Walked into the kitchen hungry… left satisfied in a whole different way 😏🔥 #snowbunny #whitegirl #pawg #hoodbunny #gutterbunny #pyt #bop #goon #goonfuel #wankbank #buyingcontent #sellingcontent #contentcreator #model #thickwhitegirl #horny #whooty
301,535 次观看 • 4 个月前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
![🔥 New Lacatski - Plus My Thoughts, and More 🔥 "It was about 18 inches tall, 18 inches wide, floating in the middle of the kitchen. Jean said, 'Before you showed up, a [crucifix] flew out of the bathroom, horizontally.'" AAWSAP, "was to investigate the paranormal as being the umbrella over UFOs, right from the get go. [My bosses] knew it from the beginning." ~Lacatski ~ Kirsten Joyce: "A U.S. intelligence official who designed and directed the largest UFO investigation in American history has confirmed at least one UFO-type craft of unknown origin is being studied in absolute secrecy." denise valdez: "But, Dr. James Lacatski adds, the fact that our government has stashed away one of these craft is just a small part of a much bigger mystery. Lacatski spoke exclusively with our chief investigator, George Knapp." Knapp in Studio: "Yeah, we're overdue for some UFO News, right? Some of our viewers might remember the name James Lacatski, an analyst and nuclear engineer who worked for the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and oversaw a program called AAWSAP, based here in Las Vegas. The government still hasn't released a single page from the AAWSAP files, though the program ended 15 years ago, but Dr. Lacatski has been authorized to spill some of these deep, dark secrets." ~ Dr. James Lacatski: "Reducing 30,000 pages of analyst photos and information and logs and sightings, etc, and investigations, that was a tough job. So, when I first met you, I could only give you a very top-level view of what we had done." ~ Knapp Voiceover: "The first time Dr James Lacatski revealed the existence of AAWSAP, the government's largest ever UFO-related investigation, was in a hush-hush, Washington DC meeting in March 2018, arranged by Senator Harry Reid. It happened seven years after the program had ended, and four months after the New York Times revealed the existence of a smaller, unofficial offshoot effort called AATIP." (And Knapp told you about that meeting, and AAWSAP, in March of 2019, and I transcribed it and shared it in April of that same year. In 2019, Knapp also told you that AATIP was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies, including the Air Force and the Navy, CIA, DIA, DARPA…there might be a couple of other agencies. But a case would come in from any one of their units [and] it would be shared with this group of people, analysis would be done, evidence would be looked at and then stashed in a draw and nobody ever sees it. It’s not passed up the chain of command.") Read about it here: Transcript – George Knapp at UFO MegaCon: Over The Years, [The Pentagon] Has “Lied” About UFOs “And They’re Lying Now.” ~~~ Knapp Voiceover: "AAWSAP, authorized by the DIA, secretly funded by Reid and colleagues, and carried out by a Las-Vegas subcontractor of Bigelow Aerospace, was larger than all previous UFO programs put together. It produced a staggering body of work in its 27-month existence. More than 100 thick, detailed scientific reports, not one page of which has ever been released by the government. The most unique part of AAWSAP, is that the program was allowed to follow the evidence wherever it led, and it invariably led to phenomena far stranger than mere UFOs." ~ Lacatski: "And it didn't go off-track into the paranormal, it was to investigate the paranormal as being the umbrella over UFOs, right from the get go." Knapp: "And your bosses knew that from the beginning, they knew it was gonna get weird." Lacatski: "They knew it from the beginning. They were concerned from the beginning about the leak, but we never had a leak, not at all." ~ Knapp Voiceover: "Lacatski and a DIA colleague, ,, were inspired to pursue these subjects in part by continued reports of UFO activity over sensitive U.S. military assets, and by a cornucopia of bizarre, seemingly-paranormal phenomena at what is now well-known as Skinwalker Ranch. "Creatures, animal mutilations, poltergeist or trickster-type activities, along with a smorgasbord of possible UFOs. Lacatski visited the ranch, had an experience himself, and wondered if the paranormal events were a side effect caused by UFO technology, and whoever was piloting those craft." (I believe Stratton and Travis S Taylor lean towards the paranormal events (at least, perception-wise) are the product of the UFO technology having an affect on our brains and making us see things that are not there. For those who have never heard it, here's Lacatski in 2021, on Coast to Coast AM, describing what he experienced on Skinwalker Ranch back in July of 2007.) Lacatski: "We went into the ranch manager’s homes and sat down. Now, we were having a casual conversation. You know, I’m certainly noticing that there are twelve or more crosses and crucifixes on the wall, and I was thinking, 'Hmm, Jim, I wonder if I really should have come here.' But in any case, you know, we’re having a nice conversation and then Bob [Bigelow] and the ranch managers went into, I’d best call it a personal finance discussion, which I felt kind of awkward being there. And I kind of went into a daze, you know, just glancing around the room, seeing what’s the lay of the land in the rooms. And then this object appears, floating in the kitchen. Quite distinct. I mean, I looked away from it and it maintained its position and allowed me, I guess, actively allowed me to come back and look at it and examine it more closely. It was not a blurry vision, it was not a speck in my eye. It was there, it was about 18 inches tall, 18 inches wide, floating in the middle of the kitchen. And that kitchen is quite distinct. Its style is 1950s-style, so the colors of the tiles are quite distinct." George Noory: "Did it look like it just appeared?" Lacatski: "It just appeared. It just appeared and it was very sharp. Now, let me give you an exact description. Take a piece of spaghetti about six inches long - I’m just saying, you know, in practical terms, to form a model of it - let it wet or boil it and let it drop and start bunching up on itself. But at the very end that you’re holding, allow it to droop downwards, and stick out. Now that was super clear, that portion of it. It was a truncated, it was a solid light yellow and it was surrounded by a different shade of yellow cloud. So, you know, I’m looking at this taking notes of what it looked like and just a few minutes ago, I looked back at my original drawing of it because I wanted to catch the impact. And, as someone, I guess, I noted to someone and they’ve repeated it (Bigelow repeated it to George Knapp), it looked very much like the cover object of Tubular Bells, the album from back, I guess it was in the 80s. Except it wasn’t chrome, it was yellow, and it was solid. Quite clear and then it got fuzzy as the droopy portion went into the cloud. And that was it. "There was nothing that dramatic about it. And that’s when we went into a discussion of, you know, I made the comment, 'Well, is this your decorating style?' And Jean said, 'Oh, yes, this is my decorating style. Strange, though, but, you know, before you showed up, a cross flew out of the bathroom, horizontally, into the wash basket, on top of the washing machine.' So I’m thinking, 'Oh, hmm.' Well that’s when we went back and we went right through where the object was, as we all went back and toured the rest of the house and had further discussions about what was going on there. So it’s not a complex story, but that’s it." Knapp: "Just to add some context to this: Jim only made one visit on behalf of the Defense Intelligence Agency to figure out whether there was a justification for a study. He’s there on the ranch for a short period of time, he has an experience, this thing appears in the air, and only he can see it, it’s just for him. And that site, that event is what led to the creation of the program (AAWSAP) and convinced him that something was really going on. He went back to Washington, talked with Harry Reid and set this thing in motion, designed the program. He’s being too modest, I think." Read the full transcript here: C2C Transcript: Lacatski, Colm, Knapp & AAWSAP – UFO Study Can’t Just Be On Nuts & Bolts ~~~ Knapp Voiceover: "[Lacatski] wondered if the paranormal events were a side effect caused by UFO technology, and whoever was piloting those craft. It turned out to be the other way around, he says: UFOs are a subset under a larger paranormal umbrella. Lacatski makes that argument in his new book about AAWSAP, 'Future Visions'" Lacatski: "That's the purpose of the government effort, was to look into: Is there something really there, especially in the paranormal umbrella? And the answer is: Absolutely yes." Knapp Voiceover: "Members of Congress and the UFO public are mostly focused these days on testimony they've heard about Legacy Programs, places where crashed UFOs and alien bodies are supposedly stashed, the kind of allegations that put Nevada's Area 51 on the map back in 1989. "And why not? In a previous book ("Initial Revelations"), Lacatski was authorized to say, in very brief terms, that the government does possess at least one advanced craft of unknown origin. As big as that news is, Lacatski says, it does not answer the even larger questions." ~ Knapp: "You could have craft, you could have bodies, but it wouldn't necessarily tell you where they're from, why they're here, what their plan is." Lacatski: "Nope. Nope, it wouldn't, and that's part of the the story. And what have we really done? In fact, if there was an alien intelligence, which some people think is behind all of this, they must be shaking their heads in frustration (Knapp laughs), because we move like a snail, and maybe, at times, we even go backwards." ~~~ Knapp in Studio: "This is Dr Lacatski's fourth and final book based on the AAWSAP files. I was co-author on two of those, along with Dr. Colm Kelleher. "'Future Visions' contains many new details about dramatic UFO incidents and cases, weird events at Skinwalker Ranch and similar locations, and hints about another program (Kona Blue) that grew out of AAWSAP. The full interview can, eventually, be viewed on our 'Mystery Wire' site. Back to you." Valdez: "Good reading, George, thanks so much." Joyce: "Does it get more interesting than a George Knapp report?" Valdez: "Never. You can hear a pin drop when he's talking."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2040510532957167848/amplify_video_thumb/2040467316430020608/img/jRH7ZSCFt5yAD_RC.jpg)
![🔥👽 This is REALLY good! 👽🔥 "In my view, there absolutely is an adversarial actor in our world. There is a human-engagement program underway. I don't think it's the rainbow that everyone kind of hopes that it is." ~Reed (IMO, Reed Summers is an unsung, VERY important voice in this community, and what he says in this clip, currently, resonates with me in a big way. Take the time to read or watch. Then we have what Ross Coulthart says about the "deliberate lifting of consciousness" and "frequency," which is more on the side of love, light and space brothers. I don't see that right now, and none of my contacts have ever mentioned it. If it's there, maybe its hands are tied with how it can help us?) ~ "Genetic interventions, cultural influence, right? Social engineering. All of these could be at play in a subversive sense. NHI is operating in a strategic silence, in a state of non-disclosure. Intelligence indicates intent, intentful engagement indicates a program. And so what is their program? We talk about the Legacy-human program. What about the non-human program? ~Reed ~ Ross: "I've been told that the United States has developed quite advanced weaponry, particularly plasma-beam technology that might, in part, have been inspired by what they've seen or recovered from non-human technology. I think, also, just to add the concern of NHI with what humanity is doing. There's also a very deliberate lifting of consciousness. And I really am struck by what Chris (Bledsoe - Chris Bledsoe) says about the frequency. This is something that I'm getting from so many people. That the level of intensity of public reporting of their engagement with NHI, of a clear intent by NHI, to essentially give up on governments from ever disclosing. But to raise human consciousness and awareness. "And I think they're doing this, increasingly (laughs), through direct engagement with individuals. I've got many friends and colleagues and people I've interviewed - witnesses - who've had incredible experiences. I've just been recording for a TV show, something that we're doing here in Australia, where people are inviting or summoning the phenomenon. And there seems to be an interest in the phenomenon engaging with humans much, much more overtly. And I do think that stems from a concern about us primitive monkeys playing with matches." (Were they concerned when this abduction-like event allegedly happened to Jim Semivan and his wife? Semivan: "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." Source: Engaging The Phenomenon's interview with Jim ~ Jim Garrison: "But Reid, speak to us about this interplay between malevolence and benevolence." Reed: "Sure, well, and you described, Jim, the first part of my life in which I was focused primarily on supporting my father, Marshall (Vian Summers and The Allies of Humanity), who had direct encounters with NHI, communications with NHI." (Was Marshall really in contact with extraterrestrial intelligence, known as The Allies of Humanity? I don't know. But a lot of what he has said rings true to me. Doesn't mean it's true. Read one transcript I did in 2021: “It’s Probably Not Human” – Elizondo, Blumenthal & The Allies Of Humanity ~ Reed: "And my family felt the full force and impact of what that was like, as well as what comes with it ("it" being his dad's alleged contact with ET intelligence). Which is, what might be called the hitchhiker effect, the anomalous effects that attend those who have been selected by the phenomenon without their understanding or knowing why." (Add another few names to the list of people who have now said they experienced the hitchhiker effect: Jay Stratton, George Knapp, Kelleher, Davis, Bigelow, Brandon Fugal, Thomas Winterton, Semivan, and more. That includes poltergeist-like events, shadow people, orbs, etc.) Reed: ""But my later work is really about assessing intent with a structured framework. I think we need to step back from belief systems, hopeful or fearful interpretations, and lay out the spectrum of possibilities, right? From curiosity on the left, salvation and assistance, even further on the left, to transaction, integration on the right, or even something more hostile. And in the end, intent is all about human outcomes. We can't know their consciousness. The project, in my mind right now, is not, let's set out to understand what they're like, who they are, how they think, how they cognate. That's impossible, in my perspective. But we can assess the real human outcomes that stem from the hazard and the risk and the possible threat of a non-human factor acting upon. Like a forcing, an environmental or evolutionary-forcing upon humanity at a historically-unprecedented time." (From what I have seen, whatever this is, has, overall, NOT helped humanity. If that's happening, it's going on behind the scenes. I know some experiencers report having their lives changed in a positive way, and some say they have been healed of illnesses. But others say their lives have been ruined and they've been hurt, intentionally or not, by coming in close contact with the phenomenon. Also, various people have come down with several auto-immune diseases after close contact, and some of that was detailed in the must-read book, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." jakebarber also mentioned that. Is it multiple intelligences with multiple intents, or one intelligence mixing in some positive outcomes as a propaganda effort? We don't know.) Reed: "And there are significant signals and indicators in the history of the phenomenon that give very good anchors for assessing intent, and for going from possibilities to probabilities and ultimately making a starting assessment, which informs the research pathway, which is the other part of my work in supporting the human institute, devising an intelligent, scientific research and investigatory citizen-led effort to uncover the phenomenon, to disclose it, to interrogate its activity, lest we just be interrogated, unknowingly, ourselves. So, a lot of good work to do there." (Interrogate the activity of the phenomenon. I really like that approach. Let's not assume anything.) Reed: "But, in my view, when you look at all that the sensor data has given us, technologically, when you corroborate that with the geographic, circumstantial [and] temporal aspects of how the phenomena appears, who it manifests to, and the considerable problem it presents to the international community and to national laws and frameworks that govern territorial sovereignty, these incursions into sensitive sites and the potential, programmatic engagement with civilians in the form of physical NHI-initiated contact - abductions - it builds a picture. It bounds those possibilities into a zone of probabilities. "And whether it's a transactional presence, whether it's an integrative or one that wants to integrate with humanity, or ultimately replace humanity, I think there are multiple possibilities at play and multiple intents at play. Although, I don't think it's the rainbow that everyone kind of hopes that it is. It's not, everything the Universe has to offer is gonna come all at once, now, and function harmoniously in our skies and oceans. No. The hostile intent will not tolerate a beneficial actor who themselves would have to arm themselves and militarily confront the hostile actor, which we do not see indications of." (My translation: If, there's a benevolent intelligence here that wants to help humanity break free from the chains of an alleged malevolent intelligence that may be using us, the benevolent force would need to somehow arm themselves in order to militarily take on this malevolent force, potentially, defeat them, and rescue us from a bad predicament. And we see no evidence of that.) Reed: "So, you know, we have analogs in our own human history to this, the natives of the new world. They looked out on the quay and they saw the ships, different flags, different vessels, and they assumed it's gotta be either the angels from the spirit realm - it has to comport to our belief system - or a variety of intentions, and we should work with and collaborate. And it may not be that way. "It's not about, it's all hostile or it's all beneficial or benevolent. In my mind, it's exo-systemic. It's an ecosystem arriving on our shores at a specific 20th-century moment in which we have detonated nuclear weapons, we have flashed the Universe with technology capability, and we have triggered an engagement event. This is really what this is. And a program to engage humanity over a longitudinal time period." (I think it was here and intersecting with us a long time before we first detonated our nukes.) Karla Turner: "We know from some of our own research that the abduction phenomenon has affected families going back four generations and that would be around the turn of the century (1900). In my husband's family, his grandmother had an encounter with a non-human entity that led her off into a swampy area where there was a period of missing before she was returned, when she was only five-years old. That was 1903. So if you think it's new and you think it's something the media has spread, you start looking into the cases and find out how far back it's goes in some of these families' generations. I know of an African American family in East Texas that has had it going on since the early 1900s and it's still going on today with that same family. Three to four generations is fairly typical." ~ Reed: "And so, we need to step back and really look at the human project of getting our act together to diplomatically engage now and in the future, to manage the NHI presence internationally, and coordinate responses, lest we divide and conquer ourselves over this issue. And that's where the reframing of disclosure as fundamentally belonging to the human species, being one that should, I think, be framed in first principles - to Karl Nell's point - with a naturalistic framework, a science-informed, data-driven framework. "And with that, we go out into the field and collect evidence on the phenomenon. We go out to where it is interacting with people. That's the key missing data set that would be necessary to inform decision makers." (We had that with AAWSAP and can have it again. Plus, the Vallée/AAWSAP Capella database of approximately 250,000 cases. Using AI and the best human minds on this planet, all of that may inform us of the intent of these alleged NHI actors.) Reed: "In my view, there absolutely is an adversarial actor in our world. There is a human-engagement program underway. And that's not the whole story, but if that is true, that should marshal our human response above all other possibilities, initially, because we may wake up in 30 years and find that we are not the human beings we used to be. Genetic interventions, cultural influence, right? Social engineering. All of these could be at play in a subversive sense." (If it's true, it should be the most important thing for human beings to address, ASAP. We need to find out now.) Reed: "And, you know, NHI is operating in a strategic silence, in a state of non-disclosure. They're operating covertly and selectively with military-defense organizations, internationally, which are already in competition." (I'd like to hear more about the claim that NHI are operating covertly and selectively with military-defense organizations. We've all heard those claims but is there evidence of that?) Reed: "And that, to me, is another one of a number of alarming signals that should just command us to take a cautionary response. And and we've gotta get out there and use the best of science, research and investigation to do reconnaissance - reconnai-science, as I call it, on behalf of the human interest, and not just national interests." Garrison: "Yeah, that's a profound way to put it, Reed. You know that we've triggered an interaction event." Reed: "And so, intelligence indicates intent, intentful engagement indicates a program. And so what is their program? We talk about the Legacy-human program. What about the non-human program? We do not query that nearly as much as we should. And in my view, disclosure. How do we get disclosure moving? If we recenter the controversy not on human actors, human governments, but on the non- human presence itself, that allows the human actors a way to rapidly and catastrophically disclose their involvements, which is what is keeping this back in part. Thank you."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1981810728706404477/amplify_video_thumb/1981809725080588288/img/whyOa_20NT88rMwo.jpg)
![HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] 증시각도기TV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. We’re joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, it’s no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. I’ve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry don’t know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, I’m well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, it’s unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesn’t make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You can’t discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isn’t about a single member leaving; it’s more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesn’t mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if there’s a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. It’s become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There aren’t many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instance—they’ve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, it’s rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if they’re to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didn’t feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they weren’t from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTS’s fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who don’t feel they belong to the mainstream—whether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though there’s talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. It’s unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bang’s various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someone’s feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoon’s global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manage—they're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesn’t just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when they’re dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. It’s about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple houses—they might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The manager’s job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way that’s meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, it’s challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. It’s hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Korea’s entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of today’s youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, there’s not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what they’ve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, it’s clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that “everyone is crazy about money,” and I think that’s why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. That’s why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasn’t for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. That’s the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. That’s what talent is—turning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean culture—it’s not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industry’s core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it won’t just be about losing one person—it could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyone’s individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, we’re just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, let’s pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1842046662933610609/amplify_video_thumb/1842042079117246465/img/At1wmSEbkseQtgQZ.jpg)
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)