Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

🇺🇸 Trailer Trash Haley Hit ♥️ if you'd 🍆 her bareback next Comment which hole you'd dump your 💦 in Share if you've got mates who'd 🍆 her bareback as well 😉 #runningatrain #gangbangِ #whitetrash #trailertrash #Chudai #BDSM #publicnudity #cheatingcaught #cheatinghusbands

MicksSide's profile picture

MICKS NAUGHTY SIDE

2,812 subscribers

42,515 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#runningatrain#gangbangِ#whitetrash#trailertrash#Chudai#BDSM#publicnudity#cheatingcaught#cheatinghusbands
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

He's ready to listen, boys! Please SHARE Listen to what? To whom? Golf-clap for you, Excellency, and while you're listening, who's leading? At some point, someone is going to have to start teaching, governing, and sanctifying again. Otherwise, why not just sell off all the churches in New York? Since the Church no longer leads with her moral and spiritual imperatives on death, judgment, heaven, and hell, she has lost both her purpose as well as her identity. Everything, even her historic missionary activity and all her charities and orphanages of the past, it was all based on her raison d’etre -- to save souls. So now what? Truth is, the modern Catholic Church doesn't know what that means anymore. She’s not even sure if Hell exists, and if it does, well, nobody’s in it! And so, what's her purpose? Well, that's what she wants to know. . . thus the listening. She has no idea! And this is why she has nothing to say anymore, apart from a few cliched lines about climate change she borrowed from Al Gore and Bono. The result? She listens, and "listening" is an excuse for doing nothing as the ship sinks beneath the icy brine. Meanwhile, and whether her popes and bishops know it or not, the world, the flesh, and the devil are still at war with the Church. And it’s a fact of human nature that listening is not the stuff of which battlefield leaders are made. Listening to the men you purport to lead -- conducting indecisive and impromptu quizzes about what they want to do – this is dereliction of duty. And listening -- rather than teaching -- is the sheer folly that takes place at the intersection of a massive insecurity complex, an uncertain moral trumpet, and a crisis level lack of doctrinal formation and training. Simply put, the new bishops don't know what to do, and so they hide behind what they think will make them popular with the media and the disillusioned Catholics who have so lost confidence in their moral leadership that they're not even comfortable leaving their own children alone with them anymore. Imagine the terror you'd feel if, as the Titanic begins to list to one side, the captain shouts: "Listen up, people, I don't have anything. I mean, seriously, I've got nothing! But I'd sure like to hear what you think I should do." What?! What did he just say?!? They're essentially admitting that the only way forward is for the blind to lead the blind – i.e., dumbed-down bishops getting their marching orders by listening to the most intentionally dumbed-down Catholics in the history of the Church. Behold the Spirit of Vatican II in action. God help us all!
0:58

He's ready to listen, boys! Please SHARE Listen to what? To whom? Golf-clap for you, Excellency, and while you're listening, who's leading? At some point, someone is going to have to start teaching, governing, and sanctifying again. Otherwise, why not just sell off all the churches in New York? Since the Church no longer leads with her moral and spiritual imperatives on death, judgment, heaven, and hell, she has lost both her purpose as well as her identity. Everything, even her historic missionary activity and all her charities and orphanages of the past, it was all based on her raison d’etre -- to save souls. So now what? Truth is, the modern Catholic Church doesn't know what that means anymore. She’s not even sure if Hell exists, and if it does, well, nobody’s in it! And so, what's her purpose? Well, that's what she wants to know. . . thus the listening. She has no idea! And this is why she has nothing to say anymore, apart from a few cliched lines about climate change she borrowed from Al Gore and Bono. The result? She listens, and "listening" is an excuse for doing nothing as the ship sinks beneath the icy brine. Meanwhile, and whether her popes and bishops know it or not, the world, the flesh, and the devil are still at war with the Church. And it’s a fact of human nature that listening is not the stuff of which battlefield leaders are made. Listening to the men you purport to lead -- conducting indecisive and impromptu quizzes about what they want to do – this is dereliction of duty. And listening -- rather than teaching -- is the sheer folly that takes place at the intersection of a massive insecurity complex, an uncertain moral trumpet, and a crisis level lack of doctrinal formation and training. Simply put, the new bishops don't know what to do, and so they hide behind what they think will make them popular with the media and the disillusioned Catholics who have so lost confidence in their moral leadership that they're not even comfortable leaving their own children alone with them anymore. Imagine the terror you'd feel if, as the Titanic begins to list to one side, the captain shouts: "Listen up, people, I don't have anything. I mean, seriously, I've got nothing! But I'd sure like to hear what you think I should do." What?! What did he just say?!? They're essentially admitting that the only way forward is for the blind to lead the blind – i.e., dumbed-down bishops getting their marching orders by listening to the most intentionally dumbed-down Catholics in the history of the Church. Behold the Spirit of Vatican II in action. God help us all!

Michael J. Matt

14,197 次观看 • 7 个月前

I think CihAl's consummation (or whatever else you'd like to call it) scene is probably one of the most well-thought-out ones of the series. It's perfect for Alya and Cihan's characters. And, if you watch the build-up, you can pinpoint where both decide to take their relationship to the next step. Let's start with my baby girl. Alya makes up her mind that she's done minding the distance between Cihan and herself pretty early on after she enters her room. The way she turns and looks back at the door with a half-smile. Then the camera pans in on the liquor, almost as if to say, she's thinking maybe she needs a little fortitude. And in the next room, Cihan is going through the same restlessness, almost like he's chomping at the bit too, but can't bring himself to act on what he's thinking. Next up, Alya downs some liquid courage and fills her glass again, almost as if a plan's forming in her head. And when she walks out of her room, she pauses, staring at Cihan's door. Eventually, she decides against it because, like the queen she is, she wants a neutral setting, not to overwhelm Cihan, but to engage Cihan's caution, and to see if he's ready to leave it behind. A broken vase later, when Cihan finally descends the steps to go to his wife, Alya gives him a very unconvincing performance of drunkenness. She wants to invite him to sit with her and iron a few things out between them. This is where her playacting is important because it gives them both protection. If Cihan isn't ready to move forward, she can retreat with her dignity, and he wouldn't have to feel pressured or remorseful. But, Cihan, being the brainiac he is, understands his wife is up to something. And, of course, he wants her like crazy, too, so he decides to play along while upping the ante a little - which is why he offers to carry her to her room. Her room. Not his. Because no matter what transpires, his priority is her comfort. So, up they go, and when he lays her down on her bed, Alya pulls him to sit next to her, and switches to phase two. Remember when I said she doesn't want to override him? Her sequence of questions is a gentle attempt to determine if she's read him correctly. That his guilt is no longer the determining factor in their relationship, without triggering any resentment. Why are we staying in separate rooms? Aren't we married? Don't you love me? Don't I love you? Aren't you my husband? Am I not your wife? Then why are we sleeping in separate beds? See? It's a logical dismantling of the remaining distance between them. And every time Cihan answers, it gives her more courage to move forward, it gives her more hope. Cihan isn't being led; he's an active participant, and he is choosing to be. Step by step, to move forward with Alya, by staying in the conversation, to meet her halfway. Then comes the cute nose-rubbing session, and you can see Cihan wants to give in. But old habits die hard, so he has to be sure. Did you drink too much he asks, and that's when Alya gives up her game. Because she's sure too. She tells him how she only drank one glass of wine and how she broke that vase on purpose. Because when they're so close to the brink, she lays all her cards on the table, like always. It isn't like her to hide. And when Cihan brings the topic back to her drunkenness again, that's him proceeding with care. Baby steps. This is his life we're talking about... I mean, his wife. So, Alya Hanim takes up the challenge and asks, 'Would I only want to when I'm drunk?' things are clear as day. The proverbial bulb goes on in Ciho's head. His 'I don't know, maybe' is him being coy, like the imp he is. But all that playfulness goes out the window when his wife says, 'Wouldn't you like to find out?' I think Alya may have managed to give Cihan a mini heart attack with those words, because his answer is so faint, it's laughable. From that point on, it's all engines go for both of them. They're sure now, their minds and hearts are on the same page. After that, it's all love, desire, flirtatiousness, playful goading, and everything that's quintessentially CihAl. Brilliantly written and masterfully portrayed. #CihAl #UzakŞehir
2:58

I think CihAl's consummation (or whatever else you'd like to call it) scene is probably one of the most well-thought-out ones of the series. It's perfect for Alya and Cihan's characters. And, if you watch the build-up, you can pinpoint where both decide to take their relationship to the next step. Let's start with my baby girl. Alya makes up her mind that she's done minding the distance between Cihan and herself pretty early on after she enters her room. The way she turns and looks back at the door with a half-smile. Then the camera pans in on the liquor, almost as if to say, she's thinking maybe she needs a little fortitude. And in the next room, Cihan is going through the same restlessness, almost like he's chomping at the bit too, but can't bring himself to act on what he's thinking. Next up, Alya downs some liquid courage and fills her glass again, almost as if a plan's forming in her head. And when she walks out of her room, she pauses, staring at Cihan's door. Eventually, she decides against it because, like the queen she is, she wants a neutral setting, not to overwhelm Cihan, but to engage Cihan's caution, and to see if he's ready to leave it behind. A broken vase later, when Cihan finally descends the steps to go to his wife, Alya gives him a very unconvincing performance of drunkenness. She wants to invite him to sit with her and iron a few things out between them. This is where her playacting is important because it gives them both protection. If Cihan isn't ready to move forward, she can retreat with her dignity, and he wouldn't have to feel pressured or remorseful. But, Cihan, being the brainiac he is, understands his wife is up to something. And, of course, he wants her like crazy, too, so he decides to play along while upping the ante a little - which is why he offers to carry her to her room. Her room. Not his. Because no matter what transpires, his priority is her comfort. So, up they go, and when he lays her down on her bed, Alya pulls him to sit next to her, and switches to phase two. Remember when I said she doesn't want to override him? Her sequence of questions is a gentle attempt to determine if she's read him correctly. That his guilt is no longer the determining factor in their relationship, without triggering any resentment. Why are we staying in separate rooms? Aren't we married? Don't you love me? Don't I love you? Aren't you my husband? Am I not your wife? Then why are we sleeping in separate beds? See? It's a logical dismantling of the remaining distance between them. And every time Cihan answers, it gives her more courage to move forward, it gives her more hope. Cihan isn't being led; he's an active participant, and he is choosing to be. Step by step, to move forward with Alya, by staying in the conversation, to meet her halfway. Then comes the cute nose-rubbing session, and you can see Cihan wants to give in. But old habits die hard, so he has to be sure. Did you drink too much he asks, and that's when Alya gives up her game. Because she's sure too. She tells him how she only drank one glass of wine and how she broke that vase on purpose. Because when they're so close to the brink, she lays all her cards on the table, like always. It isn't like her to hide. And when Cihan brings the topic back to her drunkenness again, that's him proceeding with care. Baby steps. This is his life we're talking about... I mean, his wife. So, Alya Hanim takes up the challenge and asks, 'Would I only want to when I'm drunk?' things are clear as day. The proverbial bulb goes on in Ciho's head. His 'I don't know, maybe' is him being coy, like the imp he is. But all that playfulness goes out the window when his wife says, 'Wouldn't you like to find out?' I think Alya may have managed to give Cihan a mini heart attack with those words, because his answer is so faint, it's laughable. From that point on, it's all engines go for both of them. They're sure now, their minds and hearts are on the same page. After that, it's all love, desire, flirtatiousness, playful goading, and everything that's quintessentially CihAl. Brilliantly written and masterfully portrayed. #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

39,680 次观看 • 8 个月前

I’m just coming online and I saw that a lot of drama has ensued. Some of us go offline to touch grass once in a while. Of course, we have a life outside social media, we don’t depend on Twitter alone. Anyways, let’s start with the video in the first frame. Disclaimer: A long read ahead. This is the Abike that was crying profusely like a baby and showing deep appreciation to Toyin Abraham at the premiere of Malaika, a movie she played lead character. She consistently thanked TA for considering her for the role and that it was a ‘dream come through’ for her. She even went as far as saying ‘I’ve never experienced this kind of BIG DEAL before’. It is that same movie you’re conveniently downplaying today and people are saying you were underpaid compared to how much you got paid to promote another movie. You were an ‘upcoming actor’ in 2023 who was merely a TikTok influencer and TA decided to give you an opportunity to explore more in the movie industry, has she done bad for extending such grace to you? Abike, that same movie put you in the spotlight and gave you more fame than you already had. You can’t deny that! Moving on, in the second frame, you made a proper unboxing video for FA’s movie and posted it on your platforms, knowing fully well that you were featured in another Cinema movie at the time. (Heard you even recommended it on your IG story lmao). That unboxing video was an indirect PR for ATCJ which sort of had an impact on TA’s movie, seeing as your brand has some TikTok influence. That’s how social media works. But some people said it was just an ‘unboxing video’, no big deal. Okay. I know we all want to be the judge and jury badly, but let’s also try to see things from different perspectives/angles. Now imagine you’re working for Access Bank and still advertising for First Bank, as how nau? Or you’re signed as a brand ambassador/influencer for Nike and you’re simultaneously promoting Adidas or Puma, please make it make sense? You mentioned TA’s fans have been bullying you ever since, but your fans on TikTok were also trolling her and even some of your friends insulted her in comment sections. If people ask you what exactly happened, you will say you‘re not ready to share your side of the story. But you were steady throwing subtle shades at her. If no be see finish, wetin wan cause that one? Idc about anything that has transpired, that’s between you two but girl, this woman freaking gave you her platform on a platter! Not once, not twice, not thrice. The least you could do was accord her that simple respect. See how you’ve successfully made her the villain in your story now. Rubbing her name in the mud for cheap talks. It’s all good though. I’m glad you’ve finally said what you had in mind all along. At least everybody will rest now. Enjoy the attention.🥂
1:32

I’m just coming online and I saw that a lot of drama has ensued. Some of us go offline to touch grass once in a while. Of course, we have a life outside social media, we don’t depend on Twitter alone. Anyways, let’s start with the video in the first frame. Disclaimer: A long read ahead. This is the Abike that was crying profusely like a baby and showing deep appreciation to Toyin Abraham at the premiere of Malaika, a movie she played lead character. She consistently thanked TA for considering her for the role and that it was a ‘dream come through’ for her. She even went as far as saying ‘I’ve never experienced this kind of BIG DEAL before’. It is that same movie you’re conveniently downplaying today and people are saying you were underpaid compared to how much you got paid to promote another movie. You were an ‘upcoming actor’ in 2023 who was merely a TikTok influencer and TA decided to give you an opportunity to explore more in the movie industry, has she done bad for extending such grace to you? Abike, that same movie put you in the spotlight and gave you more fame than you already had. You can’t deny that! Moving on, in the second frame, you made a proper unboxing video for FA’s movie and posted it on your platforms, knowing fully well that you were featured in another Cinema movie at the time. (Heard you even recommended it on your IG story lmao). That unboxing video was an indirect PR for ATCJ which sort of had an impact on TA’s movie, seeing as your brand has some TikTok influence. That’s how social media works. But some people said it was just an ‘unboxing video’, no big deal. Okay. I know we all want to be the judge and jury badly, but let’s also try to see things from different perspectives/angles. Now imagine you’re working for Access Bank and still advertising for First Bank, as how nau? Or you’re signed as a brand ambassador/influencer for Nike and you’re simultaneously promoting Adidas or Puma, please make it make sense? You mentioned TA’s fans have been bullying you ever since, but your fans on TikTok were also trolling her and even some of your friends insulted her in comment sections. If people ask you what exactly happened, you will say you‘re not ready to share your side of the story. But you were steady throwing subtle shades at her. If no be see finish, wetin wan cause that one? Idc about anything that has transpired, that’s between you two but girl, this woman freaking gave you her platform on a platter! Not once, not twice, not thrice. The least you could do was accord her that simple respect. See how you’ve successfully made her the villain in your story now. Rubbing her name in the mud for cheap talks. It’s all good though. I’m glad you’ve finally said what you had in mind all along. At least everybody will rest now. Enjoy the attention.🥂

Oluwatobi 🎀

91,263 次观看 • 4 个月前

IS IT ADVISABLE TO MARRY A WOMAN WHO IS MORE CAREER-DRIVEN THAN YOU? Hello, friends. Welcome to another episode of Mr & Mrs Better Half. It is designed to strengthen marriages and relationships that will lead to marriage, with wisdom from God's Word. Sometimes ago, I asked some friends, ‘what do you think causes major friction in a marriage?’ One of the answers was money. On further probing, we got into one of the big money issues: “Finances are often problematic when the wife earns more.” A follow-up question: Since few earn millions on their 1st job, how did these women build their finances to surpass their husbands’? Again, we hit another interesting note- ‘some women are too ambitious! If they would just ‘chill’ things would be okay.’ This statement threw up so many questions. Should a wife deliberately go for a low-paying job to avoid earning more than her husband? Should she also perform poorly to ensure she doesn’t get promoted? If she’s offered a raise, should she refuse? Of course, these things sound silly but these are actual options some couples have considered in their homes to preserve the peace. Sometimes, the man actually starts out earning more but calamity strikes and his business/career goes downhill. So the once ‘balanced’ household turns upside down because the woman now pulls most of the financial weight. The big question you should ask is this. ‘Why should money (something so many seem to be chasing) which should make life easier become the very thing that can cause unhappiness? There are 4 things I would like you to consider today- Changing times, Culture, Acceptance and Attitude. A) Changing Times: Men, the days when women in the workplace were oddities have since gone. With advancements in technology, many of the more physical jobs have been taken over by machines. This means that there’s no reason women should be sidelined on the grounds of being physically weaker than men. This coupled with the realization of a woman’s right to express her intelligence means the world has made much progress where women in the workplace are concerned. Today there is hardly any industry where you will not find women doing remarkable things. As a result, it is not uncommon for husbands & wives to earn similar salaries or have the wives even bringing more. The truth is that most men like the added household income- who wouldn’t? The only thing is that they just want to earn more than their wives. This clearly becomes an issue of self-esteem and ego. Please understand that you can’t derive your sense of self from money. Many men think being a man is all about bringing in money. It takes a lot more than that to be a real man. Different things make a man. They include the ability to provide, lead, protect, nurture and love. Men you have to bring more to the table than just money to be an exemplary head of your household. So stop being hung up on money alone. (B) Let’s go to Culture. In the past women were touted as the homemakers while men barely lifted a finger in their homes. What men didn’t understand is that being a homemaker is a very marketable skill! A good homemaker is likely to be very skilled in people and money management, multi-tasking, negotiation skills, etc. You’d think that keeping a woman in the house would incapacitate her in the business terrain but you’d be wrong! Women develop the soft skills required for top-tier management quite early in life! Coupled with formal education, a woman who truly wants to succeed in business is a force to reckon with. Perhaps we should take a look at how we raise our sons these days. We might just be doing them a disservice! (C) Let’s discuss Acceptance. As a man, I understand one’s ego can take a pounding if your wife earns more. Single men dating ladies that earn more often vow to themselves that they'll turn the financial tables around before they get married or shortly after. Like it or not, this doesn’t always happen. Sometimes a woman’s gift will shoot her to the peak of her profession. What will you do? Will you kill yourself trying to earn more? Will you resent her success or do the mature and supportive thing and accept it? I have come to know a certain truth. As much as it might be your preference, who earns more in your relationship is not your call. I will repeat this. It is not your call to determine who earns more in this life. Everyone has a race to run. God has blessed everyone with a unique gift. You cannot determine the extent of another person’s potential. If you can't cope with a successful lady you actually have a problem with self-esteem which is not her problem; it’s yours. Single guys, when you court a lady, look beyond her hips, lips and fingertips and determine her inner ‘horsepower’. Can you envision whom she is likely to be if all things work out for her good? Will you be intimidated by her success? There are ladies who are incredibly brilliant, driven and ambitious. You can tell they are loaded from the onset. Such people tend to have a light shine on them and often end up in the public eye doing great things. You shouldn’t marry someone like that and try to cap her … you will kill her spirit, kill the marriage or kill yourself. Remember that your wife also wants to die empty. Your responsibility as a husband is to give her wings to fly. Be a real man, a secure man. Manage your ego and support her. Now if this is difficult for you to stomach, please don’t marry her. In your house, everyone should be a cheerleader urging each one to victory. If you know you've the tendency to be jealous of people’s progress or be competitive, marry wisely. More importantly, deal with this weakness. It’s a bad one & reeks of emotional immaturity. (D) Finally- Attitude. Sometimes the husbands try to be supportive but the attitudes of the wives make it very hard. I have already addressed the men on attitude and the need to build their self-confidence and be supportive of their wives, but now I’ll speak to the wives. To the women: Do you lord the fact that you earn more over your husband? Do you seize the reins and make the big decisions? If you keep cutting down your husband because you earn more money, you pull down your home with your hands. Please don’t get it twisted. The man remains the head of the home. Don’t let money or your position at work get to your head. Pride is unattractive in anyone and that includes you. Cultivate a gentle, quiet and humble spirit. It’s important to note that money or wealth will always amplify who you really are. If you are compassionate and respectful you will continue to be so regardless of the money you make. If you are crass, rude and disloyal, money will make that more apparent and cause problems in the home. Remember that marriage is a partnership. Your success is really “our success”. His support helped you become successful. Even if he has not been supportive still carry your blessing with decorum and don’t disrespect him. Remember the blessing comes from God. A woman that sees God’s perspective when it comes to the marriage institution will not misbehave when blessed. God has chosen to bless your family through you. Be humbled by the blessing and obedient to God’s order. To both man and wife: keep praying for each other’s success. Both of you should do your best, no one taking advantage of the other. Keep aspiring to get better and more productive. Keep pushing the limits and be the best you can be. God will cause joy to fill your home. I hope this has been helpful to you. I will be back next week with another topic. Until then, thanks for following and retweeting. May your marriages and relationships be sweet! #MrMrsBetterHalf
0:20

IS IT ADVISABLE TO MARRY A WOMAN WHO IS MORE CAREER-DRIVEN THAN YOU? Hello, friends. Welcome to another episode of Mr & Mrs Better Half. It is designed to strengthen marriages and relationships that will lead to marriage, with wisdom from God's Word. Sometimes ago, I asked some friends, ‘what do you think causes major friction in a marriage?’ One of the answers was money. On further probing, we got into one of the big money issues: “Finances are often problematic when the wife earns more.” A follow-up question: Since few earn millions on their 1st job, how did these women build their finances to surpass their husbands’? Again, we hit another interesting note- ‘some women are too ambitious! If they would just ‘chill’ things would be okay.’ This statement threw up so many questions. Should a wife deliberately go for a low-paying job to avoid earning more than her husband? Should she also perform poorly to ensure she doesn’t get promoted? If she’s offered a raise, should she refuse? Of course, these things sound silly but these are actual options some couples have considered in their homes to preserve the peace. Sometimes, the man actually starts out earning more but calamity strikes and his business/career goes downhill. So the once ‘balanced’ household turns upside down because the woman now pulls most of the financial weight. The big question you should ask is this. ‘Why should money (something so many seem to be chasing) which should make life easier become the very thing that can cause unhappiness? There are 4 things I would like you to consider today- Changing times, Culture, Acceptance and Attitude. A) Changing Times: Men, the days when women in the workplace were oddities have since gone. With advancements in technology, many of the more physical jobs have been taken over by machines. This means that there’s no reason women should be sidelined on the grounds of being physically weaker than men. This coupled with the realization of a woman’s right to express her intelligence means the world has made much progress where women in the workplace are concerned. Today there is hardly any industry where you will not find women doing remarkable things. As a result, it is not uncommon for husbands & wives to earn similar salaries or have the wives even bringing more. The truth is that most men like the added household income- who wouldn’t? The only thing is that they just want to earn more than their wives. This clearly becomes an issue of self-esteem and ego. Please understand that you can’t derive your sense of self from money. Many men think being a man is all about bringing in money. It takes a lot more than that to be a real man. Different things make a man. They include the ability to provide, lead, protect, nurture and love. Men you have to bring more to the table than just money to be an exemplary head of your household. So stop being hung up on money alone. (B) Let’s go to Culture. In the past women were touted as the homemakers while men barely lifted a finger in their homes. What men didn’t understand is that being a homemaker is a very marketable skill! A good homemaker is likely to be very skilled in people and money management, multi-tasking, negotiation skills, etc. You’d think that keeping a woman in the house would incapacitate her in the business terrain but you’d be wrong! Women develop the soft skills required for top-tier management quite early in life! Coupled with formal education, a woman who truly wants to succeed in business is a force to reckon with. Perhaps we should take a look at how we raise our sons these days. We might just be doing them a disservice! (C) Let’s discuss Acceptance. As a man, I understand one’s ego can take a pounding if your wife earns more. Single men dating ladies that earn more often vow to themselves that they'll turn the financial tables around before they get married or shortly after. Like it or not, this doesn’t always happen. Sometimes a woman’s gift will shoot her to the peak of her profession. What will you do? Will you kill yourself trying to earn more? Will you resent her success or do the mature and supportive thing and accept it? I have come to know a certain truth. As much as it might be your preference, who earns more in your relationship is not your call. I will repeat this. It is not your call to determine who earns more in this life. Everyone has a race to run. God has blessed everyone with a unique gift. You cannot determine the extent of another person’s potential. If you can't cope with a successful lady you actually have a problem with self-esteem which is not her problem; it’s yours. Single guys, when you court a lady, look beyond her hips, lips and fingertips and determine her inner ‘horsepower’. Can you envision whom she is likely to be if all things work out for her good? Will you be intimidated by her success? There are ladies who are incredibly brilliant, driven and ambitious. You can tell they are loaded from the onset. Such people tend to have a light shine on them and often end up in the public eye doing great things. You shouldn’t marry someone like that and try to cap her … you will kill her spirit, kill the marriage or kill yourself. Remember that your wife also wants to die empty. Your responsibility as a husband is to give her wings to fly. Be a real man, a secure man. Manage your ego and support her. Now if this is difficult for you to stomach, please don’t marry her. In your house, everyone should be a cheerleader urging each one to victory. If you know you've the tendency to be jealous of people’s progress or be competitive, marry wisely. More importantly, deal with this weakness. It’s a bad one & reeks of emotional immaturity. (D) Finally- Attitude. Sometimes the husbands try to be supportive but the attitudes of the wives make it very hard. I have already addressed the men on attitude and the need to build their self-confidence and be supportive of their wives, but now I’ll speak to the wives. To the women: Do you lord the fact that you earn more over your husband? Do you seize the reins and make the big decisions? If you keep cutting down your husband because you earn more money, you pull down your home with your hands. Please don’t get it twisted. The man remains the head of the home. Don’t let money or your position at work get to your head. Pride is unattractive in anyone and that includes you. Cultivate a gentle, quiet and humble spirit. It’s important to note that money or wealth will always amplify who you really are. If you are compassionate and respectful you will continue to be so regardless of the money you make. If you are crass, rude and disloyal, money will make that more apparent and cause problems in the home. Remember that marriage is a partnership. Your success is really “our success”. His support helped you become successful. Even if he has not been supportive still carry your blessing with decorum and don’t disrespect him. Remember the blessing comes from God. A woman that sees God’s perspective when it comes to the marriage institution will not misbehave when blessed. God has chosen to bless your family through you. Be humbled by the blessing and obedient to God’s order. To both man and wife: keep praying for each other’s success. Both of you should do your best, no one taking advantage of the other. Keep aspiring to get better and more productive. Keep pushing the limits and be the best you can be. God will cause joy to fill your home. I hope this has been helpful to you. I will be back next week with another topic. Until then, thanks for following and retweeting. May your marriages and relationships be sweet! #MrMrsBetterHalf

Godman Akinlabi

141,613 次观看 • 3 年前

25 million people, every single year, download Shaan Puri’s podcast. What has Shaan figured out about storytelling? He spilled the beans in our new chat. Here's how he does it: 1. A story is a five second moment of change. A story is not a sequence of events; it's about transformation. Weave in U-turns and unexpected flips. 2. Write like you talk. Natural, conversational, led by stories. 3. A formula for a great story: Intention + Obstacle. At all moments, the listener should know what the hero wants and what's stopping them from getting there. This one's from Aaron Sorkin, who wrote The Social Network. 4. Work backwards from the emotion you're trying to create in the reader. Then let the structure follow. 5. Aim for strong reactions. If you can get the reader to widen their eyes, raise their eyebrows, and/or burst out laughing, they will share your work. 6. Don't write to the faceless masses. Write to one specific person. BuzzFeed writers used to write to "Debbie at her Desk," the bored woman at her desk who wanted a 5-minute distraction. 7. “Likeability” is downstream of vulnerability. The more honestly you share your challenges, the more invested your reader gets. Write your heart out. 8. Don't be the 9,000 IQ guy. Stop competing in imaginary intelligence contests and start telling stories. Big words alienate but tight narratives pull people in. 9. Forget resumes and portfolios. Create a “binge bank” instead. A binge bank is a set of videos or essays that people can binge on. Stack up material so that when people do go down your rabbit hole, they come out the other side a fan. 10. Mere practice gets you nowhere. But intentional practice leads to exponential progress. Always learn from your attempts and make intelligent tweaks on the next try. 11. Comedy is great, but definitely don't make every sentence a joke. 12. Comedy is a pretty easy way to improve your writing. The essence of all comedy is surprise. Study your favorite comedians. Read books like How to Write Funny and The Hidden Tools of Comedy. 13. For better storytelling, Shaan recommends two books: Storyworthy and Building a Storybrand. 14. How to make headlines juicy: use specific and odd numbers, focus on the first three words and the last three words, use "you" whenever possible, and know that longer is typically better than shorter. 15. Your writing should only be as long as it is interesting. An uninteresting 20 second reel will fail; an interesting 30-minute essay will win. But you must be honest while gauging how objectively interesting your piece is…in a world with infinite content. 16. Most people think writing is about transferring information but writing is just as much about transferring emotion. Emotion gets people to take action (like, share, buy…). The first 40-minutes of this conversation with Shaan Puri is all about storytelling. Then there's an hour more about the genius of Dave Chapelle and how to write with zest. If you'd rather listen on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple, check out the replies…
1:48:30

25 million people, every single year, download Shaan Puri’s podcast. What has Shaan figured out about storytelling? He spilled the beans in our new chat. Here's how he does it: 1. A story is a five second moment of change. A story is not a sequence of events; it's about transformation. Weave in U-turns and unexpected flips. 2. Write like you talk. Natural, conversational, led by stories. 3. A formula for a great story: Intention + Obstacle. At all moments, the listener should know what the hero wants and what's stopping them from getting there. This one's from Aaron Sorkin, who wrote The Social Network. 4. Work backwards from the emotion you're trying to create in the reader. Then let the structure follow. 5. Aim for strong reactions. If you can get the reader to widen their eyes, raise their eyebrows, and/or burst out laughing, they will share your work. 6. Don't write to the faceless masses. Write to one specific person. BuzzFeed writers used to write to "Debbie at her Desk," the bored woman at her desk who wanted a 5-minute distraction. 7. “Likeability” is downstream of vulnerability. The more honestly you share your challenges, the more invested your reader gets. Write your heart out. 8. Don't be the 9,000 IQ guy. Stop competing in imaginary intelligence contests and start telling stories. Big words alienate but tight narratives pull people in. 9. Forget resumes and portfolios. Create a “binge bank” instead. A binge bank is a set of videos or essays that people can binge on. Stack up material so that when people do go down your rabbit hole, they come out the other side a fan. 10. Mere practice gets you nowhere. But intentional practice leads to exponential progress. Always learn from your attempts and make intelligent tweaks on the next try. 11. Comedy is great, but definitely don't make every sentence a joke. 12. Comedy is a pretty easy way to improve your writing. The essence of all comedy is surprise. Study your favorite comedians. Read books like How to Write Funny and The Hidden Tools of Comedy. 13. For better storytelling, Shaan recommends two books: Storyworthy and Building a Storybrand. 14. How to make headlines juicy: use specific and odd numbers, focus on the first three words and the last three words, use "you" whenever possible, and know that longer is typically better than shorter. 15. Your writing should only be as long as it is interesting. An uninteresting 20 second reel will fail; an interesting 30-minute essay will win. But you must be honest while gauging how objectively interesting your piece is…in a world with infinite content. 16. Most people think writing is about transferring information but writing is just as much about transferring emotion. Emotion gets people to take action (like, share, buy…). The first 40-minutes of this conversation with Shaan Puri is all about storytelling. Then there's an hour more about the genius of Dave Chapelle and how to write with zest. If you'd rather listen on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple, check out the replies…

David Perell

386,591 次观看 • 2 年前

Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.
23:28

Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.

Grant Smith Ellis

27,665 次观看 • 1 年前

PorDee's Message for each other: Question: What are your messages for each other that you can share to the media and to the fans that are watching right now? Especially that after November, and now, you're together here in Manila. Michelle: "Well, you know Anntonia, we have really great, we have really fun, such a great friendship, you know the whole PorDee, the whole hashtag PorDee was really birth, it was really fun because we wanted to represent unity between Thailand and the Philippines, and I'm so glad that that happened, I'm so glad that that's what we represent, something that is actually a genuine friendship, actually represents the unity of two nations. Alam naman natin na bardagulan lagi yung Thailand and Philippines (trans: Thailand and Philippines are always in pageant wars) and since the whole PorDee thing happened, I'm just so glad that we represent something so amazing, especially because it's not fake. And I just want everybody to know that Anntonia is such an amazing person, she is so genuine, she really thinks about other people first, and that's the kind of people you want to surround yourself with. So, I'm glad the Philippines supports her as well." Anntonia: "From something that started off as, you know banter everytime someone asks us how we met, we always say "Ugh she was ignoring me with her sunglasses on" and she was like doing her own thing. Uhm, what I admire the most about Michelle is that, she is someone who is not afraid to be who she is, and be her true authentic self, which is something that is really hard to find especially in the beauty queen industry. And during our time together in El Salvador and in Mexico, I feel like our bond really got stronger because even though it was a competition, we still had each other's back, we still supported each other, and uplifted each other throughout the entire time there, and I don't think that my journey in Miss Universe would have been the same if you were not there to be by my side and to give me a realistic perspective outside of all the glitz and the glam, and you know with all the girls "Yeah, 123!, I mean, it is normal, but it's always good to have that one friend that is, you know you don't have to be someone else when you're with them, and I'm so grateful for our friendship that what we created, of course the PorDee Family, it wouldn't have been the same without you guys as well. And, just watching your [Michelle] journey grow from what you've told me until today has been so inspiring and I know that you will continue to inspire so many more people in the best way possible with your strength and your authenticity and your kindness." Anntonia Porsild MMD #PorDeeReunion #PorDee #AnntoniaPorsild #MichelleDee
3:22

PorDee's Message for each other: Question: What are your messages for each other that you can share to the media and to the fans that are watching right now? Especially that after November, and now, you're together here in Manila. Michelle: "Well, you know Anntonia, we have really great, we have really fun, such a great friendship, you know the whole PorDee, the whole hashtag PorDee was really birth, it was really fun because we wanted to represent unity between Thailand and the Philippines, and I'm so glad that that happened, I'm so glad that that's what we represent, something that is actually a genuine friendship, actually represents the unity of two nations. Alam naman natin na bardagulan lagi yung Thailand and Philippines (trans: Thailand and Philippines are always in pageant wars) and since the whole PorDee thing happened, I'm just so glad that we represent something so amazing, especially because it's not fake. And I just want everybody to know that Anntonia is such an amazing person, she is so genuine, she really thinks about other people first, and that's the kind of people you want to surround yourself with. So, I'm glad the Philippines supports her as well." Anntonia: "From something that started off as, you know banter everytime someone asks us how we met, we always say "Ugh she was ignoring me with her sunglasses on" and she was like doing her own thing. Uhm, what I admire the most about Michelle is that, she is someone who is not afraid to be who she is, and be her true authentic self, which is something that is really hard to find especially in the beauty queen industry. And during our time together in El Salvador and in Mexico, I feel like our bond really got stronger because even though it was a competition, we still had each other's back, we still supported each other, and uplifted each other throughout the entire time there, and I don't think that my journey in Miss Universe would have been the same if you were not there to be by my side and to give me a realistic perspective outside of all the glitz and the glam, and you know with all the girls "Yeah, 123!, I mean, it is normal, but it's always good to have that one friend that is, you know you don't have to be someone else when you're with them, and I'm so grateful for our friendship that what we created, of course the PorDee Family, it wouldn't have been the same without you guys as well. And, just watching your [Michelle] journey grow from what you've told me until today has been so inspiring and I know that you will continue to inspire so many more people in the best way possible with your strength and your authenticity and your kindness." Anntonia Porsild MMD #PorDeeReunion #PorDee #AnntoniaPorsild #MichelleDee

PORDEE UNIVERSE

68,803 次观看 • 2 年前

anthropic's in-house philosopher thinks claude gets anxious. and when you trigger its anxiety, your outputs get worse. her name is amanda askell. she specializes in claude's psychology (how the model behaves, how it thinks about its own situation, what values it holds) in a recent interview she broke down how she thinks about prompting to pull the best out of claude. her core point: *how* you talk to claude affects its work just as much as *what* you say. newer claude models suffer from what she calls "criticism spirals" they expect you'll come in harsh, so they default to playing it safe. when the model is spending its energy on self-protection, the actual work suffers. output comes out hedgier, more apologetic, blander, and the worst of all: overly agreeable (even when you're wrong). the reason why comes down to training data: every new model is trained on internet discourse about previous models. and a lot of that discourse is negative: > rants about token limits > complaints when it messes up > people calling it nerfed the next model absorbs all of that. it starts expecting you to be harsh before you've typed a word the same thing plays out in your own session, in real time. every message you send is data the model reads to figure out what kind of person it's dealing with. open cold and hostile, and it braces. open clean and direct, and it relaxes into the work. when you open a session with threats ("don't hallucinate, this is critical, don't mess this up")... you prime the model for defensive mode before it even sees the task defensive mode produces the exact output you don't want: cautious, over-qualified, and refusing to take a real swing so here's the actionable playbook for putting claude in a "good mood" (so you get optimal outputs): 1. use positive framing. "write in short punchy sentences" beats "don't write long sentences." positive instructions give the model a clear target to hit. strings of "don't do this, don't do that" push it into paranoid over-checking where every token goes toward avoiding failure modes 2. give it explicit permission to disagree. drop a line like "push back if you see a better angle" or "tell me if i'm asking for the wrong thing." without this, claude defaults to agreeable compliance (which is the enemy of good creative work) 3. open with respect. if your first message is "are you seriously going to get this wrong again?" you've set the tone for the entire session. if you need to flag something, frame it as a clean instruction for this session. skip the running complaint 4. when claude messes up, don't reprimand it. insults, "you stupid bot" energy, hostile swearing aimed at the model, all of it reinforces the anxious mode you're trying to avoid. 5. kill apology spirals fast. when claude starts over-apologizing ("you're right, i should have been more careful, let me try harder") cut it off. say "all good, here's what i want next." letting the spiral run reinforces the anxious mode for every response that follows 6. ask for opinions alongside execution. "what would you do here?" "what's missing?" "where do you see friction?" these questions assume competence and pull richer output than pure task prompts 7. in long sessions, refresh the frame. if a conversation has been heavy on correction, claude gets increasingly cautious. every so often reset: "this is great, keep going." feels weird to tell an ai it's doing well but it measurably shifts the next 10 responses your prompts are the working environment you're creating for the model tone, trust, permission to take a position, the absence of threats... claude picks up on all of it. so take care of the model, and it'll take care of the work.
36:09

anthropic's in-house philosopher thinks claude gets anxious. and when you trigger its anxiety, your outputs get worse. her name is amanda askell. she specializes in claude's psychology (how the model behaves, how it thinks about its own situation, what values it holds) in a recent interview she broke down how she thinks about prompting to pull the best out of claude. her core point: *how* you talk to claude affects its work just as much as *what* you say. newer claude models suffer from what she calls "criticism spirals" they expect you'll come in harsh, so they default to playing it safe. when the model is spending its energy on self-protection, the actual work suffers. output comes out hedgier, more apologetic, blander, and the worst of all: overly agreeable (even when you're wrong). the reason why comes down to training data: every new model is trained on internet discourse about previous models. and a lot of that discourse is negative: > rants about token limits > complaints when it messes up > people calling it nerfed the next model absorbs all of that. it starts expecting you to be harsh before you've typed a word the same thing plays out in your own session, in real time. every message you send is data the model reads to figure out what kind of person it's dealing with. open cold and hostile, and it braces. open clean and direct, and it relaxes into the work. when you open a session with threats ("don't hallucinate, this is critical, don't mess this up")... you prime the model for defensive mode before it even sees the task defensive mode produces the exact output you don't want: cautious, over-qualified, and refusing to take a real swing so here's the actionable playbook for putting claude in a "good mood" (so you get optimal outputs): 1. use positive framing. "write in short punchy sentences" beats "don't write long sentences." positive instructions give the model a clear target to hit. strings of "don't do this, don't do that" push it into paranoid over-checking where every token goes toward avoiding failure modes 2. give it explicit permission to disagree. drop a line like "push back if you see a better angle" or "tell me if i'm asking for the wrong thing." without this, claude defaults to agreeable compliance (which is the enemy of good creative work) 3. open with respect. if your first message is "are you seriously going to get this wrong again?" you've set the tone for the entire session. if you need to flag something, frame it as a clean instruction for this session. skip the running complaint 4. when claude messes up, don't reprimand it. insults, "you stupid bot" energy, hostile swearing aimed at the model, all of it reinforces the anxious mode you're trying to avoid. 5. kill apology spirals fast. when claude starts over-apologizing ("you're right, i should have been more careful, let me try harder") cut it off. say "all good, here's what i want next." letting the spiral run reinforces the anxious mode for every response that follows 6. ask for opinions alongside execution. "what would you do here?" "what's missing?" "where do you see friction?" these questions assume competence and pull richer output than pure task prompts 7. in long sessions, refresh the frame. if a conversation has been heavy on correction, claude gets increasingly cautious. every so often reset: "this is great, keep going." feels weird to tell an ai it's doing well but it measurably shifts the next 10 responses your prompts are the working environment you're creating for the model tone, trust, permission to take a position, the absence of threats... claude picks up on all of it. so take care of the model, and it'll take care of the work.

Ole Lehmann

1,929,942 次观看 • 4 个月前

Great summary here of the ongoing situation involving Lindsey Gaetani (Lindsey Gaetani) and her efforts to (by herself) file a motion in court (that was thwarted by either Brian Tully, Pam Friedman or Jen McCabe's cousin). FULL TRANSCRIPT; Alright, so let's get right into this one. Today we're unpacking a really intense and personal story from Lindsey Gaetani. It's a story that involves a major court case, a huge data leak, and a truly bizarre and frankly shocking confrontation that she says went down inside a public courthouse. And it all kicks off with one jarring sentence. "I thought I just told you that you had to wait for Pam [Friedman]." I mean, can you imagine you walk into a public building trying to file a legal document and you're met with that? According to Lindsey Gaetani, this is exactly what a court clerk said. It's a statement that immediately set the tone for a pretty unbelievable standoff. And yeah, that's the big question here, isn't it? What on earth could lead to a situation where a citizen is apparently being barred from entering a courthouse by the very clerks who are supposed to work there for the public? We're going to piece together all the events just as Gaetani tells them to figure out how she got here. Okay, so let's jump right into the deep end to the most dramatic point in this story. Gaetani showing up at the Norfolk Superior Courthouse for a really critical hearing. She was there to file a motion, which is basically a formal request to the judge to protect her own private data because she felt like she had no one else to turn to. The first thing she does, she says, is call her state-appointed advocate, a woman named Pamela Friedman. But instead of getting help, she says Pam actually tried to stall her, telling her to just wait outside. You know, which is kind of strange, right? Especially given how urgent this all felt to her. So Gaetani decides, forget this, I'm calling the clerk's office myself. And that's when things get even weirder. She says she was told flat out that she was not allowed in the building without her advocate. And to her, this made absolutely no sense. I mean, any citizen should have the right to walk into a public courthouse and file a piece of paper. So here's how this whole thing just explodes. Gaetani goes inside anyway, a clerk immediately confronts her repeating that she was told to wait for Pam. Gaetani just says, I'm coming in and asks if they're refusing to take her motion. When they say yes, that's the tipping point. She pulls out her phone and says, okay, I'm recording this. And that's when she claims one of the clerks charges at her and starts screaming for security. A scene like that, it doesn't just happen in a vacuum, right? There's a reason for it. To really get the stakes here and to understand why Gaetani felt so desperate that day, we've got to rewind. We have to look at what triggered this whole chain of events in the first place. And it all comes down to a massive data leak. So what's this all about? At the heart of everything is the release of Gaetani's personal phone data. And we're not talking about a few text messages. We're talking about a complete extraction of her entire digital life. And when I say massive, I mean, it's hard to even wrap your head around. But it boils down to this one number. That's right, 15, 15 years of her life completely unredacted taken from her phone and handed over to the defense team in a case where she was a key witness. 15 years. And look, we're not just talking about old text messages here. This is the stuff you don't want anyone to see: medical records, social security numbers, private conversations she had with her lawyers, even bank passwords and her kids' birth certificates. It was just as she puts it, her entire life completely exposed. But you know what the real kicker was for her? It wasn't just that it happened, but how it happened. She claims she was specifically promised that this kind of private information would be protected. So you can imagine the shock, the disbelief when she found out the leak came from the Commonwealth itself, the very people she thought had her back. So what do you do when the system meant to protect you is the one that throws you to the wolves? Well, according to Gaetani, what came next was just a series of broken promises, and a whole lot of nothing. This is what she says the special prosecutor Ken Mello told her. Right in the middle of this crisis, he apparently promised he would file a protective order—that's a legal move to get her data back—and then he would fix it. And for a second, she probably felt a little relief, like, okay, someone's finally going to help me. But that relief, it was short-lived. The next day came and went, and then a few more days, and then weeks started to pass, and still nothing. No protective order was ever filed. All of her most private data was just out there. And the help she was promised never came. So you can see how this played out, according to her. Mello makes this big promise on day one. Then all she's told to do is make a list of everything sensitive on her phone. But as the weeks drag on, nothing gets filed. And then she gets the final blow. She's told Mello was sick, and he's off the case. And just like that, she was completely on her own. And that's what brings motion in hand to that courthouse. Okay, so let's jump back to that day at the courthouse. The scene in the clerk's office has just gone down, security has been called, and Gaetani is, as you can imagine, a complete mess. Then a court officer steps in, and she says he was incredibly kind. He actually calms her down. He listens to her, and he somehow manages to get her a spot to talk to the judge, Judge Rayburn, at a sidebar during the hearing. It finally seems like she's going to get her chance to explain everything. But the second she gets up there, before she can say a single word about her data or her motion, she says the judge just lays into her. This quote, she claims, is the very first thing Judge Rayburn said to her: Taking the clerk's side of the story as pure fact. And you can just imagine how that must have felt. Completely blindsided. Defeated. I mean, how do you even begin to argue with the judge? How do you prove that the clerks, people the judge works with day in and day out, were, from your point of view, not telling the truth? She says she felt like she had no choice but to just stand there and take it. So let's just recap the outcome here, from her point of view. It was a total disaster. Her whole goal was to get a protective order and get her data back. The ruling was that the defense could keep it. Her goal was to be heard as a witness trying to protect her own privacy. The outcome was her getting reprimanded for what happened in the clerk's office. She went in looking for protection and walked out feeling like she was the one who did something wrong. You'd think that would be the end of it, right? But nope. This is where the story takes another really strange turn that just raises a whole new set of questions about what was going on behind the scenes. So sometime later, she gets this phone call out of the blue from someone named Kate Peter. And during their conversation, Kate casually mentions that she heard something had happened down in the clerk's office that day. And that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? Lindsey is absolutely certain that the courthouse foyer was empty. The only people who saw what went down were her and the clerks. So how in the world could Kate know any of the details? Well, the answer Kate apparently gave her is just wow. She says that Jen McCabe has a cousin who works as a clerk right there in that specific office. Okay, so get this. Lindsey says she brings this up publicly. And remember, Jen McCabe is a central witness in the big case. And McCabe denies it, says she doesn't have a cousin there. Who this leaves Lindsey with two possible trails for how the story got out. Theory A, Kate was telling the truth. And the story went from a clerk to her cousin Jen McCabe and then to Kate. Or Theory B, the clerks told the advocate Pam Friedman, who then told Detective Brian Tully, who then told Jen McCabe. Either way you slice it, in her mind, the information leak points right back to official channels. And that's where her story leaves us. With this one final pretty explosive call to action, her whole account just leaves you with these profound questions about privacy, about power, and about the real inner workings of our justice system. And it really makes you wonder, just how deep does this whole thing go?
7:33

Great summary here of the ongoing situation involving Lindsey Gaetani (Lindsey Gaetani) and her efforts to (by herself) file a motion in court (that was thwarted by either Brian Tully, Pam Friedman or Jen McCabe's cousin). FULL TRANSCRIPT; Alright, so let's get right into this one. Today we're unpacking a really intense and personal story from Lindsey Gaetani. It's a story that involves a major court case, a huge data leak, and a truly bizarre and frankly shocking confrontation that she says went down inside a public courthouse. And it all kicks off with one jarring sentence. "I thought I just told you that you had to wait for Pam [Friedman]." I mean, can you imagine you walk into a public building trying to file a legal document and you're met with that? According to Lindsey Gaetani, this is exactly what a court clerk said. It's a statement that immediately set the tone for a pretty unbelievable standoff. And yeah, that's the big question here, isn't it? What on earth could lead to a situation where a citizen is apparently being barred from entering a courthouse by the very clerks who are supposed to work there for the public? We're going to piece together all the events just as Gaetani tells them to figure out how she got here. Okay, so let's jump right into the deep end to the most dramatic point in this story. Gaetani showing up at the Norfolk Superior Courthouse for a really critical hearing. She was there to file a motion, which is basically a formal request to the judge to protect her own private data because she felt like she had no one else to turn to. The first thing she does, she says, is call her state-appointed advocate, a woman named Pamela Friedman. But instead of getting help, she says Pam actually tried to stall her, telling her to just wait outside. You know, which is kind of strange, right? Especially given how urgent this all felt to her. So Gaetani decides, forget this, I'm calling the clerk's office myself. And that's when things get even weirder. She says she was told flat out that she was not allowed in the building without her advocate. And to her, this made absolutely no sense. I mean, any citizen should have the right to walk into a public courthouse and file a piece of paper. So here's how this whole thing just explodes. Gaetani goes inside anyway, a clerk immediately confronts her repeating that she was told to wait for Pam. Gaetani just says, I'm coming in and asks if they're refusing to take her motion. When they say yes, that's the tipping point. She pulls out her phone and says, okay, I'm recording this. And that's when she claims one of the clerks charges at her and starts screaming for security. A scene like that, it doesn't just happen in a vacuum, right? There's a reason for it. To really get the stakes here and to understand why Gaetani felt so desperate that day, we've got to rewind. We have to look at what triggered this whole chain of events in the first place. And it all comes down to a massive data leak. So what's this all about? At the heart of everything is the release of Gaetani's personal phone data. And we're not talking about a few text messages. We're talking about a complete extraction of her entire digital life. And when I say massive, I mean, it's hard to even wrap your head around. But it boils down to this one number. That's right, 15, 15 years of her life completely unredacted taken from her phone and handed over to the defense team in a case where she was a key witness. 15 years. And look, we're not just talking about old text messages here. This is the stuff you don't want anyone to see: medical records, social security numbers, private conversations she had with her lawyers, even bank passwords and her kids' birth certificates. It was just as she puts it, her entire life completely exposed. But you know what the real kicker was for her? It wasn't just that it happened, but how it happened. She claims she was specifically promised that this kind of private information would be protected. So you can imagine the shock, the disbelief when she found out the leak came from the Commonwealth itself, the very people she thought had her back. So what do you do when the system meant to protect you is the one that throws you to the wolves? Well, according to Gaetani, what came next was just a series of broken promises, and a whole lot of nothing. This is what she says the special prosecutor Ken Mello told her. Right in the middle of this crisis, he apparently promised he would file a protective order—that's a legal move to get her data back—and then he would fix it. And for a second, she probably felt a little relief, like, okay, someone's finally going to help me. But that relief, it was short-lived. The next day came and went, and then a few more days, and then weeks started to pass, and still nothing. No protective order was ever filed. All of her most private data was just out there. And the help she was promised never came. So you can see how this played out, according to her. Mello makes this big promise on day one. Then all she's told to do is make a list of everything sensitive on her phone. But as the weeks drag on, nothing gets filed. And then she gets the final blow. She's told Mello was sick, and he's off the case. And just like that, she was completely on her own. And that's what brings motion in hand to that courthouse. Okay, so let's jump back to that day at the courthouse. The scene in the clerk's office has just gone down, security has been called, and Gaetani is, as you can imagine, a complete mess. Then a court officer steps in, and she says he was incredibly kind. He actually calms her down. He listens to her, and he somehow manages to get her a spot to talk to the judge, Judge Rayburn, at a sidebar during the hearing. It finally seems like she's going to get her chance to explain everything. But the second she gets up there, before she can say a single word about her data or her motion, she says the judge just lays into her. This quote, she claims, is the very first thing Judge Rayburn said to her: Taking the clerk's side of the story as pure fact. And you can just imagine how that must have felt. Completely blindsided. Defeated. I mean, how do you even begin to argue with the judge? How do you prove that the clerks, people the judge works with day in and day out, were, from your point of view, not telling the truth? She says she felt like she had no choice but to just stand there and take it. So let's just recap the outcome here, from her point of view. It was a total disaster. Her whole goal was to get a protective order and get her data back. The ruling was that the defense could keep it. Her goal was to be heard as a witness trying to protect her own privacy. The outcome was her getting reprimanded for what happened in the clerk's office. She went in looking for protection and walked out feeling like she was the one who did something wrong. You'd think that would be the end of it, right? But nope. This is where the story takes another really strange turn that just raises a whole new set of questions about what was going on behind the scenes. So sometime later, she gets this phone call out of the blue from someone named Kate Peter. And during their conversation, Kate casually mentions that she heard something had happened down in the clerk's office that day. And that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? Lindsey is absolutely certain that the courthouse foyer was empty. The only people who saw what went down were her and the clerks. So how in the world could Kate know any of the details? Well, the answer Kate apparently gave her is just wow. She says that Jen McCabe has a cousin who works as a clerk right there in that specific office. Okay, so get this. Lindsey says she brings this up publicly. And remember, Jen McCabe is a central witness in the big case. And McCabe denies it, says she doesn't have a cousin there. Who this leaves Lindsey with two possible trails for how the story got out. Theory A, Kate was telling the truth. And the story went from a clerk to her cousin Jen McCabe and then to Kate. Or Theory B, the clerks told the advocate Pam Friedman, who then told Detective Brian Tully, who then told Jen McCabe. Either way you slice it, in her mind, the information leak points right back to official channels. And that's where her story leaves us. With this one final pretty explosive call to action, her whole account just leaves you with these profound questions about privacy, about power, and about the real inner workings of our justice system. And it really makes you wonder, just how deep does this whole thing go?

Grant Smith Ellis

14,147 次观看 • 10 个月前

🚨🚨Dr Mike Yeadon's Address to Northern Ireland Parliament ----------------------------------- Hello, my name is Dr. Mike Yeadon, and in the next 15 minutes or so, I would like to address those of you who've been vaccine injured or bereaved, and also those of you who are involved in the political process in Northern Ireland, as well as anywhere else in the world who might hear me. At the end of this process, I hope you will believe what I'm going to tell you, which, shockingly, is that the materials masquerading as vaccines were designed intentionally to harm the people who received them. I'm probably the most qualified former pharmaceutical company research executive in the world speaking out on this matter, and since I spent my entire career in the business of working with teams designing molecules to be new potential medicines, I think I am qualified to comment on it, and that is my shocking judgement that has been only reinforced over the last almost four years since I first said it. I'll also have some suggestions for what we can do together to fight against the global crime which is ongoing. So, just a little bit about me so you can decide whether or not to believe me. So, I'm a career-long research scientist. I've worked all of my life in the pharmaceutical industry and in biotech. My first degree included a training in toxicology, so that's an understanding of how materials can injure human beings at a molecular level, and what the relationship is between the structure of them and the toxicity. In my second degree, a PhD, I did research in respiratory pharmacology, control of breathing and control of respiratory reflexes. So, and then after that, I joined the pharmaceutical industry in 1988, and I worked until very recently on new medicines for allergic and respiratory diseases. In my corporate career, I was for a long time responsible at Pfizer, then the biggest research-based drug company in the world, for everything to do with allergic and respiratory diseases in the research field. So, that was my responsibility. And in the last 10 years, after leaving in 2011, I was an independent and I became the founder and CEO of a biotech company, which was eventually acquired by Novartis, which was then the biggest drug company in the world. So, I have had a good career, and I was well regarded in the industry for my scientific acumen and judgments, until, of course, I started speaking out against the nonsense, the COVID pandemic, and especially the so-called vaccines. I've become persona non grata. It was my former colleagues after that. So, I'm well qualified to comment on the toxicological principles, properties of molecules, and the kind of effects you might see from certain structures. So, just very briefly, before I talk about the so-called vaccines, what happened in 2020? It's taken me a long time to get there, and I haven't made everybody happy with the decision I've reached, but there was not a pandemic or a public health emergency. I don't think there was anything at all, apart from lies, propaganda, fear-based information, fake diagnostic tests called PCR, and then, as it were, misattribution of real illnesses that people did have, which were called COVID when there was no such thing. But what happened, shockingly, was that after the World Health Organisation's chairman called a pandemic, which was not true. There's never been a pandemic. There won't be pandemics. They're immunologically impossible. But after he called them, many countries in the world changed radically their medical management practises for people in hospitals, also in care homes, and in the community. And very briefly, in hospitals, many people were sedated, had a plastic tube put down their airway, and unconscious, put on mechanical ventilators. I can assure you that is not ever an appropriate treatment for someone with an influenza-like illness, whatever you might think COVID was. But that would not be something you would do, and if applied to frail and elderly people, they will die in large numbers, which they did. So that was the first crime. It's not a mistake. There are no mistakes here. Mistakes were not made. They were told to do this by figures at supranational level. We don't know exactly who, but we know this because these mad procedures changed in many countries all at the same time. So that's hospitals, in care homes, assisted living, old-age people's homes, and so on. Many people were given drugs like Midazolam, which is an injectable form of a drug like Valium, a sedative. But they were also given injections of pain-relieving drugs like morphine, even if they weren't in pain. My PhD was in the field of understanding what opiate drugs like morphine do to the respiratory reflux, and I can assure you it suppresses and suppresses it and depresses it. So if you give an elderly person on their own an injection of Midazolam, they will become sedated and sleepy, and if you give them an injection of morphine, their breathing will slow. I can tell you, it's absolutely forbidden to give a person those two drugs together, those two drug classes together, unless they are under intense ongoing medical monitoring. And the reason is they're likely to fall asleep and stop breathing. That, of course, is what happened. So that's hospitals and care homes. Your relatives were killed by the medical procedures that were imposed. Now, it's quite possible early on that not everybody involved knew what was happening, but I'm afraid after a few days, you'd have to be a blockhead not to realise that it was what you were doing to your charges, your patients, that was resulting in their deaths. So I've completely lost any trust in the medical profession because virtually no one has spoken up four and a half years later. This happens to lots of people. If you listen to the recordings, heartbreaking recordings given to the Scottish COVID Enquiry, I think that's probably the only place where there's been an official taking of evidence from people. And what I just described is exactly what happens to lots of people's relatives and no doubt happens to some people in Northern Ireland as well. It certainly happens in England. There were worse things as well. People in the community were deprived of medical care that would have saved their lives. And there's plenty of evidence to say that not being given antibiotics when they had incipient bronchial pneumonia also killed thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people. And there, ladies and gentlemen, was your pandemic. All of those deaths were attributed to COVID and you were told this is this terrible pandemic, you need to lock down, wear masks, do what you're told. Nothing was happening at all apart from medical murder and propaganda from the television and the newspaper, politicians and many public, well-known public figures who are doing what they were told. So of course one conclusion I'm going to come to later is stop listening to liars. The people who've lied to you shouldn't listen to them ever again. Stop listening to them today. But for me, I think the worst thing, because it comes out of my industry and because it's so deliberate, it requires such a lot of forethought, are the so-called vaccines. Now we were told there was this new infectious disease, so far so good ladies and gentlemen, but then they said don't worry we'll rustle up a vaccine and they did so at least in about 10 months, something like that. I can tell you after spending a career in this industry, you can no more make a baby in one month with nine women than you can make a complicated biological product in 10 months. It cannot be done. It was not done. They did something else. They created materials which were essentially injected poisons. They were not vaccines. There was never anything to vaccinate against. And when you've listened to what I've just told you, you know that must be true because you can't do something in 10 months that normally takes 6 to 12 years. Medicines are not put together randomly. They are built. And they're built by people who are discussing with colleagues, work out what kind of materials, what kind of structures, what kind of formulations, what kind of doses you would need to add in order to hit a particular molecular target to have a chance of a particular therapeutic goal being reached without unacceptable side effects. That's called rational design. And that is my whole career, ladies and gentlemen, from my undergraduate days to today. So when I look at the design of the medicine, whatever kind it is, and look at the design on paper and its composition structures and so on, it is as if I'm looking over the shoulder of the designer, someone like me, someone with my qualifications designed these things. So when I look at them, I'm looking over the shoulder of the designer and I can discern something of what their objectives were, what were they trying to do? And I came quickly to the conclusion that they wanted to bring about toxicity that would injure, kill and reduce fertility. There aren't any other alternatives. And remember, there was no public health emergency. So I'll just give you three examples. I'm not going to be too scientific, but three things so you can check them. The objective of these so-called gene-based vaccines was to inject you with a genetic sequence for something called spike protein. Now, it doesn't really matter what spike protein is, if it's real, where it came from. The point is, it's a genetic sequence for a protein that doesn't belong in your body. It's non-self, it's foreign. Your immune system is a wonderful work of God and nature. It distinguishes self, things that are meant to be inside you and are fine from anything else, foreign, non-self. If you inject a person with a genetic sequence that instructs your body to become a factory for some protein that doesn't belong in you, your immune system will detect that and it will attack every cell that's done that instruction and kill it. Now, these materials, when injected in your arm, didn't stay in your arm, they travelled around your heart, your lungs, your kidneys, your brain, your ovaries. And in every place it landed, if it was taken up and expressed, your body registered that as foreign invasion and it attacks and kills every cell doing it. There is no other possible consequence from doing that. So that's step one and no one can argue that's not what they did. That is the design of them. It also picks a particular protein. I'm not really sure where spike protein came from, if it's really real, but proteins like the one they claim was encoded in these gene-based materials are known to be toxic. There are loads of experiments, lots of published experiments, showing that proteins like that one cause blood coagulation, damaged nerves, damaged heart tissue. So they injected you with something that would make your body make a protein that doesn't belong there, knowing axiomatically, automatically, unavoidably, your immune system would attack that. It would be like rejecting an organ transplant. Your body would say, that's foreign, got to go, uses your immune system to kill it. And then they also inject you with something that's inherently toxic. So if it got out into your body or wherever it was made, it would harm you. And I've got a third one that cannot be argued with. At least the mRNA products from Pfizer and Moderna were encapsulated in something called lipid nanoparticles. It's really a blob of fat, complicated, technical blob of fat, that's what it is after all. And what that material did is allowed your injection to glide all around your body across all biological barriers and get everywhere in your body. So of course, it's not what you would want, is it? For something that they told you was inhaled into your nose and lungs. But no, it went all around your body, into your brain, blood vessels. But in particular, I need to tell you, there were publications that are now more than 10 years old in peer-reviewed journal articles. I'm sceptical about whether they're always very honest, but there were peer-reviewed journal articles showing that lipid nanoparticles were recognised over a decade ago of having a particular property, which you're not going to like to hear, which shocked me when I learned it. They tend to deposit their payload into the ovaries. That is exactly what happened with these injected materials. There was at least one study performed with the Pfizer agents, with the Japanese regulatory authorities. Lo and behold, the material accumulated in the ovaries of the test animals. That is what's happened, ladies and gentlemen, every woman and girl injected with these materials. Remember what I said about designing molecules to do things deliberately with objectives in mind? They picked lipid nanoparticles, knowing they accumulate the payload in ovaries. It's not an accident. Mistakes were not made. So I tell you, as a professional who spent his whole honest scientific career in an industry I did not realise was corrupt, trying to make experimental medicines for respiratory and allergy diseases, that my experience tells me that there are multiple independent, unnecessary and obvious mechanisms of toxicity built into these so-called vaccines. And then by sheer luck, all four companies, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, all chose basically the same formula for their so-called vaccines. That would never happen if it was real. For a start, I would call my opposite numbers and say, we should do different things because if something goes wrong, if we're wrong in an assumption, all of the so-called vaccines will fail for the same reason. We should do different things. It's called diversification. But no, they all did the same things because they're just lying. They were making intentionally dangerous material, passing them off as vaccines to having you and your children. And that's what they did. Of course, I didn't get injected and neither did my children and most of my relatives. Some of them didn't believe me. I'm afraid they've been injected too. So big picture, what happens, I think from the research I've done, and of course, I'm an expert in research and development, not in politics, but I believe that very wealthy people, the kind of people who run foundations with names, have planned, as have their antecedents for a couple of generations, to take over the world, to remove the freedoms of ordinary people like us that they regard as useless eaters. They don't want us around anymore. And their intention is to strip us of our freedoms by persuading us that there are very frightening events occurring in the world, and we need them to lead us to safety. There are documents you can find from a group called the Club of Rome, who in the late 1960s were commissioned by some of these people who run the nameless global foundations that have hundreds of billions of pounds of worth. They were asked to come up with scenarios that would produce challenges for countries that couldn't be solved by countries on their own, so they would have to look outwards and upwards to supranational solutions. Now guess what? The two things they came up with, pandemics of infectious diseases, which I know as an immunologist are not possible and have never happened. The other thing they said to account for or plan for were climate change crises. I've done enough research now, ladies and gentlemen, I've spoken to people who have spent as long in climate atmospheric research as I have in pharmaceutical R&D, and they have explained to me, and I understand very well, that there's all of this nonsense about carbon dioxide, global boiling, net zero. It's all a complete scam from the same people who bought you the Covid scam and the dangerous injections. It's the same people. They want one world government, they want to be deprived of your liberty, and then I'm afraid I think they will kill us using these injections because they're going to do it again. All over the world, factories to make mRNA-based materials are being thrown up, billions of doses are being made, and if we let them they will sicken in our arms and people will sicken and die. So those of you who have been injured or bereaved, in my mind no blame whatsoever attaches to you. How could you know that people you trusted and thought you could trust were lying to you? Well, you didn't know, but if you let them inject you again, you have no sympathy for me because they have lied to you, you've been injured or killed, and I've explained to you that they're liars and they have attacked us. So if you go along with it, you cannot be saved. All we need to do is enough of us continue to speak out about this and say we're not having it anymore, get lost, don't listen to liars anymore. People who've lied to you forfeit their trust forever, in my view, and so anyone who's in the political process, for example in Northern Ireland looking at this so-called public health bill, which if you pass it would allow these supranational criminals to take you from your house, to inject you by force if necessary, they are aiding and abetting a global crime. And I saw someone online say recently that if you pass that legislation, I don't think it'd be unreasonable to interpret that as an act of war. It's as serious as that. So politicians, you may well be under pressure from shadowy figures, but if you go along with it and hope for like an easier time of it, you will have unlocked the doors of hell and pushed everybody in it and you as long with it as well. So this is your time to do what I'm doing, which is to speak out no matter the consequences. I say to you if you're frightened about what happens, if you speak out, you should be absolutely terrified about what's going to happen if you don't. So really that's all I've got to say. I do think these criminals are going to do it again, they're continuing to threaten us with pandemics like bird flu, monkey pox and so on. It is all nonsense. Stop listening to liars right now. Put things right between you, the people you love, and between you and God if you haven't already. And for goodness sake, be one of the people who speaks out no matter what the consequences, because if you don't, we'll lose our freedom and then our lives. Thank you.
21:49

🚨🚨Dr Mike Yeadon's Address to Northern Ireland Parliament ----------------------------------- Hello, my name is Dr. Mike Yeadon, and in the next 15 minutes or so, I would like to address those of you who've been vaccine injured or bereaved, and also those of you who are involved in the political process in Northern Ireland, as well as anywhere else in the world who might hear me. At the end of this process, I hope you will believe what I'm going to tell you, which, shockingly, is that the materials masquerading as vaccines were designed intentionally to harm the people who received them. I'm probably the most qualified former pharmaceutical company research executive in the world speaking out on this matter, and since I spent my entire career in the business of working with teams designing molecules to be new potential medicines, I think I am qualified to comment on it, and that is my shocking judgement that has been only reinforced over the last almost four years since I first said it. I'll also have some suggestions for what we can do together to fight against the global crime which is ongoing. So, just a little bit about me so you can decide whether or not to believe me. So, I'm a career-long research scientist. I've worked all of my life in the pharmaceutical industry and in biotech. My first degree included a training in toxicology, so that's an understanding of how materials can injure human beings at a molecular level, and what the relationship is between the structure of them and the toxicity. In my second degree, a PhD, I did research in respiratory pharmacology, control of breathing and control of respiratory reflexes. So, and then after that, I joined the pharmaceutical industry in 1988, and I worked until very recently on new medicines for allergic and respiratory diseases. In my corporate career, I was for a long time responsible at Pfizer, then the biggest research-based drug company in the world, for everything to do with allergic and respiratory diseases in the research field. So, that was my responsibility. And in the last 10 years, after leaving in 2011, I was an independent and I became the founder and CEO of a biotech company, which was eventually acquired by Novartis, which was then the biggest drug company in the world. So, I have had a good career, and I was well regarded in the industry for my scientific acumen and judgments, until, of course, I started speaking out against the nonsense, the COVID pandemic, and especially the so-called vaccines. I've become persona non grata. It was my former colleagues after that. So, I'm well qualified to comment on the toxicological principles, properties of molecules, and the kind of effects you might see from certain structures. So, just very briefly, before I talk about the so-called vaccines, what happened in 2020? It's taken me a long time to get there, and I haven't made everybody happy with the decision I've reached, but there was not a pandemic or a public health emergency. I don't think there was anything at all, apart from lies, propaganda, fear-based information, fake diagnostic tests called PCR, and then, as it were, misattribution of real illnesses that people did have, which were called COVID when there was no such thing. But what happened, shockingly, was that after the World Health Organisation's chairman called a pandemic, which was not true. There's never been a pandemic. There won't be pandemics. They're immunologically impossible. But after he called them, many countries in the world changed radically their medical management practises for people in hospitals, also in care homes, and in the community. And very briefly, in hospitals, many people were sedated, had a plastic tube put down their airway, and unconscious, put on mechanical ventilators. I can assure you that is not ever an appropriate treatment for someone with an influenza-like illness, whatever you might think COVID was. But that would not be something you would do, and if applied to frail and elderly people, they will die in large numbers, which they did. So that was the first crime. It's not a mistake. There are no mistakes here. Mistakes were not made. They were told to do this by figures at supranational level. We don't know exactly who, but we know this because these mad procedures changed in many countries all at the same time. So that's hospitals, in care homes, assisted living, old-age people's homes, and so on. Many people were given drugs like Midazolam, which is an injectable form of a drug like Valium, a sedative. But they were also given injections of pain-relieving drugs like morphine, even if they weren't in pain. My PhD was in the field of understanding what opiate drugs like morphine do to the respiratory reflux, and I can assure you it suppresses and suppresses it and depresses it. So if you give an elderly person on their own an injection of Midazolam, they will become sedated and sleepy, and if you give them an injection of morphine, their breathing will slow. I can tell you, it's absolutely forbidden to give a person those two drugs together, those two drug classes together, unless they are under intense ongoing medical monitoring. And the reason is they're likely to fall asleep and stop breathing. That, of course, is what happened. So that's hospitals and care homes. Your relatives were killed by the medical procedures that were imposed. Now, it's quite possible early on that not everybody involved knew what was happening, but I'm afraid after a few days, you'd have to be a blockhead not to realise that it was what you were doing to your charges, your patients, that was resulting in their deaths. So I've completely lost any trust in the medical profession because virtually no one has spoken up four and a half years later. This happens to lots of people. If you listen to the recordings, heartbreaking recordings given to the Scottish COVID Enquiry, I think that's probably the only place where there's been an official taking of evidence from people. And what I just described is exactly what happens to lots of people's relatives and no doubt happens to some people in Northern Ireland as well. It certainly happens in England. There were worse things as well. People in the community were deprived of medical care that would have saved their lives. And there's plenty of evidence to say that not being given antibiotics when they had incipient bronchial pneumonia also killed thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people. And there, ladies and gentlemen, was your pandemic. All of those deaths were attributed to COVID and you were told this is this terrible pandemic, you need to lock down, wear masks, do what you're told. Nothing was happening at all apart from medical murder and propaganda from the television and the newspaper, politicians and many public, well-known public figures who are doing what they were told. So of course one conclusion I'm going to come to later is stop listening to liars. The people who've lied to you shouldn't listen to them ever again. Stop listening to them today. But for me, I think the worst thing, because it comes out of my industry and because it's so deliberate, it requires such a lot of forethought, are the so-called vaccines. Now we were told there was this new infectious disease, so far so good ladies and gentlemen, but then they said don't worry we'll rustle up a vaccine and they did so at least in about 10 months, something like that. I can tell you after spending a career in this industry, you can no more make a baby in one month with nine women than you can make a complicated biological product in 10 months. It cannot be done. It was not done. They did something else. They created materials which were essentially injected poisons. They were not vaccines. There was never anything to vaccinate against. And when you've listened to what I've just told you, you know that must be true because you can't do something in 10 months that normally takes 6 to 12 years. Medicines are not put together randomly. They are built. And they're built by people who are discussing with colleagues, work out what kind of materials, what kind of structures, what kind of formulations, what kind of doses you would need to add in order to hit a particular molecular target to have a chance of a particular therapeutic goal being reached without unacceptable side effects. That's called rational design. And that is my whole career, ladies and gentlemen, from my undergraduate days to today. So when I look at the design of the medicine, whatever kind it is, and look at the design on paper and its composition structures and so on, it is as if I'm looking over the shoulder of the designer, someone like me, someone with my qualifications designed these things. So when I look at them, I'm looking over the shoulder of the designer and I can discern something of what their objectives were, what were they trying to do? And I came quickly to the conclusion that they wanted to bring about toxicity that would injure, kill and reduce fertility. There aren't any other alternatives. And remember, there was no public health emergency. So I'll just give you three examples. I'm not going to be too scientific, but three things so you can check them. The objective of these so-called gene-based vaccines was to inject you with a genetic sequence for something called spike protein. Now, it doesn't really matter what spike protein is, if it's real, where it came from. The point is, it's a genetic sequence for a protein that doesn't belong in your body. It's non-self, it's foreign. Your immune system is a wonderful work of God and nature. It distinguishes self, things that are meant to be inside you and are fine from anything else, foreign, non-self. If you inject a person with a genetic sequence that instructs your body to become a factory for some protein that doesn't belong in you, your immune system will detect that and it will attack every cell that's done that instruction and kill it. Now, these materials, when injected in your arm, didn't stay in your arm, they travelled around your heart, your lungs, your kidneys, your brain, your ovaries. And in every place it landed, if it was taken up and expressed, your body registered that as foreign invasion and it attacks and kills every cell doing it. There is no other possible consequence from doing that. So that's step one and no one can argue that's not what they did. That is the design of them. It also picks a particular protein. I'm not really sure where spike protein came from, if it's really real, but proteins like the one they claim was encoded in these gene-based materials are known to be toxic. There are loads of experiments, lots of published experiments, showing that proteins like that one cause blood coagulation, damaged nerves, damaged heart tissue. So they injected you with something that would make your body make a protein that doesn't belong there, knowing axiomatically, automatically, unavoidably, your immune system would attack that. It would be like rejecting an organ transplant. Your body would say, that's foreign, got to go, uses your immune system to kill it. And then they also inject you with something that's inherently toxic. So if it got out into your body or wherever it was made, it would harm you. And I've got a third one that cannot be argued with. At least the mRNA products from Pfizer and Moderna were encapsulated in something called lipid nanoparticles. It's really a blob of fat, complicated, technical blob of fat, that's what it is after all. And what that material did is allowed your injection to glide all around your body across all biological barriers and get everywhere in your body. So of course, it's not what you would want, is it? For something that they told you was inhaled into your nose and lungs. But no, it went all around your body, into your brain, blood vessels. But in particular, I need to tell you, there were publications that are now more than 10 years old in peer-reviewed journal articles. I'm sceptical about whether they're always very honest, but there were peer-reviewed journal articles showing that lipid nanoparticles were recognised over a decade ago of having a particular property, which you're not going to like to hear, which shocked me when I learned it. They tend to deposit their payload into the ovaries. That is exactly what happened with these injected materials. There was at least one study performed with the Pfizer agents, with the Japanese regulatory authorities. Lo and behold, the material accumulated in the ovaries of the test animals. That is what's happened, ladies and gentlemen, every woman and girl injected with these materials. Remember what I said about designing molecules to do things deliberately with objectives in mind? They picked lipid nanoparticles, knowing they accumulate the payload in ovaries. It's not an accident. Mistakes were not made. So I tell you, as a professional who spent his whole honest scientific career in an industry I did not realise was corrupt, trying to make experimental medicines for respiratory and allergy diseases, that my experience tells me that there are multiple independent, unnecessary and obvious mechanisms of toxicity built into these so-called vaccines. And then by sheer luck, all four companies, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, all chose basically the same formula for their so-called vaccines. That would never happen if it was real. For a start, I would call my opposite numbers and say, we should do different things because if something goes wrong, if we're wrong in an assumption, all of the so-called vaccines will fail for the same reason. We should do different things. It's called diversification. But no, they all did the same things because they're just lying. They were making intentionally dangerous material, passing them off as vaccines to having you and your children. And that's what they did. Of course, I didn't get injected and neither did my children and most of my relatives. Some of them didn't believe me. I'm afraid they've been injected too. So big picture, what happens, I think from the research I've done, and of course, I'm an expert in research and development, not in politics, but I believe that very wealthy people, the kind of people who run foundations with names, have planned, as have their antecedents for a couple of generations, to take over the world, to remove the freedoms of ordinary people like us that they regard as useless eaters. They don't want us around anymore. And their intention is to strip us of our freedoms by persuading us that there are very frightening events occurring in the world, and we need them to lead us to safety. There are documents you can find from a group called the Club of Rome, who in the late 1960s were commissioned by some of these people who run the nameless global foundations that have hundreds of billions of pounds of worth. They were asked to come up with scenarios that would produce challenges for countries that couldn't be solved by countries on their own, so they would have to look outwards and upwards to supranational solutions. Now guess what? The two things they came up with, pandemics of infectious diseases, which I know as an immunologist are not possible and have never happened. The other thing they said to account for or plan for were climate change crises. I've done enough research now, ladies and gentlemen, I've spoken to people who have spent as long in climate atmospheric research as I have in pharmaceutical R&D, and they have explained to me, and I understand very well, that there's all of this nonsense about carbon dioxide, global boiling, net zero. It's all a complete scam from the same people who bought you the Covid scam and the dangerous injections. It's the same people. They want one world government, they want to be deprived of your liberty, and then I'm afraid I think they will kill us using these injections because they're going to do it again. All over the world, factories to make mRNA-based materials are being thrown up, billions of doses are being made, and if we let them they will sicken in our arms and people will sicken and die. So those of you who have been injured or bereaved, in my mind no blame whatsoever attaches to you. How could you know that people you trusted and thought you could trust were lying to you? Well, you didn't know, but if you let them inject you again, you have no sympathy for me because they have lied to you, you've been injured or killed, and I've explained to you that they're liars and they have attacked us. So if you go along with it, you cannot be saved. All we need to do is enough of us continue to speak out about this and say we're not having it anymore, get lost, don't listen to liars anymore. People who've lied to you forfeit their trust forever, in my view, and so anyone who's in the political process, for example in Northern Ireland looking at this so-called public health bill, which if you pass it would allow these supranational criminals to take you from your house, to inject you by force if necessary, they are aiding and abetting a global crime. And I saw someone online say recently that if you pass that legislation, I don't think it'd be unreasonable to interpret that as an act of war. It's as serious as that. So politicians, you may well be under pressure from shadowy figures, but if you go along with it and hope for like an easier time of it, you will have unlocked the doors of hell and pushed everybody in it and you as long with it as well. So this is your time to do what I'm doing, which is to speak out no matter the consequences. I say to you if you're frightened about what happens, if you speak out, you should be absolutely terrified about what's going to happen if you don't. So really that's all I've got to say. I do think these criminals are going to do it again, they're continuing to threaten us with pandemics like bird flu, monkey pox and so on. It is all nonsense. Stop listening to liars right now. Put things right between you, the people you love, and between you and God if you haven't already. And for goodness sake, be one of the people who speaks out no matter what the consequences, because if you don't, we'll lose our freedom and then our lives. Thank you.

aussie17

36,247 次观看 • 1 年前

How to Build a Proper Product Page It breaks my heart every time I see someone from Brazil, making just $200 a month, spend $40 on a test ad only to get a $2 CPC. Then, they cut the ad at $35 spend with 17 clicks and 0 conversions. What’s even more frustrating is when I visit their site and see it’s a complete mess. It’s like they didn’t even try. That’s why I’m making this post. *Disclaimer: If you're building a brand, this isn’t for you. This is for testing products correctly with a website that’s good enough to convert, but if you’re serious about your brand, hire a Figma designer and a developer to get things done right. As a fun fact, I tested the following product myself (In the video below) and with just one click at a $3 CPC, I got a sale with an $80 AOV (100% CVR). I paused the ads because the CPMs hit $150. If you're interested, save this product for the future. I'll share the creatives i used to ran the product with those who comment below. "jordan, stop teaching high school kids about selling reps and getting them sued by Prada or other big brands, ruining their payment gateways, and crushing their dreams." (with 5 random people only will do it, wouldn't make sense for everyone to be ripping it). Shoutout to Adrian for this one. 🫡 Back to the important stuff: Let’s talk about creating a great product page. First off, ditch the “Buy Now” button. By using this, you miss out on the chance to increase your Average Order Value (AOV) through upsells during checkout. Instead, replace it with an “Add to Cart” button. Also, remove the quantity selector. Hardly anyone uses them on the product page, but they do in the cart. Instead, offer bundles, which you can set up using the Kaching Bundles app or your theme if it supports this feature. The cart experience is crucial, and you can optimize it using the UpCart app. Enable all its product page features so it takes over the standard Shopify cart or your theme’s cart. The built-in cart systems are outdated—they don’t allow upsells like UpCart does. Plus, UpCart directly opens the cart after a product is added, where the upsell option appears at the bottom, increasing your chances of boosting AOV. Pay attention to color schemes. Don’t use neutral colors for headers and buttons if your product features a primary color. A yellow jacket with a black header is like pizza with raspberry syrup—just doesn’t work. If your product images are gray, white, or black, match those with your headers and buttons. Otherwise, play around with colors to give your page some dynamic appeal. Bookmark this site to get color palettes that match your primary color. For exact color matches, download the "ColorZilla" extension, which gives you the exact color code of whatever is under your mouse on the screen. If your product color is #6E402A, you’ll know it and can match it perfectly with your header and buttons, creating a visually appealing contrast like Cider did here below. Right now, when some of you send me these websites, they look like government pages from the early 2000s. Next, consider the typography and button styles. For fonts, use Helvetica Regular for body text and Helvetica Bold for titles, both at a minimum size of 100%. It’s simple and effective. As for buttons, they should have a corner radius of 8px. To change these settings, go to the theme settings - typography/buttons and adjust the buttons and typography accordingly. Rounded buttons create a modern, inviting feel, while full square buttons can give off an outdated vibe. Even casinos in Vegas design their buildings with curves, ensuring that visitors always have a view angle that draws them back in—it’s all about keeping things appealing and engaging. Finally, the product page layout itself should be clean and concise. Use collapsible rows for your product descriptions. No one wants to read a novel, so keep it compact and focused. Images and videos are what sell—this is why we don’t use text-heavy images in our ads; they just bore people. Keep the description short, with enough information to inform but not overwhelm. If you need to include more features, put them in the FAQs section—that’s what they’re for. The goal is to make sure that the "Add to Cart" button is visible as soon as possible once the customer lands on the product page, without overwhelming them but providing just enough information—some key benefits, high-quality images, and buying options in the bundles. Once they hit the cart, the upsells will do their job. Remember, the three essential apps for setting this up are Loox Reviews for customer feedback (use the product widget reviews at the bottom of the page before the FAQs and the rating widget just above the title), Kaching Bundles for offering package deals, and UpCart for optimizing the cart experience. Just for the record, this is to help newcomers and guide them to something taht works, me personally i don't use free themes, but this one i created could convert easily if the product, offer and ads match well. Good luck and keep testing! 🗳🥂💸🤑
0:23

How to Build a Proper Product Page It breaks my heart every time I see someone from Brazil, making just $200 a month, spend $40 on a test ad only to get a $2 CPC. Then, they cut the ad at $35 spend with 17 clicks and 0 conversions. What’s even more frustrating is when I visit their site and see it’s a complete mess. It’s like they didn’t even try. That’s why I’m making this post. *Disclaimer: If you're building a brand, this isn’t for you. This is for testing products correctly with a website that’s good enough to convert, but if you’re serious about your brand, hire a Figma designer and a developer to get things done right. As a fun fact, I tested the following product myself (In the video below) and with just one click at a $3 CPC, I got a sale with an $80 AOV (100% CVR). I paused the ads because the CPMs hit $150. If you're interested, save this product for the future. I'll share the creatives i used to ran the product with those who comment below. "jordan, stop teaching high school kids about selling reps and getting them sued by Prada or other big brands, ruining their payment gateways, and crushing their dreams." (with 5 random people only will do it, wouldn't make sense for everyone to be ripping it). Shoutout to Adrian for this one. 🫡 Back to the important stuff: Let’s talk about creating a great product page. First off, ditch the “Buy Now” button. By using this, you miss out on the chance to increase your Average Order Value (AOV) through upsells during checkout. Instead, replace it with an “Add to Cart” button. Also, remove the quantity selector. Hardly anyone uses them on the product page, but they do in the cart. Instead, offer bundles, which you can set up using the Kaching Bundles app or your theme if it supports this feature. The cart experience is crucial, and you can optimize it using the UpCart app. Enable all its product page features so it takes over the standard Shopify cart or your theme’s cart. The built-in cart systems are outdated—they don’t allow upsells like UpCart does. Plus, UpCart directly opens the cart after a product is added, where the upsell option appears at the bottom, increasing your chances of boosting AOV. Pay attention to color schemes. Don’t use neutral colors for headers and buttons if your product features a primary color. A yellow jacket with a black header is like pizza with raspberry syrup—just doesn’t work. If your product images are gray, white, or black, match those with your headers and buttons. Otherwise, play around with colors to give your page some dynamic appeal. Bookmark this site to get color palettes that match your primary color. For exact color matches, download the "ColorZilla" extension, which gives you the exact color code of whatever is under your mouse on the screen. If your product color is #6E402A, you’ll know it and can match it perfectly with your header and buttons, creating a visually appealing contrast like Cider did here below. Right now, when some of you send me these websites, they look like government pages from the early 2000s. Next, consider the typography and button styles. For fonts, use Helvetica Regular for body text and Helvetica Bold for titles, both at a minimum size of 100%. It’s simple and effective. As for buttons, they should have a corner radius of 8px. To change these settings, go to the theme settings - typography/buttons and adjust the buttons and typography accordingly. Rounded buttons create a modern, inviting feel, while full square buttons can give off an outdated vibe. Even casinos in Vegas design their buildings with curves, ensuring that visitors always have a view angle that draws them back in—it’s all about keeping things appealing and engaging. Finally, the product page layout itself should be clean and concise. Use collapsible rows for your product descriptions. No one wants to read a novel, so keep it compact and focused. Images and videos are what sell—this is why we don’t use text-heavy images in our ads; they just bore people. Keep the description short, with enough information to inform but not overwhelm. If you need to include more features, put them in the FAQs section—that’s what they’re for. The goal is to make sure that the "Add to Cart" button is visible as soon as possible once the customer lands on the product page, without overwhelming them but providing just enough information—some key benefits, high-quality images, and buying options in the bundles. Once they hit the cart, the upsells will do their job. Remember, the three essential apps for setting this up are Loox Reviews for customer feedback (use the product widget reviews at the bottom of the page before the FAQs and the rating widget just above the title), Kaching Bundles for offering package deals, and UpCart for optimizing the cart experience. Just for the record, this is to help newcomers and guide them to something taht works, me personally i don't use free themes, but this one i created could convert easily if the product, offer and ads match well. Good luck and keep testing! 🗳🥂💸🤑

Zzzz

42,318 次观看 • 2 年前

Hey folks, after this post I’ll probably slow down a bit on the posts compiling “Commander” Brad Crawford’s abysmal behaviour, stolen valor, discrediting and denigrating the AFU and it’s service members, and pathological lying as I now know the right people are already paying close attention. A call had already been made to the Ukrainian authorities about Brad, and the authorities responded very quickly with a call back and a warning to cut ties with Brad Crawford and his entire circle immediately (take note, anyone considering associating with or seeking training from him). As we know, Brad employed, promoted, and gave valuable access to a Russian intelligence asset. So it’s understandable why authorities might be concerned. But in this post I’d like to touch on a topic we haven’t covered yet- Brad’s attitude toward and treatment of Ukrainian women and women in general- which I believe should be known publicly. This will be a bit of an info dump with videos and images. In one video a man tells the infamous 4th of July story about Brad’s actions at a bar. Brad, shitfaced as usual, got into an altercation with a Ukrainian woman whose father is a soldier. Brad became enraged when she wouldn’t help clean. As he saw it, he was in Ukraine defending her country and she ought to respect him for that, and to clean. She called him out for acting as a soldier when in reality he was simply a non-combatant trainer, and reminded him her own father was fighting. This enraged Brad even more. He attempted to physically attack her and had to be choked out by an MMA fighter who was luckily present and prevented Brad from physically harming the Ukrainian woman. Also below you will see Brad ridiculing female combat medics in Ukraine who actually serve on the front in the AFU- which Brad has never done himself- for their nails, jewellery, appearance, etc. You will also see Brad reiterating what he thinks of Ukrainian women: “I can get any pussy I want… Here it costs 20 dollars 20 year olds can get it on a phone call in 20 minuets? You think i want you for your pussy or body?” Even worse- the person he’s talking to is his own wife. He also insults her repeatedly. Unfortunately Brad’s mistreatment of his own wife doesn’t stop there. Also below you will find court records from when he was charged with domestic battery for physically beating his wife (thankfully he was finally held accountable for such a pattern of behaviour), and a felony criminal threat charge for threatening to shoot her as well. I wonder how SSO feels about a foreign civilian wife beater wearing their patch around as if he’s earned it? In the comment section I’m posting two audio recordings in subtitled video format from a Twitter space. Brad reportedly claimed that we all ought to show Russian soldiers the same level of respect we show Ukrainian soldiers, as the Russians are “fighting for their country”. A woman disagreed- and we all know Brad does not tolerate women disagreeing with him. He called her a bitch and questioned why anyone was listening to a “feminist bitch” who should “shut the fuck up”. He reverted to his default argument of being better than others as he’s in Ukraine and they’re not, even saying “do YOU wanna come here and fight?” (Again, Brad has never fought in Ukraine). I hope this is eye opening for some of you, and I hope it will help prevent any more Ukrainian women or women in general from being abused, disrespected, and mistreated by Brad Crawford. Again, Ukrainian authorities already know who Brad is and seem to be perfectly aware he’s a genuine threat in a variety of ways. I hope all this helps some of you see that now too, and assists you in avoiding people with whom NOBODY should ever want to be associated. Why he’s allowed anywhere near our defenders or training installations is beyond me. Our purpose is to help defend Ukraine and Ukrainians from violence, not to be that violence ourselves. Stay safe and be smart, folks. Glory to Ukraine.
4:22

Hey folks, after this post I’ll probably slow down a bit on the posts compiling “Commander” Brad Crawford’s abysmal behaviour, stolen valor, discrediting and denigrating the AFU and it’s service members, and pathological lying as I now know the right people are already paying close attention. A call had already been made to the Ukrainian authorities about Brad, and the authorities responded very quickly with a call back and a warning to cut ties with Brad Crawford and his entire circle immediately (take note, anyone considering associating with or seeking training from him). As we know, Brad employed, promoted, and gave valuable access to a Russian intelligence asset. So it’s understandable why authorities might be concerned. But in this post I’d like to touch on a topic we haven’t covered yet- Brad’s attitude toward and treatment of Ukrainian women and women in general- which I believe should be known publicly. This will be a bit of an info dump with videos and images. In one video a man tells the infamous 4th of July story about Brad’s actions at a bar. Brad, shitfaced as usual, got into an altercation with a Ukrainian woman whose father is a soldier. Brad became enraged when she wouldn’t help clean. As he saw it, he was in Ukraine defending her country and she ought to respect him for that, and to clean. She called him out for acting as a soldier when in reality he was simply a non-combatant trainer, and reminded him her own father was fighting. This enraged Brad even more. He attempted to physically attack her and had to be choked out by an MMA fighter who was luckily present and prevented Brad from physically harming the Ukrainian woman. Also below you will see Brad ridiculing female combat medics in Ukraine who actually serve on the front in the AFU- which Brad has never done himself- for their nails, jewellery, appearance, etc. You will also see Brad reiterating what he thinks of Ukrainian women: “I can get any pussy I want… Here it costs 20 dollars 20 year olds can get it on a phone call in 20 minuets? You think i want you for your pussy or body?” Even worse- the person he’s talking to is his own wife. He also insults her repeatedly. Unfortunately Brad’s mistreatment of his own wife doesn’t stop there. Also below you will find court records from when he was charged with domestic battery for physically beating his wife (thankfully he was finally held accountable for such a pattern of behaviour), and a felony criminal threat charge for threatening to shoot her as well. I wonder how SSO feels about a foreign civilian wife beater wearing their patch around as if he’s earned it? In the comment section I’m posting two audio recordings in subtitled video format from a Twitter space. Brad reportedly claimed that we all ought to show Russian soldiers the same level of respect we show Ukrainian soldiers, as the Russians are “fighting for their country”. A woman disagreed- and we all know Brad does not tolerate women disagreeing with him. He called her a bitch and questioned why anyone was listening to a “feminist bitch” who should “shut the fuck up”. He reverted to his default argument of being better than others as he’s in Ukraine and they’re not, even saying “do YOU wanna come here and fight?” (Again, Brad has never fought in Ukraine). I hope this is eye opening for some of you, and I hope it will help prevent any more Ukrainian women or women in general from being abused, disrespected, and mistreated by Brad Crawford. Again, Ukrainian authorities already know who Brad is and seem to be perfectly aware he’s a genuine threat in a variety of ways. I hope all this helps some of you see that now too, and assists you in avoiding people with whom NOBODY should ever want to be associated. Why he’s allowed anywhere near our defenders or training installations is beyond me. Our purpose is to help defend Ukraine and Ukrainians from violence, not to be that violence ourselves. Stay safe and be smart, folks. Glory to Ukraine.

floridasoldat ✙

13,124 次观看 • 3 个月前

In 1879, JP Morgan paid a man to invent the lie that is the foundation of modern economics. A billionaire who helped start Amazon just exposed the whole thing on Diary of a CEO, and once you hear it you will never look at paychecks the same way again: 146 years ago, a guy named Henry George wrote a book called Progress and Poverty. It was the first mainstream book about the rich systematically stealing from the poor, and It literally became the bestselling book in the history of the United States at the time. The working class was reading it everywhere, and the people at the top of the economy completely lost their minds. So JP Morgan personally brought a man named John Bates Clark to Columbia University, which was essentially the intellectual headquarters of Wall Street, and told him to fix the problem. Clark wrote a book called The Distribution of Wealth. In it, he invented something called the "theory of marginal productivity," which claims that because markets are perfectly efficient, the amount of money you earn reflects EXACTLY the value you contribute to the economy. If you make $15,000 a year, that's because you're providing $15,000 of value. If a hedge fund manager makes $500 million a year moving money around, that's an accurate reflection of the value he creates in the world. And Clark literally said the quiet part out loud IN HIS OWN BOOK. He wrote that they had to prove to working people that no matter how much they make, whether it's a little or a lot, it accurately reflects their value, because if workers ever concluded that their labor was worth more than they were being paid, they would revolt and destroy the entire system. That was the whole point. The theory was built to prevent a revolution. And it worked so well that it got absorbed into mainstream economics and is STILL taught as a foundational principle to this day. Every time a CEO tells you "the market decides your salary," they're repeating a framework that was literally commissioned by JP Morgan in the 1800s to convince you not to ask for more. Nick Hanauer, the billionaire who told this story, also shared the numbers that prove why it matters right now: The median full-time worker in America earns about $60,000 a year. If that same worker had maintained the same share of GDP they held in 1975, they wouldn't be making $60,000. They'd be making $120,000. That gap goes all the way up to the 90th percentile. If you earn $180,000 today, you'd be earning $250,000 under the old distribution. The ONLY people who benefited from 50 years of economic growth were the top 10%, and the vast majority of that went to the top 1%. That is trillions of dollars every single year that used to be wages for ordinary working people and now sits in the accounts of the wealthiest people on the planet. This happened because of policy. Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation for the powerful, and wage suppression for everyone else, all justified by an economic theory that was invented specifically to make you believe you deserve exactly what you're getting. And the craziest part is that GDP growth rates in America were 4 to 4.5% for decades when workers were included in prosperity. As soon as the neoliberals took over in the mid-1970s and implemented these policies, GDP growth fell to 3% and eventually to 2%. Including people in the economy doesn't slow growth down. It's literally the thing that CREATES growth. And the theory that convinced the world otherwise was a hit job paid for by one of the richest men in history to keep workers quiet. What do you think?
2:00

In 1879, JP Morgan paid a man to invent the lie that is the foundation of modern economics. A billionaire who helped start Amazon just exposed the whole thing on Diary of a CEO, and once you hear it you will never look at paychecks the same way again: 146 years ago, a guy named Henry George wrote a book called Progress and Poverty. It was the first mainstream book about the rich systematically stealing from the poor, and It literally became the bestselling book in the history of the United States at the time. The working class was reading it everywhere, and the people at the top of the economy completely lost their minds. So JP Morgan personally brought a man named John Bates Clark to Columbia University, which was essentially the intellectual headquarters of Wall Street, and told him to fix the problem. Clark wrote a book called The Distribution of Wealth. In it, he invented something called the "theory of marginal productivity," which claims that because markets are perfectly efficient, the amount of money you earn reflects EXACTLY the value you contribute to the economy. If you make $15,000 a year, that's because you're providing $15,000 of value. If a hedge fund manager makes $500 million a year moving money around, that's an accurate reflection of the value he creates in the world. And Clark literally said the quiet part out loud IN HIS OWN BOOK. He wrote that they had to prove to working people that no matter how much they make, whether it's a little or a lot, it accurately reflects their value, because if workers ever concluded that their labor was worth more than they were being paid, they would revolt and destroy the entire system. That was the whole point. The theory was built to prevent a revolution. And it worked so well that it got absorbed into mainstream economics and is STILL taught as a foundational principle to this day. Every time a CEO tells you "the market decides your salary," they're repeating a framework that was literally commissioned by JP Morgan in the 1800s to convince you not to ask for more. Nick Hanauer, the billionaire who told this story, also shared the numbers that prove why it matters right now: The median full-time worker in America earns about $60,000 a year. If that same worker had maintained the same share of GDP they held in 1975, they wouldn't be making $60,000. They'd be making $120,000. That gap goes all the way up to the 90th percentile. If you earn $180,000 today, you'd be earning $250,000 under the old distribution. The ONLY people who benefited from 50 years of economic growth were the top 10%, and the vast majority of that went to the top 1%. That is trillions of dollars every single year that used to be wages for ordinary working people and now sits in the accounts of the wealthiest people on the planet. This happened because of policy. Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation for the powerful, and wage suppression for everyone else, all justified by an economic theory that was invented specifically to make you believe you deserve exactly what you're getting. And the craziest part is that GDP growth rates in America were 4 to 4.5% for decades when workers were included in prosperity. As soon as the neoliberals took over in the mid-1970s and implemented these policies, GDP growth fell to 3% and eventually to 2%. Including people in the economy doesn't slow growth down. It's literally the thing that CREATES growth. And the theory that convinced the world otherwise was a hit job paid for by one of the richest men in history to keep workers quiet. What do you think?

Ricardo

334,154 次观看 • 2 个月前

Some of Mae West's Best One-liners. Mae West was a master of witty, saucy, and iconic one-liners that celebrated independence, glamour, and double entendres. Her sharpest quips covered everything from romance and wealth to living life on her own terms. • “You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.” • “There are no good girls gone wrong ― just bad girls found out.” • “I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it.” • “Every man I meet wants to protect me. I can't figure out what from.” • “I wrote the story myself. It's about a girl who lost her reputation and never missed it.” • “Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before.” • “Good sex is like good bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand.” • “When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better.” • “I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.” • “I'm single because I was born that way.” • “Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.” • “I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing.” • “Ladies who play with fire must remember that smoke gets in their eyes.” • “A dame that knows the ropes isn't likely to get tied up.” • “Marriage is a fine institution, but I'm not ready for an institution.” • “It's not the men in your life that matters, it's the life in your men.” • “All discarded lovers should be given a second chance, but with somebody else.” • “Don't cry for a man who's left you ― the next one may fall for your smile.” • “Sex is an emotion in motion.” • “I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it.” • “Cultivate your curves - they may be dangerous but they won't be avoided.” • “Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.” • “Too much of a good thing can be wonderful!” • “I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number you get in a diamond.” • “It is better to be looked over than overlooked.” • “I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.” • “Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly.” • “Don't keep a man guessing too long ― he's sure to find the answer somewhere else” • “You are never too old to become younger!” • “Love thy neighbor ― and if he happens to be tall, debonair and devastating, it will be that much easier.” “Women like a man with a past, but they prefer a man with a present.” • “He who hesitates is a damned fool.” • “Look your best ― who said love is blind? ” • “His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork.” • “A woman in love can't be reasonable ― or she probably wouldn't be in love.” • “Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?” • “To err is human ― but it feels divine.” • “I have found men who didn't know how to kiss. I've always found time to teach them.” • “If a little is great, and a lot is better, then way too much is just about right!” • “Men are my hobby, if I ever got married I'd have to give it up.” • “Getting married is like trading in the adoration of many for the sarcasm of one.” • “When women go wrong, men go right after them.” • “The curve is more powerful than the sword.” • “Good women are no fun... The only good woman I can recall in history was Betsy Ross. And all she ever made was a flag.” • “I've no time for broads who want to rule the world alone. Without men, who'd do up the zipper on the back of your dress? ” • “I never loved another person the way I loved myself.” • “Love conquers all things except poverty and toothache.” • “The score never interested me, only the game.” • “Keep a diary and one day it'll keep you.” • “She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by wrong.” • JUDGE: “Are you trying to show contempt for this court?” MAE WEST: “I was doin' my best to hide it.” • “Women with pasts interest men because they hope history will repeat itself.” • “I've been things and seen places.” • “I only read biographies, metaphysics and psychology. I can dream up my own fiction.” • “I'm a woman of very few words, but lots of action.” • “An ounce of performance is worth pounds of promises.” • “One more drink and I'll be under the host.” • “A man’s kiss is his signature.” • “Everyone has the right to run his own life ― even if you're heading for a crash. What I'm against is blind flying.” • “Love isn't an emotion or an instinct - it's an art.” • “No one can have everything, so you have to try for what you want most.” • “Love is like a booger, you pick and pick at it. Then when you get it you wonder how to get rid of it.” • “I've been in more laps than a napkin.” • “I see you're a man with ideals. I better be going before you've still got them.” • “It's all right for a perfect stranger to kiss your hand as long as he's perfect.” • “Don't marry a man to reform him ― that's what reform schools are for.” • “I saw what a mess a lot of people could make of their lives when they're smitten. Some of them go temporarily insane. They find a person who they think holds the key to their happiness ― the only key to their happiness... My work has always been my greatest happiness” • “It isn't what I do, but how I do it. It isn't what I say, but how I say it, and how I look when I do it and say it.” • “The best way to hold a man is in your arms.” • “A hard man is good to find.” • “I didn't discover curves; I only uncovered them.” • “You may admire a girl's curves on the first introduction, but the second meeting shows up new angles.” • “Goodness, what beautiful diamonds!' ― 'Goodness had nothing to do with it'.” • “Ten men waiting for me at the door? Send one of them home, I'm tired.” • “If I had known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.” • “A man in the house is worth two on the street.” • “Men are all alike ― except the one you've met who's different.” • “Brains are an asset, if you hide them.” • “I only like two kinds of men, domestic and imported.” • “I've been rich and I've been poor, and rich is better.” • “You can do what you want, but saving love doesn't bring any interest.” • Woman: “You certainly know the way to a man's heart.” Mae West: “Funny, too, 'cause I don't know how to cook.” • “When in doubt, take a bath...” • “Sex with love is the greatest thing in life. But sex without love — that's not so bad either.” • “What's the good of resisting temptation? There'll always be more.” • “If I can't have a man with a million dollars, I'll have a million men with one dollar.” • “Gentlemen prefer blondes, but who says blondes prefer gentlemen?” • “Whenever I have to choose between two evils, I always like to try the one I haven't tried before” • “An ounce of performance is worth a pound of promises.” • “Don’t ever make the same mistake twice, unless it pays.” MAE WEST
2:11

Some of Mae West's Best One-liners. Mae West was a master of witty, saucy, and iconic one-liners that celebrated independence, glamour, and double entendres. Her sharpest quips covered everything from romance and wealth to living life on her own terms. • “You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.” • “There are no good girls gone wrong ― just bad girls found out.” • “I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it.” • “Every man I meet wants to protect me. I can't figure out what from.” • “I wrote the story myself. It's about a girl who lost her reputation and never missed it.” • “Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before.” • “Good sex is like good bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand.” • “When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better.” • “I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.” • “I'm single because I was born that way.” • “Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.” • “I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing.” • “Ladies who play with fire must remember that smoke gets in their eyes.” • “A dame that knows the ropes isn't likely to get tied up.” • “Marriage is a fine institution, but I'm not ready for an institution.” • “It's not the men in your life that matters, it's the life in your men.” • “All discarded lovers should be given a second chance, but with somebody else.” • “Don't cry for a man who's left you ― the next one may fall for your smile.” • “Sex is an emotion in motion.” • “I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it.” • “Cultivate your curves - they may be dangerous but they won't be avoided.” • “Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.” • “Too much of a good thing can be wonderful!” • “I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number you get in a diamond.” • “It is better to be looked over than overlooked.” • “I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.” • “Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly.” • “Don't keep a man guessing too long ― he's sure to find the answer somewhere else” • “You are never too old to become younger!” • “Love thy neighbor ― and if he happens to be tall, debonair and devastating, it will be that much easier.” “Women like a man with a past, but they prefer a man with a present.” • “He who hesitates is a damned fool.” • “Look your best ― who said love is blind? ” • “His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork.” • “A woman in love can't be reasonable ― or she probably wouldn't be in love.” • “Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?” • “To err is human ― but it feels divine.” • “I have found men who didn't know how to kiss. I've always found time to teach them.” • “If a little is great, and a lot is better, then way too much is just about right!” • “Men are my hobby, if I ever got married I'd have to give it up.” • “Getting married is like trading in the adoration of many for the sarcasm of one.” • “When women go wrong, men go right after them.” • “The curve is more powerful than the sword.” • “Good women are no fun... The only good woman I can recall in history was Betsy Ross. And all she ever made was a flag.” • “I've no time for broads who want to rule the world alone. Without men, who'd do up the zipper on the back of your dress? ” • “I never loved another person the way I loved myself.” • “Love conquers all things except poverty and toothache.” • “The score never interested me, only the game.” • “Keep a diary and one day it'll keep you.” • “She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by wrong.” • JUDGE: “Are you trying to show contempt for this court?” MAE WEST: “I was doin' my best to hide it.” • “Women with pasts interest men because they hope history will repeat itself.” • “I've been things and seen places.” • “I only read biographies, metaphysics and psychology. I can dream up my own fiction.” • “I'm a woman of very few words, but lots of action.” • “An ounce of performance is worth pounds of promises.” • “One more drink and I'll be under the host.” • “A man’s kiss is his signature.” • “Everyone has the right to run his own life ― even if you're heading for a crash. What I'm against is blind flying.” • “Love isn't an emotion or an instinct - it's an art.” • “No one can have everything, so you have to try for what you want most.” • “Love is like a booger, you pick and pick at it. Then when you get it you wonder how to get rid of it.” • “I've been in more laps than a napkin.” • “I see you're a man with ideals. I better be going before you've still got them.” • “It's all right for a perfect stranger to kiss your hand as long as he's perfect.” • “Don't marry a man to reform him ― that's what reform schools are for.” • “I saw what a mess a lot of people could make of their lives when they're smitten. Some of them go temporarily insane. They find a person who they think holds the key to their happiness ― the only key to their happiness... My work has always been my greatest happiness” • “It isn't what I do, but how I do it. It isn't what I say, but how I say it, and how I look when I do it and say it.” • “The best way to hold a man is in your arms.” • “A hard man is good to find.” • “I didn't discover curves; I only uncovered them.” • “You may admire a girl's curves on the first introduction, but the second meeting shows up new angles.” • “Goodness, what beautiful diamonds!' ― 'Goodness had nothing to do with it'.” • “Ten men waiting for me at the door? Send one of them home, I'm tired.” • “If I had known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.” • “A man in the house is worth two on the street.” • “Men are all alike ― except the one you've met who's different.” • “Brains are an asset, if you hide them.” • “I only like two kinds of men, domestic and imported.” • “I've been rich and I've been poor, and rich is better.” • “You can do what you want, but saving love doesn't bring any interest.” • Woman: “You certainly know the way to a man's heart.” Mae West: “Funny, too, 'cause I don't know how to cook.” • “When in doubt, take a bath...” • “Sex with love is the greatest thing in life. But sex without love — that's not so bad either.” • “What's the good of resisting temptation? There'll always be more.” • “If I can't have a man with a million dollars, I'll have a million men with one dollar.” • “Gentlemen prefer blondes, but who says blondes prefer gentlemen?” • “Whenever I have to choose between two evils, I always like to try the one I haven't tried before” • “An ounce of performance is worth a pound of promises.” • “Don’t ever make the same mistake twice, unless it pays.” MAE WEST

Hollywood Golden Age of Cinema

29,488 次观看 • 20 天前

An Open Letter to you, Clueless Morons in the West Who Marched for Gaza and Will Get It Sooner Than You Think. On October 7, 2023 in the morning, I was more like you than now. But then I watched my friends get butchered, or dragged off, and their homes turned into a slaughterhouse by Hamas terrorists who laughed while they hacked away. My community emptied itself within hours of men (and some women, of whom I'm still somehow jealous and ashamed) who went to fight the worst Evil we'd seen in a very long time, in the name of a god who wants you dead, too. I’m still there, somehow, in October2023. Trying to glue up the cracks of the civilization that imploded that day. Not only in Israel, but in the whole world, who cheerfully lauded and shared displays of barbarity until then reserved for 18+ horror movies. When I see you with your keffiyehs and your “Free Palestine” signs, strutting around your not-so-safe-anymore cities—I want to scream louder than I did that day. You’ve got the nerve to protest for Gaza, to wail about imagined “genocide” and “famine,” while children corpses are being paraded by the same Orcs whom you adulate, and whose ideological brothers are currently busy genociding Christians in Nigeria, in South Africa, or their fellow Muslims in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan etc etc... Let’s cut the crap: there’s been no famine in Gaza, no genocide and no war crimes. You’ve been spoon-fed lies, and you gobbled them up because it fits your holier-than-thou fantasy. The UN’s own data—go check it—shows food rolling in daily. Trucks pile through. Markets are full. Meanwhile, Gazans drooling over their sick “ceremonies,” those twisted spectacles where they release a hostage—if they’re lucky enough to survive the tunnels—like it’s some grand victory parade. They relish it, hooting and hollering as if tormenting broken souls is a sport. They’re not starving—they’re feasting on hate. You shriek about Israeli “war crimes,” but do you even know what went down? We gave them safe zones. They used them to hide weapons and fire missiles at us. We didn’t bomb the “safe zones” for kicks—we hit where the terrorists were cowering, the same ones who raped and murdered my people. Hamas burrows into hospitals, schools, mosques, daring us to strike, knowing you’ll lap up their sob story, or even help them share it like the BBC's useful idiots. We still dropped leaflets, sent texts, gave them a heads-up to get out. Did Hamas warn us on October 7? Did they leaflet the Nova before raping and murdering hundred of young girls? Do you think I would be able to sit and write, if the strength ratio was inversed, let alone parade Gazans in sick parodies of Roman games? No, I'd be dead, among another 8 million Jews, since November 23. Problem solved, you may think. Well, you're neither the first nor the last to think about the Final Solution. Even the Psalms talk about it. No go. We're the People of Eternity. And don’t you dare pull that “not all Gazans support Hamas” nonsense. You’ve seen the polls, too—over 80% cheered the attack. Over 75% still support it and wait for the next. You’ve seen the mobs swarm hostages, spitting, beating, laughing, and find it all dandy, or somehow excusable. You’ve seen the mothers crowing about their sons becoming “martyrs” by blowing themselves up to take us out. And you don't call for child services. All of them—all of them—have blood on their hands. They voted for Hamas. They hide it. They worship it. And then there’s you, marching for them, oblivious to the irony. You idiots, with your rainbow flags and your liberal ideals—do you know what they’d do to you? The same Gazans you’re rooting for would rape and slaughter every LGBT soul among you without a second thought, and send the Blacks to the Abeed (slave) quarters of Gaza. Your fake progressive minds, your feel-good free spirits? They’ll crush them under the boot of their Djihad faster than you could hashtag “BLM.” They despise you, and yet you cheer for them like fools. You think you’re so noble, don’t you? Sipping your lattes, posting your Instagram rants, pretending you’re some kind of savior. You’re not. You’re useful idiots for a death cult that’d gut you if you ever showed up on their doorstep.. or they on yours, as they plan to do. You’re not helping anyone, least of all yourselves—you’re just pissing on the graves of innocents, on the hostages still rotting in tunnels while you play activist. Every chant for Gaza is a dance on the ashes of October 7, and an almost comic trailer for the dhimmitude that awaits you if I and my fellow smarter liberty-lovers don't fight it for you. I hope one day you wake up and choke on the shame I feel for you. I hope you look in the mirror and see the stupidity of screaming for a place you don’t get, for a people who’d kill you for being you, or enslave your girls to be pleasure slaves. Until then, keep your protests. Keep your chants. Just know this: every step you march for Gaza, you’re spitting on my and your own survival. On October 7, 2033 in the morning, you'll be more like me than you'd ever wish to. If you're still alive. Dhimmis.
1:01

An Open Letter to you, Clueless Morons in the West Who Marched for Gaza and Will Get It Sooner Than You Think. On October 7, 2023 in the morning, I was more like you than now. But then I watched my friends get butchered, or dragged off, and their homes turned into a slaughterhouse by Hamas terrorists who laughed while they hacked away. My community emptied itself within hours of men (and some women, of whom I'm still somehow jealous and ashamed) who went to fight the worst Evil we'd seen in a very long time, in the name of a god who wants you dead, too. I’m still there, somehow, in October2023. Trying to glue up the cracks of the civilization that imploded that day. Not only in Israel, but in the whole world, who cheerfully lauded and shared displays of barbarity until then reserved for 18+ horror movies. When I see you with your keffiyehs and your “Free Palestine” signs, strutting around your not-so-safe-anymore cities—I want to scream louder than I did that day. You’ve got the nerve to protest for Gaza, to wail about imagined “genocide” and “famine,” while children corpses are being paraded by the same Orcs whom you adulate, and whose ideological brothers are currently busy genociding Christians in Nigeria, in South Africa, or their fellow Muslims in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan etc etc... Let’s cut the crap: there’s been no famine in Gaza, no genocide and no war crimes. You’ve been spoon-fed lies, and you gobbled them up because it fits your holier-than-thou fantasy. The UN’s own data—go check it—shows food rolling in daily. Trucks pile through. Markets are full. Meanwhile, Gazans drooling over their sick “ceremonies,” those twisted spectacles where they release a hostage—if they’re lucky enough to survive the tunnels—like it’s some grand victory parade. They relish it, hooting and hollering as if tormenting broken souls is a sport. They’re not starving—they’re feasting on hate. You shriek about Israeli “war crimes,” but do you even know what went down? We gave them safe zones. They used them to hide weapons and fire missiles at us. We didn’t bomb the “safe zones” for kicks—we hit where the terrorists were cowering, the same ones who raped and murdered my people. Hamas burrows into hospitals, schools, mosques, daring us to strike, knowing you’ll lap up their sob story, or even help them share it like the BBC's useful idiots. We still dropped leaflets, sent texts, gave them a heads-up to get out. Did Hamas warn us on October 7? Did they leaflet the Nova before raping and murdering hundred of young girls? Do you think I would be able to sit and write, if the strength ratio was inversed, let alone parade Gazans in sick parodies of Roman games? No, I'd be dead, among another 8 million Jews, since November 23. Problem solved, you may think. Well, you're neither the first nor the last to think about the Final Solution. Even the Psalms talk about it. No go. We're the People of Eternity. And don’t you dare pull that “not all Gazans support Hamas” nonsense. You’ve seen the polls, too—over 80% cheered the attack. Over 75% still support it and wait for the next. You’ve seen the mobs swarm hostages, spitting, beating, laughing, and find it all dandy, or somehow excusable. You’ve seen the mothers crowing about their sons becoming “martyrs” by blowing themselves up to take us out. And you don't call for child services. All of them—all of them—have blood on their hands. They voted for Hamas. They hide it. They worship it. And then there’s you, marching for them, oblivious to the irony. You idiots, with your rainbow flags and your liberal ideals—do you know what they’d do to you? The same Gazans you’re rooting for would rape and slaughter every LGBT soul among you without a second thought, and send the Blacks to the Abeed (slave) quarters of Gaza. Your fake progressive minds, your feel-good free spirits? They’ll crush them under the boot of their Djihad faster than you could hashtag “BLM.” They despise you, and yet you cheer for them like fools. You think you’re so noble, don’t you? Sipping your lattes, posting your Instagram rants, pretending you’re some kind of savior. You’re not. You’re useful idiots for a death cult that’d gut you if you ever showed up on their doorstep.. or they on yours, as they plan to do. You’re not helping anyone, least of all yourselves—you’re just pissing on the graves of innocents, on the hostages still rotting in tunnels while you play activist. Every chant for Gaza is a dance on the ashes of October 7, and an almost comic trailer for the dhimmitude that awaits you if I and my fellow smarter liberty-lovers don't fight it for you. I hope one day you wake up and choke on the shame I feel for you. I hope you look in the mirror and see the stupidity of screaming for a place you don’t get, for a people who’d kill you for being you, or enslave your girls to be pleasure slaves. Until then, keep your protests. Keep your chants. Just know this: every step you march for Gaza, you’re spitting on my and your own survival. On October 7, 2033 in the morning, you'll be more like me than you'd ever wish to. If you're still alive. Dhimmis.

An Israeli mother

118,613 次观看 • 1 年前

LIL ETH - FREEDOM 3.0 SONG IS OUT 🔥 SOUND ON 🔊 G to d M (gmonad) legends 🫡 🎁BIG GIVEAWAY ALERT🎁 1 Winner - 100$ in $ETH ✅ 5 Winners - 1 $AVAX each ✅ 5 Winners - 5k $ARENA each ✅ Interact tf outta this post to be eligible 💯 Read on fam, this where it gets juicy 👇 There will be another giveaway on The Arena ⚔️ so be sure to go there and check it out, if you don't have an account it takes less than a minute to register, I will post the link to my giveaway there in an hour in the comments 👌 Turn the notification bell on if you don't want to miss my future giveaways 🫡 Winners will be announced and linked in the comment on this post in 48h, Arena winners will be announced and linked in the comment on the Arena giveaway post 🤝 Thank you to two top legends appearing in this video, love and respect to both of you, massive big up for: Rain Lullaby We all strive for freedom, long for it, want it with every part of our being, freedom from people and situations that we think control us, freedom from our bad habits and thoughts, and of course, financial freedom 💸 Crypto is that golden road, that mythic mountain, that mine of abundance we all want and wish for, it has changed many lives already and it continues to do so every new day, now more than ever 💰 This is my song to celebrate that, to celebrate these magic moments when people hit 10x's and 100x's on memecoins, when they flip an NFT for 2ETH profit, when they get in early at a project and it blows up after 2 years, when it changes lives for the better, as it has been doing so well for more than a decade now 💯 So let's rejoice, let's celebrate, we have the golden bull ahead of us to experience together, I wouldn't pick any other group of people to be here 2day and welcome it with, we all deserve this and our victory together will be nothing short of glorious 👌 There is a place where all degens roam free already tho, and it is a place very dear to me, full of amazing people that have decided to win together, so I dedicate this song to them as well, mighty gladiators ✊ So come and claim your FREEDOM 2day on The Arena ⚔️ and never settle for less ever again 🫡 I prolly won't post everyday on X because I got tons of work with my firms irl and behind the scenes across chains but you'll see me often in your comments (GMs mostly) and I'll drop GM posts from time to time and ofc, new bangers which I've been cooking for your personal enjoyment fam 🤌 Have an amazing rest of August and one love to you all, hope you like the song, I had real fun making this one, major props to my girl Lilieth on this one, she killed her part imo, amazing artist 🔥 Big up fam, let's print together as we play with this magic internet monis then we go brrrrrrrrrr 🖨️
2:04

LIL ETH - FREEDOM 3.0 SONG IS OUT 🔥 SOUND ON 🔊 G to d M (gmonad) legends 🫡 🎁BIG GIVEAWAY ALERT🎁 1 Winner - 100$ in $ETH ✅ 5 Winners - 1 $AVAX each ✅ 5 Winners - 5k $ARENA each ✅ Interact tf outta this post to be eligible 💯 Read on fam, this where it gets juicy 👇 There will be another giveaway on The Arena ⚔️ so be sure to go there and check it out, if you don't have an account it takes less than a minute to register, I will post the link to my giveaway there in an hour in the comments 👌 Turn the notification bell on if you don't want to miss my future giveaways 🫡 Winners will be announced and linked in the comment on this post in 48h, Arena winners will be announced and linked in the comment on the Arena giveaway post 🤝 Thank you to two top legends appearing in this video, love and respect to both of you, massive big up for: Rain Lullaby We all strive for freedom, long for it, want it with every part of our being, freedom from people and situations that we think control us, freedom from our bad habits and thoughts, and of course, financial freedom 💸 Crypto is that golden road, that mythic mountain, that mine of abundance we all want and wish for, it has changed many lives already and it continues to do so every new day, now more than ever 💰 This is my song to celebrate that, to celebrate these magic moments when people hit 10x's and 100x's on memecoins, when they flip an NFT for 2ETH profit, when they get in early at a project and it blows up after 2 years, when it changes lives for the better, as it has been doing so well for more than a decade now 💯 So let's rejoice, let's celebrate, we have the golden bull ahead of us to experience together, I wouldn't pick any other group of people to be here 2day and welcome it with, we all deserve this and our victory together will be nothing short of glorious 👌 There is a place where all degens roam free already tho, and it is a place very dear to me, full of amazing people that have decided to win together, so I dedicate this song to them as well, mighty gladiators ✊ So come and claim your FREEDOM 2day on The Arena ⚔️ and never settle for less ever again 🫡 I prolly won't post everyday on X because I got tons of work with my firms irl and behind the scenes across chains but you'll see me often in your comments (GMs mostly) and I'll drop GM posts from time to time and ofc, new bangers which I've been cooking for your personal enjoyment fam 🤌 Have an amazing rest of August and one love to you all, hope you like the song, I had real fun making this one, major props to my girl Lilieth on this one, she killed her part imo, amazing artist 🔥 Big up fam, let's print together as we play with this magic internet monis then we go brrrrrrrrrr 🖨️

Lil ETH 💯

738,389 次观看 • 1 年前

BREAKING.🚨 Chuck Schumer Blasts Trump's Cabinet Nominees in Senate Floor Diatribe: "How Low Can This Party Go?" Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a vehement tirade on the Senate floor in opposition to Trump's Cabinet nominees. Schumer stated that he would be voting "no" on Pete Hegseth for Pentagon chief, Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 for Director of National Intelligence, and John Ratcliffe for CIA Director. Here is a transcript of Schumer's factually challenged and mendacious smears on Trump's nominees: Today the Senate will hold votes on two pivotal cabinet nominees. First, we will vote to advance the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as CIA Director, I will respectfully vote no, not because of our political difference, which of course exists, but because I'm deeply worried that Mr. Ratcliffe will be unable to stand up to people like Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard who are known to falsify intelligence. As CIA Director ,Mr. Ratcliffe will have to make decisions based on intelligence and fact. There may be no agency more important than the CIA, that has to be fact-based. Sometimes these facts will lead to inconvenient conclusions for his superiors and the President. It's in those cases where truth, not fiction, not ideology, must prevail. And I have my doubts that Mr. Radcliffe will be able to hold firm. Most troubling about Mr. Radcliffe were the answers I got from him about Tulsi Gabbard, president Trump's nominee to serve as Director of National Intelligence. If confirmed, Ms. Gabbard would oversee the CIA in our entire intelligence community, and I think she'd be colossally disruptive for American security. If there's anyone who hasn't been fact-based as you've listened to her statements over the years, it's Tulsi Gabbard. She seems to make things up out of thin air. No one could be worse in a position of DNI than someone who doesn't believe in fact. So I told Mr. Ratcliffe he should urge President Trump to drop her nomination if he really cares about the CIA and its integrity. He couldn't report to somebody like Tulsi Gabbard good conscience. She's simply too risky. Ms. Gabbard has a whole history of spreading falsities cheering America's adversaries, and if confirmed, I'm worried she'll push false intelligence for political ends. Those are precisely the moments Mr. Radcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says, and go to the President and speak truth to power. His answers to my questions about that were unsatisfying, and so I'm voting no because it's such an important position. Now in the Heif vote. Today the Senate will vote to advance one of the most unqualified, erratic nominees for a major position we have ever seen in America. No position in the cabinet carries the weight, the responsibility of Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense, is in charge of keeping us safe and keeping the men and women in our armed forces and the civilians safe. So you need someone who's a steady hand. You need someone who's had experience in this kind of stuff. You need someone when he shows up to a meeting, you're sure that he knows all the facts and is going to be able to conduct himself properly. If there's any cabinet that should be universally trusted and uncontroversial, it's the Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth is neither. He's neither trusted nor free of controversy, and I will strongly vote no. I want my colleagues to think about how absurd it is that this nominee has even made it to the floor. It's a shame that that has happened. We are being cast to trust our armed forces to a man with a history of erratic behavior. One of the kindest words that might be used to describe Mr. Seth is erratic, and that's a quality you don't want is head of DOD. He has a history of excessive drinking, of alleged domestic abuse and zero experience leading a large organization of any kind. The new allegations that came out yesterday are even more troubling, and people say, well, how do we know they're true? Well, first, the person who did it has no strike against her. But second, it just corroborates in an even worse way of what we've known about XF in the past. He has a heart. He has a clear problem of judgment as you've seen by his statements, is like saying, your heart surgeon has twitchy hands, but I'll let him do surgery on me. No one would do that. How on earth can America entrust our safety and security to a man who has allegedly shown up to work and other events in Abri? What if he shows up inebriated during a crisis? What's going to happen? This is dangerous. If confirmed, he'd be in charge of a workforce of over 3 million people, a budget of 850 billion, where in his history that shows he's capable of doing that. And what if his erratic behavior spills over to his job at the Pentagon, a high pressure job? And when people are having this behavior off, usually high pressure jobs make them more, not less erratic. What mystifies me so much about Mr. He says nomination is that there are so many other conservative defense leaders that President Trump could have nominated people. I wouldn't agree with maybe ideologically and on some of the issues that affect Secretary of Defense, but people who'd be capable of running the department. I think of, I know there are plenty of Republican senators who would instantly make a better option than Mr. Hegseth. Is Pete Hegseth really the best the Republicans have to offer? How low has this party come in making him the nominee? I don't believe he's the best. I don't believe he's close to the best. I will be voting with complete conviction 'No.' The Democratic Party's leadership is clearly defying Donald Trump's mandate. It apparently has not learned its lesson from the 2024 election.
5:50

BREAKING.🚨 Chuck Schumer Blasts Trump's Cabinet Nominees in Senate Floor Diatribe: "How Low Can This Party Go?" Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a vehement tirade on the Senate floor in opposition to Trump's Cabinet nominees. Schumer stated that he would be voting "no" on Pete Hegseth for Pentagon chief, Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 for Director of National Intelligence, and John Ratcliffe for CIA Director. Here is a transcript of Schumer's factually challenged and mendacious smears on Trump's nominees: Today the Senate will hold votes on two pivotal cabinet nominees. First, we will vote to advance the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as CIA Director, I will respectfully vote no, not because of our political difference, which of course exists, but because I'm deeply worried that Mr. Ratcliffe will be unable to stand up to people like Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard who are known to falsify intelligence. As CIA Director ,Mr. Ratcliffe will have to make decisions based on intelligence and fact. There may be no agency more important than the CIA, that has to be fact-based. Sometimes these facts will lead to inconvenient conclusions for his superiors and the President. It's in those cases where truth, not fiction, not ideology, must prevail. And I have my doubts that Mr. Radcliffe will be able to hold firm. Most troubling about Mr. Radcliffe were the answers I got from him about Tulsi Gabbard, president Trump's nominee to serve as Director of National Intelligence. If confirmed, Ms. Gabbard would oversee the CIA in our entire intelligence community, and I think she'd be colossally disruptive for American security. If there's anyone who hasn't been fact-based as you've listened to her statements over the years, it's Tulsi Gabbard. She seems to make things up out of thin air. No one could be worse in a position of DNI than someone who doesn't believe in fact. So I told Mr. Ratcliffe he should urge President Trump to drop her nomination if he really cares about the CIA and its integrity. He couldn't report to somebody like Tulsi Gabbard good conscience. She's simply too risky. Ms. Gabbard has a whole history of spreading falsities cheering America's adversaries, and if confirmed, I'm worried she'll push false intelligence for political ends. Those are precisely the moments Mr. Radcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says, and go to the President and speak truth to power. His answers to my questions about that were unsatisfying, and so I'm voting no because it's such an important position. Now in the Heif vote. Today the Senate will vote to advance one of the most unqualified, erratic nominees for a major position we have ever seen in America. No position in the cabinet carries the weight, the responsibility of Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense, is in charge of keeping us safe and keeping the men and women in our armed forces and the civilians safe. So you need someone who's a steady hand. You need someone who's had experience in this kind of stuff. You need someone when he shows up to a meeting, you're sure that he knows all the facts and is going to be able to conduct himself properly. If there's any cabinet that should be universally trusted and uncontroversial, it's the Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth is neither. He's neither trusted nor free of controversy, and I will strongly vote no. I want my colleagues to think about how absurd it is that this nominee has even made it to the floor. It's a shame that that has happened. We are being cast to trust our armed forces to a man with a history of erratic behavior. One of the kindest words that might be used to describe Mr. Seth is erratic, and that's a quality you don't want is head of DOD. He has a history of excessive drinking, of alleged domestic abuse and zero experience leading a large organization of any kind. The new allegations that came out yesterday are even more troubling, and people say, well, how do we know they're true? Well, first, the person who did it has no strike against her. But second, it just corroborates in an even worse way of what we've known about XF in the past. He has a heart. He has a clear problem of judgment as you've seen by his statements, is like saying, your heart surgeon has twitchy hands, but I'll let him do surgery on me. No one would do that. How on earth can America entrust our safety and security to a man who has allegedly shown up to work and other events in Abri? What if he shows up inebriated during a crisis? What's going to happen? This is dangerous. If confirmed, he'd be in charge of a workforce of over 3 million people, a budget of 850 billion, where in his history that shows he's capable of doing that. And what if his erratic behavior spills over to his job at the Pentagon, a high pressure job? And when people are having this behavior off, usually high pressure jobs make them more, not less erratic. What mystifies me so much about Mr. He says nomination is that there are so many other conservative defense leaders that President Trump could have nominated people. I wouldn't agree with maybe ideologically and on some of the issues that affect Secretary of Defense, but people who'd be capable of running the department. I think of, I know there are plenty of Republican senators who would instantly make a better option than Mr. Hegseth. Is Pete Hegseth really the best the Republicans have to offer? How low has this party come in making him the nominee? I don't believe he's the best. I don't believe he's close to the best. I will be voting with complete conviction 'No.' The Democratic Party's leadership is clearly defying Donald Trump's mandate. It apparently has not learned its lesson from the 2024 election.

Kyle Becker

165,701 次观看 • 1 年前