正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Victory Friday! Check out the math problem at the end. Debate finally over! Cleveland Browns Ken Carman Anthony Lima JW Johnson Myles Garrett Jameis Winston Nick Chubb Jerry Jeudy⁴ Nathan Zegura Andrew Siciliano Tim Richards The Jen and Tim Show

MMSOurHouse's profile picture

Paul Destino

2,205 subscribers

22,896 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

体育教育喜剧
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

4 条评论

Hank F in Akron 🏆🥇 的头像
Hank F in Akron 🏆🥇1 年前

@Browns @KenCarman @SportsBoyTony @JDubsIII @Flash_Garrett @Jaboowins @NickChubb @jerryjeudy @NathanZegura @AndrewSiciliano @radiotimmay @JenandTimShow This is the indoctrination that we need in school.

Coach Oz 🪂 的头像
Coach Oz 🪂1 年前

@Browns @KenCarman @SportsBoyTony @JDubsIII @Flash_Garrett @Jaboowins @NickChubb @jerryjeudy @NathanZegura @AndrewSiciliano @radiotimmay @JenandTimShow @MMSOurHouse create those memories Mr. D!

Posh_Clevelander 的头像
Posh_Clevelander1 年前

@Browns @KenCarman @SportsBoyTony @JDubsIII @Flash_Garrett @Jaboowins @NickChubb @jerryjeudy @NathanZegura @AndrewSiciliano @radiotimmay @JenandTimShow They have school?

₿os 的头像
₿os1 年前

@Browns @KenCarman @SportsBoyTony @JDubsIII @Flash_Garrett @Jaboowins @NickChubb @jerryjeudy @NathanZegura @AndrewSiciliano @radiotimmay @JenandTimShow Welp this is definitely worth a follow. ❤️

相关视频

Victory Monday!! Students or no students-the show must go on! Cleveland Browns Ken Carman Anthony Lima JW Johnson 92.3 The Fan Myles Garrett Shelby Harris Nathan Zegura Andrew Siciliano Tim Richards
1:28

Victory Monday!! Students or no students-the show must go on! Cleveland Browns Ken Carman Anthony Lima JW Johnson 92.3 The Fan Myles Garrett Shelby Harris Nathan Zegura Andrew Siciliano Tim Richards

Paul Destino

11,673 次观看 • 10 个月前

Victory FRYday! Cleveland Guardians Ken Carman Anthony Lima 92.3 The Fan Tim Richards The Jen and Tim Show ESPN Cleveland
1:29

Victory FRYday! Cleveland Guardians Ken Carman Anthony Lima 92.3 The Fan Tim Richards The Jen and Tim Show ESPN Cleveland

Paul Destino

59,372 次观看 • 1 年前

Victory Monday! Cleveland Browns Ken Carman Anthony Lima JOK Joe Thomas Kareemhunt3⃣ Rome813 Dalvin Tomlinson @MartyMargg1 JW Johnson Jake Moody Deshaun Watson Nick Chubb 92.3 The Fan #rabidraccoon
1:35

Victory Monday! Cleveland Browns Ken Carman Anthony Lima JOK Joe Thomas Kareemhunt3⃣ Rome813 Dalvin Tomlinson @MartyMargg1 JW Johnson Jake Moody Deshaun Watson Nick Chubb 92.3 The Fan #rabidraccoon

Paul Destino

38,152 次观看 • 2 年前

Victory Monday! A win is a win for all ya haters out there! Ken Carman Anthony Lima 92.3 The Fan JW Johnson Cleveland Browns GrantDelpit Rayshawn Jenkins Ronnie Hickman Quinshon Judkins Dillon Gabriel Myles Garrett
1:57

Victory Monday! A win is a win for all ya haters out there! Ken Carman Anthony Lima 92.3 The Fan JW Johnson Cleveland Browns GrantDelpit Rayshawn Jenkins Ronnie Hickman Quinshon Judkins Dillon Gabriel Myles Garrett

Paul Destino

50,633 次观看 • 9 个月前

"I would says it's probably increasingly unlikely. I'd say maybe a return is less likely, at least in the short term, with us right now."" 📞 Cleveland Browns GM Andrew Berry w/ Ken Carman and Anthony Lima on a possible return for RB Nick Chubb 🏈⤵️ 🔊 Listen:
0:50

"I would says it's probably increasingly unlikely. I'd say maybe a return is less likely, at least in the short term, with us right now."" 📞 Cleveland Browns GM Andrew Berry w/ Ken Carman and Anthony Lima on a possible return for RB Nick Chubb 🏈⤵️ 🔊 Listen:

92.3 The Fan

53,465 次观看 • 1 年前

"I can't say they didn't respect the Browns because they respected Myles Garrett...almost to a fault. You guys know this, there's going to be an asterisk if he does it against Cincinnati." 🚨 Ken Carman and Anthony Lima on #Browns win over the #Steelers
0:50

"I can't say they didn't respect the Browns because they respected Myles Garrett...almost to a fault. You guys know this, there's going to be an asterisk if he does it against Cincinnati." 🚨 Ken Carman and Anthony Lima on #Browns win over the #Steelers

92.3 The Fan

21,117 次观看 • 7 个月前

🏈"The Myles stuff isn't gonna end this trade deadline. As long as the Browns look like a team that has these holes and is in a rebuild, Myles frustration is just going to mount week in and week out." Ken Carman & Anthony Lima on Myles Garrett's frustration building up
1:13

🏈"The Myles stuff isn't gonna end this trade deadline. As long as the Browns look like a team that has these holes and is in a rebuild, Myles frustration is just going to mount week in and week out." Ken Carman & Anthony Lima on Myles Garrett's frustration building up

92.3 The Fan

11,217 次观看 • 9 个月前

🏈"If they spent 4 months evaluating and at the end of it they decided Dillon Gabriel is better than all these guys, Andrew Berry's hands are clean of all this?" 🚨Ken Carman & Anthony Lima on possibility of Browns firing Kevin Stefanski but keeping Andrew Berry
2:00

🏈"If they spent 4 months evaluating and at the end of it they decided Dillon Gabriel is better than all these guys, Andrew Berry's hands are clean of all this?" 🚨Ken Carman & Anthony Lima on possibility of Browns firing Kevin Stefanski but keeping Andrew Berry

92.3 The Fan

27,634 次观看 • 7 个月前

"I'm just tired of fighting. I'm tired of the arguments. I'm tired over the fights over the guys that aren't so good. Guys, if they thought the QB was on the roster, they wouldn't have traded Myles Garrett. So, we understand what they feel about their roster right now." 🚨 Ken Carman to Anthony Lima on what the #Browns blockbuster trade means for the QB position with Deshaun Watson and Shedeur Sanders
0:54

"I'm just tired of fighting. I'm tired of the arguments. I'm tired over the fights over the guys that aren't so good. Guys, if they thought the QB was on the roster, they wouldn't have traded Myles Garrett. So, we understand what they feel about their roster right now." 🚨 Ken Carman to Anthony Lima on what the #Browns blockbuster trade means for the QB position with Deshaun Watson and Shedeur Sanders

92.3 The Fan

50,923 次观看 • 2 个月前

TALKING PREPS: The Week 8 NC high school football preview show ON TAP ➡️An in-depth discussion of the new CMS rule that will limit attendance at some "high-profile" games this season. ➡️West Charlotte coach Sam Greiner and QB Jamouri Nichols talk last week's big win over Independence ➡️Palisades QB Cole Hough and coach Jonathan Simmons talk last week's historic win over Ardrey Kell CAM ON THE STREET Well, Cam's back in the studio this week and chats with Palisades star Nick Rankin NC PLAYERS OF THE WEEK We feature the top performers from Friday night: 🏈Raivon Pauling, South Meck (in studio) 🏈Danny Charles Brown, McDowell 🏈Max Davis, Burns 🏈Nick Grena, Cary 🏈Ely Hamrick, Crest 🏈O'Sean Johnson, Enloe 🏈Ethan Presley, Hunter Huss 🏈Jackson Laws, Cannon School 🏈Jesse Blazi, Hickory Grove (in studio) GAMES OF THE WEEK (We break down the top NC, regional and Meck County games of Week 8) NC Statewide: Robbinsville-Murphy; Garner-Cleveland; Pisgah-Tuscola Charlotte regional: Statesville-Davie County; Kings Mountain-Ashbrook; Porter Ridge-Marvin Ridge Mecklenburg: Chambers-Independence; North Meck-Butler; Hopewell-Myers Park; Rocky River-Ardrey Kell; Cannon School-Latin; Berry-Harding COACH VS. COACH The coaches debate the new CMS rule: Did CMS need to make this move?; what can help alleviate the issues; and how will this ruling affect schools financially? Sam Greiner Chris Hughes Dale Ross CarolinaVarsity CarolinaPreps Cameron Williams gary richmond West Charlotte Lions Football Jamouri Nichols Palisades Pumas Football Cole Hough "2027" QB South Meck Football “Mad Max”Davis Burns High School Football Nick Cary Football Ely Hamrick 2026 QB Crest FB Recruiting Enloe Football Jackson Laws Cannon School Hickory Grove Christian Football Robbinsville High @murphyncfootball The Garner High School Football Cleveland Football Pisgah Football Tuscola Mountaineer Football Julius L Chambers Cougars FB Independence FB North Meck Football Butler Bulldogs Football Brian Hales Hopewell High School Football Myers Park Football Rocky River Ravens Football Ardrey Kell Football Charlotte Latin Athletics Berry Academy Football
1:35:39

TALKING PREPS: The Week 8 NC high school football preview show ON TAP ➡️An in-depth discussion of the new CMS rule that will limit attendance at some "high-profile" games this season. ➡️West Charlotte coach Sam Greiner and QB Jamouri Nichols talk last week's big win over Independence ➡️Palisades QB Cole Hough and coach Jonathan Simmons talk last week's historic win over Ardrey Kell CAM ON THE STREET Well, Cam's back in the studio this week and chats with Palisades star Nick Rankin NC PLAYERS OF THE WEEK We feature the top performers from Friday night: 🏈Raivon Pauling, South Meck (in studio) 🏈Danny Charles Brown, McDowell 🏈Max Davis, Burns 🏈Nick Grena, Cary 🏈Ely Hamrick, Crest 🏈O'Sean Johnson, Enloe 🏈Ethan Presley, Hunter Huss 🏈Jackson Laws, Cannon School 🏈Jesse Blazi, Hickory Grove (in studio) GAMES OF THE WEEK (We break down the top NC, regional and Meck County games of Week 8) NC Statewide: Robbinsville-Murphy; Garner-Cleveland; Pisgah-Tuscola Charlotte regional: Statesville-Davie County; Kings Mountain-Ashbrook; Porter Ridge-Marvin Ridge Mecklenburg: Chambers-Independence; North Meck-Butler; Hopewell-Myers Park; Rocky River-Ardrey Kell; Cannon School-Latin; Berry-Harding COACH VS. COACH The coaches debate the new CMS rule: Did CMS need to make this move?; what can help alleviate the issues; and how will this ruling affect schools financially? Sam Greiner Chris Hughes Dale Ross CarolinaVarsity CarolinaPreps Cameron Williams gary richmond West Charlotte Lions Football Jamouri Nichols Palisades Pumas Football Cole Hough "2027" QB South Meck Football “Mad Max”Davis Burns High School Football Nick Cary Football Ely Hamrick 2026 QB Crest FB Recruiting Enloe Football Jackson Laws Cannon School Hickory Grove Christian Football Robbinsville High @murphyncfootball The Garner High School Football Cleveland Football Pisgah Football Tuscola Mountaineer Football Julius L Chambers Cougars FB Independence FB North Meck Football Butler Bulldogs Football Brian Hales Hopewell High School Football Myers Park Football Rocky River Ravens Football Ardrey Kell Football Charlotte Latin Athletics Berry Academy Football

Langston Wertz Jr.

11,316 次观看 • 10 个月前

🚨EXPOSED: How Did The ATF "Match" Evidence That Wasn't Even at the Scene— Plus Gary Admits Candace was Right All Along😳 Buckle up, because the "Official Narrative" just tripped over its own shoelaces on INFOWARS. Gary Melton from Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton sat down with Alex Jones and managed to drop a bombshell that is as hilarious as it is terrifying. The Magic Shell Casing 🪄🐚 Gary claims the ATF testing "positively confirmed" the spent shell casing found at the scene matched the murder weapon. One teeny, tiny, microscopic problem, Gary: The rifle was BOLT-ACTION. The spent casing was found STILL IN THE CHAMBER, not ejected. THE GUN WASN’T EVEN FOUND AT THE SCENE. 🚫🔫 So, how exactly did they match a "casing found at the scene" when there was no casing on the ground and no gun in sight? Is the FBI hiring street magicians now? Or are we just supposed to believe in teleporting brass? 🎩✨ Welcome to the "Side of Truth," Gary! 🤝👀 But wait, it gets better. Gary is finally ditching the "Fed-slop" narrative. He now admits he doesn't think Tyler Robinson acted alone and—get this—he says it could "ABSOLUTELY HAVE FOREIGN TIES" Wait, what’s that, Gary? Foreign ties? 🌍🛰️ Does that mean you're admitting Candace Owens Was Right? It’s almost like Candace Owens has been saying exactly that for months while YOU and the rest of the "Shady Bunch" at TPUSA called her a "maniac." The "New Gary" Effect 🔄😂 I have to wonder... does this sudden moment of clarity have anything to do with TPUSA trying to replace him with "New Gary"? Nothing clears the head quite like getting ghosted and swapped out by the very people you were protecting. Side note, check out the clip in the post below of New Gary's segment on the Charlie Kirk Show from earlier this week. 🏃‍♂️💨 Gary just accidentally admitted that the "conspiracy theorists" were right all along. The forensic math isn't mathing, the casings are imaginary, and the "Foreign Ties" are officially on the table. They are overthinking again. And it is glorious to watch. 🍿🎥
1:18

🚨EXPOSED: How Did The ATF "Match" Evidence That Wasn't Even at the Scene— Plus Gary Admits Candace was Right All Along😳 Buckle up, because the "Official Narrative" just tripped over its own shoelaces on INFOWARS. Gary Melton from Paramount Tactical - Gary Melton sat down with Alex Jones and managed to drop a bombshell that is as hilarious as it is terrifying. The Magic Shell Casing 🪄🐚 Gary claims the ATF testing "positively confirmed" the spent shell casing found at the scene matched the murder weapon. One teeny, tiny, microscopic problem, Gary: The rifle was BOLT-ACTION. The spent casing was found STILL IN THE CHAMBER, not ejected. THE GUN WASN’T EVEN FOUND AT THE SCENE. 🚫🔫 So, how exactly did they match a "casing found at the scene" when there was no casing on the ground and no gun in sight? Is the FBI hiring street magicians now? Or are we just supposed to believe in teleporting brass? 🎩✨ Welcome to the "Side of Truth," Gary! 🤝👀 But wait, it gets better. Gary is finally ditching the "Fed-slop" narrative. He now admits he doesn't think Tyler Robinson acted alone and—get this—he says it could "ABSOLUTELY HAVE FOREIGN TIES" Wait, what’s that, Gary? Foreign ties? 🌍🛰️ Does that mean you're admitting Candace Owens Was Right? It’s almost like Candace Owens has been saying exactly that for months while YOU and the rest of the "Shady Bunch" at TPUSA called her a "maniac." The "New Gary" Effect 🔄😂 I have to wonder... does this sudden moment of clarity have anything to do with TPUSA trying to replace him with "New Gary"? Nothing clears the head quite like getting ghosted and swapped out by the very people you were protecting. Side note, check out the clip in the post below of New Gary's segment on the Charlie Kirk Show from earlier this week. 🏃‍♂️💨 Gary just accidentally admitted that the "conspiracy theorists" were right all along. The forensic math isn't mathing, the casings are imaginary, and the "Foreign Ties" are officially on the table. They are overthinking again. And it is glorious to watch. 🍿🎥

Project Constitution

42,932 次观看 • 4 个月前

Continuing our baseball movie theme, here are some Bull Durham Bull Facts: -In the meeting at the pitcher's mound, Robert Wuhl ad-libbed his line about getting candlesticks as a wedding present. He said it was based on a real conversation he had with his wife. -Both Jeff Bridges and Don Johnson turned down the role of 'Crash'. -Both Carrie Fisher and Debra Winger auditioned for the role of Annie but backed out. -Ron Shelton cast Tim Robbins over the strong objections of the studio, who wanted Anthony Michael Hall instead. -Kurt Russell helped Ron Shelton develop the script and was originally penciled in to play Crash, the part that went to Kevin Costner. -In their confrontation outside the bar, Crash tells Nuke, "I hear you couldn't hit water if you fell out of a fucking boat." Dodgers manager Tommy Lasorda said this in 1984, in reference to weak-hitting San Diego Padres infielder Kurt Bevacqua. -Although Kevin Costner plays the 'older', more experienced ball player, in real life he's only three years older than Tim Robbins (33 and 30, respectively during filming), and Susan Sarandon was actually 42. -The "rainout" scene was based on actual event. In the late 1960s, Ron Shelton played minor-league ball in the Texas League. Shelton's team was in Amarillo, Texas for a season-ending series. The night before the final game, Shelton, some teammates and some Amarillo players were out partying and decided to go to the stadium and turn on the sprinkler system, thereby flooding the field and ensuring a "rainout". However, the Amarillo team owner rented a helicopter, dried the field, and the game was played. -The bull billboard offering a "free steak" if it gets tagged by a home run was created for the film. The real-life team kept it, even after moving to a newer, bigger stadium, Durham Bulls Athletic Park. Even today, if a player hits the bull on the fly with a home run, he wins a free steak from a local restaurant, and if the player hits the grass that the bull stands on, he wins a free salad. -Kevin Costner is a switch hitter; he is shown hitting both left and right-handed at different points in the film. -The note that Crash writes to Annie actually reads "Let's f#ck sometime" not "I want to make love to you". It can be seen over Crash's right shoulder when he writes the note in the dugout. -As the credits are rolling at the end of the film, there is a picture (which is made to be a shrine) of Yankee great Thurman Munson, who died in a plane crash. -Originally, after Annie and Crash have their argument in Crash's apartment, there was a scene in which Annie and Crash go to a bar and have a heart-to-heart talk. In the talk, Crash asks Annie why she loves baseball so much. She explains that several years before, her estranged father passed away and that the funeral took place in Florida. She was so distraught after the funeral that she wandered off and ended up at the New York Yankees spring training facility where she met the legendary Munson (thus explaining her shrine to Munson seen in the film). From then on, she developed a deep-rooted love of the game. According to Ron Shelton in the DVD commentary, he cut that scene out when it was received poorly during a test screening.
2:24

Continuing our baseball movie theme, here are some Bull Durham Bull Facts: -In the meeting at the pitcher's mound, Robert Wuhl ad-libbed his line about getting candlesticks as a wedding present. He said it was based on a real conversation he had with his wife. -Both Jeff Bridges and Don Johnson turned down the role of 'Crash'. -Both Carrie Fisher and Debra Winger auditioned for the role of Annie but backed out. -Ron Shelton cast Tim Robbins over the strong objections of the studio, who wanted Anthony Michael Hall instead. -Kurt Russell helped Ron Shelton develop the script and was originally penciled in to play Crash, the part that went to Kevin Costner. -In their confrontation outside the bar, Crash tells Nuke, "I hear you couldn't hit water if you fell out of a fucking boat." Dodgers manager Tommy Lasorda said this in 1984, in reference to weak-hitting San Diego Padres infielder Kurt Bevacqua. -Although Kevin Costner plays the 'older', more experienced ball player, in real life he's only three years older than Tim Robbins (33 and 30, respectively during filming), and Susan Sarandon was actually 42. -The "rainout" scene was based on actual event. In the late 1960s, Ron Shelton played minor-league ball in the Texas League. Shelton's team was in Amarillo, Texas for a season-ending series. The night before the final game, Shelton, some teammates and some Amarillo players were out partying and decided to go to the stadium and turn on the sprinkler system, thereby flooding the field and ensuring a "rainout". However, the Amarillo team owner rented a helicopter, dried the field, and the game was played. -The bull billboard offering a "free steak" if it gets tagged by a home run was created for the film. The real-life team kept it, even after moving to a newer, bigger stadium, Durham Bulls Athletic Park. Even today, if a player hits the bull on the fly with a home run, he wins a free steak from a local restaurant, and if the player hits the grass that the bull stands on, he wins a free salad. -Kevin Costner is a switch hitter; he is shown hitting both left and right-handed at different points in the film. -The note that Crash writes to Annie actually reads "Let's f#ck sometime" not "I want to make love to you". It can be seen over Crash's right shoulder when he writes the note in the dugout. -As the credits are rolling at the end of the film, there is a picture (which is made to be a shrine) of Yankee great Thurman Munson, who died in a plane crash. -Originally, after Annie and Crash have their argument in Crash's apartment, there was a scene in which Annie and Crash go to a bar and have a heart-to-heart talk. In the talk, Crash asks Annie why she loves baseball so much. She explains that several years before, her estranged father passed away and that the funeral took place in Florida. She was so distraught after the funeral that she wandered off and ended up at the New York Yankees spring training facility where she met the legendary Munson (thus explaining her shrine to Munson seen in the film). From then on, she developed a deep-rooted love of the game. According to Ron Shelton in the DVD commentary, he cut that scene out when it was received poorly during a test screening.

The Movie Professor 🎬🎥📺

63,169 次观看 • 1 个月前

"Imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer." ~AA Suffering Makes God's Existence Unlikely "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" "We're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." (If you know about Loosh and "Far Journeys" by Robert Monroe, these points should all ring a bell. But this discussion was NOT about Loosh. Fascinating debate.) 1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded Christian Tim: "Okay, so my first question to start out with is: What exactly about suffering makes this unlikely, on the condition that God exists?" Atheist Alex (AA): "I think that if God is all-loving, then he probably wouldn't want his creatures to suffer. And so, I think that the fact that they do suffer makes his existence less likely." Tim: "Okay, perfect. And is there some specific aspect of suffering that you're particularly honing in on, horrendous or whatever that is?" Alex: "In particular, non-human animal suffering. Because I think that Christianity has a celebrated tradition of theodicies, trying to explain why suffering exists: human free will, the development of the soul, higher-order goods. All of this kind of stuff. None of which apply to the suffering of non-human animals." Tim: "Have you heard of the Axiological Expectation Mismatch Problem?" Alex: "I have not." Tim: "Okay, so, philosophers of religion have started to understand that the thing that actually generates a problem between God and suffering is actually the value system you attach to the very attribute of perfect lovingness. Because the problem of evil is an internal critique, you have to look at a very specific version of theism and how it defines perfect lovingness. I want to present to you a version where my version of perfect lovingness does not actually constitute a problem and a misalignment, that mismatch between the suffering of animals - let's just say, the profusion of suffering of animals - and existence of God." Alex: "So let's hear it. What kind of God are we imagining that would allow and oversee and do nothing to prevent billions of years of untold animal suffering?" (There's no justification for all of the suffering that animals go through and it's borderline comical (if it wasn't so sad) to see Christians trying to come up with reasons to justify it.) Tim: "Right. So you're talking about non-prevention." Alex: "Or setting up the system that is natural selection, such that it relies upon things like predation and disease." (This is straight out of the Loosh chapter.) Tim: "Well, the first part is, I don't agree with the whole setting up the system part. So I'm not one of those theists that believes that God does this select and pick idea of creating worlds. I don't think that God actually creates worlds. I think that God lets worlds develop, according in a certain way. But because God can oversee an overarching narrative, he knows exactly how he can redeem anything." Alex: "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" Tim: "Yes, he could totally do that." Alex: "So had he done that, here's an instant way to reduce, by orders of magnitude, the amount of suffering that exists." (But then there would be no Loosh! I don't know if Loosh is a real thing, but if it IS, it would explain lot of things on this planet.) Tim: "Right, but hold on. That's, particularly, assuming a value theory, already, that I haven't told you I'm adopting, that has a problem with evil. So I have to give you my value theory first, for you to show that misalignment." Alex: "Okay, let's hear it." Tim: "Perfect, okay. So my value theory says that the most important thing about a sentient creature is not what merely happens to them, it's about the total timeline of their life and how and where their life permanently ends. Meaning, if you were to judge an author of a narrative, and the first few chapters, let's say, there's a lot of bad things happening, but the end ends with this crescendo where there's victoriousness, there's redemption, there's beauty. And everyone in the story actually endorses their entire existence that they live. They can look at the total timeline, and they actually each subjectively come to the conclusion, 'I'm glad I was made and I totally see what my suffering was for.' That's the particular I'm using with. Like John Hicks says, we have to judge the very nature of God's lovingness by what he does in the end, not these few time slices that we observe right now. For you to show that there's a problem, you have to show, to me, that the suffering of animals cannot be transformed, are intrinsically cut off from being transformed into a life that they will endorse. There's a couple of theses on the table." Alex: "So are you talking about the end of their life, as in their end of life on Earth, or are you talking about the afterlife?" Tim: "Antemortem, postmortem (before and after death)." (So once that animal, that suffered needlessly for most of their life, gets to the afterlife, they'll understand there was a reason for it. Really?) Alex: "Okay. Because if you're just talking about life on Earth, then I would say that if you had an author writing a book and a character. If we were trying to figure out the relationship between that author and the person in the book, and that person in the book shows up for five seconds in the first chapter, and is a child who almost immediately dies of cancer in an incredibly painful way. And there's no development, there's no sort of bring back to life, and suddenly everyone's grateful for it. It is just this miserable, tragic experience. "And I ask, well, what did the author, not want to do for the story of the book, but want to do for that character? I think it would be pretty damning. And also, when it comes to animals, we're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." Tim: "Absolutely." Alex: "They sort of have disease. Zebras, when they're killed by lions, are often too big to be killed instantly, so they die over minutes with their windpipes caught in the jaws of a lion. How can this be developing, a zebra, which, by the way, probably doesn't even have the same kind of first-person conscious experience that humans do in order to sort of rationalize an abstract and learn from their sort of past and morally develop in that way? They just suffer. And what kind of God could oversee this?" Tim:"Okay, so there's a lot of assumptions on the table. Again, you're assuming a particular value system that I'm not laying out." Alex: "I'll tell you what I'm assuming here. What I'm assuming here is that a good God would not allow unnecessary suffering to obtain. Would you agree with that?" Tim: "We can talk about unnecessary suffering. We're talking about the justifying norms for suffering. You're saying it has to be in terms of necessity. Which is, an evil is only authorizable, by God, if it's in connection to a greater good or prevention of a greater evil, correct?" Alex: "If there's some kind of justification for allowing that sort of thing." Tim: "Yeah, but you're saying it's a necessary connection. Why...what's the term necessity...?" Alex: "Perhaps I should say unjustified instead of unnecessary." Tim: "Okay, so we both agree. I do not believe that God can authorize or justify unjustified suffering." Alex: "Okay, so tell me how that example that I gave you, the deer with its leg, starving, is justified?" Tim: "Because it's intrinsically redeemable. And the norms I'm working with is not this necessity condition that you're working with. Mine is about redeemable suffering, redeemability, or what we call, feasibility." Alex: "For the deer?" Tim: "If that suffering can be defeated within the creature's life. And I'll define what I mean by defeat, which is that they can, retroactively, look back at what they went through and integrate it into their life history, where they look at their life..." Alex: "I have to interrupt, because the example I gave you is one where the deer dies." Tim: "Yes, the deer dies. But here's the thing. You're probably talking about, this post-mortem example, I'm gonna put one thesis on the table: There's two philosophers that defend exactly what this goes through. One defends that animals will be given a martyrdom status. Well, God will be able to present himself in a way to animals in the afterlife, such that, in the same way you could give praise to a dog and a dog emotionally recognizes that he's loved, and that his life is worth living, right? To these animals that suffered like that, there's one view on the table, which is that God will give them a praiseworthy status where they will be able to actually..." (Bending over backwards to justify the suffering of animals. The deer will learn why he/she had to go through all of that when they die and God explains it and praises the animal for what they went though. Ridiculous, IMO.) Alex: "So can we talk about that claim? Because these animals are suffering for what? I mean, God might cause them to suffer..." Tim: "It's not means to ends." Alex: "God might cause them to suffer a bunch, and then essentially redeem them in the afterlife. But what for? Like, why do this? If I were to punch you in the face and then give you $20,000 afterwards, you might be grateful for the $20,000, but why couldn't I just give you the $20,000?" Tim: "We'll see. So that's assuming. So I saw your debate with Trent..." Alex: "Good stuff." ~ Christian Hayden (Not Hayden Christiansen) : "Would you say that theism or atheism better account for the idea that suffering exists and a purpose for it?" Alex: "It depends exactly what you mean. Because, of course, you might say that the world itself is more expected on theism, and since suffering needs the existence of the world, that it's theism. But granted the existence of a material world, let's say, I think atheism." Hayden: "Okay. Why does suffering exist at all? In an atheistic worldview, what is the cause of suffering?" Alex: "Oh, well, because, however life began, it developed through a series of natural selection, which requires animals to develop senses that they wish to avoid in order to be more likely to survive. And that's why pain receptors evolve in a world where not all of these pains are actually going to kill us, we're left with situations left with situations in which we're in a lot of pain but don't end up dying for it." Hayden: "Would you agree that consciousness is necessary for suffering?" Alex: "I would say probably, yeah." Hayden: "Does atheism account for consciousness?" Alex: "Yes, that's what I was talking about a moment ago. Perhaps not, maybe theism accounts better for consciousness than atheism does." Hayden: "Okay. So if there is no consciousness, there is no suffering? Is that right?" Alex: "That's probably true, yeah." Hayden: "So, if atheism cannot account for consciousness, then it cannot account for suffering. Would you agree with that?" Alex: "So I think what we're doing here is we're sort of slightly shifting the goal posts. If you don't want to grant the existence of the material world before we start talking about this, we can do an argument from consciousness. But then we need to debate whether consciousness is more...it is explicable on atheism. "What I'm going to say is this: Consciousness may seem to imply the existence of a conscious creator of the Universe. We're here talking about, I suppose we're talking about Christianity. The claim was about God. But the God that you believe in, let's say, if we grant that there is a creator deity who sort of brings about the universe of conscious creatures... Have you ever heard of the evil-god hypothesis that Stephen Law popularized?" Hayden: No, tell me it." Alex: "So the idea is that like, imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer. He brings about a world in order so that human beings will suffer, right? That seems like a plausible hypothesis. And even if you think that consciousness points towards God, the kind of God that a lot of Christians think is a sort of necessary quality of God, which is to be all-loving, might not have to apply here." (I know he wasn't talking soul-trap theory and Loosh, but it sounds just like it.) Hayden: "If Christianity were true, is it plausible that suffering is necessary for God's purpose, for his creation?" Alex: "If Christianity is true, then I think it must be necessary, because there'd be no other explanation for it." Hayden: "So we're not talking about whether or not Christianity is true..." Alex: "But if you're asking me if it's plausible that Christianity is true and therefore suffering is necessary, I would say probably not. Because I don't think suffering should be necessary or could be necessary." Hayden: "In an atheistic worldview, I would agree with you. It makes no sense at all." Alex: "So can I ask you why then, if God exists and wants to come to know everybody, and wants to love everybody and does so for the sake of human beings, why he chose to imbue the world with so much suffering that is at least, seemingly, completely inexplicable?" Hayden: "Are you a father?" Alec: "No." Hayden: "I'm a father. I want my son to become just like I am, better than I am, I should say. I want him to become the best that he can be. Is it possible for him to become, to reach his potential, without suffering in his life?" Alex: "Perhaps not, but there's two..." Hayden: "So suffering is necessary." Alex: "There are a few things I want to say. Firstly, that kind of moral development doesn't apply to non-human animals, as I've already said, right?" Hayden: "Why not?" Alex: "That does not account for the brutal death of animals in the wild. Also if - I don't want to talk about your son, because it's tragic to think about, but - somebody else's son has suffered and died immediately as a result of that suffering, they don't get to develop in the same way." Hayden: "I would agree that on a micro level, it's very hard to justify. And we can ask the question, 'Why doesn't God intervene on all of these sufferings?" (Exactly. And that's the Christian making the point.) Alex: "You might be able to justify an amount of suffering, right? But the fact that there's so much gratuitous suffering in the world is what I think makes God's existence unlikely. There are some instances where maybe a certain amount of suffering brings about a certain amount of good in a situation. That, by the way, would count as a justification. But when a child dies of leukemia... And they'e dead." Hayden: "Could there be a purpose to it? What if the death of the child brings their parents to God?" Alex: "Then perhaps...then the parents should be grateful that their child got leukemia because it's doing the will of the Lord." Hayden: "Not necessarily." Alex: "That seems obscene to me." (Yep. What if the death of their child caused the grandmother to have a nervous breakdown, the mom to be riddled with guilt her entire life, and the father to go off the rails? That's my family, by the way. Before I was born, my 8-year-old sister was killed when my mom's car was stuck on the railroad tracks and the train hit the car. Seeing people trying to justify that as God's will or offering up reasons to justify it (as several people have done on here) is really sad. Sorry if that offends you.)
10:38

"Imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer." ~AA Suffering Makes God's Existence Unlikely "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" "We're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." (If you know about Loosh and "Far Journeys" by Robert Monroe, these points should all ring a bell. But this discussion was NOT about Loosh. Fascinating debate.) 1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded Christian Tim: "Okay, so my first question to start out with is: What exactly about suffering makes this unlikely, on the condition that God exists?" Atheist Alex (AA): "I think that if God is all-loving, then he probably wouldn't want his creatures to suffer. And so, I think that the fact that they do suffer makes his existence less likely." Tim: "Okay, perfect. And is there some specific aspect of suffering that you're particularly honing in on, horrendous or whatever that is?" Alex: "In particular, non-human animal suffering. Because I think that Christianity has a celebrated tradition of theodicies, trying to explain why suffering exists: human free will, the development of the soul, higher-order goods. All of this kind of stuff. None of which apply to the suffering of non-human animals." Tim: "Have you heard of the Axiological Expectation Mismatch Problem?" Alex: "I have not." Tim: "Okay, so, philosophers of religion have started to understand that the thing that actually generates a problem between God and suffering is actually the value system you attach to the very attribute of perfect lovingness. Because the problem of evil is an internal critique, you have to look at a very specific version of theism and how it defines perfect lovingness. I want to present to you a version where my version of perfect lovingness does not actually constitute a problem and a misalignment, that mismatch between the suffering of animals - let's just say, the profusion of suffering of animals - and existence of God." Alex: "So let's hear it. What kind of God are we imagining that would allow and oversee and do nothing to prevent billions of years of untold animal suffering?" (There's no justification for all of the suffering that animals go through and it's borderline comical (if it wasn't so sad) to see Christians trying to come up with reasons to justify it.) Tim: "Right. So you're talking about non-prevention." Alex: "Or setting up the system that is natural selection, such that it relies upon things like predation and disease." (This is straight out of the Loosh chapter.) Tim: "Well, the first part is, I don't agree with the whole setting up the system part. So I'm not one of those theists that believes that God does this select and pick idea of creating worlds. I don't think that God actually creates worlds. I think that God lets worlds develop, according in a certain way. But because God can oversee an overarching narrative, he knows exactly how he can redeem anything." Alex: "Could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of carnivores and omnivores?" Tim: "Yes, he could totally do that." Alex: "So had he done that, here's an instant way to reduce, by orders of magnitude, the amount of suffering that exists." (But then there would be no Loosh! I don't know if Loosh is a real thing, but if it IS, it would explain lot of things on this planet.) Tim: "Right, but hold on. That's, particularly, assuming a value theory, already, that I haven't told you I'm adopting, that has a problem with evil. So I have to give you my value theory first, for you to show that misalignment." Alex: "Okay, let's hear it." Tim: "Perfect, okay. So my value theory says that the most important thing about a sentient creature is not what merely happens to them, it's about the total timeline of their life and how and where their life permanently ends. Meaning, if you were to judge an author of a narrative, and the first few chapters, let's say, there's a lot of bad things happening, but the end ends with this crescendo where there's victoriousness, there's redemption, there's beauty. And everyone in the story actually endorses their entire existence that they live. They can look at the total timeline, and they actually each subjectively come to the conclusion, 'I'm glad I was made and I totally see what my suffering was for.' That's the particular I'm using with. Like John Hicks says, we have to judge the very nature of God's lovingness by what he does in the end, not these few time slices that we observe right now. For you to show that there's a problem, you have to show, to me, that the suffering of animals cannot be transformed, are intrinsically cut off from being transformed into a life that they will endorse. There's a couple of theses on the table." Alex: "So are you talking about the end of their life, as in their end of life on Earth, or are you talking about the afterlife?" Tim: "Antemortem, postmortem (before and after death)." (So once that animal, that suffered needlessly for most of their life, gets to the afterlife, they'll understand there was a reason for it. Really?) Alex: "Okay. Because if you're just talking about life on Earth, then I would say that if you had an author writing a book and a character. If we were trying to figure out the relationship between that author and the person in the book, and that person in the book shows up for five seconds in the first chapter, and is a child who almost immediately dies of cancer in an incredibly painful way. And there's no development, there's no sort of bring back to life, and suddenly everyone's grateful for it. It is just this miserable, tragic experience. "And I ask, well, what did the author, not want to do for the story of the book, but want to do for that character? I think it would be pretty damning. And also, when it comes to animals, we're talking about animals who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence." Tim: "Absolutely." Alex: "They sort of have disease. Zebras, when they're killed by lions, are often too big to be killed instantly, so they die over minutes with their windpipes caught in the jaws of a lion. How can this be developing, a zebra, which, by the way, probably doesn't even have the same kind of first-person conscious experience that humans do in order to sort of rationalize an abstract and learn from their sort of past and morally develop in that way? They just suffer. And what kind of God could oversee this?" Tim:"Okay, so there's a lot of assumptions on the table. Again, you're assuming a particular value system that I'm not laying out." Alex: "I'll tell you what I'm assuming here. What I'm assuming here is that a good God would not allow unnecessary suffering to obtain. Would you agree with that?" Tim: "We can talk about unnecessary suffering. We're talking about the justifying norms for suffering. You're saying it has to be in terms of necessity. Which is, an evil is only authorizable, by God, if it's in connection to a greater good or prevention of a greater evil, correct?" Alex: "If there's some kind of justification for allowing that sort of thing." Tim: "Yeah, but you're saying it's a necessary connection. Why...what's the term necessity...?" Alex: "Perhaps I should say unjustified instead of unnecessary." Tim: "Okay, so we both agree. I do not believe that God can authorize or justify unjustified suffering." Alex: "Okay, so tell me how that example that I gave you, the deer with its leg, starving, is justified?" Tim: "Because it's intrinsically redeemable. And the norms I'm working with is not this necessity condition that you're working with. Mine is about redeemable suffering, redeemability, or what we call, feasibility." Alex: "For the deer?" Tim: "If that suffering can be defeated within the creature's life. And I'll define what I mean by defeat, which is that they can, retroactively, look back at what they went through and integrate it into their life history, where they look at their life..." Alex: "I have to interrupt, because the example I gave you is one where the deer dies." Tim: "Yes, the deer dies. But here's the thing. You're probably talking about, this post-mortem example, I'm gonna put one thesis on the table: There's two philosophers that defend exactly what this goes through. One defends that animals will be given a martyrdom status. Well, God will be able to present himself in a way to animals in the afterlife, such that, in the same way you could give praise to a dog and a dog emotionally recognizes that he's loved, and that his life is worth living, right? To these animals that suffered like that, there's one view on the table, which is that God will give them a praiseworthy status where they will be able to actually..." (Bending over backwards to justify the suffering of animals. The deer will learn why he/she had to go through all of that when they die and God explains it and praises the animal for what they went though. Ridiculous, IMO.) Alex: "So can we talk about that claim? Because these animals are suffering for what? I mean, God might cause them to suffer..." Tim: "It's not means to ends." Alex: "God might cause them to suffer a bunch, and then essentially redeem them in the afterlife. But what for? Like, why do this? If I were to punch you in the face and then give you $20,000 afterwards, you might be grateful for the $20,000, but why couldn't I just give you the $20,000?" Tim: "We'll see. So that's assuming. So I saw your debate with Trent..." Alex: "Good stuff." ~ Christian Hayden (Not Hayden Christiansen) : "Would you say that theism or atheism better account for the idea that suffering exists and a purpose for it?" Alex: "It depends exactly what you mean. Because, of course, you might say that the world itself is more expected on theism, and since suffering needs the existence of the world, that it's theism. But granted the existence of a material world, let's say, I think atheism." Hayden: "Okay. Why does suffering exist at all? In an atheistic worldview, what is the cause of suffering?" Alex: "Oh, well, because, however life began, it developed through a series of natural selection, which requires animals to develop senses that they wish to avoid in order to be more likely to survive. And that's why pain receptors evolve in a world where not all of these pains are actually going to kill us, we're left with situations left with situations in which we're in a lot of pain but don't end up dying for it." Hayden: "Would you agree that consciousness is necessary for suffering?" Alex: "I would say probably, yeah." Hayden: "Does atheism account for consciousness?" Alex: "Yes, that's what I was talking about a moment ago. Perhaps not, maybe theism accounts better for consciousness than atheism does." Hayden: "Okay. So if there is no consciousness, there is no suffering? Is that right?" Alex: "That's probably true, yeah." Hayden: "So, if atheism cannot account for consciousness, then it cannot account for suffering. Would you agree with that?" Alex: "So I think what we're doing here is we're sort of slightly shifting the goal posts. If you don't want to grant the existence of the material world before we start talking about this, we can do an argument from consciousness. But then we need to debate whether consciousness is more...it is explicable on atheism. "What I'm going to say is this: Consciousness may seem to imply the existence of a conscious creator of the Universe. We're here talking about, I suppose we're talking about Christianity. The claim was about God. But the God that you believe in, let's say, if we grant that there is a creator deity who sort of brings about the universe of conscious creatures... Have you ever heard of the evil-god hypothesis that Stephen Law popularized?" Hayden: No, tell me it." Alex: "So the idea is that like, imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world, but does it maliciously, because he wants human beings to suffer. He brings about a world in order so that human beings will suffer, right? That seems like a plausible hypothesis. And even if you think that consciousness points towards God, the kind of God that a lot of Christians think is a sort of necessary quality of God, which is to be all-loving, might not have to apply here." (I know he wasn't talking soul-trap theory and Loosh, but it sounds just like it.) Hayden: "If Christianity were true, is it plausible that suffering is necessary for God's purpose, for his creation?" Alex: "If Christianity is true, then I think it must be necessary, because there'd be no other explanation for it." Hayden: "So we're not talking about whether or not Christianity is true..." Alex: "But if you're asking me if it's plausible that Christianity is true and therefore suffering is necessary, I would say probably not. Because I don't think suffering should be necessary or could be necessary." Hayden: "In an atheistic worldview, I would agree with you. It makes no sense at all." Alex: "So can I ask you why then, if God exists and wants to come to know everybody, and wants to love everybody and does so for the sake of human beings, why he chose to imbue the world with so much suffering that is at least, seemingly, completely inexplicable?" Hayden: "Are you a father?" Alec: "No." Hayden: "I'm a father. I want my son to become just like I am, better than I am, I should say. I want him to become the best that he can be. Is it possible for him to become, to reach his potential, without suffering in his life?" Alex: "Perhaps not, but there's two..." Hayden: "So suffering is necessary." Alex: "There are a few things I want to say. Firstly, that kind of moral development doesn't apply to non-human animals, as I've already said, right?" Hayden: "Why not?" Alex: "That does not account for the brutal death of animals in the wild. Also if - I don't want to talk about your son, because it's tragic to think about, but - somebody else's son has suffered and died immediately as a result of that suffering, they don't get to develop in the same way." Hayden: "I would agree that on a micro level, it's very hard to justify. And we can ask the question, 'Why doesn't God intervene on all of these sufferings?" (Exactly. And that's the Christian making the point.) Alex: "You might be able to justify an amount of suffering, right? But the fact that there's so much gratuitous suffering in the world is what I think makes God's existence unlikely. There are some instances where maybe a certain amount of suffering brings about a certain amount of good in a situation. That, by the way, would count as a justification. But when a child dies of leukemia... And they'e dead." Hayden: "Could there be a purpose to it? What if the death of the child brings their parents to God?" Alex: "Then perhaps...then the parents should be grateful that their child got leukemia because it's doing the will of the Lord." Hayden: "Not necessarily." Alex: "That seems obscene to me." (Yep. What if the death of their child caused the grandmother to have a nervous breakdown, the mom to be riddled with guilt her entire life, and the father to go off the rails? That's my family, by the way. Before I was born, my 8-year-old sister was killed when my mom's car was stuck on the railroad tracks and the train hit the car. Seeing people trying to justify that as God's will or offering up reasons to justify it (as several people have done on here) is really sad. Sorry if that offends you.)

Joe Murgia

12,708 次观看 • 1 年前

Is the Right Demanding Censorship of Tucker Carlson: A Textbook Business Strategy Case Study Analysis! "TPUSA needs to carefully decide who they choose to elevate as an "ambassador" for its brand." In the heated world of political discourse, accusations of censorship fly from all sides. But when it comes to high-profile figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, the question arises: Is the right truly demanding their silencing, or is something more nuanced at play? A recent controversy at Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has brought this debate into sharp focus, forcing us to examine the boundaries between free speech, organizational integrity, and leadership accountability. At its core, the issue boils down to a simple analogy: A keynote speaker at a major event is akin to an executive ambassador for the hosting organization. They don't just represent themselves; they embody the group's values, mission, and public image. For the right, which often decries the "censorious left" for blacklisting conservative voices, this principle cuts both ways. If large influencers on the right are acting in ways that undermine core ideals, it's not hypocrisy to call them out; it's consistency. Leaders, after all, are the architects of an organization's mission. Executives bear the responsibility for strategically executing that vision, including shaping the messaging that reaches audiences. When an executive veers off course; straying from the mission or strategy, it's the leader's duty to rein in the rogue official. This isn't about suppression; it's about stewardship. Ignore it, and you risk diluting the very purpose that drew people to the cause in the first place. Apply this business-like strategy framework to the TPUSA fiasco, and the picture becomes clearer. The decision to platform Tucker Carlson who has alligned himself alongside venomous individuals like Nick Fuentes; often labeled a "Nazi" for his far-right, white nationalist views; presents a profoundly difficult choice for any conservative leader committed to American principles. Carlson, once a Fox News staple, has built a career on provocative commentary. Yet, a closer look at his show reveals a pattern: He's amplified some of the most egregious guests imaginable, individuals whose rhetoric and actions stand in direct opposition to the American experiment. These aren't fringe missteps; they're antithetical to the foundational values of liberty, pluralism, and opportunity that TPUSA claims to champion. Inviting such figures doesn't just risk alienating allies; it actively counters the organization's stated mission of empowering young conservatives to defend freedom and build a stronger America. Fuentes, in particular, has drawn widespread condemnation for his Holocaust denial, antisemitism, and calls for a "white Christian" America, views that clash violently with the inclusive conservatism many on the right aspire to. As the leader of any organization, be it a corporation, nonprofit, or political movement, you're obligated to "walk the talk." That phrase isn't just motivational poster fodder; it demands action, especially when it requires making very difficult decisions. In TPUSA's case, disinviting Carlson as a keynote speaker isn't an act of censorship but a necessary course correction. It will respresent a stand for the mission over personal alliances, strategy over spectacle. Critics on the right might cry foul, equating this with the left's cancel culture playbook. But here's the distinction: True censorship seeks to erase voices from the public square entirely. This is about curating a platform that aligns with an organization's goals, not banning Carlson or Fuentes from speaking elsewhere. They remain free to broadcast their views on their own channels, to millions of followers. The appropriate choice is to debate these individuals at other venue choices, not at an annual TPUSA conference. TPUSA needs to carefully decide who they choose to elevate as an "ambassador" for its brand. In the end, this episode underscores a broader truth for the conservative movement: Free speech is sacred, but it's not a blank check for leaders to platform poison. If the right wants to reclaim moral high ground, it must hold its own accountable, just as it demands of the left. Tough calls like this aren't weakness; they're the mark of principled leadership. Only then can the movement truly advance its vision without being derailed by its own extremes. As the TPUSA team finalizes the blueprint for the December 2025 AmericaFest conference with Tucker Carlson slotted as the marquee keynote speaker a singular, searing imperative crystallizes: the resolve to sideline him from that premier keynote speaker ambassador role to a panelist at another event in a debate with large influencers like Ben Shapiro, James Lindsay, or Dinesh D'Souza at a conservative forum outside the TPUSA brand appears to be the only viable solution.
0:52

Is the Right Demanding Censorship of Tucker Carlson: A Textbook Business Strategy Case Study Analysis! "TPUSA needs to carefully decide who they choose to elevate as an "ambassador" for its brand." In the heated world of political discourse, accusations of censorship fly from all sides. But when it comes to high-profile figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, the question arises: Is the right truly demanding their silencing, or is something more nuanced at play? A recent controversy at Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has brought this debate into sharp focus, forcing us to examine the boundaries between free speech, organizational integrity, and leadership accountability. At its core, the issue boils down to a simple analogy: A keynote speaker at a major event is akin to an executive ambassador for the hosting organization. They don't just represent themselves; they embody the group's values, mission, and public image. For the right, which often decries the "censorious left" for blacklisting conservative voices, this principle cuts both ways. If large influencers on the right are acting in ways that undermine core ideals, it's not hypocrisy to call them out; it's consistency. Leaders, after all, are the architects of an organization's mission. Executives bear the responsibility for strategically executing that vision, including shaping the messaging that reaches audiences. When an executive veers off course; straying from the mission or strategy, it's the leader's duty to rein in the rogue official. This isn't about suppression; it's about stewardship. Ignore it, and you risk diluting the very purpose that drew people to the cause in the first place. Apply this business-like strategy framework to the TPUSA fiasco, and the picture becomes clearer. The decision to platform Tucker Carlson who has alligned himself alongside venomous individuals like Nick Fuentes; often labeled a "Nazi" for his far-right, white nationalist views; presents a profoundly difficult choice for any conservative leader committed to American principles. Carlson, once a Fox News staple, has built a career on provocative commentary. Yet, a closer look at his show reveals a pattern: He's amplified some of the most egregious guests imaginable, individuals whose rhetoric and actions stand in direct opposition to the American experiment. These aren't fringe missteps; they're antithetical to the foundational values of liberty, pluralism, and opportunity that TPUSA claims to champion. Inviting such figures doesn't just risk alienating allies; it actively counters the organization's stated mission of empowering young conservatives to defend freedom and build a stronger America. Fuentes, in particular, has drawn widespread condemnation for his Holocaust denial, antisemitism, and calls for a "white Christian" America, views that clash violently with the inclusive conservatism many on the right aspire to. As the leader of any organization, be it a corporation, nonprofit, or political movement, you're obligated to "walk the talk." That phrase isn't just motivational poster fodder; it demands action, especially when it requires making very difficult decisions. In TPUSA's case, disinviting Carlson as a keynote speaker isn't an act of censorship but a necessary course correction. It will respresent a stand for the mission over personal alliances, strategy over spectacle. Critics on the right might cry foul, equating this with the left's cancel culture playbook. But here's the distinction: True censorship seeks to erase voices from the public square entirely. This is about curating a platform that aligns with an organization's goals, not banning Carlson or Fuentes from speaking elsewhere. They remain free to broadcast their views on their own channels, to millions of followers. The appropriate choice is to debate these individuals at other venue choices, not at an annual TPUSA conference. TPUSA needs to carefully decide who they choose to elevate as an "ambassador" for its brand. In the end, this episode underscores a broader truth for the conservative movement: Free speech is sacred, but it's not a blank check for leaders to platform poison. If the right wants to reclaim moral high ground, it must hold its own accountable, just as it demands of the left. Tough calls like this aren't weakness; they're the mark of principled leadership. Only then can the movement truly advance its vision without being derailed by its own extremes. As the TPUSA team finalizes the blueprint for the December 2025 AmericaFest conference with Tucker Carlson slotted as the marquee keynote speaker a singular, searing imperative crystallizes: the resolve to sideline him from that premier keynote speaker ambassador role to a panelist at another event in a debate with large influencers like Ben Shapiro, James Lindsay, or Dinesh D'Souza at a conservative forum outside the TPUSA brand appears to be the only viable solution.

Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior

17,765 次观看 • 9 个月前

#459 From Boogeyman to Conversation, My Talk with Nick Griffin About this Guest - Nick Griffin is a British political figure, writer, and commentator best known for his leadership of the British National Party (BNP) from 1999 to 2014. Born in 1959 in London, he studied at the University of Cambridge, where he became politically active at a young age. Griffin first came to prominence in British politics through nationalist movements, eventually rising to lead the BNP during a period in which the party achieved its greatest electoral success. Under his leadership, the BNP secured representation in the European Parliament, where Griffin served as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for North West England from 2009 to 2014. Throughout his career, he has been a controversial and polarising figure, particularly due to his views on immigration, national identity, and multiculturalism. Supporters have described him as a critic of globalisation and mass immigration, while critics have strongly opposed his political positions and associations. Following his departure from frontline party politics, Griffin has remained active as a writer and commentator, sharing his views on geopolitics, culture, and societal change through independent media platforms, including his Substack. His work today focuses on political analysis, historical interpretation, and commentary on global power structures, often challenging mainstream narratives and encouraging debate on issues such as sovereignty, identity, and the future of Western societies. About this Episode - This was such a surreal conversation on the podcast. I had to sit back halfway through and think, how did I end up here, sitting across from Nick Griffin of all people, unpacking everything from childhood, identity and ideology, to immigration, power and the future of civilisation. We started where it all begins, our upbringing. I reflected on growing up in Glasgow, my experiences, my lens, and how the smallest things shape your worldview more than you realise. And why Nick Griffin, for me, was the boogeyman. Nick shared his early political influences, what drew him into activism, and how his thinking has evolved over time. Whether people agree with him or not, understanding how someone arrives at their beliefs is always more valuable than simply dismissing them. From there, we moved into immigration and multiculturalism, a topic that is impossible to ignore today. We explored whether mass migration strengthens or fragments societies, and the tension between cultural identity and integration. I have always believed you can hold two ideas at once, recognising both the beauty of cultural diversity and the reality that cohesion matters if a society is to function in the long run. Religion naturally came into the discussion too, not just as belief, but as a civilisational force. We talked about Christianity, Islam, and how religious frameworks have historically shaped societies, for better or worse. It is impossible to understand the present without acknowledging the spiritual and philosophical foundations of the past. We also dug into history, colonialism, land ownership, and the way narratives are constructed. One of the recurring themes, as you will not be surprised to hear, was how much of what we are taught is simplified, distorted, or simply incomplete. The shift from land based, self sufficient communities to industrialised labour was not just progress. It came at a cost, displacement, dependency, the reorganisation of power, and the erosion of family and community. And that word kept coming up, power. Who has it, how they maintain it, and whether what we see today is organic or engineered. We explored the idea that modern societies are shaped not just by visible politics, but by deeper systems, financial structures, ideological movements, and long term strategies that most people never see. The concept of a quiet war against populations is controversial, but as I have said before, I believe it is real. A quiet war against humanity, particularly in the West, fought with silent weapons, and one that has been unfolding for decades. We also spoke about disillusionment with modern politics, including Nick’s involvement with the British National Party. The idea that we are presented with genuine choice feels increasingly hollow. It looks more and more like theatre. Different faces, same direction. One thread that ran through this entire conversation was simple, the solutions are not going to come from the top down. Not from political leaders, not from parties, not from billionaires or philanthropists. They have to come from the people, from families, from local communities, and from real relationships. Strengthening those is far more powerful than arguing over which politician is slightly less bad than the next. We also touched on identity. What does it actually mean to be British? Does Britain even exist as a coherent idea anymore? And would smaller, more localised governance serve people better, whether as English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish communities? What I found most interesting was that despite all the heavy topics, there were moments of reflection, humility, and even agreement. Cultural differences are real, but so are shared human experiences. And if we are going to navigate the future, we need to understand both. I also reflected on my own journey, the mistakes, the regrets, the lessons. Because none of us arrive at our views fully formed. We evolve, often through hardship. We are living through a period of massive change, demographic, cultural, economic, technological. The question is not whether change is happening, it is whether we understand it, and whether we respond consciously or simply react. For me, it comes back to something simple. Strengthen your family. Strengthen your community. Stay curious. Question everything. I have to admit, I was very impressed by Nick. He is clearly erudite, articulate, and well informed. It was a pleasure to have him on the show, and I look forward to having him back. I would urge you to check out his Substack. There is a reason the establishment wanted him discredited and removed. I believe that had he remained in politics, he would have been a powerful force, one that is not controlled. And that is what the establishment fears most of all. Much love Doc Malik Links - If you value my podcasts, please support the show by making a one-off donation. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale
1:39:54

#459 From Boogeyman to Conversation, My Talk with Nick Griffin About this Guest - Nick Griffin is a British political figure, writer, and commentator best known for his leadership of the British National Party (BNP) from 1999 to 2014. Born in 1959 in London, he studied at the University of Cambridge, where he became politically active at a young age. Griffin first came to prominence in British politics through nationalist movements, eventually rising to lead the BNP during a period in which the party achieved its greatest electoral success. Under his leadership, the BNP secured representation in the European Parliament, where Griffin served as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for North West England from 2009 to 2014. Throughout his career, he has been a controversial and polarising figure, particularly due to his views on immigration, national identity, and multiculturalism. Supporters have described him as a critic of globalisation and mass immigration, while critics have strongly opposed his political positions and associations. Following his departure from frontline party politics, Griffin has remained active as a writer and commentator, sharing his views on geopolitics, culture, and societal change through independent media platforms, including his Substack. His work today focuses on political analysis, historical interpretation, and commentary on global power structures, often challenging mainstream narratives and encouraging debate on issues such as sovereignty, identity, and the future of Western societies. About this Episode - This was such a surreal conversation on the podcast. I had to sit back halfway through and think, how did I end up here, sitting across from Nick Griffin of all people, unpacking everything from childhood, identity and ideology, to immigration, power and the future of civilisation. We started where it all begins, our upbringing. I reflected on growing up in Glasgow, my experiences, my lens, and how the smallest things shape your worldview more than you realise. And why Nick Griffin, for me, was the boogeyman. Nick shared his early political influences, what drew him into activism, and how his thinking has evolved over time. Whether people agree with him or not, understanding how someone arrives at their beliefs is always more valuable than simply dismissing them. From there, we moved into immigration and multiculturalism, a topic that is impossible to ignore today. We explored whether mass migration strengthens or fragments societies, and the tension between cultural identity and integration. I have always believed you can hold two ideas at once, recognising both the beauty of cultural diversity and the reality that cohesion matters if a society is to function in the long run. Religion naturally came into the discussion too, not just as belief, but as a civilisational force. We talked about Christianity, Islam, and how religious frameworks have historically shaped societies, for better or worse. It is impossible to understand the present without acknowledging the spiritual and philosophical foundations of the past. We also dug into history, colonialism, land ownership, and the way narratives are constructed. One of the recurring themes, as you will not be surprised to hear, was how much of what we are taught is simplified, distorted, or simply incomplete. The shift from land based, self sufficient communities to industrialised labour was not just progress. It came at a cost, displacement, dependency, the reorganisation of power, and the erosion of family and community. And that word kept coming up, power. Who has it, how they maintain it, and whether what we see today is organic or engineered. We explored the idea that modern societies are shaped not just by visible politics, but by deeper systems, financial structures, ideological movements, and long term strategies that most people never see. The concept of a quiet war against populations is controversial, but as I have said before, I believe it is real. A quiet war against humanity, particularly in the West, fought with silent weapons, and one that has been unfolding for decades. We also spoke about disillusionment with modern politics, including Nick’s involvement with the British National Party. The idea that we are presented with genuine choice feels increasingly hollow. It looks more and more like theatre. Different faces, same direction. One thread that ran through this entire conversation was simple, the solutions are not going to come from the top down. Not from political leaders, not from parties, not from billionaires or philanthropists. They have to come from the people, from families, from local communities, and from real relationships. Strengthening those is far more powerful than arguing over which politician is slightly less bad than the next. We also touched on identity. What does it actually mean to be British? Does Britain even exist as a coherent idea anymore? And would smaller, more localised governance serve people better, whether as English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish communities? What I found most interesting was that despite all the heavy topics, there were moments of reflection, humility, and even agreement. Cultural differences are real, but so are shared human experiences. And if we are going to navigate the future, we need to understand both. I also reflected on my own journey, the mistakes, the regrets, the lessons. Because none of us arrive at our views fully formed. We evolve, often through hardship. We are living through a period of massive change, demographic, cultural, economic, technological. The question is not whether change is happening, it is whether we understand it, and whether we respond consciously or simply react. For me, it comes back to something simple. Strengthen your family. Strengthen your community. Stay curious. Question everything. I have to admit, I was very impressed by Nick. He is clearly erudite, articulate, and well informed. It was a pleasure to have him on the show, and I look forward to having him back. I would urge you to check out his Substack. There is a reason the establishment wanted him discredited and removed. I believe that had he remained in politics, he would have been a powerful force, one that is not controlled. And that is what the establishment fears most of all. Much love Doc Malik Links - If you value my podcasts, please support the show by making a one-off donation. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale

Doc Malik

11,113 次观看 • 4 个月前

Socialist mayor’s blunt 1-word message to fleeing millionaires sparks outrage: ‘We're doomed’ | Andrew Miller & Peter Pinedo, Fox News Katie Wilson, Seattle’s new self-proclaimed socialist mayor, sparked a social media firestorm after she gave her take on reports that millionaires are fleeing Washington state due to taxes and various far-left policies. While speaking at a forum at Seattle University earlier this month, the new Democratic mayor said, "I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are like super overblown." "And the ones that leave, like, bye," she continued, waving her hand and laughing. Though the line drew laughs and applause from those in the auditorium, it did not go over as well online, as conservatives quickly blasted the new Seattle mayor. "Seattle's Socialist Mayor responds to exodus of wealth from Washington State by saying "BYE" ... then laughing. We're doomed," wrote Brandi Kruse. Kruse's post has been seen over 4 million times on social media as of Friday morning. Popular conservative account "End Wokeness" also posted on X, writing, "Mayor Wilson seems to welcome the idea of a wealth exodus from Seattle. This is the FA part. FO coming soon." "Enjoy, Seattle," Fox News contributor Guy Benson posted on X. "What do socialists think happens when the most productive, highest revenue driving members of their tax base leave their jurisdictions?" Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts posted on X. "Socialists are driven by hate for the rich, not concern for the poor," Manhattan Institute scholar Daniel Di Martino posted on X. "This is the reaction of a spoiled child whose parents paid her bills up until the point that she became mayor… She has no grasp of reality or economics," comedian Tim Young posted on X. "Seattle is extra cooked." Discovery Institute Senior Journalism Fellow Jonathan Chose posted on X, "Seattle, you voted for this." "This clip will live in infamy," the Washington State Republican Party posted on X. "Mayor Katie B. Wilson Katie Wilson is not only unfit to be mayor, she lacks grace and gratitude. Perhaps, she's the one who should leave #Seattle." Fox News Digital reached out to Wilson's office for comment. Wilson shocked many political observers when she was elected Seattle's mayor last year, and many chalked up her victory to her ability to tap into a similar voting bloc that socialist Zohran Mamdani used on his way to becoming New York City's next mayor. Earlier this month, Fox News Digital reported on city advocates who say they are struggling to find solutions as homelessness and open-air drug use spread across Seattle’s streets, amid growing concerns about the direction of Wilson's new administration. "You can just see the foil is like blowing down the sidewalks like autumn leaves," Andrea Suarez, founder and executive director of We Heart Seattle, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "Very common to see property damage of our parks and shared spaces. You can see Narcan is used to reverse an overdose, so you'll see cartridges. But at least we're remodeling the bathroom to be gender-neutral. I'm not [kidding] you, that's where our priorities are."
1:00

Socialist mayor’s blunt 1-word message to fleeing millionaires sparks outrage: ‘We're doomed’ | Andrew Miller & Peter Pinedo, Fox News Katie Wilson, Seattle’s new self-proclaimed socialist mayor, sparked a social media firestorm after she gave her take on reports that millionaires are fleeing Washington state due to taxes and various far-left policies. While speaking at a forum at Seattle University earlier this month, the new Democratic mayor said, "I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are like super overblown." "And the ones that leave, like, bye," she continued, waving her hand and laughing. Though the line drew laughs and applause from those in the auditorium, it did not go over as well online, as conservatives quickly blasted the new Seattle mayor. "Seattle's Socialist Mayor responds to exodus of wealth from Washington State by saying "BYE" ... then laughing. We're doomed," wrote Brandi Kruse. Kruse's post has been seen over 4 million times on social media as of Friday morning. Popular conservative account "End Wokeness" also posted on X, writing, "Mayor Wilson seems to welcome the idea of a wealth exodus from Seattle. This is the FA part. FO coming soon." "Enjoy, Seattle," Fox News contributor Guy Benson posted on X. "What do socialists think happens when the most productive, highest revenue driving members of their tax base leave their jurisdictions?" Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts posted on X. "Socialists are driven by hate for the rich, not concern for the poor," Manhattan Institute scholar Daniel Di Martino posted on X. "This is the reaction of a spoiled child whose parents paid her bills up until the point that she became mayor… She has no grasp of reality or economics," comedian Tim Young posted on X. "Seattle is extra cooked." Discovery Institute Senior Journalism Fellow Jonathan Chose posted on X, "Seattle, you voted for this." "This clip will live in infamy," the Washington State Republican Party posted on X. "Mayor Katie B. Wilson Katie Wilson is not only unfit to be mayor, she lacks grace and gratitude. Perhaps, she's the one who should leave #Seattle." Fox News Digital reached out to Wilson's office for comment. Wilson shocked many political observers when she was elected Seattle's mayor last year, and many chalked up her victory to her ability to tap into a similar voting bloc that socialist Zohran Mamdani used on his way to becoming New York City's next mayor. Earlier this month, Fox News Digital reported on city advocates who say they are struggling to find solutions as homelessness and open-air drug use spread across Seattle’s streets, amid growing concerns about the direction of Wilson's new administration. "You can just see the foil is like blowing down the sidewalks like autumn leaves," Andrea Suarez, founder and executive director of We Heart Seattle, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "Very common to see property damage of our parks and shared spaces. You can see Narcan is used to reverse an overdose, so you'll see cartridges. But at least we're remodeling the bathroom to be gender-neutral. I'm not [kidding] you, that's where our priorities are."

Owen Gregorian

11,431 次观看 • 3 个月前

History is made: Fine structure mystery solved? /🧵 UPDATE: My model may have solved an outstanding question in physics: the origin of the fine structure constant. I found a robust source and it works even with some tuning within -3% to 7% over a massive range of non-linear fields. What is the fine structure constant? Watch the video below and you'll find out. Essentially its a mysterious constant that occurs in atomic and subatomic physics that has no unit. Countless people have tried to find a reason for it, and most have turned to numerology. I did something that only could work in this age of LLMs and someone who is a motivated expert in the field. Did a massive paper search, found the material in 10 minutes, aligned everything, then had it double check for me. Note that I wasn't looking for it. It occurred to me by accident when I was developing my bilinear principle of electromagnetic interaction. Within an hour, I had a value for it. My idea was simple: apply my non-linear soliton model to the electron in a way that makes my current x current interaction make sense not just at the atomic level but the subatomic level. Look at E = mc^2. It's the same as E = (sqrt(m) c)(sqrt(m) c). If sqrt(m) could be scaled to a charge, then you could interpret it as two scaled currents multiplying against each other. This is almost identical to the equation for the energy contained within an inductor L with a current I running through it: E = 0.5 L I^2. So far, sketchy right? Here's the thing, vortexes are solitons and they can exist in superfluids -- they even have quantised "Noether charge". They acquire a mass from their vorticity, have an energy associated with them and can move at any speed inside the medium with a different speed. Exactly like electrons! So my idea was to map the electron exactly to these vortices. If I could predict the mass of the electron, I could actually finally connect mass to electromagentism properly (Planck's argument is elegant but indirect). I used dimensional analysis to do this. It took a few tries to get it right and I had it checked by 10 different instances of the highest powered LLMs. With this first order approximation I got within 1/4th of the mass. It was almost exactly 1/4th... so I realised, I had to use a double cover to make it like SU(2). After another half an hour of research, I felt confident in using something like Dirac's scissor to do it. A kind of knot within the electron. It got me within 1.2% of the mass of the electron... but there was a problem, the mass of the electron occurred on the other side of the equation. I cringed at myself. Such an amateur mistake, I thought. But the LLM (Opus 4.5) actually corrected me and told me I had just accidentally derived the fine structure constant. Why? Because the mass terms cancelled out, or if one prefers, leave behind a correction ratio. Set that correction ratio and you get a function that implicitly defines the fine structure constant through two "parameters": 1. The actual geometry of the soliton/vortex. 2. The non-linearity of the medium and how it changed the vortex core. I went back and found an equation from friggin' Lord Kelvin, derived in the Victorian era. I then found an analysis from 1970 on the Non-linear Schrodinger Equation (NLSE) applied to exactly this domain but for a larger scale soliton in superfluids -- it didn't matter though because a superfluid and the medium of space are scale free as I had proven in the superconduction part of my paper. In any case plugging these two approximation in got me within 1.2% of the fine structure constant by solving the following implicit equation: 1 = 8 * pi * alpha (Log_e(8/alpha) - alpha_core) Where alpha_core is 1.615 in the NLSE. The most incredible thing? It was a ROBUST value for thin ring vortices. Even if you adjusted the alpha_core from 1.5-2, the values for the fine structure constant only changed between -3% to +7%. I cannot emphasise how incredible this result is -- it means that the actual non-linear equation and the other candidate geometries that reproduce SU(2) can actually get the exact value of the fine structure constant. I don't know of anyone who even approached this problem in this way without making ansatz or postulates. I'm still checking through the math in disbelief. If it's wrong it's going to be beautifully wrong. All LLMs I've ran it through agree with the math, just not the foundations which is expected due to their QED bias. This will be in chapter 11 of my paper. I've already sketched out the full derivation. This SIGNIFICANTLY strengthens an already game changing paper. I promise it'll be the last discovery I include and thank you for your patience. I wrote this full update out because of the significance of this development. Details will be in the paper, even if there was a mistake (it'll be shuffled on its own into the appendix -- but I really hope it all checks out). 💝🥰 /End
15:57

History is made: Fine structure mystery solved? /🧵 UPDATE: My model may have solved an outstanding question in physics: the origin of the fine structure constant. I found a robust source and it works even with some tuning within -3% to 7% over a massive range of non-linear fields. What is the fine structure constant? Watch the video below and you'll find out. Essentially its a mysterious constant that occurs in atomic and subatomic physics that has no unit. Countless people have tried to find a reason for it, and most have turned to numerology. I did something that only could work in this age of LLMs and someone who is a motivated expert in the field. Did a massive paper search, found the material in 10 minutes, aligned everything, then had it double check for me. Note that I wasn't looking for it. It occurred to me by accident when I was developing my bilinear principle of electromagnetic interaction. Within an hour, I had a value for it. My idea was simple: apply my non-linear soliton model to the electron in a way that makes my current x current interaction make sense not just at the atomic level but the subatomic level. Look at E = mc^2. It's the same as E = (sqrt(m) c)(sqrt(m) c). If sqrt(m) could be scaled to a charge, then you could interpret it as two scaled currents multiplying against each other. This is almost identical to the equation for the energy contained within an inductor L with a current I running through it: E = 0.5 L I^2. So far, sketchy right? Here's the thing, vortexes are solitons and they can exist in superfluids -- they even have quantised "Noether charge". They acquire a mass from their vorticity, have an energy associated with them and can move at any speed inside the medium with a different speed. Exactly like electrons! So my idea was to map the electron exactly to these vortices. If I could predict the mass of the electron, I could actually finally connect mass to electromagentism properly (Planck's argument is elegant but indirect). I used dimensional analysis to do this. It took a few tries to get it right and I had it checked by 10 different instances of the highest powered LLMs. With this first order approximation I got within 1/4th of the mass. It was almost exactly 1/4th... so I realised, I had to use a double cover to make it like SU(2). After another half an hour of research, I felt confident in using something like Dirac's scissor to do it. A kind of knot within the electron. It got me within 1.2% of the mass of the electron... but there was a problem, the mass of the electron occurred on the other side of the equation. I cringed at myself. Such an amateur mistake, I thought. But the LLM (Opus 4.5) actually corrected me and told me I had just accidentally derived the fine structure constant. Why? Because the mass terms cancelled out, or if one prefers, leave behind a correction ratio. Set that correction ratio and you get a function that implicitly defines the fine structure constant through two "parameters": 1. The actual geometry of the soliton/vortex. 2. The non-linearity of the medium and how it changed the vortex core. I went back and found an equation from friggin' Lord Kelvin, derived in the Victorian era. I then found an analysis from 1970 on the Non-linear Schrodinger Equation (NLSE) applied to exactly this domain but for a larger scale soliton in superfluids -- it didn't matter though because a superfluid and the medium of space are scale free as I had proven in the superconduction part of my paper. In any case plugging these two approximation in got me within 1.2% of the fine structure constant by solving the following implicit equation: 1 = 8 * pi * alpha (Log_e(8/alpha) - alpha_core) Where alpha_core is 1.615 in the NLSE. The most incredible thing? It was a ROBUST value for thin ring vortices. Even if you adjusted the alpha_core from 1.5-2, the values for the fine structure constant only changed between -3% to +7%. I cannot emphasise how incredible this result is -- it means that the actual non-linear equation and the other candidate geometries that reproduce SU(2) can actually get the exact value of the fine structure constant. I don't know of anyone who even approached this problem in this way without making ansatz or postulates. I'm still checking through the math in disbelief. If it's wrong it's going to be beautifully wrong. All LLMs I've ran it through agree with the math, just not the foundations which is expected due to their QED bias. This will be in chapter 11 of my paper. I've already sketched out the full derivation. This SIGNIFICANTLY strengthens an already game changing paper. I promise it'll be the last discovery I include and thank you for your patience. I wrote this full update out because of the significance of this development. Details will be in the paper, even if there was a mistake (it'll be shuffled on its own into the appendix -- but I really hope it all checks out). 💝🥰 /End

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️🇷🇺

47,180 次观看 • 7 个月前