Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Two women pleasuring a well-endowed guy in a plotless threesome fuckfest ✔️#threesome #ffm #shavedpussy #riding #anal #smalltits #blowjob #bigcock #pornclips 🆓⚡️

porn_clips_top's profile picture

Porn Clips

2,449 subscribers

42,346 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#threesome#ffm#shavedpussy#riding#anal#smalltits#blowjob#bigcock#pornclips
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

"I walked in on two influencers having a threesome with a guy in Transcorp Hilton, Abuja" — Media Personality, Nedu
2:06

Sensitive content

"I walked in on two influencers having a threesome with a guy in Transcorp Hilton, Abuja" — Media Personality, Nedu

YabaLeftOnline

5,989,235 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Senator John Kennedy served up one of the most brutal ROASTS of Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner. The line that sold the two-minute comedy routine was calling him so extreme he makes AOC look like Aunt Bee in Mayberry. KENNEDY: “Sean, Mr. Platner seems to be one of the new faces of the loon wing of the Democratic Party.” “Clearly he’s angry. When I see him on TV, he always looks like he’s straining to have a stool.” “His supporters say no, you don’t understand him. He’s just idiosyncratic. I guess he goose steps to the beat of his own drummer.” “But his history shows there’s more than that.” “I mean, this guy makes...he makes Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez look like Aunt Bee in Mayberry.” “Mr. Platner’s comments about black people, his cavalier attitude towards r*pe, apparently his stated preference for masturbating in a porta-potty, his contempt for America.” “I think at one point he implied he wished the Taliban were better shots to kill our people.” “This is not normal. I mean, this guy is 10 exits past normal.” “Then he says well, that was in my past. I’ve been born again. But just recently we found out through his wife that Mr. Platner has been sending sexually explicit messages, digital messages, to other women.” “He calls it sexting.” “He says oh, there’s nothing to see here. Well, Anthony wiener was sexting. We all said what is that about?” “We found out he was sending pictures of his penis to young women.” “Now, I’m not saying Mr. Platner is doing that. I don’t know. But he needs to release those text messages. I want to know if he’s a sexual predator!” “I mean, the people of Maine deserve to know. This guy is...he’s like a Saturday Night Live skit!”
2:07

Senator John Kennedy served up one of the most brutal ROASTS of Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner. The line that sold the two-minute comedy routine was calling him so extreme he makes AOC look like Aunt Bee in Mayberry. KENNEDY: “Sean, Mr. Platner seems to be one of the new faces of the loon wing of the Democratic Party.” “Clearly he’s angry. When I see him on TV, he always looks like he’s straining to have a stool.” “His supporters say no, you don’t understand him. He’s just idiosyncratic. I guess he goose steps to the beat of his own drummer.” “But his history shows there’s more than that.” “I mean, this guy makes...he makes Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez look like Aunt Bee in Mayberry.” “Mr. Platner’s comments about black people, his cavalier attitude towards r*pe, apparently his stated preference for masturbating in a porta-potty, his contempt for America.” “I think at one point he implied he wished the Taliban were better shots to kill our people.” “This is not normal. I mean, this guy is 10 exits past normal.” “Then he says well, that was in my past. I’ve been born again. But just recently we found out through his wife that Mr. Platner has been sending sexually explicit messages, digital messages, to other women.” “He calls it sexting.” “He says oh, there’s nothing to see here. Well, Anthony wiener was sexting. We all said what is that about?” “We found out he was sending pictures of his penis to young women.” “Now, I’m not saying Mr. Platner is doing that. I don’t know. But he needs to release those text messages. I want to know if he’s a sexual predator!” “I mean, the people of Maine deserve to know. This guy is...he’s like a Saturday Night Live skit!”

Overton

116,226 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

When I heard the premise of the film Honeypot, I had to watch it. A Dutch college student, Jini Jane, decides she wants to sleep with right-wing men on film to help solve political polarization, and puts out an announcement on a conservative website. She ends up settling on a working-class guy and an intellectual. The resulting movie tells a fascinating story about gender relations, class, and politics. The working class guy, who apparently cooks meth at home, comes in like a bull. She enjoys everything about the experience and develops genuine affection for him. Then she meets the incel-adjacent philosopher. It doesn't work out as well. He's needy, insecure, and turns her off. The disgust is palpable. She repeatedly calls him an oaf, and starts demanding he buy her jewelry. He ends up scarred by the experience. Two men, in the same situation, with the same woman. But the results couldn't be more different. What is the lesson here? This is a movie about the nature of men and women. But there's also a political lesson, which is that proles become rightists for organic and often healthy reasons, while reactionary intellectuals are in many cases doing something deeply incongruous with who they are. They're alienated both from their working class comrades and also other elites. I ended up interviewing Jini, along with the director of the movie, KIRAC. I ask her exactly where the poor rightist intellectual went wrong. In the clip below, she describes how he managed to even screw up the spanking he was giving her to reestablish his role as the man in the relationship. Again, this is all on film and you can watch the entire thing happen. Oh, and for some reason there's a North African in the movie providing color commentary and encouragement to the rightist intellectual throughout his ordeal. Maybe he'll rethink his position on immigration? I’ve never been much of a connoisseur of performance art, but Honeypot gives us the best version of it, provoking in this viewer at least thoughts about what women really want, the state of contemporary politics, and the various sorts of men who end up on the right in opposition to a left-wing elite monoculture.
2:06

When I heard the premise of the film Honeypot, I had to watch it. A Dutch college student, Jini Jane, decides she wants to sleep with right-wing men on film to help solve political polarization, and puts out an announcement on a conservative website. She ends up settling on a working-class guy and an intellectual. The resulting movie tells a fascinating story about gender relations, class, and politics. The working class guy, who apparently cooks meth at home, comes in like a bull. She enjoys everything about the experience and develops genuine affection for him. Then she meets the incel-adjacent philosopher. It doesn't work out as well. He's needy, insecure, and turns her off. The disgust is palpable. She repeatedly calls him an oaf, and starts demanding he buy her jewelry. He ends up scarred by the experience. Two men, in the same situation, with the same woman. But the results couldn't be more different. What is the lesson here? This is a movie about the nature of men and women. But there's also a political lesson, which is that proles become rightists for organic and often healthy reasons, while reactionary intellectuals are in many cases doing something deeply incongruous with who they are. They're alienated both from their working class comrades and also other elites. I ended up interviewing Jini, along with the director of the movie, KIRAC. I ask her exactly where the poor rightist intellectual went wrong. In the clip below, she describes how he managed to even screw up the spanking he was giving her to reestablish his role as the man in the relationship. Again, this is all on film and you can watch the entire thing happen. Oh, and for some reason there's a North African in the movie providing color commentary and encouragement to the rightist intellectual throughout his ordeal. Maybe he'll rethink his position on immigration? I’ve never been much of a connoisseur of performance art, but Honeypot gives us the best version of it, provoking in this viewer at least thoughts about what women really want, the state of contemporary politics, and the various sorts of men who end up on the right in opposition to a left-wing elite monoculture.

Richard Hanania

63,952 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"
14:08

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Time to talk Electric Boda Bodas (e-mobility)? On Monday, The Daily Monitor run two articles that caught my attention (see frame 4) On their leading story, they run a piece that said that Uganda imports twice as many motorcycles (boda bodas) as cars. In their special feature, they run a very well researched story that said: “Kampala’s Air Quality Among Worst in the World”. That piece featured some of the voices of my work colleagues at Public Square. Beyond just lamenting about the quality of air we breathe, it’s important to remember that the solutions are within reach. One of those is increasing the uptake of electric boda bodas. This, we can do from the ground up. It’s easier to push consumer adoption by merely turning first adopters into a marketing force than through standing on a pedestal and preaching the virtues of embracing e-mobility from our air conditioned offices that we access by driving fuel guzzling SUVs. Some of the barriers to adoption are the misconceptions among riders about e-bikes. These range from stuff like “they are not as fast as the petrol powered bikes”, “they don’t have range”, “they aren’t as strong so can’t carry a lot of weight” etc A few weeks ago, I fortuitously got a chance to put the first misconception to the test. My regular boda guy had actually given the reason of speed or lack thereof, as his impediment to buying an e-bike so he had instead bought himself a new petrol bike. This one Kampala morning while going to an e-mobility meeting, we see an e-bike at that Jinja road roundabout. I remember our conversation so I ask him to go after the e-bike guy (safely). The e-bike guy hadn’t heard so he went on riding normally but as we got within 2 meters of him, my boda guy asked: “tumuyise?” (Read: should we overtake him?) I answered in the affirmative. The e-bike guy heard us and said: “kankulageko” (let me show you what’s up). The result is what you see in the first video. We were fortunate that the road was paved, otherwise he would have left us feeding on kilograms of dust. My boda guy has since been preaching the e-bike gospel at his stage here in Muyenga and yesterday, he told me that one of his stage colleagues is saving up to buy an e-bike. It will be the first on our village stage. Exciting times!! #Kankulageko #KampalaBreathes #EmbraceEmobility
0:51

Time to talk Electric Boda Bodas (e-mobility)? On Monday, The Daily Monitor run two articles that caught my attention (see frame 4) On their leading story, they run a piece that said that Uganda imports twice as many motorcycles (boda bodas) as cars. In their special feature, they run a very well researched story that said: “Kampala’s Air Quality Among Worst in the World”. That piece featured some of the voices of my work colleagues at Public Square. Beyond just lamenting about the quality of air we breathe, it’s important to remember that the solutions are within reach. One of those is increasing the uptake of electric boda bodas. This, we can do from the ground up. It’s easier to push consumer adoption by merely turning first adopters into a marketing force than through standing on a pedestal and preaching the virtues of embracing e-mobility from our air conditioned offices that we access by driving fuel guzzling SUVs. Some of the barriers to adoption are the misconceptions among riders about e-bikes. These range from stuff like “they are not as fast as the petrol powered bikes”, “they don’t have range”, “they aren’t as strong so can’t carry a lot of weight” etc A few weeks ago, I fortuitously got a chance to put the first misconception to the test. My regular boda guy had actually given the reason of speed or lack thereof, as his impediment to buying an e-bike so he had instead bought himself a new petrol bike. This one Kampala morning while going to an e-mobility meeting, we see an e-bike at that Jinja road roundabout. I remember our conversation so I ask him to go after the e-bike guy (safely). The e-bike guy hadn’t heard so he went on riding normally but as we got within 2 meters of him, my boda guy asked: “tumuyise?” (Read: should we overtake him?) I answered in the affirmative. The e-bike guy heard us and said: “kankulageko” (let me show you what’s up). The result is what you see in the first video. We were fortunate that the road was paved, otherwise he would have left us feeding on kilograms of dust. My boda guy has since been preaching the e-bike gospel at his stage here in Muyenga and yesterday, he told me that one of his stage colleagues is saving up to buy an e-bike. It will be the first on our village stage. Exciting times!! #Kankulageko #KampalaBreathes #EmbraceEmobility

Anthony Natif

39,264 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Ana Kasparian picks a fight with Bill Maher about Israel and Gaza—then all hell breaks loose. ANA: “You wanna get exhilarated right now? I can exhilarate you.” MAHER: “I know you’re gonna say genocide, and I’m gonna say, well, you don’t know what the word means… Hamas is the bad guy. If you don’t get that, you don’t get much.” ANA: “What Hamas did on October 7th was disgusting killing.” MAHER: “Well, that’s the easiest thing in the world to say… If you hate oppression… Hundreds of millions of women have basically no freedom in the Muslim world.” ANA: “So we should slaughter them instead, which is what’s been happening.” MAHER: “Well, you should prosecute a war to the end. That does involve slaughter in every war.” ANA: “Civilians get killed in wars.” MAHER: “Especially when you hide behind them.” ANA: “But when 83%, according to the IDF’s own data… 83% of the people that they’ve killed are civilians—” MAHER: “Because they hide behind them.” ANA: “But Bill, do you understand that by killing so many civilians, they are essentially multiplying extremism.” MAHER: “I do understand that. Do you understand that there’s very often in the world two very bad choices… You don’t have a good choice. You have the bad choice and the even worse choice.” ANA: “Israel has nuclear weapons, Bill. They have nuclear weapons.” MAHER: “Well, they have nuclear weapons, which they don’t use. If Hamas had a nuclear weapon, how many seconds would it take before they used it on Israel?” ANA: “I don’t know.” MAHER: “Three. Three’s the answer. Three seconds.” ANA: “How do you know that, Bill? Come on.” MAHER: “Because it’s in their charter.” ANA: “You have a difficult time at least acknowledging the atrocities that have been committed against innocent civilians in Gaza.” MAHER: “Well, it depends on what you call an atrocity. All wars are going to have atrocities… During the Civil War, a lot of people would say, especially in the South, that Sherman did not have to burn Atlanta quite as badly as he did. I mean, we were pretty brutal. But would you also then just say, well, we don’t know who the good guys were in that war? No, I think it was the North.” ANA: “I think much of the problems we have in the Middle East are due to the enabling of this expansion. Look, it’s an expansionist policy.” MAHER: “They’ve never been trying to expand.” ANA: “They’re trying to annex the West Bank right now. And Lebanon—southern Lebanon—and Syria, which they’ve succeeded in.” MAHER: “Excuse me, these are all places that they were attacked from. When they became a country in 1947, they said, ‘Okay, we will accept half a loaf.’ They had as much right to that land as anybody. There was a continual presence there since 1000 BC, when King David had a kingdom.” ANA: “I don’t care about that at all.” MAHER: “But it’s relevant!” (MAHER AND ANA TALK OVER EACH OTHER) MAHER: “You’re calling them colonizers. They’re not colonizers.” ANA: “They’re expanding, and they’re annexing land. That’s what colonizers do.”
7:36

Ana Kasparian picks a fight with Bill Maher about Israel and Gaza—then all hell breaks loose. ANA: “You wanna get exhilarated right now? I can exhilarate you.” MAHER: “I know you’re gonna say genocide, and I’m gonna say, well, you don’t know what the word means… Hamas is the bad guy. If you don’t get that, you don’t get much.” ANA: “What Hamas did on October 7th was disgusting killing.” MAHER: “Well, that’s the easiest thing in the world to say… If you hate oppression… Hundreds of millions of women have basically no freedom in the Muslim world.” ANA: “So we should slaughter them instead, which is what’s been happening.” MAHER: “Well, you should prosecute a war to the end. That does involve slaughter in every war.” ANA: “Civilians get killed in wars.” MAHER: “Especially when you hide behind them.” ANA: “But when 83%, according to the IDF’s own data… 83% of the people that they’ve killed are civilians—” MAHER: “Because they hide behind them.” ANA: “But Bill, do you understand that by killing so many civilians, they are essentially multiplying extremism.” MAHER: “I do understand that. Do you understand that there’s very often in the world two very bad choices… You don’t have a good choice. You have the bad choice and the even worse choice.” ANA: “Israel has nuclear weapons, Bill. They have nuclear weapons.” MAHER: “Well, they have nuclear weapons, which they don’t use. If Hamas had a nuclear weapon, how many seconds would it take before they used it on Israel?” ANA: “I don’t know.” MAHER: “Three. Three’s the answer. Three seconds.” ANA: “How do you know that, Bill? Come on.” MAHER: “Because it’s in their charter.” ANA: “You have a difficult time at least acknowledging the atrocities that have been committed against innocent civilians in Gaza.” MAHER: “Well, it depends on what you call an atrocity. All wars are going to have atrocities… During the Civil War, a lot of people would say, especially in the South, that Sherman did not have to burn Atlanta quite as badly as he did. I mean, we were pretty brutal. But would you also then just say, well, we don’t know who the good guys were in that war? No, I think it was the North.” ANA: “I think much of the problems we have in the Middle East are due to the enabling of this expansion. Look, it’s an expansionist policy.” MAHER: “They’ve never been trying to expand.” ANA: “They’re trying to annex the West Bank right now. And Lebanon—southern Lebanon—and Syria, which they’ve succeeded in.” MAHER: “Excuse me, these are all places that they were attacked from. When they became a country in 1947, they said, ‘Okay, we will accept half a loaf.’ They had as much right to that land as anybody. There was a continual presence there since 1000 BC, when King David had a kingdom.” ANA: “I don’t care about that at all.” MAHER: “But it’s relevant!” (MAHER AND ANA TALK OVER EACH OTHER) MAHER: “You’re calling them colonizers. They’re not colonizers.” ANA: “They’re expanding, and they’re annexing land. That’s what colonizers do.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,223,923 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

348 comments of black people saying they want to Kill all White people It’s so perfect, any White person stumbling across this will get a perfect unfiltered perspective of what blacks really feel about them. blacks post Desperate ai fantasies but only 2% of White women racemix with black men, Blacked pornography was so unpopular that The company making it lost money on every film and eventually went bankrupt. Even before all the racial discussions were trendy online OkCupid and Match dot com were showing that White women severely Dis-favored nonwhites in dating. White men are two times more likely to race mix than White women and neither group favors black people as partners. One guy posted “Totally wonderful day” which is a dog whistle for “total White death”- but blacks have 3x more abortions than any other race, 20 million blacks have been aborted in America since 1973. Black men are 5.5x more likely to commit homicide, and nearly 10,000 die each year at the hands of other blacks. Blacks in America have a 1.49 total fertility rate and their fertility rate is still declining especially in the south where there’s a higher density of the black population. if it weren’t for black immigration, then the black population in the United States would be 10 million lower than it currently is. 46% of black homes do not have their biological father, 75% of black homes have children without being married, for those mixed race relationships that do get married they are much more likely to divorce, you have more than a 300% higher chance of being a single mother, a 400% higher rate of intimate parter abuse; as well as high rates of infidelity. the black community doesnt just have kids outside of wedlock and cheat on or beat their partners, they also spread STDs. According to the office of minority health In 2022, Black Americans were diagnosed with HIV at eight times the rate of white individuals, chlamydia rates 6.8 times higher and gonorrhea rates 8.8 times higher for Black populations compared to White populations. When you tell people to hold others responsible, I think it’s responsible to make the best choices that you can.
1:00

348 comments of black people saying they want to Kill all White people It’s so perfect, any White person stumbling across this will get a perfect unfiltered perspective of what blacks really feel about them. blacks post Desperate ai fantasies but only 2% of White women racemix with black men, Blacked pornography was so unpopular that The company making it lost money on every film and eventually went bankrupt. Even before all the racial discussions were trendy online OkCupid and Match dot com were showing that White women severely Dis-favored nonwhites in dating. White men are two times more likely to race mix than White women and neither group favors black people as partners. One guy posted “Totally wonderful day” which is a dog whistle for “total White death”- but blacks have 3x more abortions than any other race, 20 million blacks have been aborted in America since 1973. Black men are 5.5x more likely to commit homicide, and nearly 10,000 die each year at the hands of other blacks. Blacks in America have a 1.49 total fertility rate and their fertility rate is still declining especially in the south where there’s a higher density of the black population. if it weren’t for black immigration, then the black population in the United States would be 10 million lower than it currently is. 46% of black homes do not have their biological father, 75% of black homes have children without being married, for those mixed race relationships that do get married they are much more likely to divorce, you have more than a 300% higher chance of being a single mother, a 400% higher rate of intimate parter abuse; as well as high rates of infidelity. the black community doesnt just have kids outside of wedlock and cheat on or beat their partners, they also spread STDs. According to the office of minority health In 2022, Black Americans were diagnosed with HIV at eight times the rate of white individuals, chlamydia rates 6.8 times higher and gonorrhea rates 8.8 times higher for Black populations compared to White populations. When you tell people to hold others responsible, I think it’s responsible to make the best choices that you can.

Our Own Nation

74,197 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Never normalize alcohol use on social media. It can trigger persons trying to quit the habit or those who are abstinent get back on the destructive path. Look at this guy as an example. He is everything a human being must not be. He has a huge following on Instagram and this video has been watched by more than 100K people. He calls himself "Ashdin Doctor." People may think he is actually a Doctor, but "Doctor" is his surname. He has a Bachelors degree in Arts and Masters in Marketing Management. But here he is, advising people how to drink alcohol the right way. This video is utter garbage. His advice is targeted at preventing "dehydration" due to alcohol consumption. Dehydration is NOT the ONLY issue with alcohol consumption. Here are real issues with alcohol use whether or not, you choose to drink more water in between. 1. Alcohol use has been consistently linked to an increased risk of cancer. The type of alcohol - beer, wine, vodka or rum, does not change this risk. Even those who consume one drink per day have an increased risk. Even low dose of alcohol over short and long periods increases risk of terrible cancers. Cancers of the head & neck, esophagus (food pipe), liver, breast and colon/rectum are strongly linked to alcohol use. & & 2. Even occassional or low dose alcohol use such as one to two drin ks a day or few drinks in a week reduces the brain volume. Drinking one to two alcohol drinks a day increases brain aging: it "ages" the brain faster, by 2 years. If it is two to three drinks a day, then the brain changes are equivalent to brain shrinking and aging faster by three and half years. & 3. Even low/modest alcohol use reduces fertility in women and men. Lower chances of getting pregnant and the risk for reduced live births in women and due to fertility issues in men has been strongly linked to alcohol use - low doses and worsens with modest increments. & 4. Alcohol use is associated with male to female partner violence, perpetration and victimization of violence and early-childhood trauma & & 5. That low dose/modest daily alcohol use improves survival or increases life expectancy has been swept away into the garbage with a recent high powered metanalysis paper. No level of alcohol use is beneficial for human health. And recent studies show that increasing level of alcohol kills women more than men for the same dose and duration of use. Look for credible sources for healthcare information. Develop a critical thinking to filter medical/healthcare information for your benefit. A normal person would never make a video on how to drink alcohol. Alcohol is a known poison. A person may have many followers and well-edited videos and click-bait titles. But remember, they have nothing to lose if YOU get into harms way. The best part is, Ashdin Doctor, the Instagram influencer is a "Habit Coach" (FFS) and has written a children's book, titled The "Book of Good Habits For Kids" - but here he is, advising his followers how to drink alcohol better. There is some real cognitive dissonance happening and people must learn to spot such fakes on social media. IVM Podcasts should grow a brain before they host such unintelligent life forms on your platform. Stay informed and stay safe.
0:23

Never normalize alcohol use on social media. It can trigger persons trying to quit the habit or those who are abstinent get back on the destructive path. Look at this guy as an example. He is everything a human being must not be. He has a huge following on Instagram and this video has been watched by more than 100K people. He calls himself "Ashdin Doctor." People may think he is actually a Doctor, but "Doctor" is his surname. He has a Bachelors degree in Arts and Masters in Marketing Management. But here he is, advising people how to drink alcohol the right way. This video is utter garbage. His advice is targeted at preventing "dehydration" due to alcohol consumption. Dehydration is NOT the ONLY issue with alcohol consumption. Here are real issues with alcohol use whether or not, you choose to drink more water in between. 1. Alcohol use has been consistently linked to an increased risk of cancer. The type of alcohol - beer, wine, vodka or rum, does not change this risk. Even those who consume one drink per day have an increased risk. Even low dose of alcohol over short and long periods increases risk of terrible cancers. Cancers of the head & neck, esophagus (food pipe), liver, breast and colon/rectum are strongly linked to alcohol use. & & 2. Even occassional or low dose alcohol use such as one to two drin ks a day or few drinks in a week reduces the brain volume. Drinking one to two alcohol drinks a day increases brain aging: it "ages" the brain faster, by 2 years. If it is two to three drinks a day, then the brain changes are equivalent to brain shrinking and aging faster by three and half years. & 3. Even low/modest alcohol use reduces fertility in women and men. Lower chances of getting pregnant and the risk for reduced live births in women and due to fertility issues in men has been strongly linked to alcohol use - low doses and worsens with modest increments. & 4. Alcohol use is associated with male to female partner violence, perpetration and victimization of violence and early-childhood trauma & & 5. That low dose/modest daily alcohol use improves survival or increases life expectancy has been swept away into the garbage with a recent high powered metanalysis paper. No level of alcohol use is beneficial for human health. And recent studies show that increasing level of alcohol kills women more than men for the same dose and duration of use. Look for credible sources for healthcare information. Develop a critical thinking to filter medical/healthcare information for your benefit. A normal person would never make a video on how to drink alcohol. Alcohol is a known poison. A person may have many followers and well-edited videos and click-bait titles. But remember, they have nothing to lose if YOU get into harms way. The best part is, Ashdin Doctor, the Instagram influencer is a "Habit Coach" (FFS) and has written a children's book, titled The "Book of Good Habits For Kids" - but here he is, advising his followers how to drink alcohol better. There is some real cognitive dissonance happening and people must learn to spot such fakes on social media. IVM Podcasts should grow a brain before they host such unintelligent life forms on your platform. Stay informed and stay safe.

TheLiverDoc™

187,090 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

I do not feel any pity for this Roby Ekpo guy for the simple reason that he did everything that you must not do as a man. 1. He married a divorcee. Every man in his right senses knows that you should never marry a divorced woman or a single mother. You should only sleep with them 3 to 5 times and discard them exactly the way their initial husband did. A man must start a family, not join one. 2. He married her after just five months of dating. A marriage proposal that a woman got on a platter will never be appreciated. If she had to wait for at least two years before getting the marriage proposal from him, she probably would have appreciated the marriage more. 3. He cried over a woman. The only reason you should cry over a woman is if she dies and was good to you when she was alive. 4. He couldn't satisfy her in bed. This is solely because the woman he married has been with multiple men and cannot be satisfied by one man anymore. This is why you should only marry a woman you met as a virgin and who is between the ages of 19 and 23 when you start dating her. 5. He sent her abroad while he remained in Nigeria. A woman that you send abroad will find your replacement in less than 3 months. And if she must go abroad, let her go with majorly her own money or with a loan from you (through proxies). Never fully foot the bill so that when she leaves, you will at least get your money back. 6. He is not polygamous. You can do everything right and a woman will still cheat on you, but when you have about three other women who will easily replace her, you will not go through so much heartbreak and definitely not cry on a podcast. 7. He said the Mayowa lady made him hate Nedu and other people who did not offend him. Once a woman can control who you can and cannot relate with, she has successfully made you her slave. As a man, you must be able to relate with whoever you want whether your woman likes it or not. She can either live with it or pack and leave. I wish him well but he is the perfect representation of a foolish man.
0:56

I do not feel any pity for this Roby Ekpo guy for the simple reason that he did everything that you must not do as a man. 1. He married a divorcee. Every man in his right senses knows that you should never marry a divorced woman or a single mother. You should only sleep with them 3 to 5 times and discard them exactly the way their initial husband did. A man must start a family, not join one. 2. He married her after just five months of dating. A marriage proposal that a woman got on a platter will never be appreciated. If she had to wait for at least two years before getting the marriage proposal from him, she probably would have appreciated the marriage more. 3. He cried over a woman. The only reason you should cry over a woman is if she dies and was good to you when she was alive. 4. He couldn't satisfy her in bed. This is solely because the woman he married has been with multiple men and cannot be satisfied by one man anymore. This is why you should only marry a woman you met as a virgin and who is between the ages of 19 and 23 when you start dating her. 5. He sent her abroad while he remained in Nigeria. A woman that you send abroad will find your replacement in less than 3 months. And if she must go abroad, let her go with majorly her own money or with a loan from you (through proxies). Never fully foot the bill so that when she leaves, you will at least get your money back. 6. He is not polygamous. You can do everything right and a woman will still cheat on you, but when you have about three other women who will easily replace her, you will not go through so much heartbreak and definitely not cry on a podcast. 7. He said the Mayowa lady made him hate Nedu and other people who did not offend him. Once a woman can control who you can and cannot relate with, she has successfully made you her slave. As a man, you must be able to relate with whoever you want whether your woman likes it or not. She can either live with it or pack and leave. I wish him well but he is the perfect representation of a foolish man.

Ayo-Elesho

15,301 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Caller: "Okay. So, I've been with my wife for, we've been together since we were 14, for 14 years. I'm 32, I met her when I was 19, we had a child at 20. And, um, I've always just kind of been a butthead to her, to be honest. Every now and then I would demean her or make little comments, and I would say it started to really get bad about six weeks ago. Um, we were doing some work in the yard, and I really just blew up on her over the stupidest little thing. And then about a week later, we're just constantly arguing and dividing from each other. And then about a week or two later, she told me that she thought she was falling out of love with me. And it just really crushed me. I never would have thought that those words could come out of her mouth, and she told me that the way I treat her is, I'm not treating her the right way. And I completely owned it. I mean, I said everything you said is absolutely correct. You know, and I said, 'I don't want my son, our son growing up thinking that this is how you're supposed to treat women.' And, I mean, since that day, I have treated her like an angel. I mean, I've done everything and just constantly telling her I love her, giving her hugs, kisses. Um, but that was a Saturday night, and then Monday night she ended up telling me that she was, um, in communication with a guy she met on TikTok. And she told me she broke it off with him, and I asked her, What was the subjects about?' And she said it was just somebody to talk to about what I'm going through, my mental, you know, health. And she said it was never anything flirtatious or anything like that. She said it was just a stranger that I could talk to, but she said, 'I broke it off with him, and I'm gonna focus on us. And I said, 'I'm all in with you, let's rebuild this.' And we went about two weeks and it was just absolute honeymoon phase. I mean, we were just, never it was great. And then I went through her phone two weeks after that and found that she was on Snapchat with the guy. And I confronted her about it, and she said, 'Okay, well, I didn't think you were really gonna change, and I wanted to keep this friendship with the guy.' And she said, 'I'll break it off with him.' And I'm like, 'Okay, I guess I'll give you a second chance. I'm kind of heartbroken again that you would keep this from me. And then about a week and a half later, which was just yesterday, I went through the call logs on which, I feel bad because I'm constantly digging at all this, but every time I dig, I find something. And I confronted her yesterday that she's been talking to this guy for 30, 40, 50 minutes a day, um, the last week and a half, after she told me a third time that she was breaking it off with him. And I'm just super confused. I don't really know how to handle this. Now she's saying that she's all done talking to him, and I'm like, 'Well, how do I trust you now? You've been lying to me for the past three weeks about this.' So, that's really all I got." John Delony: "So for 14 years... you belittled your wife. She got the clear message she was beneath you. You're the smart one, you're the fast one, you're the quick one. You are the provider, you're the all this stuff." Caller: "Mhm. I always thought she was beneath me." John Delony: "Yeah, you did. And she's got that message for, for a decade and a half.
3:33

Caller: "Okay. So, I've been with my wife for, we've been together since we were 14, for 14 years. I'm 32, I met her when I was 19, we had a child at 20. And, um, I've always just kind of been a butthead to her, to be honest. Every now and then I would demean her or make little comments, and I would say it started to really get bad about six weeks ago. Um, we were doing some work in the yard, and I really just blew up on her over the stupidest little thing. And then about a week later, we're just constantly arguing and dividing from each other. And then about a week or two later, she told me that she thought she was falling out of love with me. And it just really crushed me. I never would have thought that those words could come out of her mouth, and she told me that the way I treat her is, I'm not treating her the right way. And I completely owned it. I mean, I said everything you said is absolutely correct. You know, and I said, 'I don't want my son, our son growing up thinking that this is how you're supposed to treat women.' And, I mean, since that day, I have treated her like an angel. I mean, I've done everything and just constantly telling her I love her, giving her hugs, kisses. Um, but that was a Saturday night, and then Monday night she ended up telling me that she was, um, in communication with a guy she met on TikTok. And she told me she broke it off with him, and I asked her, What was the subjects about?' And she said it was just somebody to talk to about what I'm going through, my mental, you know, health. And she said it was never anything flirtatious or anything like that. She said it was just a stranger that I could talk to, but she said, 'I broke it off with him, and I'm gonna focus on us. And I said, 'I'm all in with you, let's rebuild this.' And we went about two weeks and it was just absolute honeymoon phase. I mean, we were just, never it was great. And then I went through her phone two weeks after that and found that she was on Snapchat with the guy. And I confronted her about it, and she said, 'Okay, well, I didn't think you were really gonna change, and I wanted to keep this friendship with the guy.' And she said, 'I'll break it off with him.' And I'm like, 'Okay, I guess I'll give you a second chance. I'm kind of heartbroken again that you would keep this from me. And then about a week and a half later, which was just yesterday, I went through the call logs on which, I feel bad because I'm constantly digging at all this, but every time I dig, I find something. And I confronted her yesterday that she's been talking to this guy for 30, 40, 50 minutes a day, um, the last week and a half, after she told me a third time that she was breaking it off with him. And I'm just super confused. I don't really know how to handle this. Now she's saying that she's all done talking to him, and I'm like, 'Well, how do I trust you now? You've been lying to me for the past three weeks about this.' So, that's really all I got." John Delony: "So for 14 years... you belittled your wife. She got the clear message she was beneath you. You're the smart one, you're the fast one, you're the quick one. You are the provider, you're the all this stuff." Caller: "Mhm. I always thought she was beneath me." John Delony: "Yeah, you did. And she's got that message for, for a decade and a half.

Hecto Crypto | NetLink ⛓

146,895 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

“Guys don’t approach girls at the bars anymore.” This is wildly accurate. 15 years ago when you went out, the average girl would get hit on 6x or 7x a night. Now if she’s getting one or two guys hitting on her, it’s a good night. I have beginner students going out to bars now who go out, say very basic things to women, and get into deep conversations & flirtations that land them solid numbers. One student on his first ‘dedicated night out’ (he’s gone out with friends plenty but never went out JUST to meet girls) last weekend saw two “very attractive” girls grinding on each other in the empty dance floor because all the other guys had left, then one of the girls came up to him, dragged him onto the dance floor, and spent the next 20 minutes following him around like a lost puppy (he should’ve taken her home, but… cut him some slack. He’s new!). Maybe that was a little beginner’s luck for him (that wasn’t his only good interaction of the night, either, though), but the point is: these girls are not getting it from dudes nowadays. When I was a beginner in this in the middle 2000-naughts I spent months going out to bars getting rejection after rejection before I finally started having good conversations. I see how fast going it is for a lot of newer guys I am working with now and I am like, “Sheesh, man! You used to have to learn all this game to do this!” But the competition just isn’t there anymore. Where IS the competition? Mostly at home, on the couch, liking Instagram ‘models’, trying to “slide into their DMs” (alongside 2,000 other guys). Meanwhile, the Instagram model is banging some guy she met in a mall food court (true story). The girls are out there. You’re probably not going to find them online. You have to get up off the couch, dust the Cheetos crumbs off, put on some decent clothes, and go outside. Follow the 3-second rule: you have 3 seconds from the moment you lay eyes on her until you have to approach. Focus on making it flirtatious and low pressure. Take the lead with her and see her if you can move her around a bit. Ask her out, get her to change venues with you, or if it goes well invite her back for a drink at yours. If she’s into you, she will do her best to help things along. Just go out, chat up girls, HAVE FUN, and if it’s going well move things forward. That is really all you have to do.
0:40

“Guys don’t approach girls at the bars anymore.” This is wildly accurate. 15 years ago when you went out, the average girl would get hit on 6x or 7x a night. Now if she’s getting one or two guys hitting on her, it’s a good night. I have beginner students going out to bars now who go out, say very basic things to women, and get into deep conversations & flirtations that land them solid numbers. One student on his first ‘dedicated night out’ (he’s gone out with friends plenty but never went out JUST to meet girls) last weekend saw two “very attractive” girls grinding on each other in the empty dance floor because all the other guys had left, then one of the girls came up to him, dragged him onto the dance floor, and spent the next 20 minutes following him around like a lost puppy (he should’ve taken her home, but… cut him some slack. He’s new!). Maybe that was a little beginner’s luck for him (that wasn’t his only good interaction of the night, either, though), but the point is: these girls are not getting it from dudes nowadays. When I was a beginner in this in the middle 2000-naughts I spent months going out to bars getting rejection after rejection before I finally started having good conversations. I see how fast going it is for a lot of newer guys I am working with now and I am like, “Sheesh, man! You used to have to learn all this game to do this!” But the competition just isn’t there anymore. Where IS the competition? Mostly at home, on the couch, liking Instagram ‘models’, trying to “slide into their DMs” (alongside 2,000 other guys). Meanwhile, the Instagram model is banging some guy she met in a mall food court (true story). The girls are out there. You’re probably not going to find them online. You have to get up off the couch, dust the Cheetos crumbs off, put on some decent clothes, and go outside. Follow the 3-second rule: you have 3 seconds from the moment you lay eyes on her until you have to approach. Focus on making it flirtatious and low pressure. Take the lead with her and see her if you can move her around a bit. Ask her out, get her to change venues with you, or if it goes well invite her back for a drink at yours. If she’s into you, she will do her best to help things along. Just go out, chat up girls, HAVE FUN, and if it’s going well move things forward. That is really all you have to do.

Girls Chase 🏃‍♀️💨

2,577,706 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

This girl gets some of her flirting advice right, but some is very OFF BASE. This is why you have to take dating advice for men that comes from women with a giant grain of salt 🧂 Some of women’s advice may be useful… but some of it will always be MISLEADING. If you are not already savvy enough to tell the difference, you’ll mix in the bad with the good and not know where you’re tripping up. Break down of what is useful vs. what is MISLEADING: ✅ USEFUL: do not open her with “You’re really pretty/beautiful, I wanted to meet you.” She doesn’t know what to say to that; she has also heard it before so many times you sound like a broken record. You can say pretty much ANYTHING other than this (e.g.: “Hey, how’s it going?” This is 10x better than a generic looks-based compliment). ✅ USEFUL: open her with something relevant to the situation. Situationally relevant openers can work great. For instance: “Think we’ll be in line forever?” if you’re waiting in line, or “The art here sure is interesting huh,” if there’s a weird piece of art. 🆇 MISLEADING: you should not expect a girl to take over on your opener, like this girl did with the “cute/sweet” coffee recommendation opener. Most girls are not outgoing enough that they are going to decide to “have a chat” with you immediately on the open. You are the man; you need to EXPECT to drive at least the first 2 minutes of conversation YOURSELF! ✅ USEFUL: “keep the conversation short, sweet, casual, fun”: all that, yes. The initial conversation needs to be light, playful, and engaging. Tease her within the first 30 seconds (that’s how she knows it’s a FLIRTATION and not a platonic chat). Make an observation about her or two (keep it positive and light). Tap her on the forearm on a joke or a high point. SMILE! You want your presence to be a warm, welcome, & flirtatious one. 🆇 MISLEADING: “worst thing you could possibly do is annoy her with your presence”; I mean, YES, BUT you do not need to be thinking about “I’d better not annoy her” when you are talking to girls. If you do, you will play it too safe, act very boring, get into your head, and become uninteresting and un-fun. Instead, just focus on bringing fun and good energy (not ‘avoiding annoyance’). ✅ USEFUL: what she is calling a ‘non-invasive call to action’ (is this chick a marketer? Because this is marketer speak!) we call a ‘soft close’. Yes, soft close her. Easy one-size-fits-all soft close you can use with any girl (say this on a high point): “We should grab a bite or a drink sometime.” As soon as she says “yes”, you have your green light 🟢 to grab her # 🆇 MISLEADING: “give her your number”… this is the WORST piece of advice in the video; even worse than the “don’t annoy her” bit (which will get you in your head doing things wrong). This girl has a wide face, deep voice, and high confidence, so she’s probably higher testosterone and extroverted. Girls like this are go-getters who will chase down guys on their own and make things happen sometimes (hence the “deciding to have a chat” with a guy when she liked his opener). Most women are NOT extroverted high testosterone women who will take charge and make things happen themselves. Most women are PASSIVE. The average girl who is into you will not text you first if you give her your number. She will just look at it, debate whether to text you, think about what she should text, feel self-conscious about it, feel like she shouldn’t be the first one to text, then you will simply never hear from her. You need to get HER number, so YOU can text, not give her YOURS. 🆇 MISLEADING: “sweet and endearing”, sorry to say it and pop anyone’s bubble, but women do not usually hook up with the “sweet and endearing” guys. They think the stuff these guys do is “cute”, like how little children and pets are “cute”, but they do not find them SEXY. You need to be in the lead, taking CHARGE, leading her through an interaction she enjoys, and setting the pace. Do not be “sweet and endearing.” Anyway, this girl seems really cool and it’s neat that she wants to help guys out. Well-meaning women advising you on dating though are some of the most dangerous because they believe what they are saying and just do not KNOW when the advice they’re giving is counterproductive for a man to actually use vs. productive! (That said, positive encouragement for men to approach & flirt is ALWAYS good! So hat tip to her!)
1:15

This girl gets some of her flirting advice right, but some is very OFF BASE. This is why you have to take dating advice for men that comes from women with a giant grain of salt 🧂 Some of women’s advice may be useful… but some of it will always be MISLEADING. If you are not already savvy enough to tell the difference, you’ll mix in the bad with the good and not know where you’re tripping up. Break down of what is useful vs. what is MISLEADING: ✅ USEFUL: do not open her with “You’re really pretty/beautiful, I wanted to meet you.” She doesn’t know what to say to that; she has also heard it before so many times you sound like a broken record. You can say pretty much ANYTHING other than this (e.g.: “Hey, how’s it going?” This is 10x better than a generic looks-based compliment). ✅ USEFUL: open her with something relevant to the situation. Situationally relevant openers can work great. For instance: “Think we’ll be in line forever?” if you’re waiting in line, or “The art here sure is interesting huh,” if there’s a weird piece of art. 🆇 MISLEADING: you should not expect a girl to take over on your opener, like this girl did with the “cute/sweet” coffee recommendation opener. Most girls are not outgoing enough that they are going to decide to “have a chat” with you immediately on the open. You are the man; you need to EXPECT to drive at least the first 2 minutes of conversation YOURSELF! ✅ USEFUL: “keep the conversation short, sweet, casual, fun”: all that, yes. The initial conversation needs to be light, playful, and engaging. Tease her within the first 30 seconds (that’s how she knows it’s a FLIRTATION and not a platonic chat). Make an observation about her or two (keep it positive and light). Tap her on the forearm on a joke or a high point. SMILE! You want your presence to be a warm, welcome, & flirtatious one. 🆇 MISLEADING: “worst thing you could possibly do is annoy her with your presence”; I mean, YES, BUT you do not need to be thinking about “I’d better not annoy her” when you are talking to girls. If you do, you will play it too safe, act very boring, get into your head, and become uninteresting and un-fun. Instead, just focus on bringing fun and good energy (not ‘avoiding annoyance’). ✅ USEFUL: what she is calling a ‘non-invasive call to action’ (is this chick a marketer? Because this is marketer speak!) we call a ‘soft close’. Yes, soft close her. Easy one-size-fits-all soft close you can use with any girl (say this on a high point): “We should grab a bite or a drink sometime.” As soon as she says “yes”, you have your green light 🟢 to grab her # 🆇 MISLEADING: “give her your number”… this is the WORST piece of advice in the video; even worse than the “don’t annoy her” bit (which will get you in your head doing things wrong). This girl has a wide face, deep voice, and high confidence, so she’s probably higher testosterone and extroverted. Girls like this are go-getters who will chase down guys on their own and make things happen sometimes (hence the “deciding to have a chat” with a guy when she liked his opener). Most women are NOT extroverted high testosterone women who will take charge and make things happen themselves. Most women are PASSIVE. The average girl who is into you will not text you first if you give her your number. She will just look at it, debate whether to text you, think about what she should text, feel self-conscious about it, feel like she shouldn’t be the first one to text, then you will simply never hear from her. You need to get HER number, so YOU can text, not give her YOURS. 🆇 MISLEADING: “sweet and endearing”, sorry to say it and pop anyone’s bubble, but women do not usually hook up with the “sweet and endearing” guys. They think the stuff these guys do is “cute”, like how little children and pets are “cute”, but they do not find them SEXY. You need to be in the lead, taking CHARGE, leading her through an interaction she enjoys, and setting the pace. Do not be “sweet and endearing.” Anyway, this girl seems really cool and it’s neat that she wants to help guys out. Well-meaning women advising you on dating though are some of the most dangerous because they believe what they are saying and just do not KNOW when the advice they’re giving is counterproductive for a man to actually use vs. productive! (That said, positive encouragement for men to approach & flirt is ALWAYS good! So hat tip to her!)

Girls Chase 🏃‍♀️💨

340,369 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

“Dave Smith; the Pennywise of Pacifism” “Comic” Dave Smith is currently in an X spat with Dan Crenshaw over the perils of war. Yes, Dave Smith is staring at Crenshaw with two good eyes and telling Crenshaw’s eye patch about war. Hubris, thy name be “Comic” Dave Smith. Dave Smith presents himself as the anti-war guy despite LOVING and INCENTIVIZING all the worst actors in history: The terrorists who committed genocide against Israel and Israelis on October 7th? According to Dave Smith, “well, what do you think happens when you occupy somebody for 60 (sic) years?” Want to ensure more wars? Excuse the people who commit genocide and complain about the people who sacrifice their own soldiers so as to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible. EVERY war starting entity should be so lucky as to go to war against Israel. Don’t believe me? Ask the Ukrainians. Dave Smith’s current favorite current historian? Martyr Made, AKA “the Churchill was the main villain of World War II guy.” Boo the world savers? Yay the Hitler stans? What’s next, “why Mao was the greatest hop scotch player of all-time?” If you think that’s a leap, you don’t know what I’m talking about. And that’s Dave Smith. He’s loud. He’s confident. And he doesn’t have a fucking clue what he’s talking about. His morality doesn’t belong in the United States of American. Every debate with him should never move past this one issue: Why do you defend the war starters? Why do YOU—the anti-war guy—incentivize wars? Because you, Dave, are why many young men are dead in Israel AND Gaza. You, Dave, are why many young men and women in Israel don’t have limbs. Because you and your rhetoric incentivize wars. You incentivize death. Dave, you’re morally angry in the way a college freshman is morally angry after reading half a Chomsky essay. I’m morally angry because I’ve seen what your worldview does to actual families, actual children, and actual warriors. You get applause for your anger… I can’t get Arnon Zamora out of my head. I can’t get Sabine Taasa crumbling to the ground out of my head. Your rhetoric JUSTIFIES the terrorists to murder her husband. Your worldview made that possible. Your morality helped usher in the inevitable deaths of tens of thousands of Gazans… But you’re too much of an unserious, unfunny clown to see it. You’re not the Clown of Peace. You’re the Pennywise of Pacifism; waving people toward a moral sewer you’ll never have to drown in. And nobody who’s lived through real violence finds any of this funny. Nobody is laughing, Dave… Just like at your standup sets.
3:00

“Dave Smith; the Pennywise of Pacifism” “Comic” Dave Smith is currently in an X spat with Dan Crenshaw over the perils of war. Yes, Dave Smith is staring at Crenshaw with two good eyes and telling Crenshaw’s eye patch about war. Hubris, thy name be “Comic” Dave Smith. Dave Smith presents himself as the anti-war guy despite LOVING and INCENTIVIZING all the worst actors in history: The terrorists who committed genocide against Israel and Israelis on October 7th? According to Dave Smith, “well, what do you think happens when you occupy somebody for 60 (sic) years?” Want to ensure more wars? Excuse the people who commit genocide and complain about the people who sacrifice their own soldiers so as to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible. EVERY war starting entity should be so lucky as to go to war against Israel. Don’t believe me? Ask the Ukrainians. Dave Smith’s current favorite current historian? Martyr Made, AKA “the Churchill was the main villain of World War II guy.” Boo the world savers? Yay the Hitler stans? What’s next, “why Mao was the greatest hop scotch player of all-time?” If you think that’s a leap, you don’t know what I’m talking about. And that’s Dave Smith. He’s loud. He’s confident. And he doesn’t have a fucking clue what he’s talking about. His morality doesn’t belong in the United States of American. Every debate with him should never move past this one issue: Why do you defend the war starters? Why do YOU—the anti-war guy—incentivize wars? Because you, Dave, are why many young men are dead in Israel AND Gaza. You, Dave, are why many young men and women in Israel don’t have limbs. Because you and your rhetoric incentivize wars. You incentivize death. Dave, you’re morally angry in the way a college freshman is morally angry after reading half a Chomsky essay. I’m morally angry because I’ve seen what your worldview does to actual families, actual children, and actual warriors. You get applause for your anger… I can’t get Arnon Zamora out of my head. I can’t get Sabine Taasa crumbling to the ground out of my head. Your rhetoric JUSTIFIES the terrorists to murder her husband. Your worldview made that possible. Your morality helped usher in the inevitable deaths of tens of thousands of Gazans… But you’re too much of an unserious, unfunny clown to see it. You’re not the Clown of Peace. You’re the Pennywise of Pacifism; waving people toward a moral sewer you’ll never have to drown in. And nobody who’s lived through real violence finds any of this funny. Nobody is laughing, Dave… Just like at your standup sets.

Jake Donnelly

274,734 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Ross Coulthart discussing the mysterious meeting at Esalen attended by billionaires, Where a psionic called in shapeshifting blue orbs in front of of a crowd of people that landed on a beach and were photographed There was also a nude hot springs crowd that saw the blue orbs Link to interview in comments Ross -“We are talking here about a retreat that took place at Esalen, which is a beautiful location, three and a half, four hours south of San Francisco on the west coast of the USA. And it was a gathering of very high net worth individuals and brilliant scientists and some inordinately talented people. And yes, Jake and I attended that retreat, and to some degree I am bound by confidence. But what I can tell you is I witnessed a psionic who I know a person with alleged psionic abilities, psychic abilities. With them in a group of people, probably 30 or 40 people go into a deep meditative state. And I just wanna say, this person had said to me at 4:00 PM that afternoon, Ross, we're going to see a blue orb tonight. And I kind of giggled nervously. And anyway, what happened was he starts meditating and bing up on the far horizon over the ocean. These two white orbs, slightly golden at times. They start coming towards us. And I, I won't embarrass this gentleman, but there's a, a certain person of extraordinary high wealth and extraordinary big heart who's yelling at these objects going, we love you. We love you. Come closer, come closer. And the whole audience, you know, we're all, we've all been meditating and being invited to sort of try and psychically connect. And I am a miserable failure of a meditator. If anybody wants to teach me how to meditate, I'd be very, very grateful. But something happened, and I suspect it was our psionic operator who made the connection because he later indicated to me that in his mind, he was inside that object and he was bringing it towards us. And the audience's loving engagement. And I know this sounds hippie-ish I don't, I'm just telling it like I heard it and saw it. But essentially the loving engagement with that phenomenon encouraged it to come closer. And they did. They came closer and closer and closer. And I'm not gonna give away too much because it's for Alex Klokus and the Sky Watcher team to reveal how much they want to reveal because it's a beautiful story. But basically, I'll tell you this, we were in one part of Esalen and there were a whole lot of people in the hot springs at Esalen on the other side of the hill. And I'm far too shy as a old guy to go and sit in hot springs with beautiful young women. But there were essentially a be a bunch of beautiful young people sitting stark naked in these hot springs on the other side of Esalen. And all of a sudden they see these blue shapes coalescing in front of them. And sure enough, we got images from the hill looking down of a blue orb, a beautiful at times octagonal looking blue orb, which kind of hovered near the naked boys and girls in the hot springs. And then it went and landed on the beach. And it was hilarious. 'cause I'd said to the, the lovely young psionic, I'd said to him, well, mate, that was pretty amazing, but I didn't see any blue orb. And he was a bit puzzled. And then literally at the moment that we are talking about the fact that we hadn't seen the blue wall, but it turned out it had manifested itself to these beautiful young people on the other side of the hill who were all stark naked and probably, I think in their naked innocence, more attractive to the phenomenon. I have to admit, I'd be going and having a look at them rather than me and anybody else with clothes on. And it was, it was quite beautiful because these people were all very touched by that experience. And yes, there was a blue orb exactly as was predicted that showed itself to all of these people. It was quite beautiful. And yes, it did manifest more overtly because of a loving, welcoming presence, which I find fascinating. “
4:02

Ross Coulthart discussing the mysterious meeting at Esalen attended by billionaires, Where a psionic called in shapeshifting blue orbs in front of of a crowd of people that landed on a beach and were photographed There was also a nude hot springs crowd that saw the blue orbs Link to interview in comments Ross -“We are talking here about a retreat that took place at Esalen, which is a beautiful location, three and a half, four hours south of San Francisco on the west coast of the USA. And it was a gathering of very high net worth individuals and brilliant scientists and some inordinately talented people. And yes, Jake and I attended that retreat, and to some degree I am bound by confidence. But what I can tell you is I witnessed a psionic who I know a person with alleged psionic abilities, psychic abilities. With them in a group of people, probably 30 or 40 people go into a deep meditative state. And I just wanna say, this person had said to me at 4:00 PM that afternoon, Ross, we're going to see a blue orb tonight. And I kind of giggled nervously. And anyway, what happened was he starts meditating and bing up on the far horizon over the ocean. These two white orbs, slightly golden at times. They start coming towards us. And I, I won't embarrass this gentleman, but there's a, a certain person of extraordinary high wealth and extraordinary big heart who's yelling at these objects going, we love you. We love you. Come closer, come closer. And the whole audience, you know, we're all, we've all been meditating and being invited to sort of try and psychically connect. And I am a miserable failure of a meditator. If anybody wants to teach me how to meditate, I'd be very, very grateful. But something happened, and I suspect it was our psionic operator who made the connection because he later indicated to me that in his mind, he was inside that object and he was bringing it towards us. And the audience's loving engagement. And I know this sounds hippie-ish I don't, I'm just telling it like I heard it and saw it. But essentially the loving engagement with that phenomenon encouraged it to come closer. And they did. They came closer and closer and closer. And I'm not gonna give away too much because it's for Alex Klokus and the Sky Watcher team to reveal how much they want to reveal because it's a beautiful story. But basically, I'll tell you this, we were in one part of Esalen and there were a whole lot of people in the hot springs at Esalen on the other side of the hill. And I'm far too shy as a old guy to go and sit in hot springs with beautiful young women. But there were essentially a be a bunch of beautiful young people sitting stark naked in these hot springs on the other side of Esalen. And all of a sudden they see these blue shapes coalescing in front of them. And sure enough, we got images from the hill looking down of a blue orb, a beautiful at times octagonal looking blue orb, which kind of hovered near the naked boys and girls in the hot springs. And then it went and landed on the beach. And it was hilarious. 'cause I'd said to the, the lovely young psionic, I'd said to him, well, mate, that was pretty amazing, but I didn't see any blue orb. And he was a bit puzzled. And then literally at the moment that we are talking about the fact that we hadn't seen the blue wall, but it turned out it had manifested itself to these beautiful young people on the other side of the hill who were all stark naked and probably, I think in their naked innocence, more attractive to the phenomenon. I have to admit, I'd be going and having a look at them rather than me and anybody else with clothes on. And it was, it was quite beautiful because these people were all very touched by that experience. And yes, there was a blue orb exactly as was predicted that showed itself to all of these people. It was quite beautiful. And yes, it did manifest more overtly because of a loving, welcoming presence, which I find fascinating. “

neandrewthal

132,290 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Long rant, but worth it, please read & share. A bunch of businessmen, some quite famous, sit around a table discussing the "business of alcohol." So far so good. Alcohol is good business, a business that leech out others life. It rakes in money for governments through taxation & monopoly; and fattens the bank accounts of those behind the industry (like this round table group) and makes barons out of those who sell well. But when these businessmen, start glorifying their business of alcohol by equating it to "good healthcare intervention," it goes definitely into the realm of health misinformation, which is why, I have to keep discussing this absolutely garbage myth that "alcohol in moderation is good for you" and the absolute nonsense disclaimer to support that myth, which they call "drink responsibly." You know, first of all, it is easy for these rich men and women to glorify their alcohol business and discuss their high flying life, because "God" forbid, if they ever land with diseases related to alcohol - from strokes, to cancers to liver disease to mental health disorder - they can afford the best care out there. I treat alcohol use disorder and related acute liver disease, chronic liver failure and acute-on-chronic liver failure (the most devastating of them all with highest death rate without a timely liver transplantation) on a daily basis. I am not even saying "almost on a daily basis" - it is daily. Every single day from Monday to Friday - both in-patients, as well as out-patients. Patients and families struggle to make ends meet for proper healthcare because alcohol use destroyed their life savings. And by the time they find the funds to get things going, the patient is already on the ventilator and in multiple organ failure. They use the money to bury the dead person - killed by alcohol (normalized by round-table discussions like these) and the rest of the money, go toward the fatherless childrens education. Nice going? To claim drinking alcohol in moderation is good, is actually a crime. It is a crime towards humanity, it is not in good-faith --> it is in good-faith to run the business yes, because the many people who use it occassionally, move on to frequently, and then get dependent or "routinize" it. These businessmen have nothing to lose - because they have already put up a stupid disclaimer to get away with it - "drink responsibly." So it becomes the drinkers fault. But then is it really? Drinking alcohol is a choice. But drinking more alcohol becomes "not" a choice anymore. The first drink takes your brain. It reduces brain volume, gives you a dopamine kick, makes you happy. And then onwards, you are alcohol's slave. The drinks increase. Or a routine sticks. The alcohol controls your life. You have to drink to stay happy. And then the serotonin (the actual happiness hormone, not the pleasuring one like dopamine) cease to work inside your brain and the mental health disorder that follows will swallow you whole. You die. Your family is brioken. There is no money left. If you are lucky and rich like these people sitting around this table doing this nonsense of a podcast, then you may be able to afford a lifesaving organ transplant or healthcare intervention. There is no safe level of alcohol that is good for human health and every person who claims drinking in moderation is good for you, is actually an idiot, intellectually depleted and without any regard for fellow humans and lack compassion. No amount of alcohol is safe because it is not just a liver poison, it is systemic poison. It gets to every part of your body. Even single to lowest exposure can wreck your DNA and promote cancer formation. There is scientific evidence to this. ✅️ ✅ Any amount of alcohol can increase your chances of getting at least 7 types of dreadful cancers. ➡️ & ➡️ It is not just disease causing, but alcohol use is also a societal poison. It drives people into becoming menace to society, takes lives, wrecks havoc in homes and is the real widow-maker. Have you forgotten these so quickly? 🔴The 17-year-old Pune boy, son of a renowned real-estate developer Vishal Agarwal, spent a whooping Rs 48,000 in just 90 minutes in one of the two pubs he visited on Saturday evening where he consumed alcohol with his friends before ramming his Porsche Taycan into a motorcycle, killing two young techies. and this one? India’s alcohol deaths are higher than China; per capita consumption is set to rise: WHO And please allow me refresh your memory about this patient of mine. Rich business people can sit around a table and discuss the business of alcohol and the "best alcohol" that they savor and falsely glorify and normalize alcohol use among youth, but end-of-the-line physicians like me have to bear the brunt of their intellectually deficient, a humanism lacking stupid conversations. "The 4th Laddu": Doctor Shares Emotional Post About A Patient Who Touched His Heart Also banning alcohol has NOT led to economies go into shambles. For example a recent study in the Lancet Regional Health showed that "strict alcohol regulation policies may yield significant population level health benefits for frequent drinkers and many victims of intimate partner violence." In fact, "economic savings and health benefits from reduced alcohol consumption may be substantial—particularly in the health sector with reduced alcohol-related disease and injury." So please chuck that idea that "banning/ limiting or reducing alcohol sales" actually desroys economies. In fact it improves it because you get a helathier population. See the Nordic Schema: “A comprehensive ban on alcohol marketing, enforced at the national and local level, is a best practice for reducing alcohol sales and consumption." - which means, podcasts like these, which glorify alcohol use and market it indirectly must also be burned to the ground and held accountable. There is no healthy or safe alcohol. There is no best alcohol. Alcohol is ethanol, which is a systemic and societal poison. Do not glorify it. And this why there is no "responsible drinking," because you cannot advice people to "drink poison responsibly." Podcast discussions like these are helping no one here. Please, do something that actually helps people out here. Do something good for the society, instead of goofing up like this. No one asked for this absolute bonkers of a podcast topic. Irresponsible. The whole team. For a realistic detailed discussion on alcohol and its effects on the body and why we must avoid it at all costs, please see my deep discussion with Ranveer Allahbadia here: And on that final note, I must confess that the title of podcast series (video below) was perfectly named: WTF.
1:14

Long rant, but worth it, please read & share. A bunch of businessmen, some quite famous, sit around a table discussing the "business of alcohol." So far so good. Alcohol is good business, a business that leech out others life. It rakes in money for governments through taxation & monopoly; and fattens the bank accounts of those behind the industry (like this round table group) and makes barons out of those who sell well. But when these businessmen, start glorifying their business of alcohol by equating it to "good healthcare intervention," it goes definitely into the realm of health misinformation, which is why, I have to keep discussing this absolutely garbage myth that "alcohol in moderation is good for you" and the absolute nonsense disclaimer to support that myth, which they call "drink responsibly." You know, first of all, it is easy for these rich men and women to glorify their alcohol business and discuss their high flying life, because "God" forbid, if they ever land with diseases related to alcohol - from strokes, to cancers to liver disease to mental health disorder - they can afford the best care out there. I treat alcohol use disorder and related acute liver disease, chronic liver failure and acute-on-chronic liver failure (the most devastating of them all with highest death rate without a timely liver transplantation) on a daily basis. I am not even saying "almost on a daily basis" - it is daily. Every single day from Monday to Friday - both in-patients, as well as out-patients. Patients and families struggle to make ends meet for proper healthcare because alcohol use destroyed their life savings. And by the time they find the funds to get things going, the patient is already on the ventilator and in multiple organ failure. They use the money to bury the dead person - killed by alcohol (normalized by round-table discussions like these) and the rest of the money, go toward the fatherless childrens education. Nice going? To claim drinking alcohol in moderation is good, is actually a crime. It is a crime towards humanity, it is not in good-faith --> it is in good-faith to run the business yes, because the many people who use it occassionally, move on to frequently, and then get dependent or "routinize" it. These businessmen have nothing to lose - because they have already put up a stupid disclaimer to get away with it - "drink responsibly." So it becomes the drinkers fault. But then is it really? Drinking alcohol is a choice. But drinking more alcohol becomes "not" a choice anymore. The first drink takes your brain. It reduces brain volume, gives you a dopamine kick, makes you happy. And then onwards, you are alcohol's slave. The drinks increase. Or a routine sticks. The alcohol controls your life. You have to drink to stay happy. And then the serotonin (the actual happiness hormone, not the pleasuring one like dopamine) cease to work inside your brain and the mental health disorder that follows will swallow you whole. You die. Your family is brioken. There is no money left. If you are lucky and rich like these people sitting around this table doing this nonsense of a podcast, then you may be able to afford a lifesaving organ transplant or healthcare intervention. There is no safe level of alcohol that is good for human health and every person who claims drinking in moderation is good for you, is actually an idiot, intellectually depleted and without any regard for fellow humans and lack compassion. No amount of alcohol is safe because it is not just a liver poison, it is systemic poison. It gets to every part of your body. Even single to lowest exposure can wreck your DNA and promote cancer formation. There is scientific evidence to this. ✅️ ✅ Any amount of alcohol can increase your chances of getting at least 7 types of dreadful cancers. ➡️ & ➡️ It is not just disease causing, but alcohol use is also a societal poison. It drives people into becoming menace to society, takes lives, wrecks havoc in homes and is the real widow-maker. Have you forgotten these so quickly? 🔴The 17-year-old Pune boy, son of a renowned real-estate developer Vishal Agarwal, spent a whooping Rs 48,000 in just 90 minutes in one of the two pubs he visited on Saturday evening where he consumed alcohol with his friends before ramming his Porsche Taycan into a motorcycle, killing two young techies. and this one? India’s alcohol deaths are higher than China; per capita consumption is set to rise: WHO And please allow me refresh your memory about this patient of mine. Rich business people can sit around a table and discuss the business of alcohol and the "best alcohol" that they savor and falsely glorify and normalize alcohol use among youth, but end-of-the-line physicians like me have to bear the brunt of their intellectually deficient, a humanism lacking stupid conversations. "The 4th Laddu": Doctor Shares Emotional Post About A Patient Who Touched His Heart Also banning alcohol has NOT led to economies go into shambles. For example a recent study in the Lancet Regional Health showed that "strict alcohol regulation policies may yield significant population level health benefits for frequent drinkers and many victims of intimate partner violence." In fact, "economic savings and health benefits from reduced alcohol consumption may be substantial—particularly in the health sector with reduced alcohol-related disease and injury." So please chuck that idea that "banning/ limiting or reducing alcohol sales" actually desroys economies. In fact it improves it because you get a helathier population. See the Nordic Schema: “A comprehensive ban on alcohol marketing, enforced at the national and local level, is a best practice for reducing alcohol sales and consumption." - which means, podcasts like these, which glorify alcohol use and market it indirectly must also be burned to the ground and held accountable. There is no healthy or safe alcohol. There is no best alcohol. Alcohol is ethanol, which is a systemic and societal poison. Do not glorify it. And this why there is no "responsible drinking," because you cannot advice people to "drink poison responsibly." Podcast discussions like these are helping no one here. Please, do something that actually helps people out here. Do something good for the society, instead of goofing up like this. No one asked for this absolute bonkers of a podcast topic. Irresponsible. The whole team. For a realistic detailed discussion on alcohol and its effects on the body and why we must avoid it at all costs, please see my deep discussion with Ranveer Allahbadia here: And on that final note, I must confess that the title of podcast series (video below) was perfectly named: WTF.

TheLiverDoc™

350,262 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Context/Details: June 2021, Florida. Joe Schilling, a mixed martial artist and former Bellator fighter, was involved in a bar altercation that resulted in him knocking out a man. The incident shows Schilling trying to navigate around a man, identified as 31-year-old Justin Balboa, standing between a bar and a table. Balboa appears to confront Schilling, who responds by delivering two quick punches to Balboa’s face, causing him to fall to the floor. Balboa filed a lawsuit against him in Broward County, alleging battery and negligence. He sought damages up to $30,000. Schilling posted on Instagram, claiming the act was in self-defense: "Little context.... this guys rapping like an idiot. The buss boy who happens to be black walks by and this idiot bumps into him and screams out "Me and broke n#gas we don't get along" The bus boy was seriously offended but doesn't want to lose his job. As the night goes on this clown starts looking at me and rapping whatever song is being played while making eye contact with me. I'm like whats wrong with this idiot. I go outside to smoke and as I'm walking back in he bumps into me. I put my hand out to catch him he immediately says I'm sorry you can see me nod my head like cool. Then he realizes it's me the guy he's been rapping at all night and yells "HEY" I turn around and he flexes on me... bad decisions are made everyday 🤷🏻‍♂️ I went back and sat down to finish my drink and pay my bill two servers, the bus boy and DJ came up to thank me. As you can see from this video when he flexed on me I was scared for my life and simply defending myself against the evil in this world" "Self defense is apparently not what this country is about anymore. dont trip I got the video love you guys thanks for the concern and support during my life threatening experience. Big shout out to theyardmuaythai for preparing me for this life threatening situation." He also shared direct messages he received from a woman claiming to be Balboa’s ex-girlfriend, and another individual. They thanked Schilling for his actions, alleging that Balboa had a history of physical abuse towards women, and expressed gratitude for what they saw as justice being served. The court ruled that Schilling acted in self-defense and granted him immunity from the lawsuit. The judge found his actions necessary to neutralize the threat and awarded him attorney’s fees, court costs, and compensation for loss of income. Schilling texted a statement to MMA Fighting on the apparent resolution of the case: “I'm glad it's finally over. For the last two years my name and character has been disparaged in the media, seem like everyone loves the narrative that a professional fighter just beat up some innocent person, which was soooooo not the case. Most people told me to just settle it and pay him off as that would be easier. I don't like bully's and I refuse to be bullied by anyone. The ambulance chasing crumb bum of a lawyer he hired threatened to ruin me financially and well the only person he financially ruined was his client. I just hope that all of the news outlets that were so quick to post click bait articles assassinating my character have the same energy now that the truth is out. Justin Balboa is and will always be a tucking loser 🖕🏾” Schilling’s attorney, David Katz, emphasized that this ruling serves as a lesson to those attempting to exploit situations for financial gain. Joe Schilling is a seasoned fighter with an extensive career in both kickboxing and mixed martial arts. He has competed in various organizations, including Bellator MMA and Glory Kickboxing. Schilling’s professional kickboxing record stands at 23 wins (13 by knockout) and 9 losses. In mixed martial arts, he has a record of 4 wins (2 by knockout, 1 by submission, 1 by decision) and 6 losses. Schilling has held multiple titles, such as the Glory Middleweight World Championship Tournament Champion and the WBC Muay Thai United States Light Heavyweight Champion. I provide context and detailed explanations under posts. Please follow if you enjoy the insights and want to keep receiving them. Your support means everything to me!
0:20

Context/Details: June 2021, Florida. Joe Schilling, a mixed martial artist and former Bellator fighter, was involved in a bar altercation that resulted in him knocking out a man. The incident shows Schilling trying to navigate around a man, identified as 31-year-old Justin Balboa, standing between a bar and a table. Balboa appears to confront Schilling, who responds by delivering two quick punches to Balboa’s face, causing him to fall to the floor. Balboa filed a lawsuit against him in Broward County, alleging battery and negligence. He sought damages up to $30,000. Schilling posted on Instagram, claiming the act was in self-defense: "Little context.... this guys rapping like an idiot. The buss boy who happens to be black walks by and this idiot bumps into him and screams out "Me and broke n#gas we don't get along" The bus boy was seriously offended but doesn't want to lose his job. As the night goes on this clown starts looking at me and rapping whatever song is being played while making eye contact with me. I'm like whats wrong with this idiot. I go outside to smoke and as I'm walking back in he bumps into me. I put my hand out to catch him he immediately says I'm sorry you can see me nod my head like cool. Then he realizes it's me the guy he's been rapping at all night and yells "HEY" I turn around and he flexes on me... bad decisions are made everyday 🤷🏻‍♂️ I went back and sat down to finish my drink and pay my bill two servers, the bus boy and DJ came up to thank me. As you can see from this video when he flexed on me I was scared for my life and simply defending myself against the evil in this world" "Self defense is apparently not what this country is about anymore. dont trip I got the video love you guys thanks for the concern and support during my life threatening experience. Big shout out to theyardmuaythai for preparing me for this life threatening situation." He also shared direct messages he received from a woman claiming to be Balboa’s ex-girlfriend, and another individual. They thanked Schilling for his actions, alleging that Balboa had a history of physical abuse towards women, and expressed gratitude for what they saw as justice being served. The court ruled that Schilling acted in self-defense and granted him immunity from the lawsuit. The judge found his actions necessary to neutralize the threat and awarded him attorney’s fees, court costs, and compensation for loss of income. Schilling texted a statement to MMA Fighting on the apparent resolution of the case: “I'm glad it's finally over. For the last two years my name and character has been disparaged in the media, seem like everyone loves the narrative that a professional fighter just beat up some innocent person, which was soooooo not the case. Most people told me to just settle it and pay him off as that would be easier. I don't like bully's and I refuse to be bullied by anyone. The ambulance chasing crumb bum of a lawyer he hired threatened to ruin me financially and well the only person he financially ruined was his client. I just hope that all of the news outlets that were so quick to post click bait articles assassinating my character have the same energy now that the truth is out. Justin Balboa is and will always be a tucking loser 🖕🏾” Schilling’s attorney, David Katz, emphasized that this ruling serves as a lesson to those attempting to exploit situations for financial gain. Joe Schilling is a seasoned fighter with an extensive career in both kickboxing and mixed martial arts. He has competed in various organizations, including Bellator MMA and Glory Kickboxing. Schilling’s professional kickboxing record stands at 23 wins (13 by knockout) and 9 losses. In mixed martial arts, he has a record of 4 wins (2 by knockout, 1 by submission, 1 by decision) and 6 losses. Schilling has held multiple titles, such as the Glory Middleweight World Championship Tournament Champion and the WBC Muay Thai United States Light Heavyweight Champion. I provide context and detailed explanations under posts. Please follow if you enjoy the insights and want to keep receiving them. Your support means everything to me!

BoreCure

164,889 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

If you want to understand the Joe FlipperHead, Olivia Lamb, Karen Read and Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney chaos; FlipperHead (a guy named Nick from Philly) got confirmation Aidan recorded Karen Read. Then the recordings leaked. Basically, Olivia works for Aidan as a paralegal, now, but Olivia used to be close to Karen in the past (and Olivia and FlipperHead used to be close, as well, on a personal level). FlipperHead, for his part, is loyal to Olivia and Karen but FlipperHead doesn't like Aidan (much like other people close to Karen). Aidan, in turn, seems to be using Olivia to discredit Flipperhead (potentially without Olivia's permission). VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: [Opening remarks on social media and focus] Grant: [Lindsey Gaetani's] been talking about on social media, but let's get to that second. What I wanna start with—let me find the tab—I wanna start with the developments related to Aidan Kearney and Karen Read, okay? So we're gonna jump right into that, and what I have here is the actual discussion. Now, if you go on my X, you will be able to see the entire transcript. I'm gonna try to scroll with you as the video plays. It's a lot, okay? And then we're gonna do part two as well. So eventually, we're gonna hit part two of the transcript. I'm gonna pause, and we're gonna go to the second video. Now, this discussion—the reason why I wanna go over this—is I was listening to it, and I was like, "Wait a minute, I speak this language that they're all talking. I understand sort of the subtext of all of this, but they weren't really talking on the surface." It's a conversation between somebody named Chris, who Aidan Kearney calls a "koala," somebody named Joe Flipperhead—who's actually named Nick from Philadelphia, who was apparently close to a woman named Olivia Lamb, who is gonna come up in this as well. Now, Olivia Lamb did a lot of social media posts about the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial on her profile on Twitter under Olivia. Now, then Olivia started—in a public announcement—saying that she started working for Aidan Kearney. And what you're gonna hear in this conversation is there's also a woman named—who else? There's a woman who's Australian that Aidan also knows named Lily. She introduces herself in the beginning, and then she's kind of the moderator-mediator. And then there's another woman that pops up in the middle named Erika Walsh. She only speaks two or three times. She's one of Turtle Boy's moderators. She interjects at two random times: one, when someone starts talking about Meredith; and two, when Aidan starts saying how bad the content of the conversation in question—that was allegedly recorded and sent to Karen Read, between Aidan and Karen—is for Karen. And then there's a third unknown voice that pops up at the end, who sounds like—it's a female, she's American. I don't know her voice, but it sounds like she's very close to Joe Flipperhead, this guy Nick. And she uses this phrase about Nick "leaving Olivia's ass" in a way that makes me think maybe this girl is close to Nick, and like, she got close to him after Olivia and Nick separated. Now you might say to yourself, "Oh dear God, why—first of all, Grant, why do you know all this?" These people post a lot; I don't know. Tracking this thing is something I've been doing for a while. So it's not like I went into it because I wanted to know who the hell Joe Flipperhead was, or Olivia Lamb was. They entered into a world that I knew a lot about because they were trying to cover this case. And so inevitably, I just had them on my radar, and when things pop up like this, I just connect the dots. [Background on Olivia Lamb] In terms of Olivia though—so she, I don't know. There was this weird situation, I think, at the end of trial one for Karen Read. So somewhere in—I don't know—late 2024, summer 2024 or so. Weird situation where Olivia kind of then, for a few months, wasn't around as much, or she was, but not as much. And then she came back around for Aidan and said she was working on his team or something. Now, Olivia—I don't think Olivia Lamb's necessarily a bad person. I think whoever she is, and whatever she's doing, is very intelligent. But if you kind of look into that family, her mom is named Christina Lamb, and her mom does boutique consulting for law firms. I think her mom might be a lawyer, but she doesn't really—I think the way that she does consulting is more like tactically how lawyers should think about how a case is presented in the public, et cetera, stuff like that. And you have to tie this into this Elizabeth Dombrowski person out of New York that runs this Good Counsel Legal Services that proclaimed that Jen Altman and whoever else were paralegals for Aidan. You see what I'm saying? And what I think Olivia's role is—I think she just does PR. She does some paralegal work clearly, but I think she's mostly like a PR specialist. But I think why there's so much obfuscation—and I'm giving you all this background, because the conversation you're about to hear makes no sense if you don't know all this background. The context there, I think, is that—I think Olivia is a person. Like, I think she is real. But I think the reason why there's so many smoke and mirrors is that she's a conduit for implausible deniability. In the world of public relations—especially this kind of public relations—is incredibly important. So I think she's like a conduit for more entrenched public relations interests, which—okay, fine. I don't see that as per se evil. I'm a critical theorist. So I study propaganda. So like, if you are doing anything that emerged from Edward Bernays's systemic weaponization of his uncle Sigmund Freud's study of the mass psychology of the mind—if you do any of that—you're inevitably gonna catch my attention. Not because I necessarily per se think it's evil, but because that's my wheelhouse. Like, I reconstruct public relations and then I figure out what's driving that. Okay. So she—Olivia—got on my radar because of that, not necessarily because she's evil. Same, because I never really saw it. Now maybe some of the witnesses in the trial would think differently, but that's not my role here. I am like—I'm an objective observer. And um, Olivia was never really cruel. Like she just does PR. So I wouldn't necessarily say like everything she did was like right. But if you look at her style, it's not polemical. It's not—it's mostly analytical. Okay. So that's not an aphoristic or manipulative or evil person really. That's a PR specialist. And this guy, Nick—very similar, Joe Flipperhead. Okay. If you look at his posts—like, I wouldn't exactly say he's a cruel human being, you know, like he memes and stuff. Okay. He's kind of like Dave Cullinane a little bit, but he's just like a human. And you can hear it in this conversation. Like Joe is the one who's really holding Aidan accountable. Joe Flipperhead—whose name is Nick—he's from Philly. And um, I noticed 'cause I watched the stream of them one time—I don't know—he seems all right. I don't have anything against him or Olivia. In fact, I think they did a damn good job, at least Joe. Because what you'll also see here is there's another subtext. What this conversation is about is an allegation that Aidan Kearney sent a recorded conversation to Karen Read—a conversation with her—and then someone—nobody knows who—sent the recording to Karen's lawyers, David Yannetti and Alan Jackson. Now, what's weird about this is that there's also—and I don't like, whatever, I guess it is what it is—but the host, one of the hosts, Chris, this Australian guy—he might be a New Zealander, I don't know. But anyway, he starts saying directly to Aidan, "Listen Aidan, you went to lunch with Meredith—this Turtle Boy's former girlfriend—but her name is Meredith O'Neill (Meredith O). She's a person; she has an existence outside of Aidan Kearney and whether—a lot of people, I think, rightfully so, will take issue with some of the things Meredith has posted. But that's for her soul to deal with. She has to reckon with it, reflect on it, whatever the fuck, okay? That's separate from; she exists outside of the fact that she used to date Aidan Kearney." And I just wanna make that as a blanket point that like Aidan Kearney does not own someone's soul because they had some connection to him at any point in time. These people are independent people who have their own lives. So Meredith O'Neill is her name. And Meredith—like, clearly something happened between Aidan and Meredith because over the past few weeks—like, first of all, there's some more subtext to this, which is Aidan's paralegal team before Olivia Lamb came on was Courtney Healy and this woman named Tina Murray. Tina Murray —I didn't even know THE NAME until two weeks ago—but I had seen her before because she had silver hair when she was in court one time. I had no idea who it was, but she was sitting next to Courtney Healy. Now, way back when Aidan Kearney was incarcerated in late 2023, early 2024—apparently these two women, Courtney Healy and Tina Murray, were very close to Aidan Kearney. Someone had his logins, allegedly. They were helping like post for him while he was in jail, et cetera. Now, there's time back to that as well. Jen Altman is a key figure in all of this. And the reason why is that Jen Altman was the reason that Aidan Kearney and Karen Read got hooked up initially through Natalie Wiweke-Bershneider or whatever her name is. Jen Altman was also among this weird group of people. It was Tina Murray, Courtney Healy, Jen Altman, I think, and maybe just them three, who had access to Aidan in jail on a paralegal list. And at one point, Tim Bradl, Aidan's lawyer, wrote down that Jen Altman was a lawyer. She got so mad that she messaged Bradl, and then those messages got leaked. So there's all this discontent brewing within Aidan Kearney's kind of like organization, if you wanna call it. I'd call it more like a—yeah, it's like a hierarchy. And like he's at the—it's like a politician almost, but he's not a politician. You have like a top person at the top, and then you have all these staffers, and you have to manage the staffers. That's what he's dealing with. And he's gotta keep everybody like in line because like at one person breaks—especially a key—all right, two things. One, there's a reason you compartmentalize information, and you're not gonna be able to get in these type of operations because nobody needs to know everything. If you did that, then everyone would be a weak link. The problem is though, in order to compartmentalize in a bureaucracy or a schema like this, you have to have some people who actually know what's going on. Those people are liabilities. They're weak links. If you have someone who is too close and they know how you compartmentalized information, they'll see the full picture. They're the weak link. That's Courtney Healy, Tina Murray, Jen Altman, Meredith, Lindsey a little bit. These people are the weak links for Aidan because they see the full picture, whether they are aligned with him, don't like him, etc. etc. It's just they're the biggest weaknesses for him because they see the full picture. That's why he tries to either control them—in my opinion—or destroy them. But Aidan's in a real tough spot here because you can't run that playbook on Karen Read. Clearly, these people are incredibly loyal to her. Flipperhead, Olivia, etc. They may have been helping Aidan, but they're incredibly loyal to Karen. Now, what I've always suspected is that the whole point of charging Aidan Kearney was—one, he did bad things to the witnesses in the retrial, Lindsey Gaetani. He did bad things allegedly. Okay, the grand jury indicted him. But I think Brian Tully and the MSP unit that investigated Aidan—they were more interested in two different goals. Okay, they had parallel objectives beyond just the criminal proceeding. One: get information about who the target of the federal probe was after August of 2023. And it was Tully's unit and Matthew Farwell related to the Sandra Birchmore murder coverup. Number two: I think Tully wanted—and Kate Peter and Marty Keach wanted—Aidan Kearney and Michael Morrissey wanted Aidan Kearney to flip on Karen Read. It was a pressure tactic. It was always just a pressure tactic. That's what I fully believe. Now, I'm not saying he didn't do bad things. I just believe in the mind of the DA—these people were using pressure tactics to get Aidan Kearney in a tactical position where he would flip. Why do I think this? Well, a few things. One: in the fall of 2023, between like August and November, Aidan Kearney didn't need an intermediary with Karen Read. Natalie was out of the picture, although I'm suspect, because there's this new text from Natalie from August saying that like she was still loyal to Karen Read—although ostensibly they had a falling out in June of 2023 because Natalie called Karen late at night and she was upset about it. I always thought that was BS. Now I know why it was BS because there's also a March 24 message about like Joe Warren and Natalie wanting to go to court. I just have this suspicion that Natalie was never really like against Karen. What Natalie was doing was using Turtle Boy as leverage with Karen's permission—using it's called a limited hangout. Limited information about Turtle Boy's culpability for witness intimidation to the MSP so that the MSP would trust Natalie—so that Natalie could relay information back to Karen about the ongoing investigation of Karen and Aidan for conspiracy under 2747 and witness intimidation under 26813B. Now they did try to eventually indict Karen on that in March of 2024 at No True Bill, but they can do it again. They got more evidence—the state in May of 2024 about Aidan saying in Facebook messages that one Karen told him not to go to Lindsey Gaetani's apartment on December 23rd, 2023, and then some other stuff—basically where Aidan was implying that someone told him to run Jen McCabe's license plates. Who would that be? Karen Read. He didn't say it but he implied it to Jenna Rocco and Amy D'Angelis and whoever else was in that internal chat that got leaked. So I really believe that the reason why Aidan Kearney was such a liability to Karen Read—and why she was saying it out loud—is that Karen Read always saw Aidan Kearney as vulnerable to flip. Why? Because Brian Tully did his homework—whatever his motives were—and he found a few things. And I think that him and Kate Peter profiled Aidan Kearney. That's why Kate Peter had some role in this—because they thought Kate Peter should really like Aidan in a lot of ways because he used to be colleagues. Two: I think the state police thought she saw his psyche—Aidan's psyche—and could help them profile him. Three: I think Kate Peter is very hard into the world, and Tully and those other people in the unit could say like, "Yeah, we're worried about Birchmore; we got to do damage control here. Nothing's really wrong with the O'Keefe death investigation," and just—they're going to find out about Birchmore—and Kate would go along with it. That's my opinion. But Tully gets this video of Aidan that he had sent to Lindsey—and it's out there on the internet. I don't want to play the content; it's sad. But this is why I think this is what was in the prosecutor's mind when they were going—and the MSP's mind—when they were going after Kearney. Yes, he did bad things—especially to people that knew the DA and Tully like McCabe, Jen McCabe, etc. But also Aidan was an Achilles heel for Karen. Think about MSP, right? And the way we're analyzing Aidan's weaknesses via weak links in the compartmentalization chain. Okay, flip it around and think about MSP thinking about Karen. What's a weak link in her compartmentalization chain? Aidan Kearney. Now, in that regard, Aidan Kearney—if he flips on Karen Read—guarantees a conviction for Karen Read for the state, even if they can't get her on John's death. It was a backup plan. Second to that, I think though—it's a dynamic situation—and that something must have fucking happened recently. Okay, and I've long thought—and we'll read Lindsey's post on this later because she was talking about it on Twitter overnight, and I was reading it this morning, and it made me think about this—I've long suspected that Kate Peter made a deal with Aidan Kearney in the past like 6-8 months. And the deal was involving the Norfolk DA and the people prosecuting Kearney, and the goal was to get Kearney to flip. And I also think Kate wants Kearney in the Netflix documentary that she's working on with Gretchen and Sandpaper—which, they don't really understand. Like, bro, you think you're getting my footage and me if you're going to enable Kate Peter and try to portray her as the Charlotte of the internet? What planet are you on? No. No, the answer is no. But anyway, I really believe that this deal was made because why else—and I think Karen found out about it—because why else would Karen—[we're going to—the conversation is going to clarify all this]—why else would Karen on Friday authorize Joe Flipperhead to release information that confirms that Aidan recorded Karen. Now, why Karen is not going to do this if she didn't hear the fucking recording? She's not a moron. She's a tactical genius. I'm telling you—I don't necessarily agree with all the things she's done. I personally think she's responsible for John's death, but like—she's a fucking tactical genius. And you have to understand in some sense—like she wouldn't do this unless it's real. Like someone sent her that recording, and I don't believe Aidan Kearney sent it to intermediaries because if Meredith is the closest person to him—or was—in the world, and he's going to lunch with her and will only play it for her allegedly—okay, there's no way in hell that he would just send it to people. I believe—whether through a fake account or otherwise—Aidan Kearney sent that to Karen's lawyers. That's just my opinion. I think there's strong reason for him to do it. It's a message. Okay. As a result, I think Karen Read doing this had to sense that this was the moment—like this was the moment where the decision was going to be made about whether or not he cooperated. And now is Aidan's kind of like signal flare that I'm thinking—from Karen Read's perspective—Aidan sending that recording to Jackson and Yannetti is a signal flare that if she doesn't act now, he's making the choice to flip on her. Okay, well, what did she just do? She in essence just put him in the worst position possible because he had to be able to—him and Kate Peter—had to sell the narrative in public that—and this is why I was on Lindsey's profile earlier. Let me see if I can bring that up—him and Kate Peter had to sell the narrative in public that Karen was worse than Aidan Kearney. All right, so let's take a look at Lindsey Gaetani's post here. Let's read this first and then let's look at the post from Kate Peter. So Kate Peter post last night: "Karen Read has killed a man before and to my knowledge, Aidan Kearney has yet to do anything like that. Take that as you will. Regardless, they're both giant DBAGs, but you can decide who is worse. My vote is Karen Read." That's Kate Peter—one of the closest people in the world right now to Brian Tully, Michael Morrissey, and the decision makers who were initially prosecuting Kearney—telling you in plain sight what's going on. So let's read Lindsey's post: "Yes, we already know a deal was made a long time ago. How cute of Kate trying to win over the turtle riders after she pretended she was still trying to put him in jail the past several months. Does anyone of the turtle riders know who Christine Gagne is? I have no idea who that is. Does anyone know who that is? That's the woman Kate Peter blamed for wiretapping charges with TB and the person she blamed when I asked her where her deleted Google Drive went with the state's evidence. Why would Kate blame this woman for deleting evidence when this woman's name was never mentioned during the grand jury or in a single email or police report? Interesting." Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. So we know Kate Peter was providing evidence to the grand jury. We know that from the recently released court documents and discovery in the Kearney criminal case. Why was—why is Kate Peter blaming someone? Who is Christine Gagne, who—why is Kate blaming her when Kate was the one who was—there's evidence that Kate was directly providing this material to Tully, who was taking it to the grand jury. And by the way, I want people to understand: my anger here is not because Aidan Kearney was prosecuted. I think he should be held accountable. My anger here is because the people prosecuting him had ulterior motives. Lindsey Gaetani didn't have an ulterior motive. She was victimized. She was an unwitting pawn in this proxy war between Karen and the DOJ—Karen and the DOJ and Aidan on one side, and the Norfolk DA and the MSP unit on the other. But instead of trying to prosecute Aidan, it was all tactical. And nobody was told—that's the worst part. And that's why I'm so upset about all of this, because it was a disgrace. It was a disgrace to the process. If you're going to hold someone accountable, do it. You don't use it as leverage to get someone else. And if you're going to do that, be open with the people who are victimized. Otherwise, you are going to build resentment. Why would you ever want to be in a situation where you have to handle a victim? Because if they were made aware of what was actually going on, they would be upset. That is a very prime example—on its face example—that something is very wrong. Not because Aidan Kearney is absolved of liability or because I think he did nothing wrong. Absolutely not. No. Other way around. But because that kind of behavior—given impunity basically, because there's a larger fish—it's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, not because the prosecution exists. In my opinion, a grand jury indicted him; he should be prosecuted. That's what happens when indictments get handed up. But because the aim of the prosecution was not to seek justice—it was to get—it was to pressure Kearney to flip on Karen Read. [Transition to the conversation] Now, to bring this all back—because we got to go—I want to look at this conversation here. I want to actually listen to this chat a minute. I'm going to explicate; I'm going to try to tell you what happens. "Hi, Bunny Towel. Hi, Christina. No haircut. But guess if you want to send donations—today's a good day for that. We got to get Towel to the end of the month. Towel's not going to be able to move very much for the next few days. So I could use some food if you want to send me some gift cards. I just need some help. All right. I'm a little towel. I got a lot going on. And anyway, so I'll—I'm sitting in my chair. That's as much as I can do right now. I can talk; my brain works. I can sit in my chair. I'm not doing anything else, but I should eat at some point. Anyway, so we're going to listen to this conversation because you have to think of all that background when you're analyzing. Why right now? Okay, why would Karen Read tactically right now burn Aidan Kearney? Aidan Kearney supporters are very loyal, but a lot of Aidan Kearney's base are becoming alienated because either they care more about Karen Read than Aidan Kearney or because Aidan Kearney's been on this weird tear recently where he like been attacking middle-aged women who are most of his fans. All right. Most of his fans are middle-aged women. And he goes after people's looks like whatever. So there's already this alienation happening. I believe the only reason Karen Read does this right now is because what it did—and what it's doing to Aidan Kearney—is it's decimating his support. Okay. Well, why are you decimating his support? Why are you forcing people to pick sides? Why would you do that right now? Either [he] cooperated or he's about to. All right. Now Karen Read—if she was—here's my read of this—if Karen Read was just going to cooperate, she wouldn't have done this this way. Okay. I'm sorry. It would have been completely different. I don't believe that she would have done it this way. I believe she would have done it a completely different way. And the reason why I believe that—we're going to read the text from Karen before we start listening to this. By the way, you can see I have the video here for you. What happened? By the way, just to give you a little more context. So this X Spaces that we're going to listen to—I have the full 37-minute X Space. This X Space, okay—it was before the text messages from Karen to Joe Flipperhead got released. So what you have to realize is these texts you're seeing on the screen got released because of this conversation. You're going to hear Joe Flipperhead say it.
46:38

If you want to understand the Joe FlipperHead, Olivia Lamb, Karen Read and Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney chaos; FlipperHead (a guy named Nick from Philly) got confirmation Aidan recorded Karen Read. Then the recordings leaked. Basically, Olivia works for Aidan as a paralegal, now, but Olivia used to be close to Karen in the past (and Olivia and FlipperHead used to be close, as well, on a personal level). FlipperHead, for his part, is loyal to Olivia and Karen but FlipperHead doesn't like Aidan (much like other people close to Karen). Aidan, in turn, seems to be using Olivia to discredit Flipperhead (potentially without Olivia's permission). VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: [Opening remarks on social media and focus] Grant: [Lindsey Gaetani's] been talking about on social media, but let's get to that second. What I wanna start with—let me find the tab—I wanna start with the developments related to Aidan Kearney and Karen Read, okay? So we're gonna jump right into that, and what I have here is the actual discussion. Now, if you go on my X, you will be able to see the entire transcript. I'm gonna try to scroll with you as the video plays. It's a lot, okay? And then we're gonna do part two as well. So eventually, we're gonna hit part two of the transcript. I'm gonna pause, and we're gonna go to the second video. Now, this discussion—the reason why I wanna go over this—is I was listening to it, and I was like, "Wait a minute, I speak this language that they're all talking. I understand sort of the subtext of all of this, but they weren't really talking on the surface." It's a conversation between somebody named Chris, who Aidan Kearney calls a "koala," somebody named Joe Flipperhead—who's actually named Nick from Philadelphia, who was apparently close to a woman named Olivia Lamb, who is gonna come up in this as well. Now, Olivia Lamb did a lot of social media posts about the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial on her profile on Twitter under Olivia. Now, then Olivia started—in a public announcement—saying that she started working for Aidan Kearney. And what you're gonna hear in this conversation is there's also a woman named—who else? There's a woman who's Australian that Aidan also knows named Lily. She introduces herself in the beginning, and then she's kind of the moderator-mediator. And then there's another woman that pops up in the middle named Erika Walsh. She only speaks two or three times. She's one of Turtle Boy's moderators. She interjects at two random times: one, when someone starts talking about Meredith; and two, when Aidan starts saying how bad the content of the conversation in question—that was allegedly recorded and sent to Karen Read, between Aidan and Karen—is for Karen. And then there's a third unknown voice that pops up at the end, who sounds like—it's a female, she's American. I don't know her voice, but it sounds like she's very close to Joe Flipperhead, this guy Nick. And she uses this phrase about Nick "leaving Olivia's ass" in a way that makes me think maybe this girl is close to Nick, and like, she got close to him after Olivia and Nick separated. Now you might say to yourself, "Oh dear God, why—first of all, Grant, why do you know all this?" These people post a lot; I don't know. Tracking this thing is something I've been doing for a while. So it's not like I went into it because I wanted to know who the hell Joe Flipperhead was, or Olivia Lamb was. They entered into a world that I knew a lot about because they were trying to cover this case. And so inevitably, I just had them on my radar, and when things pop up like this, I just connect the dots. [Background on Olivia Lamb] In terms of Olivia though—so she, I don't know. There was this weird situation, I think, at the end of trial one for Karen Read. So somewhere in—I don't know—late 2024, summer 2024 or so. Weird situation where Olivia kind of then, for a few months, wasn't around as much, or she was, but not as much. And then she came back around for Aidan and said she was working on his team or something. Now, Olivia—I don't think Olivia Lamb's necessarily a bad person. I think whoever she is, and whatever she's doing, is very intelligent. But if you kind of look into that family, her mom is named Christina Lamb, and her mom does boutique consulting for law firms. I think her mom might be a lawyer, but she doesn't really—I think the way that she does consulting is more like tactically how lawyers should think about how a case is presented in the public, et cetera, stuff like that. And you have to tie this into this Elizabeth Dombrowski person out of New York that runs this Good Counsel Legal Services that proclaimed that Jen Altman and whoever else were paralegals for Aidan. You see what I'm saying? And what I think Olivia's role is—I think she just does PR. She does some paralegal work clearly, but I think she's mostly like a PR specialist. But I think why there's so much obfuscation—and I'm giving you all this background, because the conversation you're about to hear makes no sense if you don't know all this background. The context there, I think, is that—I think Olivia is a person. Like, I think she is real. But I think the reason why there's so many smoke and mirrors is that she's a conduit for implausible deniability. In the world of public relations—especially this kind of public relations—is incredibly important. So I think she's like a conduit for more entrenched public relations interests, which—okay, fine. I don't see that as per se evil. I'm a critical theorist. So I study propaganda. So like, if you are doing anything that emerged from Edward Bernays's systemic weaponization of his uncle Sigmund Freud's study of the mass psychology of the mind—if you do any of that—you're inevitably gonna catch my attention. Not because I necessarily per se think it's evil, but because that's my wheelhouse. Like, I reconstruct public relations and then I figure out what's driving that. Okay. So she—Olivia—got on my radar because of that, not necessarily because she's evil. Same, because I never really saw it. Now maybe some of the witnesses in the trial would think differently, but that's not my role here. I am like—I'm an objective observer. And um, Olivia was never really cruel. Like she just does PR. So I wouldn't necessarily say like everything she did was like right. But if you look at her style, it's not polemical. It's not—it's mostly analytical. Okay. So that's not an aphoristic or manipulative or evil person really. That's a PR specialist. And this guy, Nick—very similar, Joe Flipperhead. Okay. If you look at his posts—like, I wouldn't exactly say he's a cruel human being, you know, like he memes and stuff. Okay. He's kind of like Dave Cullinane a little bit, but he's just like a human. And you can hear it in this conversation. Like Joe is the one who's really holding Aidan accountable. Joe Flipperhead—whose name is Nick—he's from Philly. And um, I noticed 'cause I watched the stream of them one time—I don't know—he seems all right. I don't have anything against him or Olivia. In fact, I think they did a damn good job, at least Joe. Because what you'll also see here is there's another subtext. What this conversation is about is an allegation that Aidan Kearney sent a recorded conversation to Karen Read—a conversation with her—and then someone—nobody knows who—sent the recording to Karen's lawyers, David Yannetti and Alan Jackson. Now, what's weird about this is that there's also—and I don't like, whatever, I guess it is what it is—but the host, one of the hosts, Chris, this Australian guy—he might be a New Zealander, I don't know. But anyway, he starts saying directly to Aidan, "Listen Aidan, you went to lunch with Meredith—this Turtle Boy's former girlfriend—but her name is Meredith O'Neill (Meredith O). She's a person; she has an existence outside of Aidan Kearney and whether—a lot of people, I think, rightfully so, will take issue with some of the things Meredith has posted. But that's for her soul to deal with. She has to reckon with it, reflect on it, whatever the fuck, okay? That's separate from; she exists outside of the fact that she used to date Aidan Kearney." And I just wanna make that as a blanket point that like Aidan Kearney does not own someone's soul because they had some connection to him at any point in time. These people are independent people who have their own lives. So Meredith O'Neill is her name. And Meredith—like, clearly something happened between Aidan and Meredith because over the past few weeks—like, first of all, there's some more subtext to this, which is Aidan's paralegal team before Olivia Lamb came on was Courtney Healy and this woman named Tina Murray. Tina Murray —I didn't even know THE NAME until two weeks ago—but I had seen her before because she had silver hair when she was in court one time. I had no idea who it was, but she was sitting next to Courtney Healy. Now, way back when Aidan Kearney was incarcerated in late 2023, early 2024—apparently these two women, Courtney Healy and Tina Murray, were very close to Aidan Kearney. Someone had his logins, allegedly. They were helping like post for him while he was in jail, et cetera. Now, there's time back to that as well. Jen Altman is a key figure in all of this. And the reason why is that Jen Altman was the reason that Aidan Kearney and Karen Read got hooked up initially through Natalie Wiweke-Bershneider or whatever her name is. Jen Altman was also among this weird group of people. It was Tina Murray, Courtney Healy, Jen Altman, I think, and maybe just them three, who had access to Aidan in jail on a paralegal list. And at one point, Tim Bradl, Aidan's lawyer, wrote down that Jen Altman was a lawyer. She got so mad that she messaged Bradl, and then those messages got leaked. So there's all this discontent brewing within Aidan Kearney's kind of like organization, if you wanna call it. I'd call it more like a—yeah, it's like a hierarchy. And like he's at the—it's like a politician almost, but he's not a politician. You have like a top person at the top, and then you have all these staffers, and you have to manage the staffers. That's what he's dealing with. And he's gotta keep everybody like in line because like at one person breaks—especially a key—all right, two things. One, there's a reason you compartmentalize information, and you're not gonna be able to get in these type of operations because nobody needs to know everything. If you did that, then everyone would be a weak link. The problem is though, in order to compartmentalize in a bureaucracy or a schema like this, you have to have some people who actually know what's going on. Those people are liabilities. They're weak links. If you have someone who is too close and they know how you compartmentalized information, they'll see the full picture. They're the weak link. That's Courtney Healy, Tina Murray, Jen Altman, Meredith, Lindsey a little bit. These people are the weak links for Aidan because they see the full picture, whether they are aligned with him, don't like him, etc. etc. It's just they're the biggest weaknesses for him because they see the full picture. That's why he tries to either control them—in my opinion—or destroy them. But Aidan's in a real tough spot here because you can't run that playbook on Karen Read. Clearly, these people are incredibly loyal to her. Flipperhead, Olivia, etc. They may have been helping Aidan, but they're incredibly loyal to Karen. Now, what I've always suspected is that the whole point of charging Aidan Kearney was—one, he did bad things to the witnesses in the retrial, Lindsey Gaetani. He did bad things allegedly. Okay, the grand jury indicted him. But I think Brian Tully and the MSP unit that investigated Aidan—they were more interested in two different goals. Okay, they had parallel objectives beyond just the criminal proceeding. One: get information about who the target of the federal probe was after August of 2023. And it was Tully's unit and Matthew Farwell related to the Sandra Birchmore murder coverup. Number two: I think Tully wanted—and Kate Peter and Marty Keach wanted—Aidan Kearney and Michael Morrissey wanted Aidan Kearney to flip on Karen Read. It was a pressure tactic. It was always just a pressure tactic. That's what I fully believe. Now, I'm not saying he didn't do bad things. I just believe in the mind of the DA—these people were using pressure tactics to get Aidan Kearney in a tactical position where he would flip. Why do I think this? Well, a few things. One: in the fall of 2023, between like August and November, Aidan Kearney didn't need an intermediary with Karen Read. Natalie was out of the picture, although I'm suspect, because there's this new text from Natalie from August saying that like she was still loyal to Karen Read—although ostensibly they had a falling out in June of 2023 because Natalie called Karen late at night and she was upset about it. I always thought that was BS. Now I know why it was BS because there's also a March 24 message about like Joe Warren and Natalie wanting to go to court. I just have this suspicion that Natalie was never really like against Karen. What Natalie was doing was using Turtle Boy as leverage with Karen's permission—using it's called a limited hangout. Limited information about Turtle Boy's culpability for witness intimidation to the MSP so that the MSP would trust Natalie—so that Natalie could relay information back to Karen about the ongoing investigation of Karen and Aidan for conspiracy under 2747 and witness intimidation under 26813B. Now they did try to eventually indict Karen on that in March of 2024 at No True Bill, but they can do it again. They got more evidence—the state in May of 2024 about Aidan saying in Facebook messages that one Karen told him not to go to Lindsey Gaetani's apartment on December 23rd, 2023, and then some other stuff—basically where Aidan was implying that someone told him to run Jen McCabe's license plates. Who would that be? Karen Read. He didn't say it but he implied it to Jenna Rocco and Amy D'Angelis and whoever else was in that internal chat that got leaked. So I really believe that the reason why Aidan Kearney was such a liability to Karen Read—and why she was saying it out loud—is that Karen Read always saw Aidan Kearney as vulnerable to flip. Why? Because Brian Tully did his homework—whatever his motives were—and he found a few things. And I think that him and Kate Peter profiled Aidan Kearney. That's why Kate Peter had some role in this—because they thought Kate Peter should really like Aidan in a lot of ways because he used to be colleagues. Two: I think the state police thought she saw his psyche—Aidan's psyche—and could help them profile him. Three: I think Kate Peter is very hard into the world, and Tully and those other people in the unit could say like, "Yeah, we're worried about Birchmore; we got to do damage control here. Nothing's really wrong with the O'Keefe death investigation," and just—they're going to find out about Birchmore—and Kate would go along with it. That's my opinion. But Tully gets this video of Aidan that he had sent to Lindsey—and it's out there on the internet. I don't want to play the content; it's sad. But this is why I think this is what was in the prosecutor's mind when they were going—and the MSP's mind—when they were going after Kearney. Yes, he did bad things—especially to people that knew the DA and Tully like McCabe, Jen McCabe, etc. But also Aidan was an Achilles heel for Karen. Think about MSP, right? And the way we're analyzing Aidan's weaknesses via weak links in the compartmentalization chain. Okay, flip it around and think about MSP thinking about Karen. What's a weak link in her compartmentalization chain? Aidan Kearney. Now, in that regard, Aidan Kearney—if he flips on Karen Read—guarantees a conviction for Karen Read for the state, even if they can't get her on John's death. It was a backup plan. Second to that, I think though—it's a dynamic situation—and that something must have fucking happened recently. Okay, and I've long thought—and we'll read Lindsey's post on this later because she was talking about it on Twitter overnight, and I was reading it this morning, and it made me think about this—I've long suspected that Kate Peter made a deal with Aidan Kearney in the past like 6-8 months. And the deal was involving the Norfolk DA and the people prosecuting Kearney, and the goal was to get Kearney to flip. And I also think Kate wants Kearney in the Netflix documentary that she's working on with Gretchen and Sandpaper—which, they don't really understand. Like, bro, you think you're getting my footage and me if you're going to enable Kate Peter and try to portray her as the Charlotte of the internet? What planet are you on? No. No, the answer is no. But anyway, I really believe that this deal was made because why else—and I think Karen found out about it—because why else would Karen—[we're going to—the conversation is going to clarify all this]—why else would Karen on Friday authorize Joe Flipperhead to release information that confirms that Aidan recorded Karen. Now, why Karen is not going to do this if she didn't hear the fucking recording? She's not a moron. She's a tactical genius. I'm telling you—I don't necessarily agree with all the things she's done. I personally think she's responsible for John's death, but like—she's a fucking tactical genius. And you have to understand in some sense—like she wouldn't do this unless it's real. Like someone sent her that recording, and I don't believe Aidan Kearney sent it to intermediaries because if Meredith is the closest person to him—or was—in the world, and he's going to lunch with her and will only play it for her allegedly—okay, there's no way in hell that he would just send it to people. I believe—whether through a fake account or otherwise—Aidan Kearney sent that to Karen's lawyers. That's just my opinion. I think there's strong reason for him to do it. It's a message. Okay. As a result, I think Karen Read doing this had to sense that this was the moment—like this was the moment where the decision was going to be made about whether or not he cooperated. And now is Aidan's kind of like signal flare that I'm thinking—from Karen Read's perspective—Aidan sending that recording to Jackson and Yannetti is a signal flare that if she doesn't act now, he's making the choice to flip on her. Okay, well, what did she just do? She in essence just put him in the worst position possible because he had to be able to—him and Kate Peter—had to sell the narrative in public that—and this is why I was on Lindsey's profile earlier. Let me see if I can bring that up—him and Kate Peter had to sell the narrative in public that Karen was worse than Aidan Kearney. All right, so let's take a look at Lindsey Gaetani's post here. Let's read this first and then let's look at the post from Kate Peter. So Kate Peter post last night: "Karen Read has killed a man before and to my knowledge, Aidan Kearney has yet to do anything like that. Take that as you will. Regardless, they're both giant DBAGs, but you can decide who is worse. My vote is Karen Read." That's Kate Peter—one of the closest people in the world right now to Brian Tully, Michael Morrissey, and the decision makers who were initially prosecuting Kearney—telling you in plain sight what's going on. So let's read Lindsey's post: "Yes, we already know a deal was made a long time ago. How cute of Kate trying to win over the turtle riders after she pretended she was still trying to put him in jail the past several months. Does anyone of the turtle riders know who Christine Gagne is? I have no idea who that is. Does anyone know who that is? That's the woman Kate Peter blamed for wiretapping charges with TB and the person she blamed when I asked her where her deleted Google Drive went with the state's evidence. Why would Kate blame this woman for deleting evidence when this woman's name was never mentioned during the grand jury or in a single email or police report? Interesting." Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. So we know Kate Peter was providing evidence to the grand jury. We know that from the recently released court documents and discovery in the Kearney criminal case. Why was—why is Kate Peter blaming someone? Who is Christine Gagne, who—why is Kate blaming her when Kate was the one who was—there's evidence that Kate was directly providing this material to Tully, who was taking it to the grand jury. And by the way, I want people to understand: my anger here is not because Aidan Kearney was prosecuted. I think he should be held accountable. My anger here is because the people prosecuting him had ulterior motives. Lindsey Gaetani didn't have an ulterior motive. She was victimized. She was an unwitting pawn in this proxy war between Karen and the DOJ—Karen and the DOJ and Aidan on one side, and the Norfolk DA and the MSP unit on the other. But instead of trying to prosecute Aidan, it was all tactical. And nobody was told—that's the worst part. And that's why I'm so upset about all of this, because it was a disgrace. It was a disgrace to the process. If you're going to hold someone accountable, do it. You don't use it as leverage to get someone else. And if you're going to do that, be open with the people who are victimized. Otherwise, you are going to build resentment. Why would you ever want to be in a situation where you have to handle a victim? Because if they were made aware of what was actually going on, they would be upset. That is a very prime example—on its face example—that something is very wrong. Not because Aidan Kearney is absolved of liability or because I think he did nothing wrong. Absolutely not. No. Other way around. But because that kind of behavior—given impunity basically, because there's a larger fish—it's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, not because the prosecution exists. In my opinion, a grand jury indicted him; he should be prosecuted. That's what happens when indictments get handed up. But because the aim of the prosecution was not to seek justice—it was to get—it was to pressure Kearney to flip on Karen Read. [Transition to the conversation] Now, to bring this all back—because we got to go—I want to look at this conversation here. I want to actually listen to this chat a minute. I'm going to explicate; I'm going to try to tell you what happens. "Hi, Bunny Towel. Hi, Christina. No haircut. But guess if you want to send donations—today's a good day for that. We got to get Towel to the end of the month. Towel's not going to be able to move very much for the next few days. So I could use some food if you want to send me some gift cards. I just need some help. All right. I'm a little towel. I got a lot going on. And anyway, so I'll—I'm sitting in my chair. That's as much as I can do right now. I can talk; my brain works. I can sit in my chair. I'm not doing anything else, but I should eat at some point. Anyway, so we're going to listen to this conversation because you have to think of all that background when you're analyzing. Why right now? Okay, why would Karen Read tactically right now burn Aidan Kearney? Aidan Kearney supporters are very loyal, but a lot of Aidan Kearney's base are becoming alienated because either they care more about Karen Read than Aidan Kearney or because Aidan Kearney's been on this weird tear recently where he like been attacking middle-aged women who are most of his fans. All right. Most of his fans are middle-aged women. And he goes after people's looks like whatever. So there's already this alienation happening. I believe the only reason Karen Read does this right now is because what it did—and what it's doing to Aidan Kearney—is it's decimating his support. Okay. Well, why are you decimating his support? Why are you forcing people to pick sides? Why would you do that right now? Either [he] cooperated or he's about to. All right. Now Karen Read—if she was—here's my read of this—if Karen Read was just going to cooperate, she wouldn't have done this this way. Okay. I'm sorry. It would have been completely different. I don't believe that she would have done it this way. I believe she would have done it a completely different way. And the reason why I believe that—we're going to read the text from Karen before we start listening to this. By the way, you can see I have the video here for you. What happened? By the way, just to give you a little more context. So this X Spaces that we're going to listen to—I have the full 37-minute X Space. This X Space, okay—it was before the text messages from Karen to Joe Flipperhead got released. So what you have to realize is these texts you're seeing on the screen got released because of this conversation. You're going to hear Joe Flipperhead say it.

Grant Smith Ellis

36,588 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten