

300,075 views • 1 year ago

McCormick: So back in 1914, we had anybody can come to America. And nobody had a problem with that. Free immigration, by the way. Why is that? Milton Friedman talked about it, and he’s a great economist, because something changed between then and probably the ’70s and ‘80s when all of a sudden—even back then—we started recognizing there was a problem. Why is that? What’s the difference between open borders and closed borders between 1914 and the ’70s and ’80s? PabloReports: Well, some people would say that it’s because white immigrants were coming in 1914 and Latinos were coming in the ’70s and ’80s. McCormick: Not at all. If you have jobs to come to and you’re paying taxes, everybody’s happy. But if you come here and you’re starting to take welfare and we’re paying for you being here, that is a cost to America. The business of America is business. If you’re doing something that’s bad for the American economy, that doesn’t lift the tide of all ships here, then it’s not good for America. This is about the American country that we’ve all grown accustomed to. And it has to make common sense. I mean, common sense is what we’re supposed to be about.
1:38

McCormick: So back in 1914, we had anybody can come to America. And nobody had a problem with that. Free immigration, by the way. Why is that? Milton Friedman talked about it, and he’s a great economist, because something changed between then and probably the ’70s and ‘80s when all of a sudden—even back then—we started recognizing there was a problem. Why is that? What’s the difference between open borders and closed borders between 1914 and the ’70s and ’80s? PabloReports: Well, some people would say that it’s because white immigrants were coming in 1914 and Latinos were coming in the ’70s and ’80s. McCormick: Not at all. If you have jobs to come to and you’re paying taxes, everybody’s happy. But if you come here and you’re starting to take welfare and we’re paying for you being here, that is a cost to America. The business of America is business. If you’re doing something that’s bad for the American economy, that doesn’t lift the tide of all ships here, then it’s not good for America. This is about the American country that we’ve all grown accustomed to. And it has to make common sense. I mean, common sense is what we’re supposed to be about.

Acyn

86,733 views • 2 months ago

Arabs rejected partition because Jews only owned 6% of the land- one of the most repeated slogans and lies online. Here is what it leaves out. Yes, Jews privately owned roughly 6 to 8% of the land by 1947. But Arabs did not own the other 92%. That's the part that activists conveniently skip. Was the largest category of land was: state land. Not “Palestinian owned land”, Actual British mandate breakdown ( 1945- 1947 ): Arab private ownership approximately 47% Jewish ownership approximately 6 to 8% state slash crown land approximately 40 to 45% Mostly: · Negev desert · Uncultivated land next slide government land The map spammed on Instagram pretending green equals privately Palestinian owned land is historically false. Now here's the part that breaks the slogan completely: next slide the proposed Jewish state received approximately 56% of the territory. Sounds shocking... ... Until you realize most of it was empty desert. The Negev alone made-up a huge chunk of the allocation: · Sparsely populated · Underdeveloped · Mostly state owned land People talk about it like Tel Aviv was handed millions of acres of Arab farmland It wasn't. Even inside the proposed Jewish state, most of the land was: · State land · Desert · Or land already legally purchased by jews Privately owned Arab land inside the proposed Jewish state is estimated at roughly 15 to 20% of that territory. Not “they stole 94% of Palestinian land that” That's propaganda Not history And here's the uncomfortable question nobody wants to answer, if the issue really was “fairness”... Why reject: · Two states? · International borders? · UN recognition? · Negotiation? · Why launch a war instead? Because many Arab leaders openly said the real issue was not borders. It was the existence of any Jewish state at all. Ownership slogan survives because most people never look past the meme. But history is stubborn. The partition plan did not hand Jews: · Most privately owned Arab farmland · 92% of Palestinian land · A fully developed Arab country The partition plan mostly allocated: · State land · Desert · And territory for a second state alongside an Arab one The tragedy is not that partition existed tragedy is that it was rejected. #StopTheLies #Antisemitism #Israel #FactsMatter #StandWithIsrael #DoubleStandards #Hypocrisy
0:40

Arabs rejected partition because Jews only owned 6% of the land- one of the most repeated slogans and lies online. Here is what it leaves out. Yes, Jews privately owned roughly 6 to 8% of the land by 1947. But Arabs did not own the other 92%. That's the part that activists conveniently skip. Was the largest category of land was: state land. Not “Palestinian owned land”, Actual British mandate breakdown ( 1945- 1947 ): Arab private ownership approximately 47% Jewish ownership approximately 6 to 8% state slash crown land approximately 40 to 45% Mostly: · Negev desert · Uncultivated land next slide government land The map spammed on Instagram pretending green equals privately Palestinian owned land is historically false. Now here's the part that breaks the slogan completely: next slide the proposed Jewish state received approximately 56% of the territory. Sounds shocking... ... Until you realize most of it was empty desert. The Negev alone made-up a huge chunk of the allocation: · Sparsely populated · Underdeveloped · Mostly state owned land People talk about it like Tel Aviv was handed millions of acres of Arab farmland It wasn't. Even inside the proposed Jewish state, most of the land was: · State land · Desert · Or land already legally purchased by jews Privately owned Arab land inside the proposed Jewish state is estimated at roughly 15 to 20% of that territory. Not “they stole 94% of Palestinian land that” That's propaganda Not history And here's the uncomfortable question nobody wants to answer, if the issue really was “fairness”... Why reject: · Two states? · International borders? · UN recognition? · Negotiation? · Why launch a war instead? Because many Arab leaders openly said the real issue was not borders. It was the existence of any Jewish state at all. Ownership slogan survives because most people never look past the meme. But history is stubborn. The partition plan did not hand Jews: · Most privately owned Arab farmland · 92% of Palestinian land · A fully developed Arab country The partition plan mostly allocated: · State land · Desert · And territory for a second state alongside an Arab one The tragedy is not that partition existed tragedy is that it was rejected. #StopTheLies #Antisemitism #Israel #FactsMatter #StandWithIsrael #DoubleStandards #Hypocrisy

MOT

14,452 views • 3 months ago

Another good one for Justice Sila on land titles: If you have bought or deal in land, watch 👇🏽this. It’s not the TITLE DEED that matters, it’s the ROOT OF TITLE that matters. 1.We have become so corrupt that the courts have concluded that we can no longer rely on what is at the lands registry to know who owns the land, we have to go to the root of title. 2.Basically, what is in the land registry is valid, only to the extent there is no dispute on the title. The moment there is a dispute, and there is more than one title, then the registry ceases to have conclusive meaning. We then have to dig into the root of that title. Basically go back in time and see where the title originated from, how it has changed hands overtime to its current claim. Anyone who bought fraudulent land in the process is screwed because they bought fraud not land, even if they did a search at the registry. It does even matter which land was registered first. is supposed to make sense. When fraud is so prevalent, and even originates from the very people supposed to protect us, such as land registry staff, then the law must evolve to protect the public. Root of title is going to protect the public from its corrupt self. Sometimes a mad man is restrained to avoid self harm. 4.And the Good Judge has explained that it does NOT replace the Torrens system, it clarifies Torrens in that when there are two tiles, its Torrens itself that begins to search for the root of title it had all along assumed to be conclusive. Hence there is no conflict between the Stanchart Manchester vs Dina Management cases.
7:51

Another good one for Justice Sila on land titles: If you have bought or deal in land, watch 👇🏽this. It’s not the TITLE DEED that matters, it’s the ROOT OF TITLE that matters. 1.We have become so corrupt that the courts have concluded that we can no longer rely on what is at the lands registry to know who owns the land, we have to go to the root of title. 2.Basically, what is in the land registry is valid, only to the extent there is no dispute on the title. The moment there is a dispute, and there is more than one title, then the registry ceases to have conclusive meaning. We then have to dig into the root of that title. Basically go back in time and see where the title originated from, how it has changed hands overtime to its current claim. Anyone who bought fraudulent land in the process is screwed because they bought fraud not land, even if they did a search at the registry. It does even matter which land was registered first. is supposed to make sense. When fraud is so prevalent, and even originates from the very people supposed to protect us, such as land registry staff, then the law must evolve to protect the public. Root of title is going to protect the public from its corrupt self. Sometimes a mad man is restrained to avoid self harm. 4.And the Good Judge has explained that it does NOT replace the Torrens system, it clarifies Torrens in that when there are two tiles, its Torrens itself that begins to search for the root of title it had all along assumed to be conclusive. Hence there is no conflict between the Stanchart Manchester vs Dina Management cases.

Edwin H. Dande

24,438 views • 8 months ago

IAN CARROLL saw "the room" below the TRAP DOOR/ access panel. It is "big enough to stand up in and move around" So please stop telling me that there is nothing under there. The only question is how big is it. It goes at least a few feet in the direction of Charlie Kirk. He was only 10 feet away at most. I will not concede this point until I see a video of the inside of that space. I have a standing bounty of $1000 For that footage. DM me for details. P.S. I don't claim to know this for a fact but as far as I can tell no one has produced a theory that makes 💯 sense yet and until then I shall be keeping an open mind. Especially when Brian Harpole now claims "it doesn't exist" why? and why did they tair up the surrounding area and pave it over so quickly? Also just look at the physics of the body ☝️ Thank you 🙏
3:58

IAN CARROLL saw "the room" below the TRAP DOOR/ access panel. It is "big enough to stand up in and move around" So please stop telling me that there is nothing under there. The only question is how big is it. It goes at least a few feet in the direction of Charlie Kirk. He was only 10 feet away at most. I will not concede this point until I see a video of the inside of that space. I have a standing bounty of $1000 For that footage. DM me for details. P.S. I don't claim to know this for a fact but as far as I can tell no one has produced a theory that makes 💯 sense yet and until then I shall be keeping an open mind. Especially when Brian Harpole now claims "it doesn't exist" why? and why did they tair up the surrounding area and pave it over so quickly? Also just look at the physics of the body ☝️ Thank you 🙏

Matt Baker

108,970 views • 10 months ago

Vladimir Putin🇷🇺: ‘I’ve said that a hundred times. We have no plans of fighting against Europe. But if Europe wants to fight and they start this fight, then we are ready right now. There is no doubt about this. But the only question is, if Europe starts the war, unleashes this war, because that’s not Ukraine. With Ukraine, we use some surgical means. We are trying to be really careful because you understand why. This is not a war in the direct sense of the word. And Europe all of a sudden wants to start a war. And if it does start a war, then, very rapidly there might be a situation where we have no one to negotiate with.’
0:53

Vladimir Putin🇷🇺: ‘I’ve said that a hundred times. We have no plans of fighting against Europe. But if Europe wants to fight and they start this fight, then we are ready right now. There is no doubt about this. But the only question is, if Europe starts the war, unleashes this war, because that’s not Ukraine. With Ukraine, we use some surgical means. We are trying to be really careful because you understand why. This is not a war in the direct sense of the word. And Europe all of a sudden wants to start a war. And if it does start a war, then, very rapidly there might be a situation where we have no one to negotiate with.’

Going Underground

534,407 views • 9 months ago

AOC: We get to these extremes through these small erosions and steps. When everyone says makes an exception here or makes an exception there, and then before you know it, you have masked agents roaming the streets of this country that do not feel entitled to identify themselves or do not feel like as though they answer to the American people at all. That is dangerous. It does not go without saying that the people that they went after first are some of the most vulnerable activists in the United States, which is to say, pro-palestinian organizers and young people, especially those who who are on green cards or visas… And the idea that we would allow our freedom of speech to be violated and create exceptions to that for people who are advocating for the lives of Palestinians, it erodes at the very core of American identity, too, because this is a land of the free, but only as long as we defend it and make it so
1:39

AOC: We get to these extremes through these small erosions and steps. When everyone says makes an exception here or makes an exception there, and then before you know it, you have masked agents roaming the streets of this country that do not feel entitled to identify themselves or do not feel like as though they answer to the American people at all. That is dangerous. It does not go without saying that the people that they went after first are some of the most vulnerable activists in the United States, which is to say, pro-palestinian organizers and young people, especially those who who are on green cards or visas… And the idea that we would allow our freedom of speech to be violated and create exceptions to that for people who are advocating for the lives of Palestinians, it erodes at the very core of American identity, too, because this is a land of the free, but only as long as we defend it and make it so

Acyn

37,566 views • 11 months ago

FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED… We experience TIME as a straight line, one moment after another, PAST TO PRESENT TO FUTURE. But that is only how it appears from inside the system. Beings in higher dimensions, what some call “ORACLES” OR “GODS,” do not experience time like this. They do not move through it. They observe it in its entirety. A closer analogy would be CHANNELS ON A SCREEN. What is playing on FOX and what is playing on CBS is not separate in existence, it is only separated by perspective. Both are happening at the same time, fully active, fully real. In the same way, what we call 1950 and what we call 2004 are not distant points moving away from each other. They are both present within the same total field of reality. From that level of awareness, nothing is being “waited on.” There is NO DELAY. There is only ACCESS. A shift of perception is all that is needed, like changing the channel. So if everything exists at once, then your FUTURE is not something that is coming toward you. It is something that already exists. The version of you 20 YEARS FROM NOW is already there. You have already CHOSEN THAT PATH, you have already GONE THROUGH WHAT COMES WITH IT, you have already LIVED THROUGH IT ALL. And what you are doing now is not creating it. You are MOVING THROUGH IT. Slowly remembering why you are there at all.
0:23

FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED… We experience TIME as a straight line, one moment after another, PAST TO PRESENT TO FUTURE. But that is only how it appears from inside the system. Beings in higher dimensions, what some call “ORACLES” OR “GODS,” do not experience time like this. They do not move through it. They observe it in its entirety. A closer analogy would be CHANNELS ON A SCREEN. What is playing on FOX and what is playing on CBS is not separate in existence, it is only separated by perspective. Both are happening at the same time, fully active, fully real. In the same way, what we call 1950 and what we call 2004 are not distant points moving away from each other. They are both present within the same total field of reality. From that level of awareness, nothing is being “waited on.” There is NO DELAY. There is only ACCESS. A shift of perception is all that is needed, like changing the channel. So if everything exists at once, then your FUTURE is not something that is coming toward you. It is something that already exists. The version of you 20 YEARS FROM NOW is already there. You have already CHOSEN THAT PATH, you have already GONE THROUGH WHAT COMES WITH IT, you have already LIVED THROUGH IT ALL. And what you are doing now is not creating it. You are MOVING THROUGH IT. Slowly remembering why you are there at all.

THE VOICE 🌹 🗣🎙🇺🇸🦅🌎⚓💜♠️CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS

40,362 views • 3 months ago

WATCH: Very newsy exchange at the White House Tuesday afternoon between President Trump and CBS’s Ed O'Keefe about Iran, revealing the U.S. was gifted “a present” from whatever remains of the new/old Iranian regime that is “oil and gas related”.... President Trump: “Do you have another question? You haven’t been here in a while.” O’Keefe: “Well, on Iran, can you give us any more sense of who exactly in Iran it is, either Witkoff or Kushner you’re speaking with?” Trump: “Yeah. We had — I hate to say this in front of these young people — they’re not children. I spoke to most of them. They sound like adults to me. Even though they are sort of children, right? They’ll always be your children. But I hate to say it, but we killed all their leadership. And then they met to choose new leaders, and we killed all of them. And now, we have a new group and we can easily do that. But let’s see how they turn out. It’s — we have, really, regime change. You know, this is a change in the regime because the leaders are all very different than the ones that we started off with that created all those problems. So this was — I think we can say, Jason, this is regime change, right?” O’Keefe: “What makes you trust them?” Trump: “I don’t trust anybody. I don’t trust you. I mean, that’s only because I know you, but if I didn’t know you, I’d probably have more trust. But I don’t trust anyone.” O’Keefe: “Why bother talking to them?” Trump: “Why do you — why do you say that? Why do you say what makes you — do you think I trust them? I don’t trust them.” O’Keefe: “Then why bother talking to them?” Trump: “Because they’re going to make a deal. They’re going to make a deal. They did something yesterday that was amazing. Actually. They gave us a present. And the president arrived today and it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. And I’m not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant prize. And they gave it to us, and they said they were going to give it, so that meant one thing to me. We’re dealing with the right people —” O’Keefe: “Was it nuclear related.” Trump: “No, it wasn’t nuclear related. It was oil and gas related. And it was a very nice thing they did. But what it showed me is that we’re dealing with the right people because, you know, you don’t know because the leadership was killed, all gone. Khamenei, all gone. As the expression goes, the past Supreme Leader and then the new Supreme Leader was racked up at a minimum, racked up pretty good, and everyone else was gone. And then many of the people in the third tier are gone. But we’re dealing with a group of people that I think turn out and the — the present, the gift they made to us was very significant. And they said they were going to do it and it happened. And they’re the only ones that could have done it.”
2:36

WATCH: Very newsy exchange at the White House Tuesday afternoon between President Trump and CBS’s Ed O'Keefe about Iran, revealing the U.S. was gifted “a present” from whatever remains of the new/old Iranian regime that is “oil and gas related”.... President Trump: “Do you have another question? You haven’t been here in a while.” O’Keefe: “Well, on Iran, can you give us any more sense of who exactly in Iran it is, either Witkoff or Kushner you’re speaking with?” Trump: “Yeah. We had — I hate to say this in front of these young people — they’re not children. I spoke to most of them. They sound like adults to me. Even though they are sort of children, right? They’ll always be your children. But I hate to say it, but we killed all their leadership. And then they met to choose new leaders, and we killed all of them. And now, we have a new group and we can easily do that. But let’s see how they turn out. It’s — we have, really, regime change. You know, this is a change in the regime because the leaders are all very different than the ones that we started off with that created all those problems. So this was — I think we can say, Jason, this is regime change, right?” O’Keefe: “What makes you trust them?” Trump: “I don’t trust anybody. I don’t trust you. I mean, that’s only because I know you, but if I didn’t know you, I’d probably have more trust. But I don’t trust anyone.” O’Keefe: “Why bother talking to them?” Trump: “Why do you — why do you say that? Why do you say what makes you — do you think I trust them? I don’t trust them.” O’Keefe: “Then why bother talking to them?” Trump: “Because they’re going to make a deal. They’re going to make a deal. They did something yesterday that was amazing. Actually. They gave us a present. And the president arrived today and it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. And I’m not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant prize. And they gave it to us, and they said they were going to give it, so that meant one thing to me. We’re dealing with the right people —” O’Keefe: “Was it nuclear related.” Trump: “No, it wasn’t nuclear related. It was oil and gas related. And it was a very nice thing they did. But what it showed me is that we’re dealing with the right people because, you know, you don’t know because the leadership was killed, all gone. Khamenei, all gone. As the expression goes, the past Supreme Leader and then the new Supreme Leader was racked up at a minimum, racked up pretty good, and everyone else was gone. And then many of the people in the third tier are gone. But we’re dealing with a group of people that I think turn out and the — the present, the gift they made to us was very significant. And they said they were going to do it and it happened. And they’re the only ones that could have done it.”

Curtis Houck

108,556 views • 6 months ago

Mark Zuckerberg just told you exactly why trillion-dollar companies lose to people who have nothing. Zuckerberg: “Large companies are slow and they lack conviction.” Nine words. The entire vulnerability of every empire on earth in a single sentence. Google had the talent. Microsoft had the infrastructure. Yahoo had the distribution. Every single one of them could have built Facebook. None of them did. Zuckerberg: “We were like a ragtag group of children.” Not seasoned executives. Not credentialed engineers with decades of experience. Children. Against the most well-funded technology companies on the planet. And the children won. Not because they were smarter. Not because they had better resources. Because they believed in something the giants were too comfortable to take seriously. Capital does not beat conviction. Infrastructure does not beat speed. Talent does not beat the willingness to look stupid building something no one respects yet. The giants had everything except the one thing that actually mattered. The inability to hesitate. A large company sees a new idea and runs it through committees. They commission research. They weigh the risk. They debate the market size. They ask what happens to the existing product line. By the time the organization agrees the idea is worth pursuing the window is already closed. The person who builds it does not go through that process. They just build. No committee. No consensus. No permission. They move before the math is finished because they can feel the answer before the spreadsheet confirms it. That is not recklessness. That is the only speed that matters when the window is open. Zuckerberg: “People doubt new ideas before they come to fruition.” It is never one doubt. It is a rotating series of doubts that shift every time the previous one is proven wrong. Zuckerberg: “It’s just like this college kid thing.” That was the first wall. It is small. It is niche. It is not serious. Then it grew. “Maybe not college kids, but it’s probably a fad.” Then it kept growing. “Maybe it’s not a fad, but it’s probably not gonna make money.” Then it made money. “Okay it makes money, but the switch to mobile is gonna be pretty hard.” Every single objection was wrong. Every single one served the same function. It gave the doubter permission to do nothing for one more cycle. That is not analysis. That is self-preservation dressed as skepticism. The person too slow to build the thing will always find a reason why the thing will not work. Not because the reasons are good. Because the alternative is admitting they missed it. You are watching the exact same pattern play out with AI right now. First it was a toy. Then it hallucinated too much. Then it was not profitable. Then it was a bubble. Then it was going to plateau. Every cycle the objection changes. The function never does. Zuckerberg built a company worth over a trillion dollars against competitors who had every advantage except the willingness to commit before the outcome was guaranteed. That is the only advantage that has ever mattered. Not capital. Not credentials. Not infrastructure. The willingness to be wrong in public long enough to become undeniably right. The giants will always have more money. More engineers. More servers. More distribution. They will always be slower than the person who does not need a meeting to make a decision. The committee will never outrun the individual who already started. The incumbents are not dangerous because they are strong. They are vulnerable because they are careful. And careful has never once in the history of technology built the thing that changed the world. It has only ever bought it after someone else already did.
1:00

Mark Zuckerberg just told you exactly why trillion-dollar companies lose to people who have nothing. Zuckerberg: “Large companies are slow and they lack conviction.” Nine words. The entire vulnerability of every empire on earth in a single sentence. Google had the talent. Microsoft had the infrastructure. Yahoo had the distribution. Every single one of them could have built Facebook. None of them did. Zuckerberg: “We were like a ragtag group of children.” Not seasoned executives. Not credentialed engineers with decades of experience. Children. Against the most well-funded technology companies on the planet. And the children won. Not because they were smarter. Not because they had better resources. Because they believed in something the giants were too comfortable to take seriously. Capital does not beat conviction. Infrastructure does not beat speed. Talent does not beat the willingness to look stupid building something no one respects yet. The giants had everything except the one thing that actually mattered. The inability to hesitate. A large company sees a new idea and runs it through committees. They commission research. They weigh the risk. They debate the market size. They ask what happens to the existing product line. By the time the organization agrees the idea is worth pursuing the window is already closed. The person who builds it does not go through that process. They just build. No committee. No consensus. No permission. They move before the math is finished because they can feel the answer before the spreadsheet confirms it. That is not recklessness. That is the only speed that matters when the window is open. Zuckerberg: “People doubt new ideas before they come to fruition.” It is never one doubt. It is a rotating series of doubts that shift every time the previous one is proven wrong. Zuckerberg: “It’s just like this college kid thing.” That was the first wall. It is small. It is niche. It is not serious. Then it grew. “Maybe not college kids, but it’s probably a fad.” Then it kept growing. “Maybe it’s not a fad, but it’s probably not gonna make money.” Then it made money. “Okay it makes money, but the switch to mobile is gonna be pretty hard.” Every single objection was wrong. Every single one served the same function. It gave the doubter permission to do nothing for one more cycle. That is not analysis. That is self-preservation dressed as skepticism. The person too slow to build the thing will always find a reason why the thing will not work. Not because the reasons are good. Because the alternative is admitting they missed it. You are watching the exact same pattern play out with AI right now. First it was a toy. Then it hallucinated too much. Then it was not profitable. Then it was a bubble. Then it was going to plateau. Every cycle the objection changes. The function never does. Zuckerberg built a company worth over a trillion dollars against competitors who had every advantage except the willingness to commit before the outcome was guaranteed. That is the only advantage that has ever mattered. Not capital. Not credentials. Not infrastructure. The willingness to be wrong in public long enough to become undeniably right. The giants will always have more money. More engineers. More servers. More distribution. They will always be slower than the person who does not need a meeting to make a decision. The committee will never outrun the individual who already started. The incumbents are not dangerous because they are strong. They are vulnerable because they are careful. And careful has never once in the history of technology built the thing that changed the world. It has only ever bought it after someone else already did.

Dustin

20,938 views • 5 months ago

Also Capital Founder Mike Annunziata: Too many startups vertically integrate without any real strategic reason. "You should not vertically integrate just for vertical integration's sake. It's a poor use of capital to take a bunch of equity and put it into a commodity machine, which you could instead not do." "I love the theory behind 'the factory is the product,' but there's some strong strategy that it needs to be built on." "SpaceX is a good canonical example. Why did they build a factory? Because they were creating massive demand at the same time they were trying to deliver it at a given unit price to unlock a bigger economic opportunity. There were no third parties even available. They had to do it themselves." "If you're going to build a factory in three years, you need to be thinking about it now. So - why are you building that factory? What competitive advantages does it give you?"
2:13

Also Capital Founder Mike Annunziata: Too many startups vertically integrate without any real strategic reason. "You should not vertically integrate just for vertical integration's sake. It's a poor use of capital to take a bunch of equity and put it into a commodity machine, which you could instead not do." "I love the theory behind 'the factory is the product,' but there's some strong strategy that it needs to be built on." "SpaceX is a good canonical example. Why did they build a factory? Because they were creating massive demand at the same time they were trying to deliver it at a given unit price to unlock a bigger economic opportunity. There were no third parties even available. They had to do it themselves." "If you're going to build a factory in three years, you need to be thinking about it now. So - why are you building that factory? What competitive advantages does it give you?"

TBPN

572,990 views • 7 months ago

Americans are becoming wide awake “Dearborn, Michigan is the perfect case study about why Islam is not compatible with American society or civilization at large. Did Dearborn become a beacon of light and hope? Is it full of charity and people looking out for one another in peace and coexistence and, oh my gosh, the amount of doctors and lawyers? No. Dearborn, Michigan is absolutely disgusting. It is filled with crime, it is filled with poverty, and it is filled with American citizens being told that if they do not want to bow down to the Islamization of America, then they need to get the hell out, even being told that by their own politicians. They feel like Islam can rule over everything there, right? They loudly play their call to prayer and if you have a problem with it, despite the fact that it legally breaks city ordinance with how loud it is, then you're told to leave and that you need to be quiet and that you just need to submit to their way of living. If you think that this is a coincidence, if you think that they have any intention of stopping there, then you are deluding yourself. These people are extremely violent. They don't want open discourse. They don't want open dialogue about religion. They do not see you as an equal, and girls who do not wear hijabs there or who do not dress in their definition of modesty are oftentimes harassed for it. They even went so far as to try to stop people from being able to walk their dogs because they see dogs as unclean animals. This is absolutely disgusting and I hope the American people start to wake up and realize what's actually going on over there.”
1:25

Americans are becoming wide awake “Dearborn, Michigan is the perfect case study about why Islam is not compatible with American society or civilization at large. Did Dearborn become a beacon of light and hope? Is it full of charity and people looking out for one another in peace and coexistence and, oh my gosh, the amount of doctors and lawyers? No. Dearborn, Michigan is absolutely disgusting. It is filled with crime, it is filled with poverty, and it is filled with American citizens being told that if they do not want to bow down to the Islamization of America, then they need to get the hell out, even being told that by their own politicians. They feel like Islam can rule over everything there, right? They loudly play their call to prayer and if you have a problem with it, despite the fact that it legally breaks city ordinance with how loud it is, then you're told to leave and that you need to be quiet and that you just need to submit to their way of living. If you think that this is a coincidence, if you think that they have any intention of stopping there, then you are deluding yourself. These people are extremely violent. They don't want open discourse. They don't want open dialogue about religion. They do not see you as an equal, and girls who do not wear hijabs there or who do not dress in their definition of modesty are oftentimes harassed for it. They even went so far as to try to stop people from being able to walk their dogs because they see dogs as unclean animals. This is absolutely disgusting and I hope the American people start to wake up and realize what's actually going on over there.”

Wall Street Apes

75,423 views • 10 months ago

🚨IT HAPPENED UNDER OBAMA! “When Obama was deporting everybody, there was no cameras, there was no paid protesters, there wasn't everybody there with a video saying, "Look how bad it was," but the same shit was happening. Obama gave Tom Homan, the director of the deportations, a presidential award. Now, Tom Homan is Trump's director of ICE. He's now the villain. Why is there a different perspective on it? It's because the lens of the people watching it has changed, and so now Trump is trying to get control of the borders, get dangerous illegals out of the country, because your nation has to have borders. But because people hate him so much, and because people in the media hate him so much, they're creating the narrative. They're affecting the polls by going out and filming what was happening on.. under Obama, and but now they're actually stirring up the tension level. They're actually creating an issue, and what we're seeing with ICE and Minnesota at the moment is some groups are being very effective at pointing the camera at something that happened in the past and then creating the narrative. We'll see who wins in the end, because I think most Americans want to have control of their borders. But what Trump is coming up against are thousands and thousands of people, some paid, with phones, who are intent on making ICE look like villains, even though they're doing the exact same thing they did under Obama, and they didn't have a problem with it back then.
1:13

🚨IT HAPPENED UNDER OBAMA! “When Obama was deporting everybody, there was no cameras, there was no paid protesters, there wasn't everybody there with a video saying, "Look how bad it was," but the same shit was happening. Obama gave Tom Homan, the director of the deportations, a presidential award. Now, Tom Homan is Trump's director of ICE. He's now the villain. Why is there a different perspective on it? It's because the lens of the people watching it has changed, and so now Trump is trying to get control of the borders, get dangerous illegals out of the country, because your nation has to have borders. But because people hate him so much, and because people in the media hate him so much, they're creating the narrative. They're affecting the polls by going out and filming what was happening on.. under Obama, and but now they're actually stirring up the tension level. They're actually creating an issue, and what we're seeing with ICE and Minnesota at the moment is some groups are being very effective at pointing the camera at something that happened in the past and then creating the narrative. We'll see who wins in the end, because I think most Americans want to have control of their borders. But what Trump is coming up against are thousands and thousands of people, some paid, with phones, who are intent on making ICE look like villains, even though they're doing the exact same thing they did under Obama, and they didn't have a problem with it back then.

Gunther Eagleman™

41,961 views • 7 months ago

Everyone’s SCARED of Candace Owens — Even Megyn Kelly & Jack Posobiec?! Kelly had close associate of TPUSA on yesterday "who is another person who will never mention Candace and it makes me rage... I do not understand why they tolerate Jack's silence." In today's from the Chicks on the Right podcast, host Mock addressed Megyn Kelly's recent comments on the Charlie thing. Mock said, "And so Megyn Kelly, she is now trying to act as though she has never bought into any of the conspiracies. The evidence is overwhelming now. She is on that side. It is absolutely mesmerizing to watch her bounce all over the place." Mock continued by questioning Kelly's reasons for the shift and stated, "Why do you think she is doing it? I am just curious. Like do you think it is because of clicks? Because I think she does everything because of clicks. I think she is smart enough to realize that the evidence against Tyler Robinson is overwhelming and she is going to have to own that but also she refuses to address Candace directly. So she just will not. She is afraid of Candace. I do not think she wants her wrath and so she is trying to fence it a little bit. They do not want the wrath. A lot of people, so many people are afraid of her and I do not get it." Mock expressed further frustration about other figures avoiding direct mention of Candace and said, "So here she had on Jack Posobiec yesterday who is another person who will never mention Candace and it makes me rage. I know that he is very close with the folks at TPUSA. I do not understand why they tolerate Jack's silence, Benny's silence, Tucker, all of it. It makes me insane." The podcast hosts then shared a clip from Megyn Kelly's program. In the clip, Kelly stated, "Ridiculous. It is surveillance video. We are lucky it exists at all. And some people who refuse to believe that Tyler Robinson did this have been saying for quite some time, 'Oh, but there is no video of the actual shooting. Oh, it is so convenient how they only have him running across the roof.' And then we actually find out there is video of the actual moment the shooter drops down and pulls the trigger.
1:43

Everyone’s SCARED of Candace Owens — Even Megyn Kelly & Jack Posobiec?! Kelly had close associate of TPUSA on yesterday "who is another person who will never mention Candace and it makes me rage... I do not understand why they tolerate Jack's silence." In today's from the Chicks on the Right podcast, host Mock addressed Megyn Kelly's recent comments on the Charlie thing. Mock said, "And so Megyn Kelly, she is now trying to act as though she has never bought into any of the conspiracies. The evidence is overwhelming now. She is on that side. It is absolutely mesmerizing to watch her bounce all over the place." Mock continued by questioning Kelly's reasons for the shift and stated, "Why do you think she is doing it? I am just curious. Like do you think it is because of clicks? Because I think she does everything because of clicks. I think she is smart enough to realize that the evidence against Tyler Robinson is overwhelming and she is going to have to own that but also she refuses to address Candace directly. So she just will not. She is afraid of Candace. I do not think she wants her wrath and so she is trying to fence it a little bit. They do not want the wrath. A lot of people, so many people are afraid of her and I do not get it." Mock expressed further frustration about other figures avoiding direct mention of Candace and said, "So here she had on Jack Posobiec yesterday who is another person who will never mention Candace and it makes me rage. I know that he is very close with the folks at TPUSA. I do not understand why they tolerate Jack's silence, Benny's silence, Tucker, all of it. It makes me insane." The podcast hosts then shared a clip from Megyn Kelly's program. In the clip, Kelly stated, "Ridiculous. It is surveillance video. We are lucky it exists at all. And some people who refuse to believe that Tyler Robinson did this have been saying for quite some time, 'Oh, but there is no video of the actual shooting. Oh, it is so convenient how they only have him running across the roof.' And then we actually find out there is video of the actual moment the shooter drops down and pulls the trigger.

Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior

19,960 views • 2 months ago

The CEO of ASML said Europe is "quite behind" in the AI race. This is not a politician. This is the man who controls the only machines on earth that can print advanced chips. Every semiconductor fab from TSMC to Samsung needs his approval to exist. And he did not stop there. Europe has been having the sovereignty conversation for three years. Build fabs. Reduce dependence. Catch up. It sounds right. He said it is the wrong order entirely. His reasoning is blunt. Semiconductor manufacturing is only needed if you have people buying the chips. If Europe built a two nanometer fab today, most of those wafers would ship straight to the United States. Because the US buys 80% of the world's advanced chips. Europe buys almost none. You cannot manufacture your way to relevance. You have to create demand first. His actual sequence: start with the market. Build AI applications. Then AI products. Then chip design. Then and only then does chip manufacturing make sense. Europe skipped four steps and went straight to the last one. The sovereignty debate is loud in Brussels right now because of US export controls on AI models. Politicians are scared. The instinct is to build. He is saying the instinct is wrong. You do not get sovereignty by building factories. You get it by having something the world wants to buy. (Watch the full 11 minutes Interview at Bloomberg TV on YouTube)
2:44

The CEO of ASML said Europe is "quite behind" in the AI race. This is not a politician. This is the man who controls the only machines on earth that can print advanced chips. Every semiconductor fab from TSMC to Samsung needs his approval to exist. And he did not stop there. Europe has been having the sovereignty conversation for three years. Build fabs. Reduce dependence. Catch up. It sounds right. He said it is the wrong order entirely. His reasoning is blunt. Semiconductor manufacturing is only needed if you have people buying the chips. If Europe built a two nanometer fab today, most of those wafers would ship straight to the United States. Because the US buys 80% of the world's advanced chips. Europe buys almost none. You cannot manufacture your way to relevance. You have to create demand first. His actual sequence: start with the market. Build AI applications. Then AI products. Then chip design. Then and only then does chip manufacturing make sense. Europe skipped four steps and went straight to the last one. The sovereignty debate is loud in Brussels right now because of US export controls on AI models. Politicians are scared. The instinct is to build. He is saying the instinct is wrong. You do not get sovereignty by building factories. You get it by having something the world wants to buy. (Watch the full 11 minutes Interview at Bloomberg TV on YouTube)

Ihtesham Ali

131,612 views • 3 months ago