Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

True or false? This is the best position. trick question, nothing else matters without a real connection🥰 but really... it's head down, ass up and getting railed from behind until I can't speak. 🫠😅 #NSFW #NSFWTWT #Amateur #AmateurCouple #CoupleGoals #RealSex #RomanticSex #Passion #DeepConnection #RawSex #AmateurPorn #PornCouple #SexVideo #Creampie #Railing...

BaisieKinn's profile picture

BaisieKinn

145,582 subscribers

335,634 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#NSFW#NSFWTWT#Amateur#AmateurCouple#CoupleGoals#RealSex#RomanticSex
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Catherine Austin Fitts: "If you look at the people who are really running the system behind the scenes... they know... the only way you can balance the books is by lowering life expectancy. And that's what they're doing. And it's absolutely intentional, and it is a plan." This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from an interview with Steve Kirsch (Steve Kirsch) posted to the VSRF (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation) Rumble channel on April 2, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "If you look at the people who are really running the system behind the scenes, in my experience, operationally they're quite competent. And what they know is if you cannot get the population on a financially responsible plan, the only way you can balance the books is by lowering life expectancy. And that's what they're doing. And it's absolutely intentional and it is a plan. "And, you know, it's obvious, but it's very hard for most people to, to, to fathom or face that." Kirsch: "But there are other, there are better ways to solve this problem, right?" Fitts: "No. And, and I'll tell you why. Absolutely not. The only, there—" Kirsch: "Is it because, wait a minute. But, but if you had extreme political will and everybody wanted to do the right thing, you're telling me that the, the best way to solve America's problems is to kill Americans?" Fitts: "No, I'm not telling you that's the best way. What I'm telling you is the only other way you can solve Americans' problems is to build dramatic new wealth bottom up. Dramatic new wealth, bottom up. But that means no digital control grid. And it means allowing governance through meritocracy. "And the question if you're the leader is how, how do you, how do you allow meritocracy to happen without, losing the ability to do the kind of central risk management you think you need, especially with new technology and without you basically getting shot at dawn for all the corruption that's gone on for the last 50 years? "You know, it's funny because I've done a lot of looking at covert financial flows and at various times, and I believe the stories, I've been told that various people in the leadership got together, you know, they go off to a place like Battelle and you know, they get some smart people from DARPA and they figure out how can we, how can we sort of unsecretize some of the black budget or a lot of the black budget. "And they sit down and they say, ultimately the liability is too great. We can't figure out how to do it. Part of it is secret technology produces enormous profits and the people who benefit from keeping it secret don't want to let it out. But here's the root of the problem. I can't— I can do a central control digital control grid with depopulation, or I can let decentralized wealth creation happen with the blessings of new technology. "But then we have to go to a meritocracy and the people running things don't want to give up— You know, they're, they're making a fortune. They're billionaires. They have, you know, amazing power. They're not interested in going to a meritocracy."
3:15

Catherine Austin Fitts: "If you look at the people who are really running the system behind the scenes... they know... the only way you can balance the books is by lowering life expectancy. And that's what they're doing. And it's absolutely intentional, and it is a plan." This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from an interview with Steve Kirsch (Steve Kirsch) posted to the VSRF (Vaccine Safety Research Foundation) Rumble channel on April 2, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "If you look at the people who are really running the system behind the scenes, in my experience, operationally they're quite competent. And what they know is if you cannot get the population on a financially responsible plan, the only way you can balance the books is by lowering life expectancy. And that's what they're doing. And it's absolutely intentional and it is a plan. "And, you know, it's obvious, but it's very hard for most people to, to, to fathom or face that." Kirsch: "But there are other, there are better ways to solve this problem, right?" Fitts: "No. And, and I'll tell you why. Absolutely not. The only, there—" Kirsch: "Is it because, wait a minute. But, but if you had extreme political will and everybody wanted to do the right thing, you're telling me that the, the best way to solve America's problems is to kill Americans?" Fitts: "No, I'm not telling you that's the best way. What I'm telling you is the only other way you can solve Americans' problems is to build dramatic new wealth bottom up. Dramatic new wealth, bottom up. But that means no digital control grid. And it means allowing governance through meritocracy. "And the question if you're the leader is how, how do you, how do you allow meritocracy to happen without, losing the ability to do the kind of central risk management you think you need, especially with new technology and without you basically getting shot at dawn for all the corruption that's gone on for the last 50 years? "You know, it's funny because I've done a lot of looking at covert financial flows and at various times, and I believe the stories, I've been told that various people in the leadership got together, you know, they go off to a place like Battelle and you know, they get some smart people from DARPA and they figure out how can we, how can we sort of unsecretize some of the black budget or a lot of the black budget. "And they sit down and they say, ultimately the liability is too great. We can't figure out how to do it. Part of it is secret technology produces enormous profits and the people who benefit from keeping it secret don't want to let it out. But here's the root of the problem. I can't— I can do a central control digital control grid with depopulation, or I can let decentralized wealth creation happen with the blessings of new technology. "But then we have to go to a meritocracy and the people running things don't want to give up— You know, they're, they're making a fortune. They're billionaires. They have, you know, amazing power. They're not interested in going to a meritocracy."

Sense Receptor

69,557 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Interviewer: "Men cheating is way worse than women cheating." First Woman: "Men cheating is way worse than women cheating." Interviewer: "False. Why?" First Woman: "A man cheats without a reason. A woman always has a reason." Man in Mesh Top: "When a man cheats, it's because he's thinking about one thing and that's all it is. A woman has to be fed up, tired, done, before she emotionally even gets close enough to a man for her to want to cheat with him." Third Speaker (Guy in street): "Men and women cheat for different reasons. Men cheat because they're impulsive James J. Sexton: "I mean, I got to tell you, I don't like the phrasing of it, but I can't argue with the concept." Host: "Really? I thought you were going to disagree with that one. James J. Sexton: "No, I mean, look, I don't think the way they parsed it is correct, which is that women never like, men, it's always an impulsive act, and women, it's never an impulsive act. Because I think sometimes alcohol gets involved, and sometimes people make bad decisions. But I will say that, yeah, I mean, I have had a lot more women I've dealt with a lot of, I've had a lot of clients that have cheated that were male, a lot of clients that have cheated that were women, okay? And have been caught, or who left for the paramour or whatever it might be. So I've seen this from every angle. I represent the cheater and the cheated-on. I've really been through all of the permutations of this." "A lot of the men, by an order of magnitude, say, 'Yeah, this had nothing to do with my wife. This was just like, yeah, I was just distracted. It was like a shiny object and I went after it. Like it really was like a moment of weakness.' Or it was like, 'Yeah, I just like, I don't know, I wasn't getting enough s*x, and I didn't have the courage to have the conversation about that, so I just ended up meeting my needs outside of...' Host: "But isn't that a reason?" James J. Sexton: "Of course! I mean, there's a chapter in my book called 'Go Without or Go Elsewhere.'" Host: "Yeah." James J. Sexton: "Which basically says like, if your partner's not meeting your needs sexually, you either have to go without which no one likes or go elsewhere, which always ends in bad things. So the goal should be to try to keep your relationship in a place where you don't ever have to go without or go elsewhere, where you can share with your partner what it is that you need s*xually, and openly and honestly have discussions about how you can meet each other's sexual needs, especially if you've decided, 'We are going to only sleep with each other'bwhich you don't have to decide! But you've decided that. So if you've decided that, and you've said, 'You're the only person allowed to do this job,' then take the job seriously and try to be good at it. Because if you're the only person if you're saying to me,'The only person I'm allowed to sleep with is you,' then you have to sleep with me. That's how that works! Because otherwise, we're going to delegate that responsibility to somebody else. Because the other option is just 'go without,' and nobody wants to go without."
3:12

Sensitive content

Interviewer: "Men cheating is way worse than women cheating." First Woman: "Men cheating is way worse than women cheating." Interviewer: "False. Why?" First Woman: "A man cheats without a reason. A woman always has a reason." Man in Mesh Top: "When a man cheats, it's because he's thinking about one thing and that's all it is. A woman has to be fed up, tired, done, before she emotionally even gets close enough to a man for her to want to cheat with him." Third Speaker (Guy in street): "Men and women cheat for different reasons. Men cheat because they're impulsive James J. Sexton: "I mean, I got to tell you, I don't like the phrasing of it, but I can't argue with the concept." Host: "Really? I thought you were going to disagree with that one. James J. Sexton: "No, I mean, look, I don't think the way they parsed it is correct, which is that women never like, men, it's always an impulsive act, and women, it's never an impulsive act. Because I think sometimes alcohol gets involved, and sometimes people make bad decisions. But I will say that, yeah, I mean, I have had a lot more women I've dealt with a lot of, I've had a lot of clients that have cheated that were male, a lot of clients that have cheated that were women, okay? And have been caught, or who left for the paramour or whatever it might be. So I've seen this from every angle. I represent the cheater and the cheated-on. I've really been through all of the permutations of this." "A lot of the men, by an order of magnitude, say, 'Yeah, this had nothing to do with my wife. This was just like, yeah, I was just distracted. It was like a shiny object and I went after it. Like it really was like a moment of weakness.' Or it was like, 'Yeah, I just like, I don't know, I wasn't getting enough s*x, and I didn't have the courage to have the conversation about that, so I just ended up meeting my needs outside of...' Host: "But isn't that a reason?" James J. Sexton: "Of course! I mean, there's a chapter in my book called 'Go Without or Go Elsewhere.'" Host: "Yeah." James J. Sexton: "Which basically says like, if your partner's not meeting your needs sexually, you either have to go without which no one likes or go elsewhere, which always ends in bad things. So the goal should be to try to keep your relationship in a place where you don't ever have to go without or go elsewhere, where you can share with your partner what it is that you need s*xually, and openly and honestly have discussions about how you can meet each other's sexual needs, especially if you've decided, 'We are going to only sleep with each other'bwhich you don't have to decide! But you've decided that. So if you've decided that, and you've said, 'You're the only person allowed to do this job,' then take the job seriously and try to be good at it. Because if you're the only person if you're saying to me,'The only person I'm allowed to sleep with is you,' then you have to sleep with me. That's how that works! Because otherwise, we're going to delegate that responsibility to somebody else. Because the other option is just 'go without,' and nobody wants to go without."

Hecto Crypto | NetLink ⛓

232,922 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Right now, it feels as if the Sentiment in PulseChain Ecosystem is at Max Pain....or Close to it. I have seen multiple posts and comments about people wanting to give up, and move to other things. Some from people who have been here a long time! I have been here striving with you all since last July and I have not really seen these types of Public displays until now. It is always the Darkest before the Dawn! This is the Year of the American Pro-Crypto Administration, and a New Era of Crypto Adoption, and the implications of that will resonate all over the world. This is the year of The Most Epic part of the Bullrun after the Bitcoin Halving. This is the Year for exposing the Dark, Hidden, Evil things of world power, and Truth piercing the veil ! During CV19, the Worlds biggest coordinated Psyop ever, when the world shut down, Crypto still had its time, and still shined bright. Red Candles always bring out the deepest Anxieties and Emotions within the crowd. A few weeks ago in December many were feeling on top of the world! What happened to that? The Psychological battle in your mind is at an All Time High, and the dreams you placed at the last Top have temporarily vanished, and you are left with a feeling of uncertainty. You either find out whats next for PulseChain, or you leave! I believe PulseChain is a statement toward Government Tyranny, Censorship, and a statement in Human Freedom against the New World Order. It is a Blockchain that has not been captured by Centralized Entities, VC's, Government Agencies, or any group that seeks to oppress humans. The Upside is absolutely WILD. I believe there is so much prosperity yet to be unleashed on this Chain, and i'm excited to be apart of it. It's a new frontier in Crypto, and I always call it the FREEDOM Chain ! Because I believe it is! This Blockchain is where I call Home now for Crypto, so there is nowhere else i'd rather be. I can only speak for myself. I still believe in PulseChain and Richard Heart !! You can't shake me or break me out of my convictions or position, I worked and researched and prayed about it too hard. will not fumble this opportunity. I believe there is some real Truth encoded on to this chain that gives it a truly solid foundation that can stand the test of time, and I was willing to risk my all to venture out and take hold of it. I won't be turning down, shrinking back, or folding up! excited for PulseChain 2025 even if things seem uncertain and many are fearful. RH will be vindicated. Glory will be had. This Chain will have a top spot in all of Crypto, many will be blessed. I used to be a Bitcoin Maxi, but I got humbled, and now i'm a Ride or Die PulseChainer and here for the Truth and Glory. Even through a big correction, I still have more right now than I ever could trying to do something else..... I WILL NOT Lose. I hope you don't either. WE. WILL. WIN ! I chose the Song "War Ready, by BigXthaPlug & Mon$+@" because its a fighting song, and I ain't backing down from what I believe to be Right! Amidst the noise, here's to an amazing 2025 of FREEDOM !
3:24

Right now, it feels as if the Sentiment in PulseChain Ecosystem is at Max Pain....or Close to it. I have seen multiple posts and comments about people wanting to give up, and move to other things. Some from people who have been here a long time! I have been here striving with you all since last July and I have not really seen these types of Public displays until now. It is always the Darkest before the Dawn! This is the Year of the American Pro-Crypto Administration, and a New Era of Crypto Adoption, and the implications of that will resonate all over the world. This is the year of The Most Epic part of the Bullrun after the Bitcoin Halving. This is the Year for exposing the Dark, Hidden, Evil things of world power, and Truth piercing the veil ! During CV19, the Worlds biggest coordinated Psyop ever, when the world shut down, Crypto still had its time, and still shined bright. Red Candles always bring out the deepest Anxieties and Emotions within the crowd. A few weeks ago in December many were feeling on top of the world! What happened to that? The Psychological battle in your mind is at an All Time High, and the dreams you placed at the last Top have temporarily vanished, and you are left with a feeling of uncertainty. You either find out whats next for PulseChain, or you leave! I believe PulseChain is a statement toward Government Tyranny, Censorship, and a statement in Human Freedom against the New World Order. It is a Blockchain that has not been captured by Centralized Entities, VC's, Government Agencies, or any group that seeks to oppress humans. The Upside is absolutely WILD. I believe there is so much prosperity yet to be unleashed on this Chain, and i'm excited to be apart of it. It's a new frontier in Crypto, and I always call it the FREEDOM Chain ! Because I believe it is! This Blockchain is where I call Home now for Crypto, so there is nowhere else i'd rather be. I can only speak for myself. I still believe in PulseChain and Richard Heart !! You can't shake me or break me out of my convictions or position, I worked and researched and prayed about it too hard. will not fumble this opportunity. I believe there is some real Truth encoded on to this chain that gives it a truly solid foundation that can stand the test of time, and I was willing to risk my all to venture out and take hold of it. I won't be turning down, shrinking back, or folding up! excited for PulseChain 2025 even if things seem uncertain and many are fearful. RH will be vindicated. Glory will be had. This Chain will have a top spot in all of Crypto, many will be blessed. I used to be a Bitcoin Maxi, but I got humbled, and now i'm a Ride or Die PulseChainer and here for the Truth and Glory. Even through a big correction, I still have more right now than I ever could trying to do something else..... I WILL NOT Lose. I hope you don't either. WE. WILL. WIN ! I chose the Song "War Ready, by BigXthaPlug & Mon$+@" because its a fighting song, and I ain't backing down from what I believe to be Right! Amidst the noise, here's to an amazing 2025 of FREEDOM !

FREEDOM_777

15,543 просмотров • 1 год назад

After several days of replaying #NoEspaçoEntreNós trying to transcribe every word like it was some kind of sacred secret 😅… I think I've reached the end of this journey and honestly, it was beautiful 🥹 I've lived in different places, experienced different cultures, tried all kinds of food, seen a variety of landscapes, and listened to music from all over. But the journey I've lived through the voice of Alanis Guillen is, without a doubt, the most sensory experience I've ever had in my life. I always believed music is magic, that sound can move you just as much, if not more, than visuals. But I never really understood how a voice, just a voice in a language I don't even speak, could reach me like this. And that's exactly what happened with Alanis. If I used to think her strength was in her gestures or physical acting tools, I now understand it's something much deeper: it's all of her. Even without the visuals, her voice contains everything. There's something in her cadence, her tone, her vibration, the way she breathes through every line… that wakes something up in me. Even when I had to pull out a dictionary just to keep up, she still managed to move me emotionally. It was a balm for my ears… but also a doorway into understanding. Because in the end, I didn't just want to hear it as music, I wanted to understand it. Understand Maitê. Understand the story. Not just stay with the beauty of the sound, but actually embrace its meaning. That's why I made the effort to translate every word 🥹 And in that process, I ended up valuing even more not just Alanis's artistry, but also the work of everyone who brought this project to life. A story that, at first glance, might remind you of other sci-fi narratives or tech-based connections… but that, in its deeper construction, is built on a deliberate contrast: the human vs. the artificial. Because Lilith is, from the very beginning, an artificial intelligence programmed to simulate, process, and respond through a constructed emotional logic. And Maitê, on the other hand, is the complete opposite: raw humanity in its most vulnerable, contradictory, and alive form. Alanis gives Maitê a body that cannot be seen, but can be deeply felt… And it's precisely in that clash that the story finds its meaning. If at any point someone didn't feel a strong connection between them, I get why now: it's not meant to feel like a traditional, natural relationship. It's a constant tension between two natures that were never meant to fully align. One exists from the structure of the artificial. The other from the overflow of the human. And in that impossible space between them, the story breathes. Anyway, as I've already rambled on (true to myself 😅) I can only be grateful for having had the chance to experience this. And while at one point I even thought about translating the entire script, let's be real… I have a life to live 😅... so I'm leaving here just a few subtitled excerpts in English for those who don't speak Portuguese. Obviously, I'm respecting the work and avoiding spoilers, because even though I imagine MOST of Brazil has already listened to this story (and if not… what are you even waiting for 😏), I still really hope more people get to discover it. And I hope the platform adds subtitles someday, because it's genuinely worth it 🙏🏻 And I end this by thanking Alanis once again 🥰 Because there are voices that interpret stories… and there are voices that bring them into existence. Yours didn't just narrate Maitê… it turned her into someone who breathes inside the listener. And in that process, it goes beyond performance. It becomes a way of opening space, of bringing sapphic characters to life without reducing them to their orientation, but allowing them to exist as full human beings: complex, emotional, contradictory, alive. That matters. And that's your impact, Alanis ♥️
13:17

After several days of replaying #NoEspaçoEntreNós trying to transcribe every word like it was some kind of sacred secret 😅… I think I've reached the end of this journey and honestly, it was beautiful 🥹 I've lived in different places, experienced different cultures, tried all kinds of food, seen a variety of landscapes, and listened to music from all over. But the journey I've lived through the voice of Alanis Guillen is, without a doubt, the most sensory experience I've ever had in my life. I always believed music is magic, that sound can move you just as much, if not more, than visuals. But I never really understood how a voice, just a voice in a language I don't even speak, could reach me like this. And that's exactly what happened with Alanis. If I used to think her strength was in her gestures or physical acting tools, I now understand it's something much deeper: it's all of her. Even without the visuals, her voice contains everything. There's something in her cadence, her tone, her vibration, the way she breathes through every line… that wakes something up in me. Even when I had to pull out a dictionary just to keep up, she still managed to move me emotionally. It was a balm for my ears… but also a doorway into understanding. Because in the end, I didn't just want to hear it as music, I wanted to understand it. Understand Maitê. Understand the story. Not just stay with the beauty of the sound, but actually embrace its meaning. That's why I made the effort to translate every word 🥹 And in that process, I ended up valuing even more not just Alanis's artistry, but also the work of everyone who brought this project to life. A story that, at first glance, might remind you of other sci-fi narratives or tech-based connections… but that, in its deeper construction, is built on a deliberate contrast: the human vs. the artificial. Because Lilith is, from the very beginning, an artificial intelligence programmed to simulate, process, and respond through a constructed emotional logic. And Maitê, on the other hand, is the complete opposite: raw humanity in its most vulnerable, contradictory, and alive form. Alanis gives Maitê a body that cannot be seen, but can be deeply felt… And it's precisely in that clash that the story finds its meaning. If at any point someone didn't feel a strong connection between them, I get why now: it's not meant to feel like a traditional, natural relationship. It's a constant tension between two natures that were never meant to fully align. One exists from the structure of the artificial. The other from the overflow of the human. And in that impossible space between them, the story breathes. Anyway, as I've already rambled on (true to myself 😅) I can only be grateful for having had the chance to experience this. And while at one point I even thought about translating the entire script, let's be real… I have a life to live 😅... so I'm leaving here just a few subtitled excerpts in English for those who don't speak Portuguese. Obviously, I'm respecting the work and avoiding spoilers, because even though I imagine MOST of Brazil has already listened to this story (and if not… what are you even waiting for 😏), I still really hope more people get to discover it. And I hope the platform adds subtitles someday, because it's genuinely worth it 🙏🏻 And I end this by thanking Alanis once again 🥰 Because there are voices that interpret stories… and there are voices that bring them into existence. Yours didn't just narrate Maitê… it turned her into someone who breathes inside the listener. And in that process, it goes beyond performance. It becomes a way of opening space, of bringing sapphic characters to life without reducing them to their orientation, but allowing them to exist as full human beings: complex, emotional, contradictory, alive. That matters. And that's your impact, Alanis ♥️

𝓐 ᥫ᭡. Ari

28,843 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The power of hypnosis: - Making men and women orgasm with the literal snap of a finger - What is somnambulism? - Why 30% of people you see walking around are borderline zombies and believe anything you say - What a limiting belief actually is - And why what you believe is "true" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy The world around you is not what it seems. This is me standing up and speaking in the video btw. Your beliefs are creating a simulation of the world, which then manifests in reality by adjusting your actions to line up with said belief. Anytime you tell yourself you can't do X (belief) because Y (limitation), you create that reality. YOU, yes YOU, are limiting yourself. No one else is. Just you. If you say I can't be attractive unless I'm 6' 5" with a 12" c*ck and a 9-figure bank account, guess what you did? You created that reality! You aren't attractive unless you're 6'5" with a 12-inch c*ck and a 9-figure bank account If you instead remove the limiting belief then you remove the limitation and expand your capabilities So instead you say "I'm attractive because I'm the fucking man" then you become attractive because you're the fucking man. The same limiting beliefs apply to making money. If you say you can't charge X $ unless you do Y requirement that you will never charge that unless you hit that requirement. Often, for founders, it's something along the lines of "I can't raise my prices until I launch XYZ feature, or I can't charge x $ because no one else in my market is charging that, so I can't charge that. Or I can't push out my product because it's less developed than other products in the market so until I match my competitors I can't start making money. It's all complete bullshit. None of it is real and the market will ultimately tell you what's real. You only know if a limiting belief is a real limitation once you have tested it several times. But the easiest way to know if something is a real limitation is to see if other people have been where you are at and transcended it. Are there fat/ugly/broke guys who date beautiful women? All the damn time. Are there rich, successful business owners who provide a shitty product than you and charge more? Yup, all the damn time. Or are there people who have started companies with no money in their bank account, no experience, yet have full self-belief and find a way to deliver value and crush it with their clients? All the time. You have to believing in yourself before anyone else will. And if you constantly place limitations on yourself so will other people. In fact, often it's the people who place limiting beliefs on themselves that stand to benefit the most by removing the limitation. They tend to be good people overall; they just fall for false programming told to them by people who don't know any better or actively don't have their best interests in mind. This is the mind of the perfectionist who always tries to be perfect before actually putting themselves out there and taking a shot. This is the chronic procrastinator who keeps putting off starting that business, talking to that girl, starting that new hobby, waiting for the stars align before they take a shot etc. This is the person who constantly keeps moving the goal posts so they never actually put themselves out there and allow the world to see them. It's all bullshit. None of it is real. None of your limitations exist until you say they exist. If you have the power to limit your reality you have the power to remove the limiter. This is what I do with all my clients. I just removed the limitations they place on themselves, so all of a sudden, they're able to actually capitalize on their potential and become the people they are meant to be and provide the value they can deep down. All I want for you is to see reality for what it is and actually be realistic. You aren't being realistic anytime you place a limitation on yourself. Realistically there are no limitations but the ones you place on your mind. So if you're gonna be realistic it's time you actually be realistic and admit you need nothing to start today. To start that biz To call that dream client. To close that massive deal. To go up to that beautiful girl. To start working towards your future vision/dreams/goals To buy that dream present for yourself that you've been working towards for years. It's all bullshit. None of it is real. And it's time you start waking up to the actual reality of being a human being. You are the author of your own reality and you decide your limitations no one else. So what kind of life do you want to live? DM me "Hypnosis" if you want help removing your limitations and getting to the next level. I don't work with most people, so only reach out if you are serious and ready to invest. I invest in you like you invest in me, so all I ask is that you are dead serious about making a change. If you are, I promise I will change your life.
4:51

The power of hypnosis: - Making men and women orgasm with the literal snap of a finger - What is somnambulism? - Why 30% of people you see walking around are borderline zombies and believe anything you say - What a limiting belief actually is - And why what you believe is "true" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy The world around you is not what it seems. This is me standing up and speaking in the video btw. Your beliefs are creating a simulation of the world, which then manifests in reality by adjusting your actions to line up with said belief. Anytime you tell yourself you can't do X (belief) because Y (limitation), you create that reality. YOU, yes YOU, are limiting yourself. No one else is. Just you. If you say I can't be attractive unless I'm 6' 5" with a 12" c*ck and a 9-figure bank account, guess what you did? You created that reality! You aren't attractive unless you're 6'5" with a 12-inch c*ck and a 9-figure bank account If you instead remove the limiting belief then you remove the limitation and expand your capabilities So instead you say "I'm attractive because I'm the fucking man" then you become attractive because you're the fucking man. The same limiting beliefs apply to making money. If you say you can't charge X $ unless you do Y requirement that you will never charge that unless you hit that requirement. Often, for founders, it's something along the lines of "I can't raise my prices until I launch XYZ feature, or I can't charge x $ because no one else in my market is charging that, so I can't charge that. Or I can't push out my product because it's less developed than other products in the market so until I match my competitors I can't start making money. It's all complete bullshit. None of it is real and the market will ultimately tell you what's real. You only know if a limiting belief is a real limitation once you have tested it several times. But the easiest way to know if something is a real limitation is to see if other people have been where you are at and transcended it. Are there fat/ugly/broke guys who date beautiful women? All the damn time. Are there rich, successful business owners who provide a shitty product than you and charge more? Yup, all the damn time. Or are there people who have started companies with no money in their bank account, no experience, yet have full self-belief and find a way to deliver value and crush it with their clients? All the time. You have to believing in yourself before anyone else will. And if you constantly place limitations on yourself so will other people. In fact, often it's the people who place limiting beliefs on themselves that stand to benefit the most by removing the limitation. They tend to be good people overall; they just fall for false programming told to them by people who don't know any better or actively don't have their best interests in mind. This is the mind of the perfectionist who always tries to be perfect before actually putting themselves out there and taking a shot. This is the chronic procrastinator who keeps putting off starting that business, talking to that girl, starting that new hobby, waiting for the stars align before they take a shot etc. This is the person who constantly keeps moving the goal posts so they never actually put themselves out there and allow the world to see them. It's all bullshit. None of it is real. None of your limitations exist until you say they exist. If you have the power to limit your reality you have the power to remove the limiter. This is what I do with all my clients. I just removed the limitations they place on themselves, so all of a sudden, they're able to actually capitalize on their potential and become the people they are meant to be and provide the value they can deep down. All I want for you is to see reality for what it is and actually be realistic. You aren't being realistic anytime you place a limitation on yourself. Realistically there are no limitations but the ones you place on your mind. So if you're gonna be realistic it's time you actually be realistic and admit you need nothing to start today. To start that biz To call that dream client. To close that massive deal. To go up to that beautiful girl. To start working towards your future vision/dreams/goals To buy that dream present for yourself that you've been working towards for years. It's all bullshit. None of it is real. And it's time you start waking up to the actual reality of being a human being. You are the author of your own reality and you decide your limitations no one else. So what kind of life do you want to live? DM me "Hypnosis" if you want help removing your limitations and getting to the next level. I don't work with most people, so only reach out if you are serious and ready to invest. I invest in you like you invest in me, so all I ask is that you are dead serious about making a change. If you are, I promise I will change your life.

Xans | Hypnotist + High Performance Hypnosis

10,784 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:
24:30

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:

ScottAdamsVids

104,969 просмотров • 1 год назад

Jordan Peterson on why you can't be good without integrating your capacity for aggression: Peterson argues that morality without aggression is hollow. The person who has never developed their capacity for force isn't actually good. They're just harmless. And there's a crucial difference. "No one can be a good person without integrating their capacity for aggression. Because without that capacity for aggression, you cannot say no." He unpacks what a real "no" actually means: "No means, if you really say it, no means there isn't anything that you can do to me that will make me change my mind. Or conversely, it means I will play for higher stakes than you will. And unless you've got your aggression integrated, there isn't a chance you can say that. And if you did, no one would take you seriously, because they'd know it was just a show." This is where Peterson brings in Jung and contrasts him with Freud. For Freud, morality was the super ego clamping down on the id. The aggressive, instinctual parts of you were the enemy, and the moral project was suppression. Jung saw it differently. Peterson explains that Jung was deeply interested in the problem of evil, particularly while trying to make sense of Nazi Germany and the Second World War. The question that preoccupied him: what do you do with the part of you that's aggressive and potentially malevolent? "Do you just crush it? That's the super ego response in some sense. Do you just put it behind you, so to speak? Is that a possibility? Or do you admit to its existence and bring it into the game?" Jung's answer, what Peterson calls "the integration of the shadow" was to invite the bad guys out to play rather than lock them in the basement. The hockey player analogy lands the point: "You're an aggressive hockey player, but it's disciplined aggression that gives you access to a whole source of energy you wouldn't otherwise have." Goodness is the disciplined integration of harm. A person who can't be dangerous can't really be trusted when they say no, can't protect what matters, and is cut off from an enormous reservoir of energy. The moral person is the one who has made peace with theirs and put it to work.
1:30

Jordan Peterson on why you can't be good without integrating your capacity for aggression: Peterson argues that morality without aggression is hollow. The person who has never developed their capacity for force isn't actually good. They're just harmless. And there's a crucial difference. "No one can be a good person without integrating their capacity for aggression. Because without that capacity for aggression, you cannot say no." He unpacks what a real "no" actually means: "No means, if you really say it, no means there isn't anything that you can do to me that will make me change my mind. Or conversely, it means I will play for higher stakes than you will. And unless you've got your aggression integrated, there isn't a chance you can say that. And if you did, no one would take you seriously, because they'd know it was just a show." This is where Peterson brings in Jung and contrasts him with Freud. For Freud, morality was the super ego clamping down on the id. The aggressive, instinctual parts of you were the enemy, and the moral project was suppression. Jung saw it differently. Peterson explains that Jung was deeply interested in the problem of evil, particularly while trying to make sense of Nazi Germany and the Second World War. The question that preoccupied him: what do you do with the part of you that's aggressive and potentially malevolent? "Do you just crush it? That's the super ego response in some sense. Do you just put it behind you, so to speak? Is that a possibility? Or do you admit to its existence and bring it into the game?" Jung's answer, what Peterson calls "the integration of the shadow" was to invite the bad guys out to play rather than lock them in the basement. The hockey player analogy lands the point: "You're an aggressive hockey player, but it's disciplined aggression that gives you access to a whole source of energy you wouldn't otherwise have." Goodness is the disciplined integration of harm. A person who can't be dangerous can't really be trusted when they say no, can't protect what matters, and is cut off from an enormous reservoir of energy. The moral person is the one who has made peace with theirs and put it to work.

Kevin Tanaka

22,073 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

School spent 18 years teaching you a reflex that destroys real conversations. Conor Neill puts it plainly: "You finish your pitch and the customer says, 'Your product is too expensive!' You arrive home a few minutes late, your partner says, 'You are always late.' There's a dirty plate left on the table 'You never wash the dishes.' What do you say in this moment?" Here's the trap Neill identifies: "Most of you, me included, went through 14 years of school where we were taught one way to respond to questions. Teacher asks, 'How do you spell cats?' Student: 'C-A-T.' Teacher asks, 'What is osmosis?' Student explains in detail. For 14 years, you've been taught to give answers to questions. If you went to university, you probably had another 3 or 4 years of giving answers to questions." And that conditioning costs you: "In real life in persuasion, in getting to what the other person is really about, what their needs really are, the worst thing you can do is give an answer to a question." Watch what happens when you answer: "If someone says, 'Your product is too expensive,' and you say, 'No it's not! It's only €1,000'; you've lost every chance to understand what else is behind their reasoning. If you get home and your partner says, 'You're always late!' and you say, 'No, no, no, Tuesday I was definitely here on time', you're gonna have a crap weekend." Why does the brain default to this? "When your partner says, 'You're always late,' emotion goes up. And what happens? The thinking part disconnects. The way to make someone stupider is to insult them, object to them, tell them they are wrong. When you're asked a question, there's an emotional reaction, and the higher emotion goes, the lower thinking goes." And it won't fix itself without work: "If you don't practice this response, you're not going to be able to do it in the moment. If you don't practice repeatedly how you'll respond to 'You're always late,' 'You never wash the dishes,' 'Your product is too expensive,' 'Your competitor is better,' 'You failed us 3 years ago,' 'I don't trust your company', you're not going to be able to do it in the heat of the moment." The alternative Neill teaches: "When you are asked a question or given an objection, I want you to say: 'I understand.' And repeat in your words what they're saying. Then give an open question back." In practice: "'Your product is too expensive!' → 'I understand that money is an important factor for you. What other criteria will be used in making this decision?'" He calls this Conversation Aikido: "Martial arts are about using the energy and force of the opponent against them. In Judo, if someone punches you, you pull their arm and allow the energy to keep flowing. In Aikido, the concept is you go toward the punch. You go toward the energy. If someone punches you, if someone asks you a question, if someone objects, the Aikido method is to go toward them and see the world from their view." For the harder personal moments: "'You're always late!' → 'I understand you feel frustrated.' 'I understand you feel let down.' You'll have to work on this quite a few times over the next 10 years to find the set of words that captures what the other person feels, what's behind it. Then ask: 'What can we do now?' 'What happened during the day?' 'What would you like to talk about?'" By defending, you go blind: "When a client says 'You're too expensive' and you say 'No, we're not!' you learn nothing about who else they're considering, what other criteria are important, what process they've gone through, who else is involved in the decision." Neill's guarantee: "By giving the answer, we shut down the possibility of hearing what's really going on in the other person's mind. But if you say 'I understand,' accept the energy coming from the other person, and give back an open question, I guarantee that if you do it 4 times, the answer to your 4th open question begins to be the real underlying need, issue, or interest of the person you're listening to."
7:21

School spent 18 years teaching you a reflex that destroys real conversations. Conor Neill puts it plainly: "You finish your pitch and the customer says, 'Your product is too expensive!' You arrive home a few minutes late, your partner says, 'You are always late.' There's a dirty plate left on the table 'You never wash the dishes.' What do you say in this moment?" Here's the trap Neill identifies: "Most of you, me included, went through 14 years of school where we were taught one way to respond to questions. Teacher asks, 'How do you spell cats?' Student: 'C-A-T.' Teacher asks, 'What is osmosis?' Student explains in detail. For 14 years, you've been taught to give answers to questions. If you went to university, you probably had another 3 or 4 years of giving answers to questions." And that conditioning costs you: "In real life in persuasion, in getting to what the other person is really about, what their needs really are, the worst thing you can do is give an answer to a question." Watch what happens when you answer: "If someone says, 'Your product is too expensive,' and you say, 'No it's not! It's only €1,000'; you've lost every chance to understand what else is behind their reasoning. If you get home and your partner says, 'You're always late!' and you say, 'No, no, no, Tuesday I was definitely here on time', you're gonna have a crap weekend." Why does the brain default to this? "When your partner says, 'You're always late,' emotion goes up. And what happens? The thinking part disconnects. The way to make someone stupider is to insult them, object to them, tell them they are wrong. When you're asked a question, there's an emotional reaction, and the higher emotion goes, the lower thinking goes." And it won't fix itself without work: "If you don't practice this response, you're not going to be able to do it in the moment. If you don't practice repeatedly how you'll respond to 'You're always late,' 'You never wash the dishes,' 'Your product is too expensive,' 'Your competitor is better,' 'You failed us 3 years ago,' 'I don't trust your company', you're not going to be able to do it in the heat of the moment." The alternative Neill teaches: "When you are asked a question or given an objection, I want you to say: 'I understand.' And repeat in your words what they're saying. Then give an open question back." In practice: "'Your product is too expensive!' → 'I understand that money is an important factor for you. What other criteria will be used in making this decision?'" He calls this Conversation Aikido: "Martial arts are about using the energy and force of the opponent against them. In Judo, if someone punches you, you pull their arm and allow the energy to keep flowing. In Aikido, the concept is you go toward the punch. You go toward the energy. If someone punches you, if someone asks you a question, if someone objects, the Aikido method is to go toward them and see the world from their view." For the harder personal moments: "'You're always late!' → 'I understand you feel frustrated.' 'I understand you feel let down.' You'll have to work on this quite a few times over the next 10 years to find the set of words that captures what the other person feels, what's behind it. Then ask: 'What can we do now?' 'What happened during the day?' 'What would you like to talk about?'" By defending, you go blind: "When a client says 'You're too expensive' and you say 'No, we're not!' you learn nothing about who else they're considering, what other criteria are important, what process they've gone through, who else is involved in the decision." Neill's guarantee: "By giving the answer, we shut down the possibility of hearing what's really going on in the other person's mind. But if you say 'I understand,' accept the energy coming from the other person, and give back an open question, I guarantee that if you do it 4 times, the answer to your 4th open question begins to be the real underlying need, issue, or interest of the person you're listening to."

GeniusThinking

340,727 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Do you ride a bike? Or an e-scooter? Or walk a dog? If so, please take a second to read this. If you are on a bike or scooter on a shared pathway and approaching someone walking a dog, please be courteous and slow down a little. Especially if coming up from behind. I am a wheelchair user with a dog and we have way too many close calls with fast moving bikes and scooters. People not using a bell and whipping by within inches. If the dog turned it's head or stepped a bit wide, they'd be hit. I'll happily move as far to one side of the path as possible, and if I've got the younger dog who isn't as experienced around fast moving things, I'll stop at the very side and have him sit in front of me to give everyone as much space as possible. If I don't know you're approaching, I can't do that. So please, for the love of dog, use your bell. Don't wait until you're right behind someone with a dog. Use it while you're still at a distance, and if you aren't sure they noticed it, ring it a few more times. Give them as much time as possible to move to the side and prepare the dog. If it's a puppy or a dog that hasn't had much experience with bikes, being able to get them off the path or give them a little extra distance from the fast moving bike helps prevent them from getting scared. The vast majority of cyclists are great and really respectful, but there's always a few that aren't. This year the challenge is kids on e-scooters. They are going fast and having fun. Safety isn't at the forefront of their mind. They often don't use a bell or slow down at blind corners, and many don't think about giving the dog any space. I've been startled a few times by them so I can only imagine how the dog felt. This is one of the reasons why I do a lot of desensitization and counter conditioning. Dog owners-you need to do your part to. If you've got headphones on, make sure you can still hear the bike bell. Make sure to give the cyclist or scooter rider as much space as possible from your dog. And of course, unless you are on a designated off leash trail, keep your dog on a leash. If you have a puppy or a newly adopted dog that might not be comfortable around bikes, take some kibble or treats and go hang out with them near a multi use path. Let them watch. As the bike or scooter approaches, drop a few treats on the ground. For many dogs, this is all it takes, but if your dog is visibly stressed, fixated on the bike, or reacting, try moving a further from the trail and once they're comfortable at a slightly further distance, try closer again. If they are still stressed or fearful even with more distance, don't force the issue. Instead introduce them to a bike that isn't moving, and gradually work them up from there. If they are struggling, talk to a trainer. Regardless of if you are holding a leash, riding a bike or scooter, or enjoying a walk outdoors, just be respectful. And of course, be safe. Thanks, Admin 🎥 Puppy walk for cuteness
0:33

Do you ride a bike? Or an e-scooter? Or walk a dog? If so, please take a second to read this. If you are on a bike or scooter on a shared pathway and approaching someone walking a dog, please be courteous and slow down a little. Especially if coming up from behind. I am a wheelchair user with a dog and we have way too many close calls with fast moving bikes and scooters. People not using a bell and whipping by within inches. If the dog turned it's head or stepped a bit wide, they'd be hit. I'll happily move as far to one side of the path as possible, and if I've got the younger dog who isn't as experienced around fast moving things, I'll stop at the very side and have him sit in front of me to give everyone as much space as possible. If I don't know you're approaching, I can't do that. So please, for the love of dog, use your bell. Don't wait until you're right behind someone with a dog. Use it while you're still at a distance, and if you aren't sure they noticed it, ring it a few more times. Give them as much time as possible to move to the side and prepare the dog. If it's a puppy or a dog that hasn't had much experience with bikes, being able to get them off the path or give them a little extra distance from the fast moving bike helps prevent them from getting scared. The vast majority of cyclists are great and really respectful, but there's always a few that aren't. This year the challenge is kids on e-scooters. They are going fast and having fun. Safety isn't at the forefront of their mind. They often don't use a bell or slow down at blind corners, and many don't think about giving the dog any space. I've been startled a few times by them so I can only imagine how the dog felt. This is one of the reasons why I do a lot of desensitization and counter conditioning. Dog owners-you need to do your part to. If you've got headphones on, make sure you can still hear the bike bell. Make sure to give the cyclist or scooter rider as much space as possible from your dog. And of course, unless you are on a designated off leash trail, keep your dog on a leash. If you have a puppy or a newly adopted dog that might not be comfortable around bikes, take some kibble or treats and go hang out with them near a multi use path. Let them watch. As the bike or scooter approaches, drop a few treats on the ground. For many dogs, this is all it takes, but if your dog is visibly stressed, fixated on the bike, or reacting, try moving a further from the trail and once they're comfortable at a slightly further distance, try closer again. If they are still stressed or fearful even with more distance, don't force the issue. Instead introduce them to a bike that isn't moving, and gradually work them up from there. If they are struggling, talk to a trainer. Regardless of if you are holding a leash, riding a bike or scooter, or enjoying a walk outdoors, just be respectful. And of course, be safe. Thanks, Admin 🎥 Puppy walk for cuteness

Team Servicerottie🇨🇦🐕‍🦺🦽

15,771 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the writer is going to dehtrone the smaller fear with a bigger one for Ciho. I mean, I can't be sure until we see the upcoming episodes, but I think that's what kidney-gate is about. Like Ciho says in the last episode, he has a personal moral code. Part of it is nature (from himself), but the other half is nurture (what he's been fed by Sadakat, upbringing, etc.) So, in a way, this code is what's behind his moral fear. He can't move forward because his mind keeps focusing on questions like 'Will I be betraying my code if I choose Alya? Will I still be the man I'm supposed to be?' Sounds stupid to us, as the audience. But this code is what drives Cihan. In this case, it's also one of the biggest obstacles that's causing him to freeze. He's paralyzed by the thought of having to choose. So, how do you break the deadlock? You introduce an even bigger fear and make it almost happen. Because to him, the fear of losing Alya is existential. He literally can't do without her, and the man has already said it a million times. If Alya manages to pull a fast one on Cihan to become the donor, and if some harm comes to her during the operation, the fear of choosing no longer matters, because now, he's faced with the fear of losing - the love of his life, no less. And, this isn't the first time we'll see it happen. Because Cihan has been hardwired to put everyone else first, to do his duty, he needs a dose of fear, of loss, to rewire his priorities. Every time Alya tries to leave, Cihan is compelled to take their relationship up a notch, because he doesn't know how to live without this woman. He isn't cowardly or weak in love, but the same conscience that makes him a good man also keeps him from living for himself. Because that's what a good ağa does. That's his process of transformation, I think. Because once he gets close to the breaking point, his priorities rearrange themselves, and that gives birth to clarity. It keeps him grounded and brings him back to what's really important. So, yeah, putting Alya at risk sucks. But that's a sure-fire way of shattering Ciho's current state of paralysis, because his nervous system needs to recognize her as the core, the very center of existence. Once that happens, hopefully, the fear of choosing (the smaller fear) goes away forever, because he'll now have proof of what's most important to him. Because the bigger fear and almost watching it happen will teach him the price of hesitation. Guilt can freeze him, duty can silence him, loyalty can be his shackles. But, almost losing Alya, in the worst way and most final way there is, will override everything else. Or, at least I hope that's what we'll see 🤧 #CihAl #UzakŞehir
2:39

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the writer is going to dehtrone the smaller fear with a bigger one for Ciho. I mean, I can't be sure until we see the upcoming episodes, but I think that's what kidney-gate is about. Like Ciho says in the last episode, he has a personal moral code. Part of it is nature (from himself), but the other half is nurture (what he's been fed by Sadakat, upbringing, etc.) So, in a way, this code is what's behind his moral fear. He can't move forward because his mind keeps focusing on questions like 'Will I be betraying my code if I choose Alya? Will I still be the man I'm supposed to be?' Sounds stupid to us, as the audience. But this code is what drives Cihan. In this case, it's also one of the biggest obstacles that's causing him to freeze. He's paralyzed by the thought of having to choose. So, how do you break the deadlock? You introduce an even bigger fear and make it almost happen. Because to him, the fear of losing Alya is existential. He literally can't do without her, and the man has already said it a million times. If Alya manages to pull a fast one on Cihan to become the donor, and if some harm comes to her during the operation, the fear of choosing no longer matters, because now, he's faced with the fear of losing - the love of his life, no less. And, this isn't the first time we'll see it happen. Because Cihan has been hardwired to put everyone else first, to do his duty, he needs a dose of fear, of loss, to rewire his priorities. Every time Alya tries to leave, Cihan is compelled to take their relationship up a notch, because he doesn't know how to live without this woman. He isn't cowardly or weak in love, but the same conscience that makes him a good man also keeps him from living for himself. Because that's what a good ağa does. That's his process of transformation, I think. Because once he gets close to the breaking point, his priorities rearrange themselves, and that gives birth to clarity. It keeps him grounded and brings him back to what's really important. So, yeah, putting Alya at risk sucks. But that's a sure-fire way of shattering Ciho's current state of paralysis, because his nervous system needs to recognize her as the core, the very center of existence. Once that happens, hopefully, the fear of choosing (the smaller fear) goes away forever, because he'll now have proof of what's most important to him. Because the bigger fear and almost watching it happen will teach him the price of hesitation. Guilt can freeze him, duty can silence him, loyalty can be his shackles. But, almost losing Alya, in the worst way and most final way there is, will override everything else. Or, at least I hope that's what we'll see 🤧 #CihAl #UzakŞehir

CocoLoco

17,374 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

🚨BREAKING: Candace Owens Just REACTED To President Trump Telling Erika Kirk To SUE All Of Us —And I AGREE With Her... Bring it on.🔥💪 At the White House Easter celebration, Trump looked at Erika Kirk and told her to "sue their ass off," claiming everyone investigating her is just "jealous." Candace's response is legendary. She calls it "so middle school" and delivers a masterclass in what real power is. She points out the absurdity: "We wanna know who killed Charlie Kirk, so could you park aside the lawyers and get information for us, Trump?" Then she lays down the ultimate challenge. She says most of us investigating this WELCOME a lawsuit. Why? Because discovery is a beautiful thing. A lawsuit would force them to turn over all the information we've been asking for. No more guessing. We could demand the receipts, the chain of custody on the flawed bullet analysis, and everything else they're hiding. Candace delivers the knockout blow: "The reason you should never sue... is if truth is not on your side." She asks the simple question that cuts through all the noise: If you're innocent, why not just answer the questions? Do a long, public sit-down and clear it all up? But they won't, because they can't. Instead, they hide behind power and money, using lawyers as a shield. Candace exposes this for what it is: "The reason we lie is because we're rich and we can. We have lawyers that make it okay, and you don't, peasants." This is their playbook. Use wealth and influence to silence truth-seekers. But as Candace declares, "There is no true power without truth." All their power is an illusion, and it's very easy to cut through that illusion with the truth. They sound nervous. They should be. They think money can buy silence. They're about to find out the truth is louder. Drop a 🔥 in the comments if you're ready for them to sue! FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT and watch her FULL episode linked below.👇
3:44

🚨BREAKING: Candace Owens Just REACTED To President Trump Telling Erika Kirk To SUE All Of Us —And I AGREE With Her... Bring it on.🔥💪 At the White House Easter celebration, Trump looked at Erika Kirk and told her to "sue their ass off," claiming everyone investigating her is just "jealous." Candace's response is legendary. She calls it "so middle school" and delivers a masterclass in what real power is. She points out the absurdity: "We wanna know who killed Charlie Kirk, so could you park aside the lawyers and get information for us, Trump?" Then she lays down the ultimate challenge. She says most of us investigating this WELCOME a lawsuit. Why? Because discovery is a beautiful thing. A lawsuit would force them to turn over all the information we've been asking for. No more guessing. We could demand the receipts, the chain of custody on the flawed bullet analysis, and everything else they're hiding. Candace delivers the knockout blow: "The reason you should never sue... is if truth is not on your side." She asks the simple question that cuts through all the noise: If you're innocent, why not just answer the questions? Do a long, public sit-down and clear it all up? But they won't, because they can't. Instead, they hide behind power and money, using lawyers as a shield. Candace exposes this for what it is: "The reason we lie is because we're rich and we can. We have lawyers that make it okay, and you don't, peasants." This is their playbook. Use wealth and influence to silence truth-seekers. But as Candace declares, "There is no true power without truth." All their power is an illusion, and it's very easy to cut through that illusion with the truth. They sound nervous. They should be. They think money can buy silence. They're about to find out the truth is louder. Drop a 🔥 in the comments if you're ready for them to sue! FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT and watch her FULL episode linked below.👇

Project Constitution

181,026 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Real estate has a simple problem that people don’t always say out loud: it’s not designed for partial participation. You either have enough money to buy in properly, or you don’t. There’s usually no “in-between.” And once you do invest, your money is tied up for a long time. Selling isn’t instant and flexibility is limited. So even though real estate is seen as a solid way to build wealth, a lot of people are effectively locked out... not by lack of interest but by how the system is structured. That’s the gap APARTCHAIN is focused on. APARTCHAIN is a platform that turns real estate into something you can invest in fractionally. Instead of buying an entire property, the ownership is divided into digital shares (tokens), and investors can buy a portion that fits their budget. So rather than needing large capital, you’re able to take smaller positions in actual properties. Here’s how it works in practice: • APARTCHAIN acquires real estate • The property is split into multiple ownership shares • Investors buy those shares on-chain • Rental income from the property is distributed to shareholders • When the property is eventually sold, any profit is also shared So your return comes from two places: ongoing rental income and potential appreciation when the property is sold. Now, fractional real estate isn’t a brand-new idea. What makes APARTCHAIN different is how it’s positioned. It operates within Kazakhstan’s regulatory framework, with oversight connected to the country’s national financial authority. That’s a key detail because a lot of tokenization platforms operate without clear local regulation. Here, the structure is built to align with an existing legal system, not bypass it. On the technical side, it runs on a blockchain network designed for low fees and fast transactions. That means buying, holding or transferring your share doesn’t come with the heavy costs or delays typically associated with traditional property processes. There’s also no strict lock-in at the protocol level... you’re not forced to hold your position for a fixed period. But in reality, your ability to exit depends on the secondary market, which is still developing. So liquidity exists, but it’s not fully mature yet. It’s also worth being clear about the risks. Property values can go up or down. Rental income isn’t guaranteed and because this system relies on smart contracts, there’s a technical layer that traditional real estate doesn’t have. On top of that, the platform itself is still growing. Property inventory is limited for now and the resale market for shares is still building. That said, it’s not just an idea on paper... APARTCHAIN has already completed at least one full investment cycle... acquiring a property, generating returns, and exiting. That matters because it shows the model can actually function beyond theory. So at the core, this isn’t really about “changing real estate” in some dramatic way. It’s about removing the all-or-nothing barrier that’s always surrounded it. And that leaves a simple question: if you could start building exposure to real estate without needing to go all in from day one, would more people actually step in earlier or would they still wait until it feels “big enough” to matter? Superteam Kazakhstan || APARTCHAIN
0:30

Real estate has a simple problem that people don’t always say out loud: it’s not designed for partial participation. You either have enough money to buy in properly, or you don’t. There’s usually no “in-between.” And once you do invest, your money is tied up for a long time. Selling isn’t instant and flexibility is limited. So even though real estate is seen as a solid way to build wealth, a lot of people are effectively locked out... not by lack of interest but by how the system is structured. That’s the gap APARTCHAIN is focused on. APARTCHAIN is a platform that turns real estate into something you can invest in fractionally. Instead of buying an entire property, the ownership is divided into digital shares (tokens), and investors can buy a portion that fits their budget. So rather than needing large capital, you’re able to take smaller positions in actual properties. Here’s how it works in practice: • APARTCHAIN acquires real estate • The property is split into multiple ownership shares • Investors buy those shares on-chain • Rental income from the property is distributed to shareholders • When the property is eventually sold, any profit is also shared So your return comes from two places: ongoing rental income and potential appreciation when the property is sold. Now, fractional real estate isn’t a brand-new idea. What makes APARTCHAIN different is how it’s positioned. It operates within Kazakhstan’s regulatory framework, with oversight connected to the country’s national financial authority. That’s a key detail because a lot of tokenization platforms operate without clear local regulation. Here, the structure is built to align with an existing legal system, not bypass it. On the technical side, it runs on a blockchain network designed for low fees and fast transactions. That means buying, holding or transferring your share doesn’t come with the heavy costs or delays typically associated with traditional property processes. There’s also no strict lock-in at the protocol level... you’re not forced to hold your position for a fixed period. But in reality, your ability to exit depends on the secondary market, which is still developing. So liquidity exists, but it’s not fully mature yet. It’s also worth being clear about the risks. Property values can go up or down. Rental income isn’t guaranteed and because this system relies on smart contracts, there’s a technical layer that traditional real estate doesn’t have. On top of that, the platform itself is still growing. Property inventory is limited for now and the resale market for shares is still building. That said, it’s not just an idea on paper... APARTCHAIN has already completed at least one full investment cycle... acquiring a property, generating returns, and exiting. That matters because it shows the model can actually function beyond theory. So at the core, this isn’t really about “changing real estate” in some dramatic way. It’s about removing the all-or-nothing barrier that’s always surrounded it. And that leaves a simple question: if you could start building exposure to real estate without needing to go all in from day one, would more people actually step in earlier or would they still wait until it feels “big enough” to matter? Superteam Kazakhstan || APARTCHAIN

Jessica♡🛡

105,405 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

THE LASTING DAMAGE OF A “CHEAT” AT THE FIRST BRAZIL DLC! Worlds invites should be earned with skill and INTEGRITY. It’s already abysmal that the World Champion does not get an invite to Continentals. This is the previous World Champion… should they not be able to defend their title? I hate to glaze but when that same champ keeps performing, making top cut in almost every event, always getting close, and then finally, when he is one win away in the last round, he loses to a player who was caught on camera earlier that day “cheating”… it really is tragic. I understand you cannot always prove intent. Mistakes happen, and I do not think prizing should be stripped from someone over one situation. However, a Worlds invite should be held to a different standard. That is where the best of the best are supposed to meet. A Worlds invite should not just be about event placement, it should also represent competitive integrity. Frederico ending up with a booster box prize instead of a Golden Mickey… Him/DKP were directly impacted by that loss, and when the difference is that massive, “here’s a box” feels like a terrible consolation prize. At the very least, they should be properly compensated and invite retroactively passed down. If there is documented cheating, or even a major competitive blunder that directly impacted the result, that Worlds invite should be voided and passed down accordingly. Not because of hate. Not because of bias. Because consistency matters. This is what puts Ravensburger and tournament organizers in such an awkward position. Either they were overly harsh and specifically targeted Clement for the angle shot incident in Australia by banning him from Worlds, or they stay consistent and apply that same standard here. You cannot punish one player for a documented competitive issue and then look the other way when it happens somewhere else just because the situation is inconvenient. I am not going to sit here and argue whether the double ink was intentional or not. As an Amber Steel player, I know a lot of decisions run through your head in those moments. But this looked like a very simple hand. The extra ink directly contributed to the win, and the sequence was fast, clean, and immediate. There was not much hesitation there to strongly sell simple forgetfulness. - he went back and flipped the ink … paused and inked again fast …. Change of pace, body language - counting and situation all suspicious …. Keep Lorcana safe, judges … lore guides … whatever they call those spectators with authority - lock in !!!!…2 stream judges spectating and nothing called out ?!? Maybe let the chat/casters be able to engage a judge call to prevent these mistakes from having lasting effects. But bottom line, damage is done! If integrity matters, then the Worlds invite should be voided. Otherwise punishments stop being about fairness and start looking like cherry-picking and selective enforcement. #cheating #lorcana #TCG
0:29

THE LASTING DAMAGE OF A “CHEAT” AT THE FIRST BRAZIL DLC! Worlds invites should be earned with skill and INTEGRITY. It’s already abysmal that the World Champion does not get an invite to Continentals. This is the previous World Champion… should they not be able to defend their title? I hate to glaze but when that same champ keeps performing, making top cut in almost every event, always getting close, and then finally, when he is one win away in the last round, he loses to a player who was caught on camera earlier that day “cheating”… it really is tragic. I understand you cannot always prove intent. Mistakes happen, and I do not think prizing should be stripped from someone over one situation. However, a Worlds invite should be held to a different standard. That is where the best of the best are supposed to meet. A Worlds invite should not just be about event placement, it should also represent competitive integrity. Frederico ending up with a booster box prize instead of a Golden Mickey… Him/DKP were directly impacted by that loss, and when the difference is that massive, “here’s a box” feels like a terrible consolation prize. At the very least, they should be properly compensated and invite retroactively passed down. If there is documented cheating, or even a major competitive blunder that directly impacted the result, that Worlds invite should be voided and passed down accordingly. Not because of hate. Not because of bias. Because consistency matters. This is what puts Ravensburger and tournament organizers in such an awkward position. Either they were overly harsh and specifically targeted Clement for the angle shot incident in Australia by banning him from Worlds, or they stay consistent and apply that same standard here. You cannot punish one player for a documented competitive issue and then look the other way when it happens somewhere else just because the situation is inconvenient. I am not going to sit here and argue whether the double ink was intentional or not. As an Amber Steel player, I know a lot of decisions run through your head in those moments. But this looked like a very simple hand. The extra ink directly contributed to the win, and the sequence was fast, clean, and immediate. There was not much hesitation there to strongly sell simple forgetfulness. - he went back and flipped the ink … paused and inked again fast …. Change of pace, body language - counting and situation all suspicious …. Keep Lorcana safe, judges … lore guides … whatever they call those spectators with authority - lock in !!!!…2 stream judges spectating and nothing called out ?!? Maybe let the chat/casters be able to engage a judge call to prevent these mistakes from having lasting effects. But bottom line, damage is done! If integrity matters, then the Worlds invite should be voided. Otherwise punishments stop being about fairness and start looking like cherry-picking and selective enforcement. #cheating #lorcana #TCG

Elias Abdulahad

26,993 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Conor Neill: "18 years of school trained you to ruin conversations" "You finish your pitch and the customer says, 'Your product is too expensive!' You arrive home a few minutes late, your partner says, 'You are always late.' There's a dirty plate left on the table 'You never wash the dishes.' What do you say in this moment?" Neill explains the problem: "Most of you, me included, went through 14 years of school where we were taught one way to respond to questions. Teacher asks, 'How do you spell cats?' Student: 'C-A-T.' Teacher asks, 'What is osmosis?' Student explains in detail. For 14 years, you've been taught to give answers to questions. If you went to university, you probably had another 3 or 4 years of giving answers to questions." Here's what that does to you: "In real life in persuasion, in getting to what the other person is really about, what their needs really are, the worst thing you can do is give an answer to a question." He gives examples: "If someone says, 'Your product is too expensive,' and you say, 'No it's not! It's only €1,000'; you've lost every chance to understand what else is behind their reasoning. If you get home and your partner says, 'You're always late!' and you say, 'No, no, no, Tuesday I was definitely here on time', you're gonna have a crap weekend." Neill explains why this happens: "When your partner says, 'You're always late,' emotion goes up. And what happens? The thinking part disconnects. The way to make someone stupider is to insult them, object to them, tell them they are wrong. When you're asked a question, there's an emotional reaction, and the higher emotion goes, the lower thinking goes." He continues: "If you don't practice this response, you're not going to be able to do it in the moment. If you don't practice repeatedly how you'll respond to 'You're always late,' 'You never wash the dishes,' 'Your product is too expensive,' 'Your competitor is better,' 'You failed us 3 years ago,' 'I don't trust your company', you're not going to be able to do it in the heat of the moment." Here's what to do instead: "When you are asked a question or given an objection, I want you to say: 'I understand.' And repeat in your words what they're saying. Then give an open question back." He demonstrates: "'Your product is too expensive!' → 'I understand that money is an important factor for you. What other criteria will be used in making this decision?'" Neill calls this "Conversation Aikido": "Martial arts are about using the energy and force of the opponent against them. In Judo, if someone punches you, you pull their arm and allow the energy to keep flowing. In Aikido, the concept is you go toward the punch. You go toward the energy. If someone punches you, if someone asks you a question, if someone objects, the Aikido method is to go toward them and see the world from their view." He explains how to practice: "'You're always late!' → 'I understand you feel frustrated.' 'I understand you feel let down.' You'll have to work on this quite a few times over the next 10 years to find the set of words that captures what the other person feels, what's behind it. Then ask: 'What can we do now?' 'What happened during the day?' 'What would you like to talk about?'" Neill shares what happens when you don't do this: "When a client says 'You're too expensive' and you say 'No, we're not!' you learn nothing about who else they're considering, what other criteria are important, what process they've gone through, who else is involved in the decision." He closes with a guarantee: "By giving the answer, we shut down the possibility of hearing what's really going on in the other person's mind. But if you say 'I understand,' accept the energy coming from the other person, and give back an open question, I guarantee that if you do it 4 times, the answer to your 4th open question begins to be the real underlying need, issue, or interest of the person you're listening to."
7:21

Conor Neill: "18 years of school trained you to ruin conversations" "You finish your pitch and the customer says, 'Your product is too expensive!' You arrive home a few minutes late, your partner says, 'You are always late.' There's a dirty plate left on the table 'You never wash the dishes.' What do you say in this moment?" Neill explains the problem: "Most of you, me included, went through 14 years of school where we were taught one way to respond to questions. Teacher asks, 'How do you spell cats?' Student: 'C-A-T.' Teacher asks, 'What is osmosis?' Student explains in detail. For 14 years, you've been taught to give answers to questions. If you went to university, you probably had another 3 or 4 years of giving answers to questions." Here's what that does to you: "In real life in persuasion, in getting to what the other person is really about, what their needs really are, the worst thing you can do is give an answer to a question." He gives examples: "If someone says, 'Your product is too expensive,' and you say, 'No it's not! It's only €1,000'; you've lost every chance to understand what else is behind their reasoning. If you get home and your partner says, 'You're always late!' and you say, 'No, no, no, Tuesday I was definitely here on time', you're gonna have a crap weekend." Neill explains why this happens: "When your partner says, 'You're always late,' emotion goes up. And what happens? The thinking part disconnects. The way to make someone stupider is to insult them, object to them, tell them they are wrong. When you're asked a question, there's an emotional reaction, and the higher emotion goes, the lower thinking goes." He continues: "If you don't practice this response, you're not going to be able to do it in the moment. If you don't practice repeatedly how you'll respond to 'You're always late,' 'You never wash the dishes,' 'Your product is too expensive,' 'Your competitor is better,' 'You failed us 3 years ago,' 'I don't trust your company', you're not going to be able to do it in the heat of the moment." Here's what to do instead: "When you are asked a question or given an objection, I want you to say: 'I understand.' And repeat in your words what they're saying. Then give an open question back." He demonstrates: "'Your product is too expensive!' → 'I understand that money is an important factor for you. What other criteria will be used in making this decision?'" Neill calls this "Conversation Aikido": "Martial arts are about using the energy and force of the opponent against them. In Judo, if someone punches you, you pull their arm and allow the energy to keep flowing. In Aikido, the concept is you go toward the punch. You go toward the energy. If someone punches you, if someone asks you a question, if someone objects, the Aikido method is to go toward them and see the world from their view." He explains how to practice: "'You're always late!' → 'I understand you feel frustrated.' 'I understand you feel let down.' You'll have to work on this quite a few times over the next 10 years to find the set of words that captures what the other person feels, what's behind it. Then ask: 'What can we do now?' 'What happened during the day?' 'What would you like to talk about?'" Neill shares what happens when you don't do this: "When a client says 'You're too expensive' and you say 'No, we're not!' you learn nothing about who else they're considering, what other criteria are important, what process they've gone through, who else is involved in the decision." He closes with a guarantee: "By giving the answer, we shut down the possibility of hearing what's really going on in the other person's mind. But if you say 'I understand,' accept the energy coming from the other person, and give back an open question, I guarantee that if you do it 4 times, the answer to your 4th open question begins to be the real underlying need, issue, or interest of the person you're listening to."

Peak Thinkers

195,518 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

🔥 Knapp and I, "have seen high-quality everything [UAP] that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing." ~Corbell 🔥 (Great way to end the year. Unless you think Corbell and Knapp are lying or have been fooled by nothing but fake photos and videos, the good stuff DOES exist. Damn. Wasn't expecting this, but it's very important to hear. You'll have to decide what this means for you. Happy New Year!) ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "George and I are reporters and people send us stuff. He and I can both attest: We have seen high-fidelity, of things that like, are so egregiously bizarre, you guys (Knapp shaking his head up and down in agreement). I'll just admit it. We have been exposed to every type of footage you can imagine. Every type. Lots of it. And this has happened for a while, and I don't know what to do. I mean, as a journalist, we are able to be exposed to these things, and they're...you know, it's shocking. "There's a lot of footage from this aggregate program called IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION, and not even within that program. That program was just siphoning off. Here's the deal: Our sensor platforms - from space, to air, to sea, to undersea - pick up, all the time, highly-anomalous things that are unambiguously UAP. That's fact. I can attest to that as a human being sitting in front of you, that George and I have been exposed to it. I'm not gonna go any further today, but that is fact, we have been. "So, what happens is, you have our government saying, all of this reporting is coming in and it's going up on these classified servers, but like, what do we do with it, what do we do with it? So they've developed one of many programs that used to be called Immaculate Constellation, where they will pull the best of the best, a lot of it using AI. And they will pull these into an archive and have them assessed in secret groups. So that's what Immaculate Constellation actually was, was an aggregate program to take all of that footage, bring it, and nothing facing internally to the U.S. So if we're doing any exploitation (reverse engineering efforts. ~Joe), if it's anything with us? Nothing. But to other countries, and just passive and active picking up UAP, that's what Immaculate Constellation did. And now it's under a different name. But it does the same thing, and it's one of many programs. "So, I can attest, and so can George, that that footage of high-quality from all-domain is something that exists, it's unambiguous. Now the question is: Who do you show it to? Who gets to see it? What actions can they take? I don't know. I don't know. I'm not in charge here. Is there an adult in the room?" George Knapp: "Jeremy, DoD spokesperson says there is no record of anything called Immaculate Constellation within the Department of Defense. I guess it can't be real then, right?" Corbell: "You know, I think there will be clarity on that, because I think there's humans behind whistleblowing, and I think one day we're going to learn more about that. I hope that that helps. Like, when David Grusch came forward, and he said, 'Look, I dug into all these black projects, and I had 40 witnesses.' By the way, it's not the people that you know of and this sort of thing. This is like, deep within our intelligence agencies. David Grusch DID bring 40 people to the IC IG. He did do that. He told it like it is. Yeah, it exists. It exists. It's the most frustrating thing in the world, once you know for sure that high-quality data exists and that people that should see it haven't seen it, and you're kind of stuck. You don't know what to do about it. That's how I feel.: Knapp: "But maybe a technicality could be it exists or existed, but not within the Pentagon." Corbell: "Oh, yeah, all those games like, Immaculate Constellation was not a DoD USAP. So that's like, why you see Susan Gough like, technically, she's telling the truth. So, Immaculate Constellation was a USAP (Unacknowledged Special Access Program ~Joe) under a different heading. So imagine this: Imagine even the Department of Energy has its own USAPs. The White House has its own USAPs. So you can technically say it's not under DoD. They might have actuated some things for that operation, which was an operation, Immaculate Constellation, but they can get away with these technicalities. But there are USAPs in a lot of different departments, as you can imagine." Joe Murgia - Joe Murgia: "I am not letting you guys get away with not commenting again on what you've seen, image-wise. I mean, have you guys seen craft, structured craft, up close (Corbell and Knapp both shaking their heads up and down)?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Flying saucer-type craft?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Triangles?" Corbell: "Yeah." Murgia: "What else can you say about that?" Corbell: "The weirdest sh*t I've ever seen in my life, man. As journalists, we get a lot of weird stuff, and George and I, we'll look at it and assess it, and it's legitimate, and we've seen it. And, yeah, I don't know what else to say, George, unless you want to say something." Knapp: "We've seen stuff that we're not supposed to see. Put it that way." Murgia: "From government sensors?" Corbell: "Oh yeah." Knapp: "Yeah." Corbell: "Yeah. Look, as journalists, we don't know at first, right? Like, we'll get a bunch of information. We'll be exposed to a bunch of information. It's a very tricky place for us to be. First, are people f*cking with us? You know, is this a lie, is this real? We had that debate about the Jellyfish. Like, we had to, like, dig in and find out, which base, where was it, who's seen it? Multiple sources that have seen it at that base. It takes time. We're in that position now. We've been exposed to a lot of stuff and everything you just said, Joe, yeah. I mean, I could tell you as a friend, straight up, George could affirm this, with his own eyes, too. What that means, I don't know, and I don't know where to go from there. But we have seen high-quality everything that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing."
5:18

🔥 Knapp and I, "have seen high-quality everything [UAP] that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing." ~Corbell 🔥 (Great way to end the year. Unless you think Corbell and Knapp are lying or have been fooled by nothing but fake photos and videos, the good stuff DOES exist. Damn. Wasn't expecting this, but it's very important to hear. You'll have to decide what this means for you. Happy New Year!) ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "George and I are reporters and people send us stuff. He and I can both attest: We have seen high-fidelity, of things that like, are so egregiously bizarre, you guys (Knapp shaking his head up and down in agreement). I'll just admit it. We have been exposed to every type of footage you can imagine. Every type. Lots of it. And this has happened for a while, and I don't know what to do. I mean, as a journalist, we are able to be exposed to these things, and they're...you know, it's shocking. "There's a lot of footage from this aggregate program called IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION, and not even within that program. That program was just siphoning off. Here's the deal: Our sensor platforms - from space, to air, to sea, to undersea - pick up, all the time, highly-anomalous things that are unambiguously UAP. That's fact. I can attest to that as a human being sitting in front of you, that George and I have been exposed to it. I'm not gonna go any further today, but that is fact, we have been. "So, what happens is, you have our government saying, all of this reporting is coming in and it's going up on these classified servers, but like, what do we do with it, what do we do with it? So they've developed one of many programs that used to be called Immaculate Constellation, where they will pull the best of the best, a lot of it using AI. And they will pull these into an archive and have them assessed in secret groups. So that's what Immaculate Constellation actually was, was an aggregate program to take all of that footage, bring it, and nothing facing internally to the U.S. So if we're doing any exploitation (reverse engineering efforts. ~Joe), if it's anything with us? Nothing. But to other countries, and just passive and active picking up UAP, that's what Immaculate Constellation did. And now it's under a different name. But it does the same thing, and it's one of many programs. "So, I can attest, and so can George, that that footage of high-quality from all-domain is something that exists, it's unambiguous. Now the question is: Who do you show it to? Who gets to see it? What actions can they take? I don't know. I don't know. I'm not in charge here. Is there an adult in the room?" George Knapp: "Jeremy, DoD spokesperson says there is no record of anything called Immaculate Constellation within the Department of Defense. I guess it can't be real then, right?" Corbell: "You know, I think there will be clarity on that, because I think there's humans behind whistleblowing, and I think one day we're going to learn more about that. I hope that that helps. Like, when David Grusch came forward, and he said, 'Look, I dug into all these black projects, and I had 40 witnesses.' By the way, it's not the people that you know of and this sort of thing. This is like, deep within our intelligence agencies. David Grusch DID bring 40 people to the IC IG. He did do that. He told it like it is. Yeah, it exists. It exists. It's the most frustrating thing in the world, once you know for sure that high-quality data exists and that people that should see it haven't seen it, and you're kind of stuck. You don't know what to do about it. That's how I feel.: Knapp: "But maybe a technicality could be it exists or existed, but not within the Pentagon." Corbell: "Oh, yeah, all those games like, Immaculate Constellation was not a DoD USAP. So that's like, why you see Susan Gough like, technically, she's telling the truth. So, Immaculate Constellation was a USAP (Unacknowledged Special Access Program ~Joe) under a different heading. So imagine this: Imagine even the Department of Energy has its own USAPs. The White House has its own USAPs. So you can technically say it's not under DoD. They might have actuated some things for that operation, which was an operation, Immaculate Constellation, but they can get away with these technicalities. But there are USAPs in a lot of different departments, as you can imagine." Joe Murgia - Joe Murgia: "I am not letting you guys get away with not commenting again on what you've seen, image-wise. I mean, have you guys seen craft, structured craft, up close (Corbell and Knapp both shaking their heads up and down)?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Flying saucer-type craft?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Triangles?" Corbell: "Yeah." Murgia: "What else can you say about that?" Corbell: "The weirdest sh*t I've ever seen in my life, man. As journalists, we get a lot of weird stuff, and George and I, we'll look at it and assess it, and it's legitimate, and we've seen it. And, yeah, I don't know what else to say, George, unless you want to say something." Knapp: "We've seen stuff that we're not supposed to see. Put it that way." Murgia: "From government sensors?" Corbell: "Oh yeah." Knapp: "Yeah." Corbell: "Yeah. Look, as journalists, we don't know at first, right? Like, we'll get a bunch of information. We'll be exposed to a bunch of information. It's a very tricky place for us to be. First, are people f*cking with us? You know, is this a lie, is this real? We had that debate about the Jellyfish. Like, we had to, like, dig in and find out, which base, where was it, who's seen it? Multiple sources that have seen it at that base. It takes time. We're in that position now. We've been exposed to a lot of stuff and everything you just said, Joe, yeah. I mean, I could tell you as a friend, straight up, George could affirm this, with his own eyes, too. What that means, I don't know, and I don't know where to go from there. But we have seen high-quality everything that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing."

Joe Murgia

140,668 просмотров • 1 год назад