Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

إيمانًا بالنهج السامي لجلالة السلطان هيثم بن طارق المعظم – حفظه الله ورعاه – وتنفيذًا لمستهدفات رؤية عُمان 2040، بما يسهم في تحقيق نظام رقابي فاعل يوظف الشفافية والإفصاح، ينشر #جهاز_الرقابة_المالية_والإدارية_للدولة الإصدار الخامس من ملخص المجتمع حول تقريره السنوي للجهاز لعام 2024. 🔗 اطلعوا على الملخص عبر الرابط الآتي:...

StateAudit_Oman's profile picture

جهاز الرقابة المالية والإدارية للدولة- سلطنة عُمان

151,923 subscribers

17,695 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

#جهاز_الرقابة_المالية_والإدارية_للدولة
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

في هذه المناسبة المجيدة نرفع أسمى آيات التهاني والتبريكات إلى المقام السامي لحضرة صاحب الجلالة السلطان هيثم بن طارق المعظم- حفظه الله ورعاه – والشعب العماني الأبي. معتزّين بتراثنا وأصالتنا، ومتطلّعين نحو غدٍ أكثر إشراقاً. #اليوم_الوطني_العماني #أوميفكو On this momentous occasion, we extend our heartfelt congratulations to His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tarik – May Allah protect him – and the people of Oman. We cherish our heritage and look forward to a future filled with prosperity. #OmaniNationalDay #OMIFCO
0:54

في هذه المناسبة المجيدة نرفع أسمى آيات التهاني والتبريكات إلى المقام السامي لحضرة صاحب الجلالة السلطان هيثم بن طارق المعظم- حفظه الله ورعاه – والشعب العماني الأبي. معتزّين بتراثنا وأصالتنا، ومتطلّعين نحو غدٍ أكثر إشراقاً. #اليوم_الوطني_العماني #أوميفكو On this momentous occasion, we extend our heartfelt congratulations to His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tarik – May Allah protect him – and the people of Oman. We cherish our heritage and look forward to a future filled with prosperity. #OmaniNationalDay #OMIFCO

أوميفكو

13,927 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Address by the Ambassador of Afghanistan to Pakistan H.E. Sardar Ahmad Shakeeb on the occasion of 5th Anniversary of Victory Day: بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم، It is my great pleasure to warmly welcome you all to this dignified gathering, held to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the end of the occupation of Afghanistan and the restoration of the country’s independence. On behalf of the Government and people of Afghanistan, as well as the Embassy of Afghanistan in Pakistan, I sincerely thank each and every one of you for accepting our invitation and honouring this important national occasion with your presence. Five years ago, on 15 August, the Afghan people opened a new chapter in their contemporary history. After more than four decades of war, foreign intervention, and immense suffering, Afghanistan once again took into its own hands the authority to determine its own future. Distinguished Guests, This day is not merely the anniversary of a political transformation; it also marks the beginning of a new chapter. We have left behind the chapter of war and embarked upon a new path—one in which Afghanistan, under unified leadership and within an Islamic system, is confidently moving toward the implementation of Islamic Sharia, strengthening its independent decision-making, consolidating lasting stability, pursuing reconstruction and economic growth, and expanding relations with the international community on the basis of mutual respect. We are confident that this new chapter and the strengthened peace in Afghanistan are not only in the interest of the Afghan people, but also serve the shared interests and needs of the region and the wider world. A peaceful and stable Afghanistan creates significant opportunities for regional connectivity, economic cooperation, and collective security, and can play a constructive role in strengthening peace and prosperity across the region. Our region is among the most promising parts of the world in terms of its potential for growth, connectivity, and economic cooperation. If we manage our shared geographic advantages wisely, Afghanistan can play its historic role as a natural bridge between Central and South Asia, opening new opportunities for trade, transit, investment, and energy cooperation. We firmly believe that the stability of Afghanistan is inseparable from the stability of the region, and the prosperity of the region is closely linked to the prosperity of Afghanistan. Ladies and Gentlemen, In Afghanistan’s foreign policy vision, our neighbours hold the first and most important place. Geography has made us neighbours, but our shared history, common faith and culture, centuries-old trade relations, and the family and social ties connecting millions of people have created bonds between us that cannot be easily separated. These deep ties call for mutual respect, shared interests, and a shared commitment to our common future. For this reason, we do not view our neighbours merely as countries of the region; rather, we consider them natural partners in our shared future prosperity. Based on this vision, Afghanistan seeks relations with all its neighbours, particularly Pakistan, founded on mutual respect, equality of sovereignty, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, and the pursuit of shared interests. We believe that an atmosphere of trust cannot be created through pressure or force. It can only be built through understanding, sustained dialogue, and sincere cooperation. These are principles that are fully consistent with the guidance of Islamic Sharia, the directives of His Excellency the Amir-ul-Momineen, the accepted principles of international relations, and the enduring values of good neighbourly relations. Distinguished Guests, History has shown us that occasional differences between neighbouring countries are natural. However, such differences should not become a reason for greater distance. Rather, during times of disagreement, the path of dialogue, mutual respect, and political wisdom should be pursued. We believe that every challenge, when addressed with sincerity and goodwill, can become a new opportunity to build trust and expand cooperation. This perspective forms the foundation of Afghanistan’s relations with its neighbours and guides our approach to regional affairs. In our view, lasting and sustainable security can only be achieved when there is a shared commitment to mutual trust, sincere cooperation, practical coordination, and respect for each other’s legitimate concerns. The stronger the trust between us, the stronger the foundations of peace, stability, and prosperity throughout our region will become. Afghanistan does not pursue a policy of confrontation, nor does it allow its territory to be used against the security and stability of any other country. In the same spirit, we hope and remain confident that Afghanistan’s legitimate security concerns will be understood and respected, and that no country will allow its territory to be used against Afghanistan. We stand ready to further strengthen practical and constructive cooperation with our neighbours on the basis of these principles. Our vision is clear: an Afghanistan that is not a field for geopolitical competition, but a bridge for regional connectivity, trade, transit, dialogue, and cooperation. Distinguished Guests, Finally, on this historic occasion marking the anniversary of the Victory, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all of you for your distinguished presence and participation. For us, your presence is a reflection of respect, friendship, and mutual goodwill. We pray that Almighty Allah guides our country, our region, and the entire world toward success, peace, stability, and prosperity. Ameen. والله ولي التوفيق. والسلام علیکم ورحمة الله وبرکاته
10:42

Address by the Ambassador of Afghanistan to Pakistan H.E. Sardar Ahmad Shakeeb on the occasion of 5th Anniversary of Victory Day: بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم، It is my great pleasure to warmly welcome you all to this dignified gathering, held to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the end of the occupation of Afghanistan and the restoration of the country’s independence. On behalf of the Government and people of Afghanistan, as well as the Embassy of Afghanistan in Pakistan, I sincerely thank each and every one of you for accepting our invitation and honouring this important national occasion with your presence. Five years ago, on 15 August, the Afghan people opened a new chapter in their contemporary history. After more than four decades of war, foreign intervention, and immense suffering, Afghanistan once again took into its own hands the authority to determine its own future. Distinguished Guests, This day is not merely the anniversary of a political transformation; it also marks the beginning of a new chapter. We have left behind the chapter of war and embarked upon a new path—one in which Afghanistan, under unified leadership and within an Islamic system, is confidently moving toward the implementation of Islamic Sharia, strengthening its independent decision-making, consolidating lasting stability, pursuing reconstruction and economic growth, and expanding relations with the international community on the basis of mutual respect. We are confident that this new chapter and the strengthened peace in Afghanistan are not only in the interest of the Afghan people, but also serve the shared interests and needs of the region and the wider world. A peaceful and stable Afghanistan creates significant opportunities for regional connectivity, economic cooperation, and collective security, and can play a constructive role in strengthening peace and prosperity across the region. Our region is among the most promising parts of the world in terms of its potential for growth, connectivity, and economic cooperation. If we manage our shared geographic advantages wisely, Afghanistan can play its historic role as a natural bridge between Central and South Asia, opening new opportunities for trade, transit, investment, and energy cooperation. We firmly believe that the stability of Afghanistan is inseparable from the stability of the region, and the prosperity of the region is closely linked to the prosperity of Afghanistan. Ladies and Gentlemen, In Afghanistan’s foreign policy vision, our neighbours hold the first and most important place. Geography has made us neighbours, but our shared history, common faith and culture, centuries-old trade relations, and the family and social ties connecting millions of people have created bonds between us that cannot be easily separated. These deep ties call for mutual respect, shared interests, and a shared commitment to our common future. For this reason, we do not view our neighbours merely as countries of the region; rather, we consider them natural partners in our shared future prosperity. Based on this vision, Afghanistan seeks relations with all its neighbours, particularly Pakistan, founded on mutual respect, equality of sovereignty, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, and the pursuit of shared interests. We believe that an atmosphere of trust cannot be created through pressure or force. It can only be built through understanding, sustained dialogue, and sincere cooperation. These are principles that are fully consistent with the guidance of Islamic Sharia, the directives of His Excellency the Amir-ul-Momineen, the accepted principles of international relations, and the enduring values of good neighbourly relations. Distinguished Guests, History has shown us that occasional differences between neighbouring countries are natural. However, such differences should not become a reason for greater distance. Rather, during times of disagreement, the path of dialogue, mutual respect, and political wisdom should be pursued. We believe that every challenge, when addressed with sincerity and goodwill, can become a new opportunity to build trust and expand cooperation. This perspective forms the foundation of Afghanistan’s relations with its neighbours and guides our approach to regional affairs. In our view, lasting and sustainable security can only be achieved when there is a shared commitment to mutual trust, sincere cooperation, practical coordination, and respect for each other’s legitimate concerns. The stronger the trust between us, the stronger the foundations of peace, stability, and prosperity throughout our region will become. Afghanistan does not pursue a policy of confrontation, nor does it allow its territory to be used against the security and stability of any other country. In the same spirit, we hope and remain confident that Afghanistan’s legitimate security concerns will be understood and respected, and that no country will allow its territory to be used against Afghanistan. We stand ready to further strengthen practical and constructive cooperation with our neighbours on the basis of these principles. Our vision is clear: an Afghanistan that is not a field for geopolitical competition, but a bridge for regional connectivity, trade, transit, dialogue, and cooperation. Distinguished Guests, Finally, on this historic occasion marking the anniversary of the Victory, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all of you for your distinguished presence and participation. For us, your presence is a reflection of respect, friendship, and mutual goodwill. We pray that Almighty Allah guides our country, our region, and the entire world toward success, peace, stability, and prosperity. Ameen. والله ولي التوفيق. والسلام علیکم ورحمة الله وبرکاته

AFG Embassy Pakistan

131,371 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

In the future, Islam will obliterate Christianity in the USA, Europe, and in the Indian subcontinent (where between 30-50 million Christians live), just as it has eradicated Christianity and Judaism in the Middle East and eliminated parts of Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent over the last 1,400 years since its establishment. - This is one of the tactics that Islam uses to take over the world: Quran 4.100 “Whoever emigrates for the sake of Allah will find much refuge and abundance in the earth, and whoever forsakes his home, a refugee for Allah and his messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then obligatory upon Allah. Allah is always forgiving, merciful.” *Here the Qur’an states the cardinal importance of “emigration for the cause of Allah,” that is, moving to a new land with the intention of bringing Islam to it. See also 4:66 and 4:89. The primary pattern for emigrants in Islamic tradition is the Hijra, Muhammad’s move from Mecca to Medina, where for the first time he became a political and military leader. It is “obligatory” for Allah to reward emigrants; this is one of the Qur’an’s few promises of reward for specific actions (see also 9:111). Continue to welcome Islam into the Western world with open arms and friendship. Continue to respect Islam, and eventually, it will do to you what Muhammad did in the 7th century to those who welcomed him in the city of Medina. He completely destroyed the host culture. Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." From Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder". - Note: This has never changed; Islam continues to operate continuously, in an organized and systematic manner, through Da'wa, fraud, lies, and violence, in order to destroy and conquer Western culture from within. 👇👇👇 The report was written by Tom Quiggin, a member of the Terrorism and Security Experts of Canada Network (TSEC). Concurrent research at the TSEC network includes a methodology project for intelligence analysts involved in the analysis of extremism. A Horizon Scanning project on the convergence of extremist ideologies is being readied for distribution in late 2014. This project was funded internally by the TSEC network. There is no government, corporate, media or foreign money involved. KEY JUDGEMENTS: *Canada has a significant presence of Muslim Brotherhood adherent individuals and organizations. Their values and actions are frequently the antithesis of the Canadian Constitution, values and law. Despite statements to the contrary, the Muslim Brotherhood considers itself above local laws and national constitutions. *The Muslim Brotherhood’s use of settlement and the “process of civilization jihad” has proven effective. The long term aim is to globally impose a virulent form of political Islam to the exclusion of other faiths or systems. *Internationally, the Muslim Brotherhood is realigning under pressure as old alliances crumble and opportunities arise. An aggressive posture is reemerging which has used extensive political violence in the past. *The policy and process of denial is deeply rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood. *Muslim Brotherhood adherent groups should not be given governmental accreditation, access to public grants nor should they have charity status. *Canada’s stance against Muslim Brotherhood adherent organizations in recent years has been more aggressive than the USA, especially in financial areas. 1. Overview: Settlement and the Civilization-Jihadist Process: The Muslim Brotherhood represents a greater existential and systemic threat to North American civilization and society than violent extremist movements such as Al Qaeda. The Muslim Brotherhood, self-described by its founder Hassan Banna as a Salafist group, has been entrenching itself in North American since the late 1950s and early 1960s using the process of ‘settlement,’ multiple front organizations and persistent denials. They describe this as a process of civilization jihad. The aim of the group in North America is to weaken and destroy the free and open societies within Canada and the USA from within and replace them with the heavily politicized views of Hassan Banna, Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is consistent with the global aims of the group. This should be of concern as a period of relative moderation has come to an end and the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming increasingly aggressive in its actions. The Muslim Brotherhood began as a social movement and it still has an extensive program of education and outreach. Dawah (da’wa, da’wah or dawa) and religious education lie at the heart of the Muslim Brotherhood program. Dawah can be defined as calling or the practice or policy of conveying the message of Islam to non-Muslims. Within the context of the Muslim Brotherhood, it takes on a more ominous tone as dawah is not just the practice of outreach, but it is one of the principal missions of the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole. And by dawah, they appear to include the message of Islam, but the message of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Banna as is evidenced by the constant references to his life and writings. Dawah in the Muslim Brotherhood is not just outreach, rather it is an alternative form of conquering a society. Ikhwan Web, the official English language website of the Muslim Brotherhood makes this clear: The MB shall never forget religious education and Dawah, as they are the essence of its existence. In the North American context, Zeid Noman made it clear that in the early stages of development of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, dawah was an integral factor. This was the first true tremor for the Ikhwan's activism here in America as these brothers started to demand clearer Ikhwan formulas, clearer commitment and means or ones with a specific and not a general nature and that there are conditions to accept one into the ranks of this Dawa'a and to make work secret. …Some of them came for work and know that this life is a farm for the afterlife and he sacrifices what he has for the sake of. .., for the sake of this Dawa'a. ….Therefore, we had to take two simultaneous moves and with two harmonious wings: The first one is the reality or now attempt to implement the needs of the reality which is what the students' movement needs and that we also work hard to settle the Dawa'a. By "settlement of the Dawa'a", the Muslim Brotherhood Dawa'a is meant. It is not meant to spread Islam as spread of Islam is a general thing and it is indeed a goal for each Muslim in general terms. The second thing is the settlement of the Dawa'a and finding permanent fundamentals in the cities where Ikhwans now live in order to ...er, in order for them to be the meeting points for the coming brothers. (Emphasis added) In a 1995 speech in Ohio, Yussef Qaradawi, a lifelong adherent of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and one of its key intellectual inspirational figures stated that: Conquest through dawah, that is what we hope for….We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah. In 2007, some 12 years later, Qaradawi made it clear that his views had not changed: The peaceful conquest has foundations in this religion, and therefore, I expect that Islam will conquer Europe without resorting to the sword or fighting. It will do so by means of da’wa and ideology. Europe is miserable with materialism, with the philosophy of promiscuity, and with the immoral considerations that rule the world “considerations of self-interest and self-indulgence. Despite the claims of conquest only through dawah, the Muslim Brotherhood has committed a series of assassinations and bombings in the name of the group. This includes the assassination of a judge in Egypt (Ahmed El-Khazindar Bey, Senior Judge, Egyptian Court of Appeal) in 194816 as well as the attempted assassination of President Nasser in 1954. The Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood was engaged in a violent campaign from 1976 to 1982 which included a 1979 attack against students at the military academy in Aleppo. Most of the students killed were from the leadership Alawite group and the victims were largely the sons of various regime officials. The campaign ended with a brutal government massacre of Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the town of Hama. Currently, the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (HAMAS) remains committed to violence and has worked against peace efforts such as the Oslo Accords. In addition to Dawah, another feature of the Muslim Brotherhood is the concept of the Islamization of Knowledge, conceptualized in part by former Montreal resident Dr. Ismail Faruqi. In his book Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan, Dr. Faruqi argues that there was a need to: …recast the whole legacy of human knowledge from the stand point of Islam. He presented 12 workplan aims to produce university level textbooks recasting some twenty disciplines in accordance to the Islamic vision because of the backward and lowly contemporary position of the ummah in all fields, political, economic, and religio-cultural. While presenting itself as a voice of moderation, the Muslim Brotherhood is an adherent of an 85+ year old policy of establishing the Brotherhood’s brand of Islam as the global faith at the exclusion of all other religions and secular forms of organization. Other Muslim groups that do not adhere are subjected to scorn and abuse. The Muslim Brotherhood has wavered on the use of violence, sometimes presenting itself as a political movement that expels those who use violence. On other occasions it does military training at local camps and uses assassinations and bombings. Foreign funding and foreign organizational assistance have been the hallmarks of many of the adherent charities and organizations. In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood in North America issued An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America (5/22/1991).” The document was presented by Mohamed Akram (A.K.A. Mohammad Akram Al-Adlouni) who is now the Secretary General of al-Quds International located in Lebanon. The chairman of the board of trustees is identified as Qatar based28 Youssef Qaradawi. According to Akram, it was the result of five years of policy review work which was proceeded by some 20 years of organizational activity. It was finally approved their Shura Council. In section 4 of the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum, which is subtitled Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America, the document points out that: The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. It is not an analytically acceptable practice to take one data point, such as the above, and then assess that the organization is always committed to this goal. To be clear, however, a remarkable degree of consistency of beliefs and goals exists across a range of Muslim Brotherhood organizations – both temporally and geographically. The most recent examples mimic those of a more violent past. The phase of moving away from violence appears to be ending/has ended and the organisation as a whole is becoming more aggressive and expresses an inflexible approach with violent overtones. In 2010 the Muslim Brotherhood’s General Guide Mohamed Badie claimed that the “Muslim and Arab Regimes are Disregarding Allah's Commandment to Wage Jihad" and that change can occur by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life. He notes that resistance is the only solution. These comments appear similar to those of Salah Sultan of Ohio (ISNA, Fiqh Council , MAS) who says that America will suffer economic stagnation, ruin, destruction and crime which will surpass what is happening in Gaza. He also noted that the US will suffer more deaths than all of those killed in the third Gaza holocaust and that it will happen soon. Both of these statements by influential Muslim Brotherhood leaders appear as informal declarations of war, similar to those of al Qaeda in 1996 and 1998. Egyptian President (2012-2013) and Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammed Morsi’s attempted project to ‘Brotherhoodize’ Egypt (The Nahda or Renaissance Project) was a sign of recent intentions. By granting himself near dictatorial powers38 followed by his attacks on the press/TV and the judiciary, he demonstrated that he was more of a servant of the Muslim Brotherhood and Khairat alShater’s Nahda Project43 than he was the leader of Egypt. Al-Shater had envisaged the Nahda Project as instituting “the religion of God; the Islamization of life, empowering of God’s religion.” Ironically, Dr. Morsi was recruited into the Muslim Brotherhood while studying in North America (PhD, USC, 1992). He graduated the year after the 1991 General Memorandum outlined the role of civilization-jihadist project in North America. Read more:
2:37

In the future, Islam will obliterate Christianity in the USA, Europe, and in the Indian subcontinent (where between 30-50 million Christians live), just as it has eradicated Christianity and Judaism in the Middle East and eliminated parts of Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent over the last 1,400 years since its establishment. - This is one of the tactics that Islam uses to take over the world: Quran 4.100 “Whoever emigrates for the sake of Allah will find much refuge and abundance in the earth, and whoever forsakes his home, a refugee for Allah and his messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then obligatory upon Allah. Allah is always forgiving, merciful.” *Here the Qur’an states the cardinal importance of “emigration for the cause of Allah,” that is, moving to a new land with the intention of bringing Islam to it. See also 4:66 and 4:89. The primary pattern for emigrants in Islamic tradition is the Hijra, Muhammad’s move from Mecca to Medina, where for the first time he became a political and military leader. It is “obligatory” for Allah to reward emigrants; this is one of the Qur’an’s few promises of reward for specific actions (see also 9:111). Continue to welcome Islam into the Western world with open arms and friendship. Continue to respect Islam, and eventually, it will do to you what Muhammad did in the 7th century to those who welcomed him in the city of Medina. He completely destroyed the host culture. Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." From Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder". - Note: This has never changed; Islam continues to operate continuously, in an organized and systematic manner, through Da'wa, fraud, lies, and violence, in order to destroy and conquer Western culture from within. 👇👇👇 The report was written by Tom Quiggin, a member of the Terrorism and Security Experts of Canada Network (TSEC). Concurrent research at the TSEC network includes a methodology project for intelligence analysts involved in the analysis of extremism. A Horizon Scanning project on the convergence of extremist ideologies is being readied for distribution in late 2014. This project was funded internally by the TSEC network. There is no government, corporate, media or foreign money involved. KEY JUDGEMENTS: *Canada has a significant presence of Muslim Brotherhood adherent individuals and organizations. Their values and actions are frequently the antithesis of the Canadian Constitution, values and law. Despite statements to the contrary, the Muslim Brotherhood considers itself above local laws and national constitutions. *The Muslim Brotherhood’s use of settlement and the “process of civilization jihad” has proven effective. The long term aim is to globally impose a virulent form of political Islam to the exclusion of other faiths or systems. *Internationally, the Muslim Brotherhood is realigning under pressure as old alliances crumble and opportunities arise. An aggressive posture is reemerging which has used extensive political violence in the past. *The policy and process of denial is deeply rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood. *Muslim Brotherhood adherent groups should not be given governmental accreditation, access to public grants nor should they have charity status. *Canada’s stance against Muslim Brotherhood adherent organizations in recent years has been more aggressive than the USA, especially in financial areas. 1. Overview: Settlement and the Civilization-Jihadist Process: The Muslim Brotherhood represents a greater existential and systemic threat to North American civilization and society than violent extremist movements such as Al Qaeda. The Muslim Brotherhood, self-described by its founder Hassan Banna as a Salafist group, has been entrenching itself in North American since the late 1950s and early 1960s using the process of ‘settlement,’ multiple front organizations and persistent denials. They describe this as a process of civilization jihad. The aim of the group in North America is to weaken and destroy the free and open societies within Canada and the USA from within and replace them with the heavily politicized views of Hassan Banna, Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is consistent with the global aims of the group. This should be of concern as a period of relative moderation has come to an end and the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming increasingly aggressive in its actions. The Muslim Brotherhood began as a social movement and it still has an extensive program of education and outreach. Dawah (da’wa, da’wah or dawa) and religious education lie at the heart of the Muslim Brotherhood program. Dawah can be defined as calling or the practice or policy of conveying the message of Islam to non-Muslims. Within the context of the Muslim Brotherhood, it takes on a more ominous tone as dawah is not just the practice of outreach, but it is one of the principal missions of the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole. And by dawah, they appear to include the message of Islam, but the message of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Banna as is evidenced by the constant references to his life and writings. Dawah in the Muslim Brotherhood is not just outreach, rather it is an alternative form of conquering a society. Ikhwan Web, the official English language website of the Muslim Brotherhood makes this clear: The MB shall never forget religious education and Dawah, as they are the essence of its existence. In the North American context, Zeid Noman made it clear that in the early stages of development of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, dawah was an integral factor. This was the first true tremor for the Ikhwan's activism here in America as these brothers started to demand clearer Ikhwan formulas, clearer commitment and means or ones with a specific and not a general nature and that there are conditions to accept one into the ranks of this Dawa'a and to make work secret. …Some of them came for work and know that this life is a farm for the afterlife and he sacrifices what he has for the sake of. .., for the sake of this Dawa'a. ….Therefore, we had to take two simultaneous moves and with two harmonious wings: The first one is the reality or now attempt to implement the needs of the reality which is what the students' movement needs and that we also work hard to settle the Dawa'a. By "settlement of the Dawa'a", the Muslim Brotherhood Dawa'a is meant. It is not meant to spread Islam as spread of Islam is a general thing and it is indeed a goal for each Muslim in general terms. The second thing is the settlement of the Dawa'a and finding permanent fundamentals in the cities where Ikhwans now live in order to ...er, in order for them to be the meeting points for the coming brothers. (Emphasis added) In a 1995 speech in Ohio, Yussef Qaradawi, a lifelong adherent of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and one of its key intellectual inspirational figures stated that: Conquest through dawah, that is what we hope for….We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah. In 2007, some 12 years later, Qaradawi made it clear that his views had not changed: The peaceful conquest has foundations in this religion, and therefore, I expect that Islam will conquer Europe without resorting to the sword or fighting. It will do so by means of da’wa and ideology. Europe is miserable with materialism, with the philosophy of promiscuity, and with the immoral considerations that rule the world “considerations of self-interest and self-indulgence. Despite the claims of conquest only through dawah, the Muslim Brotherhood has committed a series of assassinations and bombings in the name of the group. This includes the assassination of a judge in Egypt (Ahmed El-Khazindar Bey, Senior Judge, Egyptian Court of Appeal) in 194816 as well as the attempted assassination of President Nasser in 1954. The Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood was engaged in a violent campaign from 1976 to 1982 which included a 1979 attack against students at the military academy in Aleppo. Most of the students killed were from the leadership Alawite group and the victims were largely the sons of various regime officials. The campaign ended with a brutal government massacre of Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the town of Hama. Currently, the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (HAMAS) remains committed to violence and has worked against peace efforts such as the Oslo Accords. In addition to Dawah, another feature of the Muslim Brotherhood is the concept of the Islamization of Knowledge, conceptualized in part by former Montreal resident Dr. Ismail Faruqi. In his book Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan, Dr. Faruqi argues that there was a need to: …recast the whole legacy of human knowledge from the stand point of Islam. He presented 12 workplan aims to produce university level textbooks recasting some twenty disciplines in accordance to the Islamic vision because of the backward and lowly contemporary position of the ummah in all fields, political, economic, and religio-cultural. While presenting itself as a voice of moderation, the Muslim Brotherhood is an adherent of an 85+ year old policy of establishing the Brotherhood’s brand of Islam as the global faith at the exclusion of all other religions and secular forms of organization. Other Muslim groups that do not adhere are subjected to scorn and abuse. The Muslim Brotherhood has wavered on the use of violence, sometimes presenting itself as a political movement that expels those who use violence. On other occasions it does military training at local camps and uses assassinations and bombings. Foreign funding and foreign organizational assistance have been the hallmarks of many of the adherent charities and organizations. In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood in North America issued An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America (5/22/1991).” The document was presented by Mohamed Akram (A.K.A. Mohammad Akram Al-Adlouni) who is now the Secretary General of al-Quds International located in Lebanon. The chairman of the board of trustees is identified as Qatar based28 Youssef Qaradawi. According to Akram, it was the result of five years of policy review work which was proceeded by some 20 years of organizational activity. It was finally approved their Shura Council. In section 4 of the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum, which is subtitled Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America, the document points out that: The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. It is not an analytically acceptable practice to take one data point, such as the above, and then assess that the organization is always committed to this goal. To be clear, however, a remarkable degree of consistency of beliefs and goals exists across a range of Muslim Brotherhood organizations – both temporally and geographically. The most recent examples mimic those of a more violent past. The phase of moving away from violence appears to be ending/has ended and the organisation as a whole is becoming more aggressive and expresses an inflexible approach with violent overtones. In 2010 the Muslim Brotherhood’s General Guide Mohamed Badie claimed that the “Muslim and Arab Regimes are Disregarding Allah's Commandment to Wage Jihad" and that change can occur by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life. He notes that resistance is the only solution. These comments appear similar to those of Salah Sultan of Ohio (ISNA, Fiqh Council , MAS) who says that America will suffer economic stagnation, ruin, destruction and crime which will surpass what is happening in Gaza. He also noted that the US will suffer more deaths than all of those killed in the third Gaza holocaust and that it will happen soon. Both of these statements by influential Muslim Brotherhood leaders appear as informal declarations of war, similar to those of al Qaeda in 1996 and 1998. Egyptian President (2012-2013) and Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammed Morsi’s attempted project to ‘Brotherhoodize’ Egypt (The Nahda or Renaissance Project) was a sign of recent intentions. By granting himself near dictatorial powers38 followed by his attacks on the press/TV and the judiciary, he demonstrated that he was more of a servant of the Muslim Brotherhood and Khairat alShater’s Nahda Project43 than he was the leader of Egypt. Al-Shater had envisaged the Nahda Project as instituting “the religion of God; the Islamization of life, empowering of God’s religion.” Ironically, Dr. Morsi was recruited into the Muslim Brotherhood while studying in North America (PhD, USC, 1992). He graduated the year after the 1991 General Memorandum outlined the role of civilization-jihadist project in North America. Read more:

Ofer Binshtok - Kafir - עופר בינשטוק

248,169 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

For the last decade, the media has called the idea that America is ruled by a secret government of deep state intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Journalists at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have portrayed claims about a “deep state” as paranoid fabrications pushed by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit legitimate government institutions. They insisted that accusations of political bias or covert influence by agencies like the CIA or FBI had no basis in fact and served only to inflame public distrust. And yet over the same period, investigative reporting, including by the two of us, and official disclosures revealed that these agencies interfered in domestic politics in ways that aligned with that very narrative. The FBI launched a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign based on unverified opposition research. Dozens of former intelligence officials falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, just weeks before the 2020 election. The Department of Homeland Security, along with the FBI and other agencies, coordinated with social media platforms to suppress speech under the banner of combating “misinformation.” These actions, taken together, suggest not a shadowy cabal, but a real and expanding infrastructure of state-aligned influence aimed at shaping public perception and countering populist dissent, just as the so-called conspiracy theorists claimed. The strongest argument against the existence of a secret government run by the deep state was the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security truly exercised covert and unchecked control over American politics, it is difficult to explain how their most outspoken critic, and avowed enemy, returned to power. Trump did not merely criticize the intelligence community; he ran on a platform promising its reform. He vowed to purge partisan operatives, dismantle what he called politically weaponized agencies, and hold officials accountable for a pattern of lawless interference. And despite his direct confrontation with the national security establishment, Trump defeated Kamala Harris decisively, winning 312 electoral votes and a narrow popular vote majority. But now the Trump administration is attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug, with the Justice Department claiming that there is no client list and that no further disclosure is warranted, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi explicitly stated publicly that there were “tens of thousands of videos” which means the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors, and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has “no legal basis to do so.” On April 28, 2025, in a candid off-the-record exchange caught on video, Bondi told a bystander, “There are tens of thousands of videos… and it’s all with little kids.” She later reiterated on May 7 that these were “videos of Epstein with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments directly contradicted the official stance of the administration, which has dismissed calls for a client list and slowed efforts to release the full contents of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the deep state and hold elites accountable, his administration now appears to be protecting the same intelligence and law enforcement networks it once condemned. Strong evidence suggests that Epstein was part of a sex blackmail operation tied to intelligence agencies. Visitor logs show that William Burns, who served as CIA Director under President Biden, visited Epstein’s New York townhouse multiple times. The Wall Street Journal reported those visits in 2023 based on Epstein’s private calendar. In 2017, Alex Acosta, the Justice Department official who gave Epstein his 2008 plea deal, told Trump transition officials that he was told to back off Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence.” The Justice Department later admitted that all eleven months of Acosta’s emails from that period had disappeared. This failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump’s explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state. This is not just about Epstein. The Trump administration has not been particularly transparent about much else. The CIA, to its credit, released an internal evaluation last week admitting it had erred in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment by claiming that Russia “aspired to” help elect Trump. But it stood by the overall assessment, signaling the agency’s reluctance to admit fault, its continued defensiveness in the face of mounting evidence, and its impunity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has disclosed a limited amount of information about intelligence community abuses during the pandemic, including the targeting of COVID vaccine dissenters as potential violent extremists. But beyond that, the Trump administration has released very little, even on issues where transparency would appear to be in its political interest. The administration has kept classified large volumes of material related to COVID origins, the FBI’s role in Russiagate, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. It is thus hard not to conclude that the intelligence community continues to operate in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances by evading meaningful congressional oversight. The Constitution grants Congress the power and responsibility to oversee the executive branch, including intelligence agencies, through budgetary control, public hearings, and access to classified information. And yet the intelligence community is withholding and heavily redacting documents, delaying responses to lawful inquiries, and using national security classifications to avoid scrutiny. This persistent obstruction undermines the legislative branch’s ability to hold agencies accountable and distorts the balance of power the framers designed. When unelected intelligence officials can withhold information not only from the public but from elected representatives, constitutional oversight becomes a formality rather than a functioning safeguard. Few independent journalists have done more than we have to defend Donald Trump and the MAGA movement against the weaponization of the intelligence community and deep state agencies. Over the past two and a half years, we have published hundreds of investigative articles and testified before Congress about unconstitutional abuses of power by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and their proxies. We exposed efforts to censor Trump and his supporters through a sprawling Censorship Industrial Complex, documented the manipulation of the justice system to prosecute Trump on politicized grounds, and revealed how U.S. and foreign agencies coordinated mass surveillance of speech. We defended Trump from false and malicious claims, showed that his administration obeyed court orders, and disproved the narrative that he violated democratic norms more than Democrats. We were the first to report new evidence that President Obama’s CIA Director ordered spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance and interfere in the 2016 election. After Trump’s reelection, we published investigations revealing abuses of power by USAID and the Department of Education. We editorialized in support of his lawful executive orders ending DEI and gender-affirming procedures for minors. We exposed the CIA and USAID’s role in supporting the 2019 impeachment effort and their connection to the Russia collusion hoax. In all this, we have consistently made the case that Trump’s victory was not just political, it was moral. Given all we have done to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and intelligence community abuses of power, Public’s readers rightly expect us to follow through on these concerns, no matter who holds office. We did not spend years documenting unconstitutional secrecy, surveillance, and coercion only to remain silent when the administration we defended begins to mirror the behavior we condemned. Our commitment is not to any one leader or party, but to the Constitution, to civil liberties, and to the principle that no government, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to rule through secrecy, coercion, or fear. To prove it is not simply the latest custodian of the deep state, the Trump administration must release the Epstein videos and related evidence, fully expose the scope of the sex trafficking and apparent IC blackmail operation, and ensure that every perpetrator, regardless of power or position, is held accountable under the law. It must also release the long-withheld files on COVID origins, Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, January 6, unidentified aerial phenomena, and other topics. Even if these files do not reveal any “smoking guns,” the public has a right to full transparency. Only through this transparency can the credibility of the intelligence community be restored. Congress must step up as well. Legislative leaders must hold public hearings on each of these issues, issue subpoenas if necessary, and demand full executive branch compliance with oversight. The Constitution grants Congress, not the intelligence agencies, the power to check secrecy, correct abuse, and uphold the rule of law. These are not matters of political convenience but constitutional obligation. The American people have the right to know what their government has done in their name and against their rights. If the Trump administration fails to act, it will confirm the fear that even the most populist and combative president can be captured or neutralized by the very system he vowed to dismantle. And it will lose much of the legitimacy it gained by surviving and overcoming the lawfare, censorship, and weaponization of the deep state against it. Many within the Trump administration acknowledge this and note that this is hardly the end of the Epstein affair. “This is a total fucking disaster,” someone within the Intelligence Community told us this afternoon, as we were going to press with this editorial. After we pointed out that the Attorney General said one thing and now the Justice Department, FBI Director, and Deputy FBI Director are all saying the opposite, the person said, “I hope you ask these questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. We’re in a time when information flows more freely. If people think that this is going to go away — I don’t see how it can.” Nor, we would add, should it.
10:41

For the last decade, the media has called the idea that America is ruled by a secret government of deep state intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Journalists at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have portrayed claims about a “deep state” as paranoid fabrications pushed by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit legitimate government institutions. They insisted that accusations of political bias or covert influence by agencies like the CIA or FBI had no basis in fact and served only to inflame public distrust. And yet over the same period, investigative reporting, including by the two of us, and official disclosures revealed that these agencies interfered in domestic politics in ways that aligned with that very narrative. The FBI launched a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign based on unverified opposition research. Dozens of former intelligence officials falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, just weeks before the 2020 election. The Department of Homeland Security, along with the FBI and other agencies, coordinated with social media platforms to suppress speech under the banner of combating “misinformation.” These actions, taken together, suggest not a shadowy cabal, but a real and expanding infrastructure of state-aligned influence aimed at shaping public perception and countering populist dissent, just as the so-called conspiracy theorists claimed. The strongest argument against the existence of a secret government run by the deep state was the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security truly exercised covert and unchecked control over American politics, it is difficult to explain how their most outspoken critic, and avowed enemy, returned to power. Trump did not merely criticize the intelligence community; he ran on a platform promising its reform. He vowed to purge partisan operatives, dismantle what he called politically weaponized agencies, and hold officials accountable for a pattern of lawless interference. And despite his direct confrontation with the national security establishment, Trump defeated Kamala Harris decisively, winning 312 electoral votes and a narrow popular vote majority. But now the Trump administration is attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug, with the Justice Department claiming that there is no client list and that no further disclosure is warranted, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi explicitly stated publicly that there were “tens of thousands of videos” which means the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors, and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has “no legal basis to do so.” On April 28, 2025, in a candid off-the-record exchange caught on video, Bondi told a bystander, “There are tens of thousands of videos… and it’s all with little kids.” She later reiterated on May 7 that these were “videos of Epstein with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments directly contradicted the official stance of the administration, which has dismissed calls for a client list and slowed efforts to release the full contents of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the deep state and hold elites accountable, his administration now appears to be protecting the same intelligence and law enforcement networks it once condemned. Strong evidence suggests that Epstein was part of a sex blackmail operation tied to intelligence agencies. Visitor logs show that William Burns, who served as CIA Director under President Biden, visited Epstein’s New York townhouse multiple times. The Wall Street Journal reported those visits in 2023 based on Epstein’s private calendar. In 2017, Alex Acosta, the Justice Department official who gave Epstein his 2008 plea deal, told Trump transition officials that he was told to back off Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence.” The Justice Department later admitted that all eleven months of Acosta’s emails from that period had disappeared. This failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump’s explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state. This is not just about Epstein. The Trump administration has not been particularly transparent about much else. The CIA, to its credit, released an internal evaluation last week admitting it had erred in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment by claiming that Russia “aspired to” help elect Trump. But it stood by the overall assessment, signaling the agency’s reluctance to admit fault, its continued defensiveness in the face of mounting evidence, and its impunity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has disclosed a limited amount of information about intelligence community abuses during the pandemic, including the targeting of COVID vaccine dissenters as potential violent extremists. But beyond that, the Trump administration has released very little, even on issues where transparency would appear to be in its political interest. The administration has kept classified large volumes of material related to COVID origins, the FBI’s role in Russiagate, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. It is thus hard not to conclude that the intelligence community continues to operate in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances by evading meaningful congressional oversight. The Constitution grants Congress the power and responsibility to oversee the executive branch, including intelligence agencies, through budgetary control, public hearings, and access to classified information. And yet the intelligence community is withholding and heavily redacting documents, delaying responses to lawful inquiries, and using national security classifications to avoid scrutiny. This persistent obstruction undermines the legislative branch’s ability to hold agencies accountable and distorts the balance of power the framers designed. When unelected intelligence officials can withhold information not only from the public but from elected representatives, constitutional oversight becomes a formality rather than a functioning safeguard. Few independent journalists have done more than we have to defend Donald Trump and the MAGA movement against the weaponization of the intelligence community and deep state agencies. Over the past two and a half years, we have published hundreds of investigative articles and testified before Congress about unconstitutional abuses of power by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and their proxies. We exposed efforts to censor Trump and his supporters through a sprawling Censorship Industrial Complex, documented the manipulation of the justice system to prosecute Trump on politicized grounds, and revealed how U.S. and foreign agencies coordinated mass surveillance of speech. We defended Trump from false and malicious claims, showed that his administration obeyed court orders, and disproved the narrative that he violated democratic norms more than Democrats. We were the first to report new evidence that President Obama’s CIA Director ordered spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance and interfere in the 2016 election. After Trump’s reelection, we published investigations revealing abuses of power by USAID and the Department of Education. We editorialized in support of his lawful executive orders ending DEI and gender-affirming procedures for minors. We exposed the CIA and USAID’s role in supporting the 2019 impeachment effort and their connection to the Russia collusion hoax. In all this, we have consistently made the case that Trump’s victory was not just political, it was moral. Given all we have done to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and intelligence community abuses of power, Public’s readers rightly expect us to follow through on these concerns, no matter who holds office. We did not spend years documenting unconstitutional secrecy, surveillance, and coercion only to remain silent when the administration we defended begins to mirror the behavior we condemned. Our commitment is not to any one leader or party, but to the Constitution, to civil liberties, and to the principle that no government, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to rule through secrecy, coercion, or fear. To prove it is not simply the latest custodian of the deep state, the Trump administration must release the Epstein videos and related evidence, fully expose the scope of the sex trafficking and apparent IC blackmail operation, and ensure that every perpetrator, regardless of power or position, is held accountable under the law. It must also release the long-withheld files on COVID origins, Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, January 6, unidentified aerial phenomena, and other topics. Even if these files do not reveal any “smoking guns,” the public has a right to full transparency. Only through this transparency can the credibility of the intelligence community be restored. Congress must step up as well. Legislative leaders must hold public hearings on each of these issues, issue subpoenas if necessary, and demand full executive branch compliance with oversight. The Constitution grants Congress, not the intelligence agencies, the power to check secrecy, correct abuse, and uphold the rule of law. These are not matters of political convenience but constitutional obligation. The American people have the right to know what their government has done in their name and against their rights. If the Trump administration fails to act, it will confirm the fear that even the most populist and combative president can be captured or neutralized by the very system he vowed to dismantle. And it will lose much of the legitimacy it gained by surviving and overcoming the lawfare, censorship, and weaponization of the deep state against it. Many within the Trump administration acknowledge this and note that this is hardly the end of the Epstein affair. “This is a total fucking disaster,” someone within the Intelligence Community told us this afternoon, as we were going to press with this editorial. After we pointed out that the Attorney General said one thing and now the Justice Department, FBI Director, and Deputy FBI Director are all saying the opposite, the person said, “I hope you ask these questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. We’re in a time when information flows more freely. If people think that this is going to go away — I don’t see how it can.” Nor, we would add, should it.

Michael Shellenberger

2,055,076 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

In October 2025, the Prime Minister undertook a series of national and international engagements focused on infrastructure development, rural transformation, governance reform, and diplomatic cooperation. Here is a brief recap of the past month: 𝙊𝙣 𝙐𝙧𝙗𝙖𝙣 𝘿𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝘿𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙄𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 A defining highlight of the month was the laying of the foundation stone for the urea fertilizer plant, a landmark project developed through a partnership between Ethiopian Investment Holdings and the Dangote Group. With an annual production capacity of three million tons, the plant will utilize natural gas from the Calub gas fields, transported through a 108-kilometer pipeline. This project is a cornerstone of Ethiopia’s strategy to achieve fertilizer self-sufficiency and enhance agricultural productivity. In the Somali Region, the Prime Minister also inaugurated the Gode Oil Refinery, developed by Golden Concord Group Limited (GCL). The refinery, designed to process 3.5 million tons of crude oil and condensate per year from the Hilala oil field, represents a significant step in Ethiopia’s path toward energy independence. Complementing these milestones, the Prime Minister inaugurated the first phase of the Ogaden Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Project in Calub. The facility, with an annual production capacity of 111 million litres and the ability to generate 1,000 megawatts of energy, strengthens Ethiopia’s industrial base while contributing critical inputs to fertilizer production and energy generation. During his visit to Jigjiga in the Somali Region, the Prime Minister observed the city’s rapid transformation since his last visit in January 2025. Thousands of new housing units are under construction, and corridor development projects are visibly enhancing urban well-being. He lauded the Dine for Generations Project, nearing completion in the Somali Region, for unlocking new opportunities in tourism and stimulating regional economic growth. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, accompanied by members of the Prosperity Party Executive Committee, visited the corridor development project extending from Sar Bet to German Square, encompassing the Garment Factory and the Furi area. Spanning 589 hectares, it is the second-largest urban corridor after Kazanchis. The project features 16.5 kilometers of asphalt roads, 33 kilometers of pedestrian walkways, plazas, sports and recreation facilities, riverbank development, and over 1,100 commercial shops. The initiative embodies Ethiopia’s broader vision of creating modern, livable, and economically vibrant cities. 𝙊𝙣 𝙍𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 Advancing his government’s rural development agenda, the Prime Minister presided over the handover of model rural villages constructed through the Rainy Season Voluntary Scheme in the Halaba, Kembatta, Hadiya, and Silte zones. Each home in these Rural Corridor Villages is equipped with solar power, biogas systems, sanitation facilities, and animal shelters, significantly improving hygiene, comfort, and productivity for rural families. These model villages mark a new chapter in Ethiopia’s mission to raise rural living standards and promote sustainable livelihoods. The Prime Minister encouraged regional leaders to expand these initiatives, setting a target of 100 new houses per zone by next year. During his visit to the East Shewa Zone of the Oromia Region, the Prime Minister also reviewed the rainy season wheat harvest and launched summer wheat production activities. He assessed progress in banana, papaya, and fish farming clusters, emphasizing the growing adoption of mechanized agriculture as a major driver of productivity and self-reliance. He also inaugurated the Welmel River Irrigation Development Project in Delo-Mena Woreda, Bale Zone. Once fully operational, the project will irrigate 9,687 hectares of farmland, benefiting 20,000 farming households and enhancing drought resilience, food sovereignty, and rural employment. 𝙊𝙣 𝙀𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙈𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙤𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙍𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬 At the Koysha Project site, the Prime Minister convened a strategic review session with the Council of Ministers to assess the macroeconomic performance of the first 100 days of the 2018 Ethiopian Fiscal Year. The review examined achievements, challenges, and strategic priorities, highlighting Ethiopia’s sustained economic resilience amid global uncertainty. The nation’s GDP growth rate stood at 9.2 percent for the 2017 fiscal year, underscoring the success of reforms aimed at fostering inclusive and diversified growth. 𝙊𝙣 𝙅𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝘿𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 Building on the success of the Digital 2025 Strategy, the Prime Minister announced the forthcoming Digital 2030 Strategy, focused on advancing automation and improving public service delivery. He commended the Federal Supreme Court for implementing a Smart Court System featuring automated transcription, virtual hearings, and an Integrated Case Management System that enables litigants to track cases online. Covering 24 federal branches to date, this innovation marks an important step toward transparent and accessible justice across Ethiopia. 𝙊𝙣 𝙈𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖, 𝘾𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙏𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙢 Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed attended the launch of the pan-African media outlet Pulse of Africa, a platform he first proposed during the 35th Ordinary Session of the African Union Assembly in 2022. The initiative seeks to amplify African perspectives, counter negative portrayals of the continent, and strengthen African unity through shared narratives. In his remarks, the Prime Minister emphasized that Pulse of Africa marks a significant step toward ensuring that Africans tell their own stories and shape their global image. Accompanied by First Lady Zinash Tayachew and a high-level delegation of former and current leaders, the Prime Minister also visited the Bale Zone to assess key development projects that integrate natural heritage with national progress. The delegation toured the Bale Mountains National Park, one of Ethiopia’s most ecologically diverse and economically significant natural areas. The Prime Minister observed ongoing tourism developments, including the nearly completed Dinsho Lodge at the heart of the park and the Sof Omer Luxury Lodge near the Sof Omer Cave. Both projects are designed to advance Ethiopia’s Ten-Year Strategic Plan by positioning tourism as a catalyst for economic transformation. The Sof Omer Cave Development Project complements these initiatives by improving access and visitor facilities around one of the country’s most celebrated natural landmarks. The delegation also inspected the Robe–Goro–Sof Omer–GinirJunction Road Upgrading Project, a dual asphalt roadway featuring five bridges that connect the productive agricultural zones of East Bale and Bale with central Ethiopia. The upgraded route enhances regional mobility, strengthens economic integration, and improves access to major tourist destinations such as the Bale Mountains National Park and Sof Omer Cave. In addition, the Prime Minister reviewed the Weib River Flood Control Project, which regulates water flow through the cave system to ensure year-round accessibility and protect its ecosystem. He also examined tourism development efforts in the Harenna cluster, including the construction of the Rira Eco Lodge, new viewpoints, restaurants, and coffee facilities along the routes leading to Tulu Dimtu, the park’s highest peak. These initiatives aim to expand sustainable tourism, create local employment, and showcase the natural and cultural richness of the Bale region. The visit concluded at the Fincha Habera Waterfall, where the delegation explored the surrounding landscape, home to the Ethiopian Red Fox, diverse birdlife, and striking geological formations such as the Rafu rock pinnacles. The area, which recently revealed a newly discovered cave system, will soon feature a glamping site designed to promote eco-friendly tourism. Reflecting on the visit, Prime Minister Abiy highlighted Ethiopia as a land of abundance and opportunity, urging citizens to safeguard and build upon the nation’s natural and human wealth for future generations. The delegation collectively reaffirmed the importance of stewardship, unity, and visionary development in shaping Ethiopia’s sustainable and prosperous future. 𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝘿𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚 Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, in his recent address to Ethiopia’s Parliament, highlighted the country’s substantial progress in economic reform, diversification, and infrastructure development. He noted that Ethiopia’s shift from an agriculture-dependent economy toward industrial and service growth has yielded impressive results, citing rapid agricultural expansion, record-high export revenues, and increased foreign reserves. Major investments in green initiatives, transport infrastructure, and energy projects are transforming productivity and sustainability, while prudent debt management and targeted subsidies have stabilized inflation. He emphasized the government’s focus on strengthening institutional capacity, expanding digitalization, training millions of youth in coding, and modernizing service delivery through nationwide one-stop centers. On peace and governance, the Prime Minister reaffirmed Ethiopia’s commitment to stability, dialogue, and national unity, warning against both internal and external actors seeking to destabilize the country. He stressed that the only viable path for Ethiopia is peaceful political transition and democratic consolidation. Looking ahead to the upcoming national election, he assured Parliament of the government’s readiness to ensure a fair and inclusive process. On foreign relations, he reiterated Ethiopia’s right to equitable use of the Nile waters and called for cooperative engagement with neighboring countries. Addressing the Red Sea question, he described it as a legitimate historical and economic concern that Ethiopia intends to pursue through dialogue and mutual development, underscoring that the nation’s growth is intertwined with regional prosperity and peace. 𝙊𝙣 𝘿𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙍𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 On the international stage, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed led Ethiopia’s delegation to the 24th Summit of the COMESA Authority of Heads of State and Government in Nairobi, Kenya, held under the theme “Leveraging Digitalization to Deepen Regional Value Chains for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth.” Addressing the Summit, he underscored that Africa’s digital transformation offers a unique opportunity to rewrite its economic narrative and strengthen continental integration. He affirmed Ethiopia’s readiness to collaborate with regional partners to advance a shared digital future. In separate diplomatic meetings, the Prime Minister held discussions with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud of the Federal Republic of Somalia on bilateral and regional matters of mutual interest, and with Dr. Constantinos Kombos, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus, to strengthen political and economic cooperation between their two nations. 𝙊𝙣 𝙏𝙖𝙭𝙥𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧 𝙍𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙍𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 At the 7th Annual Loyal Taxpayers Recognition Ceremony, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed celebrated outstanding taxpayers for their contributions to Ethiopia’s development. He reaffirmed that tax revenues are being invested in vital public goods and infrastructure projects and urged all citizens to uphold transparency and reject corruption. The Prime Minister emphasized that collective integrity and accountability are essential to building a just and prosperous nation. Throughout October 2025, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s decisive leadership and forward-looking initiatives across industry, agriculture, urban renewal, justice, and diplomacy demonstrated Ethiopia’s unwavering commitment to inclusive development and national progress. // #PMOEthiopia
0:50

In October 2025, the Prime Minister undertook a series of national and international engagements focused on infrastructure development, rural transformation, governance reform, and diplomatic cooperation. Here is a brief recap of the past month: 𝙊𝙣 𝙐𝙧𝙗𝙖𝙣 𝘿𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝘿𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙄𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 A defining highlight of the month was the laying of the foundation stone for the urea fertilizer plant, a landmark project developed through a partnership between Ethiopian Investment Holdings and the Dangote Group. With an annual production capacity of three million tons, the plant will utilize natural gas from the Calub gas fields, transported through a 108-kilometer pipeline. This project is a cornerstone of Ethiopia’s strategy to achieve fertilizer self-sufficiency and enhance agricultural productivity. In the Somali Region, the Prime Minister also inaugurated the Gode Oil Refinery, developed by Golden Concord Group Limited (GCL). The refinery, designed to process 3.5 million tons of crude oil and condensate per year from the Hilala oil field, represents a significant step in Ethiopia’s path toward energy independence. Complementing these milestones, the Prime Minister inaugurated the first phase of the Ogaden Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Project in Calub. The facility, with an annual production capacity of 111 million litres and the ability to generate 1,000 megawatts of energy, strengthens Ethiopia’s industrial base while contributing critical inputs to fertilizer production and energy generation. During his visit to Jigjiga in the Somali Region, the Prime Minister observed the city’s rapid transformation since his last visit in January 2025. Thousands of new housing units are under construction, and corridor development projects are visibly enhancing urban well-being. He lauded the Dine for Generations Project, nearing completion in the Somali Region, for unlocking new opportunities in tourism and stimulating regional economic growth. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, accompanied by members of the Prosperity Party Executive Committee, visited the corridor development project extending from Sar Bet to German Square, encompassing the Garment Factory and the Furi area. Spanning 589 hectares, it is the second-largest urban corridor after Kazanchis. The project features 16.5 kilometers of asphalt roads, 33 kilometers of pedestrian walkways, plazas, sports and recreation facilities, riverbank development, and over 1,100 commercial shops. The initiative embodies Ethiopia’s broader vision of creating modern, livable, and economically vibrant cities. 𝙊𝙣 𝙍𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 Advancing his government’s rural development agenda, the Prime Minister presided over the handover of model rural villages constructed through the Rainy Season Voluntary Scheme in the Halaba, Kembatta, Hadiya, and Silte zones. Each home in these Rural Corridor Villages is equipped with solar power, biogas systems, sanitation facilities, and animal shelters, significantly improving hygiene, comfort, and productivity for rural families. These model villages mark a new chapter in Ethiopia’s mission to raise rural living standards and promote sustainable livelihoods. The Prime Minister encouraged regional leaders to expand these initiatives, setting a target of 100 new houses per zone by next year. During his visit to the East Shewa Zone of the Oromia Region, the Prime Minister also reviewed the rainy season wheat harvest and launched summer wheat production activities. He assessed progress in banana, papaya, and fish farming clusters, emphasizing the growing adoption of mechanized agriculture as a major driver of productivity and self-reliance. He also inaugurated the Welmel River Irrigation Development Project in Delo-Mena Woreda, Bale Zone. Once fully operational, the project will irrigate 9,687 hectares of farmland, benefiting 20,000 farming households and enhancing drought resilience, food sovereignty, and rural employment. 𝙊𝙣 𝙀𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙈𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙤𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙍𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬 At the Koysha Project site, the Prime Minister convened a strategic review session with the Council of Ministers to assess the macroeconomic performance of the first 100 days of the 2018 Ethiopian Fiscal Year. The review examined achievements, challenges, and strategic priorities, highlighting Ethiopia’s sustained economic resilience amid global uncertainty. The nation’s GDP growth rate stood at 9.2 percent for the 2017 fiscal year, underscoring the success of reforms aimed at fostering inclusive and diversified growth. 𝙊𝙣 𝙅𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝘿𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 Building on the success of the Digital 2025 Strategy, the Prime Minister announced the forthcoming Digital 2030 Strategy, focused on advancing automation and improving public service delivery. He commended the Federal Supreme Court for implementing a Smart Court System featuring automated transcription, virtual hearings, and an Integrated Case Management System that enables litigants to track cases online. Covering 24 federal branches to date, this innovation marks an important step toward transparent and accessible justice across Ethiopia. 𝙊𝙣 𝙈𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖, 𝘾𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙏𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙢 Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed attended the launch of the pan-African media outlet Pulse of Africa, a platform he first proposed during the 35th Ordinary Session of the African Union Assembly in 2022. The initiative seeks to amplify African perspectives, counter negative portrayals of the continent, and strengthen African unity through shared narratives. In his remarks, the Prime Minister emphasized that Pulse of Africa marks a significant step toward ensuring that Africans tell their own stories and shape their global image. Accompanied by First Lady Zinash Tayachew and a high-level delegation of former and current leaders, the Prime Minister also visited the Bale Zone to assess key development projects that integrate natural heritage with national progress. The delegation toured the Bale Mountains National Park, one of Ethiopia’s most ecologically diverse and economically significant natural areas. The Prime Minister observed ongoing tourism developments, including the nearly completed Dinsho Lodge at the heart of the park and the Sof Omer Luxury Lodge near the Sof Omer Cave. Both projects are designed to advance Ethiopia’s Ten-Year Strategic Plan by positioning tourism as a catalyst for economic transformation. The Sof Omer Cave Development Project complements these initiatives by improving access and visitor facilities around one of the country’s most celebrated natural landmarks. The delegation also inspected the Robe–Goro–Sof Omer–GinirJunction Road Upgrading Project, a dual asphalt roadway featuring five bridges that connect the productive agricultural zones of East Bale and Bale with central Ethiopia. The upgraded route enhances regional mobility, strengthens economic integration, and improves access to major tourist destinations such as the Bale Mountains National Park and Sof Omer Cave. In addition, the Prime Minister reviewed the Weib River Flood Control Project, which regulates water flow through the cave system to ensure year-round accessibility and protect its ecosystem. He also examined tourism development efforts in the Harenna cluster, including the construction of the Rira Eco Lodge, new viewpoints, restaurants, and coffee facilities along the routes leading to Tulu Dimtu, the park’s highest peak. These initiatives aim to expand sustainable tourism, create local employment, and showcase the natural and cultural richness of the Bale region. The visit concluded at the Fincha Habera Waterfall, where the delegation explored the surrounding landscape, home to the Ethiopian Red Fox, diverse birdlife, and striking geological formations such as the Rafu rock pinnacles. The area, which recently revealed a newly discovered cave system, will soon feature a glamping site designed to promote eco-friendly tourism. Reflecting on the visit, Prime Minister Abiy highlighted Ethiopia as a land of abundance and opportunity, urging citizens to safeguard and build upon the nation’s natural and human wealth for future generations. The delegation collectively reaffirmed the importance of stewardship, unity, and visionary development in shaping Ethiopia’s sustainable and prosperous future. 𝙋𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝘿𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚 Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, in his recent address to Ethiopia’s Parliament, highlighted the country’s substantial progress in economic reform, diversification, and infrastructure development. He noted that Ethiopia’s shift from an agriculture-dependent economy toward industrial and service growth has yielded impressive results, citing rapid agricultural expansion, record-high export revenues, and increased foreign reserves. Major investments in green initiatives, transport infrastructure, and energy projects are transforming productivity and sustainability, while prudent debt management and targeted subsidies have stabilized inflation. He emphasized the government’s focus on strengthening institutional capacity, expanding digitalization, training millions of youth in coding, and modernizing service delivery through nationwide one-stop centers. On peace and governance, the Prime Minister reaffirmed Ethiopia’s commitment to stability, dialogue, and national unity, warning against both internal and external actors seeking to destabilize the country. He stressed that the only viable path for Ethiopia is peaceful political transition and democratic consolidation. Looking ahead to the upcoming national election, he assured Parliament of the government’s readiness to ensure a fair and inclusive process. On foreign relations, he reiterated Ethiopia’s right to equitable use of the Nile waters and called for cooperative engagement with neighboring countries. Addressing the Red Sea question, he described it as a legitimate historical and economic concern that Ethiopia intends to pursue through dialogue and mutual development, underscoring that the nation’s growth is intertwined with regional prosperity and peace. 𝙊𝙣 𝘿𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙍𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 On the international stage, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed led Ethiopia’s delegation to the 24th Summit of the COMESA Authority of Heads of State and Government in Nairobi, Kenya, held under the theme “Leveraging Digitalization to Deepen Regional Value Chains for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth.” Addressing the Summit, he underscored that Africa’s digital transformation offers a unique opportunity to rewrite its economic narrative and strengthen continental integration. He affirmed Ethiopia’s readiness to collaborate with regional partners to advance a shared digital future. In separate diplomatic meetings, the Prime Minister held discussions with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud of the Federal Republic of Somalia on bilateral and regional matters of mutual interest, and with Dr. Constantinos Kombos, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus, to strengthen political and economic cooperation between their two nations. 𝙊𝙣 𝙏𝙖𝙭𝙥𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧 𝙍𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙍𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 At the 7th Annual Loyal Taxpayers Recognition Ceremony, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed celebrated outstanding taxpayers for their contributions to Ethiopia’s development. He reaffirmed that tax revenues are being invested in vital public goods and infrastructure projects and urged all citizens to uphold transparency and reject corruption. The Prime Minister emphasized that collective integrity and accountability are essential to building a just and prosperous nation. Throughout October 2025, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s decisive leadership and forward-looking initiatives across industry, agriculture, urban renewal, justice, and diplomacy demonstrated Ethiopia’s unwavering commitment to inclusive development and national progress. // #PMOEthiopia

Office of the Prime Minister - Ethiopia

12,135 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮
29:17

BOOM!!! 💥💥💥 Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimäki 🇫🇮

aussie17

799,326 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨 THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE: EPSTEIN BUILT THE FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN AI — AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT The story they told you is simple: Jeffrey Epstein was a rogue financier, a degenerate, an aberration. A lone predator who somehow became friends with presidents, princes, Nobel laureates, and the architects of the modern world through pure coincidence. The story they won’t tell you is what he was actually building — and who was cashing his checks while the ink on his 2008 conviction was still wet. 🧠 The AI Summit on an Island Owned by a Predator In April 2002 — when “artificial intelligence” was still a punchline and the field was in a decades-long “winter” — a small gathering of the smartest minds in computing assembled at a ritzy hotel in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Not Silicon Valley. Not Cambridge. Not a university campus with institutional oversight. A predator’s island. The “St. Thomas Common Sense Symposium” brought together: - Marvin Minsky — co-founder of MIT’s AI Lab, arguably the founding father of artificial intelligence - Doug Lenat — creator of Cyc, the first serious attempt at machine common sense - Vernor Vinge — the science fiction writer who coined the term “singularity” - Roger Schank — celebrated AI theorist - Push Singh — Minsky’s protégé, the rising star of the field The resulting paper — on how to finally achieve human-level AI — contained one sentence that should have been screamed from every rooftop for two decades: “This meeting was made possible by the generous support of Jeffrey Epstein.” Attendees later recalled Epstein flying them in on a private plane, hosting a beach barbecue on his own island, and lavishing the gathering with resources. One source described Epstein speaking fondly of Minsky, saying he “loved talking to him about AI.” So while the world’s press was busy ignoring a convicted sex offender’s weird science hobby, a predator was seeding the intellectual foundation of the technology that now runs your phone, your bank, your news feed, and soon your government. 💰 Follow the Money: The Donor Database They Tried to Hide When the MIT fact-finding report finally dropped in 2020, it confirmed what insiders already knew: Epstein gave MIT $850,000 between 2002 and 2017. And here’s the part that should make your skin crawl: - $100,000 to Marvin Minsky in 2002 — years before his conviction - $525,000 to the MIT Media Lab — every dollar of it after Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea for soliciting a minor - $225,000 to Professor Seth Lloyd — also post-conviction MIT administrators didn’t reject the money. They didn’t blow the whistle. They created an “informal framework” to accept it quietly, on the condition that Epstein’s name never appear anywhere. Staff at the Media Lab reportedly referred to Epstein as “Voldemort” — “he who must not be named.” His donations were recorded as “anonymous.” His calendar entries used initials only. When Bill Gates donated $2 million to the Media Lab in 2014, internal emails show Ito writing: “This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” The development office’s reply? “For gift recording purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffrey’s name.” Read that again. A convicted sex offender was directing the flow of millions in tech philanthropy — and the most prestigious engineering institution on Earth was actively scrubbing his name from the paperwork. That’s not a scandal. That’s institutional complicity. 🔗 The Joi Ito → OpenAI Pipeline Here’s the connective tissue the mainstream press never bothered to stitch together: Joi Ito, the MIT Media Lab director who personally cultivated Epstein as a donor — who solicited “top-off” payments of $100K to fund researchers Epstein hand-picked — became one of the early investors in OpenAI. The lab Epstein was funding was the same ecosystem incubating the people who would go on to build the machine that now answers your questions, writes your emails, and increasingly shapes what you’re allowed to think. Epstein didn’t just fund Ito’s lab. He personally invested $1 million into a private investment fund Ito managed, plus another $250,000 into a company Ito was commercializing. When the heat came, Ito tried to “eject” Epstein’s money. But you can’t eject an idea once it’s been wired into the infrastructure. And who sat on OpenAI’s board until late 2023? Larry Summers — former Treasury Secretary, former Harvard president, and a man whose private correspondence with Epstein continued until the day before Epstein’s 2019 arrest. The released emails show Epstein referring to himself as Summers’ “wing man” — advising the married former Treasury Secretary on how to pressure a mentee into a relationship, urging him to play the “long game” and keep her in a “forced holding pattern.” That man was making governance decisions at the most powerful AI company on Earth. And the board seat only ended when the emails leaked. 🧬 The Real Agenda: “Superhumans” With His DNA Now for the part that reframes everything. Epstein wasn’t just interested in AI as a hobby. According to reporting from the New York Times and his own voluminous correspondence, he was obsessed with transhumanism — the project of upgrading humanity through genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. His specific dream, confided to scientists over years: Seed the human race with his own DNA. He planned to impregnate dozens of women at his New Mexico ranch, spreading his genetic material across the population. He handed out 23andMe kits “the way most people hand out business cards.” He pushed cognitive scientist Joscha Bach on whether gene editing could boost intelligence. He corresponded with Noam Chomsky about “genetic altruism” and race-based cognitive differences. And the AI connection? That’s where Peter Thiel enters — the PayPal co-founder who has spoken openly about uploading consciousness, who funded transhumanist institutions, and whose own correspondence with Epstein was regular and ongoing. The vision was never just money. It was a eugenicist’s fusion of genetics and machine intelligence — a project to build the “cognitive aristocracy” that would inherit the earth, with Epstein’s own DNA in the mix and AI as the enforcement mechanism. The Slate analysis, published after the full Epstein files were released, is blunt: “Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t just a sex pest. He was also a eugenicist.” And the institutions that now steer AI — the labs, the boards, the funding networks — were built inside the same social circle. 🌐 The Edge Foundation: The Network That Let Him In None of this happened in isolation. Epstein was the principal funder of the Edge Foundation — the invitation-only salon of Silicon Valley elite founded by literary agent John Brockman. For up to two decades, Edge was the conduit through which Epstein gained access to: - Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page - Elon Musk - Jeff Bezos - Bill Gates - Nathan Myhrvold - Nick Bostrom — the “father of longtermism” whose Future of Humanity Institute shaped Silicon Valley’s entire AI-safety philosophy Bostrom’s organization Humanity+ received $120,000 from Epstein — including money to cover the salary of Ben Goertzel, the computer scientist who popularized the term “AGI” (artificial general intelligence) and now runs SingularityNET. Let that land: The man who coined the term for the technology everyone is now terrified of was, in part, on Epstein’s payroll. The worldview threaded through this entire network — an obsession with racial hierarchy, genetic “optimization,” “climate culling” to reduce surplus population, machine intelligence as humanity’s inevitable successor — wasn’t an accident. It was the operating system. 🎭 So Ask Yourself the Obvious Question The official narrative treats all of this as a series of unfortunate coincidences: - A predator who happened to fund the founding fathers of AI - A university that happened to hide his donations - A board member who happened to be his close friend - A network of billionaires who happened to share his transhumanist vision That’s not a coincidence. That’s a pattern. Jeffrey Epstein didn’t stumble into the AI world. He bought his way in — with cash, with access, with the leverage his blackmail operation gave him over the most powerful people in tech and finance. And the technology now being deployed to monitor, profile, and control the global population was midwifed by a man who wanted to breed a master race with his own DNA. They told you Epstein was a footnote. A cautionary tale. A “bad apple.” He was the seed investor. 🔥 The Bottom Line You don’t get to fund the founding fathers of AI, bankroll the institution that incubated OpenAI’s early investors, sit your friends on its board, spread your eugenicist ideology through the network that shaped its safety philosophy — and then call it a coincidence. The machine has a ghost in it. And the ghost is still collecting royalties. h/t vladtv for the video #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinAI #GhostInTheMachine #FollowTheMoney #EpsteinNetwork #AIIndustrialComplex #Transhumanism #EugenicsExposed #MITMediaLab #OpenAI #LarrySummers #JoiIto #PeterThiel #EdgeFoundation #NickBostrom #AGI #TechBillionaires #TheMachineHasAGhost #SiliconValleySecrets #WakeUp
4:30

🚨 THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE: EPSTEIN BUILT THE FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN AI — AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT The story they told you is simple: Jeffrey Epstein was a rogue financier, a degenerate, an aberration. A lone predator who somehow became friends with presidents, princes, Nobel laureates, and the architects of the modern world through pure coincidence. The story they won’t tell you is what he was actually building — and who was cashing his checks while the ink on his 2008 conviction was still wet. 🧠 The AI Summit on an Island Owned by a Predator In April 2002 — when “artificial intelligence” was still a punchline and the field was in a decades-long “winter” — a small gathering of the smartest minds in computing assembled at a ritzy hotel in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Not Silicon Valley. Not Cambridge. Not a university campus with institutional oversight. A predator’s island. The “St. Thomas Common Sense Symposium” brought together: - Marvin Minsky — co-founder of MIT’s AI Lab, arguably the founding father of artificial intelligence - Doug Lenat — creator of Cyc, the first serious attempt at machine common sense - Vernor Vinge — the science fiction writer who coined the term “singularity” - Roger Schank — celebrated AI theorist - Push Singh — Minsky’s protégé, the rising star of the field The resulting paper — on how to finally achieve human-level AI — contained one sentence that should have been screamed from every rooftop for two decades: “This meeting was made possible by the generous support of Jeffrey Epstein.” Attendees later recalled Epstein flying them in on a private plane, hosting a beach barbecue on his own island, and lavishing the gathering with resources. One source described Epstein speaking fondly of Minsky, saying he “loved talking to him about AI.” So while the world’s press was busy ignoring a convicted sex offender’s weird science hobby, a predator was seeding the intellectual foundation of the technology that now runs your phone, your bank, your news feed, and soon your government. 💰 Follow the Money: The Donor Database They Tried to Hide When the MIT fact-finding report finally dropped in 2020, it confirmed what insiders already knew: Epstein gave MIT $850,000 between 2002 and 2017. And here’s the part that should make your skin crawl: - $100,000 to Marvin Minsky in 2002 — years before his conviction - $525,000 to the MIT Media Lab — every dollar of it after Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea for soliciting a minor - $225,000 to Professor Seth Lloyd — also post-conviction MIT administrators didn’t reject the money. They didn’t blow the whistle. They created an “informal framework” to accept it quietly, on the condition that Epstein’s name never appear anywhere. Staff at the Media Lab reportedly referred to Epstein as “Voldemort” — “he who must not be named.” His donations were recorded as “anonymous.” His calendar entries used initials only. When Bill Gates donated $2 million to the Media Lab in 2014, internal emails show Ito writing: “This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” The development office’s reply? “For gift recording purposes, we will not be mentioning Jeffrey’s name.” Read that again. A convicted sex offender was directing the flow of millions in tech philanthropy — and the most prestigious engineering institution on Earth was actively scrubbing his name from the paperwork. That’s not a scandal. That’s institutional complicity. 🔗 The Joi Ito → OpenAI Pipeline Here’s the connective tissue the mainstream press never bothered to stitch together: Joi Ito, the MIT Media Lab director who personally cultivated Epstein as a donor — who solicited “top-off” payments of $100K to fund researchers Epstein hand-picked — became one of the early investors in OpenAI. The lab Epstein was funding was the same ecosystem incubating the people who would go on to build the machine that now answers your questions, writes your emails, and increasingly shapes what you’re allowed to think. Epstein didn’t just fund Ito’s lab. He personally invested $1 million into a private investment fund Ito managed, plus another $250,000 into a company Ito was commercializing. When the heat came, Ito tried to “eject” Epstein’s money. But you can’t eject an idea once it’s been wired into the infrastructure. And who sat on OpenAI’s board until late 2023? Larry Summers — former Treasury Secretary, former Harvard president, and a man whose private correspondence with Epstein continued until the day before Epstein’s 2019 arrest. The released emails show Epstein referring to himself as Summers’ “wing man” — advising the married former Treasury Secretary on how to pressure a mentee into a relationship, urging him to play the “long game” and keep her in a “forced holding pattern.” That man was making governance decisions at the most powerful AI company on Earth. And the board seat only ended when the emails leaked. 🧬 The Real Agenda: “Superhumans” With His DNA Now for the part that reframes everything. Epstein wasn’t just interested in AI as a hobby. According to reporting from the New York Times and his own voluminous correspondence, he was obsessed with transhumanism — the project of upgrading humanity through genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. His specific dream, confided to scientists over years: Seed the human race with his own DNA. He planned to impregnate dozens of women at his New Mexico ranch, spreading his genetic material across the population. He handed out 23andMe kits “the way most people hand out business cards.” He pushed cognitive scientist Joscha Bach on whether gene editing could boost intelligence. He corresponded with Noam Chomsky about “genetic altruism” and race-based cognitive differences. And the AI connection? That’s where Peter Thiel enters — the PayPal co-founder who has spoken openly about uploading consciousness, who funded transhumanist institutions, and whose own correspondence with Epstein was regular and ongoing. The vision was never just money. It was a eugenicist’s fusion of genetics and machine intelligence — a project to build the “cognitive aristocracy” that would inherit the earth, with Epstein’s own DNA in the mix and AI as the enforcement mechanism. The Slate analysis, published after the full Epstein files were released, is blunt: “Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t just a sex pest. He was also a eugenicist.” And the institutions that now steer AI — the labs, the boards, the funding networks — were built inside the same social circle. 🌐 The Edge Foundation: The Network That Let Him In None of this happened in isolation. Epstein was the principal funder of the Edge Foundation — the invitation-only salon of Silicon Valley elite founded by literary agent John Brockman. For up to two decades, Edge was the conduit through which Epstein gained access to: - Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page - Elon Musk - Jeff Bezos - Bill Gates - Nathan Myhrvold - Nick Bostrom — the “father of longtermism” whose Future of Humanity Institute shaped Silicon Valley’s entire AI-safety philosophy Bostrom’s organization Humanity+ received $120,000 from Epstein — including money to cover the salary of Ben Goertzel, the computer scientist who popularized the term “AGI” (artificial general intelligence) and now runs SingularityNET. Let that land: The man who coined the term for the technology everyone is now terrified of was, in part, on Epstein’s payroll. The worldview threaded through this entire network — an obsession with racial hierarchy, genetic “optimization,” “climate culling” to reduce surplus population, machine intelligence as humanity’s inevitable successor — wasn’t an accident. It was the operating system. 🎭 So Ask Yourself the Obvious Question The official narrative treats all of this as a series of unfortunate coincidences: - A predator who happened to fund the founding fathers of AI - A university that happened to hide his donations - A board member who happened to be his close friend - A network of billionaires who happened to share his transhumanist vision That’s not a coincidence. That’s a pattern. Jeffrey Epstein didn’t stumble into the AI world. He bought his way in — with cash, with access, with the leverage his blackmail operation gave him over the most powerful people in tech and finance. And the technology now being deployed to monitor, profile, and control the global population was midwifed by a man who wanted to breed a master race with his own DNA. They told you Epstein was a footnote. A cautionary tale. A “bad apple.” He was the seed investor. 🔥 The Bottom Line You don’t get to fund the founding fathers of AI, bankroll the institution that incubated OpenAI’s early investors, sit your friends on its board, spread your eugenicist ideology through the network that shaped its safety philosophy — and then call it a coincidence. The machine has a ghost in it. And the ghost is still collecting royalties. h/t vladtv for the video #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinAI #GhostInTheMachine #FollowTheMoney #EpsteinNetwork #AIIndustrialComplex #Transhumanism #EugenicsExposed #MITMediaLab #OpenAI #LarrySummers #JoiIto #PeterThiel #EdgeFoundation #NickBostrom #AGI #TechBillionaires #TheMachineHasAGhost #SiliconValleySecrets #WakeUp

Tony Seruga

82,502 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

In furtherance of His Excellency President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Renewed Hope Agenda, and in line with our national commitment to achieving Universal Health Coverage (#UHC), I am pleased to provide an update on Nigeria’s progress in expanding access to quality and affordable health insurance. Out-of-pocket payments remain the dominant source of health care expenditure for most of our people, translating into higher costs and lower standards of accountability for providers. When the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Federal Ministry of Health, NIGERIA signed the Renewed Hope Ministerial Performance Monitoring Bond with its detailed key performance indicators, we set ambitious 2030 targets that are now within reach, one of which is national health insurance coverage. Under the leadership of Mr President, all macroeconomic reform and cross-sectoral policy direction are driven by one objective: ensuring that every Nigerian can actualize their aspirations while accessing affordable, quality care. This people-centred approach defines the comprehensive reforms now reshaping our health sector. As we modernize infrastructure across primary, secondary, and tertiary facilities in all local government areas, our record-breaking progress in national health insurance enrollment is aligning demand with Nigeria’s rapidly expanding supply of human resources and infrastructure. Nearly 120,000 health workers have been trained since 2023, and 2,500 doctors, nurses, midwives, and community health extension workers have been recruited to strengthen frontline services. Over the past 16 months, 4,000 health personnel have also been added in Federal Tertiary Hospitals to close workforce gaps. In 2024, Nigeria broke its enrollment record with more than 2.4m new people insured, bringing total coverage to about 20m Nigerians. With new policy tools in motion, we are on course to reach 44m by 2030. This is the surest path to reducing out-of-pocket expenditure, which still represents about 70% of total health spending. Social health insurance schemes now account for 90% of all enrollments nationwide. A major constraint in care quality has been the low capitation fee for enrollees. For years, the capitation stood at ₦750 per person. We have doubled it to ₦1,450 to ensure providers are properly equipped to deliver consistent, high-quality care. Fee-for-service rates have also been increased by 380%, based on actuarial evidence aligning cost-reflective rates with quality requirements. The Federal Government Government of Nigeria has also introduced the One Hour Referral Authorization Code, issued by the insuring entity to the provider to confirm referral approval. By shortening this process to 1 hour, we are eliminating unnecessary delays and ensuring that patients move quickly from primary to specialist care. To strengthen accountability, I have directed the National Health Insurance Authority NHIA NIGERIA to commence covert mystery shopping to monitor providers and ensure that enrollees are not denied treatment. Undercover monitors are already observing processes in facilities nationwide to ensure that insured Nigerians receive timely and dignified care. The evidence is clear. From fewer than 10m hospital visits in all of 2023, more than 46m visits were recorded by the second quarter of 2025. Reforms in the Basic Health Care Provision Fund Basic Health Care Provision Fund and the NHIA are delivering measurable gains in patient confidence and service utilization. As enrollment expands, benefits multiply. Wider adoption of health insurance enhances quality, strengthens accountability, and protects households from financial hardship. These achievements reflect President Tinubu’s vision of a health system that serves all Nigerians, regardless of income or status. We will continue to modernize infrastructure, strengthen the workforce, and sustain reforms until every Nigerian is covered and cared for. Thank you, and may God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
6:01

In furtherance of His Excellency President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Renewed Hope Agenda, and in line with our national commitment to achieving Universal Health Coverage (#UHC), I am pleased to provide an update on Nigeria’s progress in expanding access to quality and affordable health insurance. Out-of-pocket payments remain the dominant source of health care expenditure for most of our people, translating into higher costs and lower standards of accountability for providers. When the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Federal Ministry of Health, NIGERIA signed the Renewed Hope Ministerial Performance Monitoring Bond with its detailed key performance indicators, we set ambitious 2030 targets that are now within reach, one of which is national health insurance coverage. Under the leadership of Mr President, all macroeconomic reform and cross-sectoral policy direction are driven by one objective: ensuring that every Nigerian can actualize their aspirations while accessing affordable, quality care. This people-centred approach defines the comprehensive reforms now reshaping our health sector. As we modernize infrastructure across primary, secondary, and tertiary facilities in all local government areas, our record-breaking progress in national health insurance enrollment is aligning demand with Nigeria’s rapidly expanding supply of human resources and infrastructure. Nearly 120,000 health workers have been trained since 2023, and 2,500 doctors, nurses, midwives, and community health extension workers have been recruited to strengthen frontline services. Over the past 16 months, 4,000 health personnel have also been added in Federal Tertiary Hospitals to close workforce gaps. In 2024, Nigeria broke its enrollment record with more than 2.4m new people insured, bringing total coverage to about 20m Nigerians. With new policy tools in motion, we are on course to reach 44m by 2030. This is the surest path to reducing out-of-pocket expenditure, which still represents about 70% of total health spending. Social health insurance schemes now account for 90% of all enrollments nationwide. A major constraint in care quality has been the low capitation fee for enrollees. For years, the capitation stood at ₦750 per person. We have doubled it to ₦1,450 to ensure providers are properly equipped to deliver consistent, high-quality care. Fee-for-service rates have also been increased by 380%, based on actuarial evidence aligning cost-reflective rates with quality requirements. The Federal Government Government of Nigeria has also introduced the One Hour Referral Authorization Code, issued by the insuring entity to the provider to confirm referral approval. By shortening this process to 1 hour, we are eliminating unnecessary delays and ensuring that patients move quickly from primary to specialist care. To strengthen accountability, I have directed the National Health Insurance Authority NHIA NIGERIA to commence covert mystery shopping to monitor providers and ensure that enrollees are not denied treatment. Undercover monitors are already observing processes in facilities nationwide to ensure that insured Nigerians receive timely and dignified care. The evidence is clear. From fewer than 10m hospital visits in all of 2023, more than 46m visits were recorded by the second quarter of 2025. Reforms in the Basic Health Care Provision Fund Basic Health Care Provision Fund and the NHIA are delivering measurable gains in patient confidence and service utilization. As enrollment expands, benefits multiply. Wider adoption of health insurance enhances quality, strengthens accountability, and protects households from financial hardship. These achievements reflect President Tinubu’s vision of a health system that serves all Nigerians, regardless of income or status. We will continue to modernize infrastructure, strengthen the workforce, and sustain reforms until every Nigerian is covered and cared for. Thank you, and may God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Muhammad Ali Pate

32,208 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

🇷🇺🚀 RANGE BUYS THE LAUNCHER TIME. PRODUCTION WINS THE WAR. The first confirmed combat use of Russia’s upgraded 9M723-2 — provisionally tagged Iskander-1000 and fielded with the Bora-M launcher — is not a science-fiction leap to a thousand kilometres. It is something more Russian, and more dangerous to NATO planning: an extra one hundred and sixty kilometres of depth added to a missile already built, already stockpiled, already understood by the crews who fire it. 🇷🇺 Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence said the new round was used in a combined strike on Kiev this summer, that it belongs to a system called Bora-M, and that the fielded missile reaches about 550 kilometres against roughly 390 for the 9M723-1. Defence Blog, RBC-Ukraine and UK Defence Journal all carried the same core claim within a day. The name still oversells the round that actually flew. The 1,000-kilometre figure belongs to a further stretch still in development. That distinction matters. So does the fact that Moscow did not wait for the brochure range before putting extra depth into the fight. The question that follows is the only one that counts for a war of attrition. Which matters more: the extra range, or the accuracy and production tempo of a design Russia already manufactures at scale? NOT A NEW MISSILE. A DEEPER ONE. Most of the 9M723-2 remains the same family Russia has used for years. Public assessments, including the Ukrainian disclosure itself, say the principal change is a larger motor and a launcher able to carry it. Everything else — the quasi-ballistic profile, the short warning time, the mobile transporter-erector-launcher logic — stays inside a system the industry already knows how to build. 🇷🇺 That is the point Western commentary keeps missing. A clean-sheet intermediate-range missile would have been a prestige project and a production bottleneck. An enlarged Iskander is a factory decision. Military Watch Magazine, writing from the other side of the ledger than Kiev, has treated the programme as a doubling of the old five-hundred-kilometre class by carrying more energy in a familiar airframe rather than inventing a new architecture. Russian military analyst Evgeny Damantsev, in a series of briefings carried by Russian technical outlets, has described the same logic since 2024: keep the 9M723 layout, raise the energy of the motor, accept a lighter warhead on the longest shots, and put the result on a high-mobility ground launcher instead of waiting for a bomber or a ship. Telegram channel Russkoe Oruzhie went further in January, claiming a high-impulse motor and a thousand-kilometre class of flight. The Russian Defence Ministry has issued no matching communique. That silence is useful. It leaves the fielded 550-kilometre Bora-M shot as the fact, and the 1,000-kilometre talk as the programme horizon. A serious general staff can use both numbers without confusing them. EXTRA ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY KILOMETRES OF HUNTING GROUND** Range is not a vanity statistic. It is geography. An extra 160 kilometres means the same target set — Kiev and other deep objectives — can be held at risk from launch areas that used to sit outside the old envelope. Crews can disperse across a wider belt of Russian and rear territory, fire, and move again before NATO-supported sensors finish the hunt. 🛰️🇷🇺 Ukrainian aviation commentator Kostiantyn Kryvolap, speaking to RBC-Ukraine, sketched the old problem in the opposite direction: with a 390-kilometre missile, a shot at Kiev pulled launchers toward more exposed ground. Stretch the reach and the launcher park expands. Every extra kilometre is another forest track, another decoy set, another place a HIMARS or drone team has to search before the vehicle is gone. The hunter’s problem scales with area. The shooter’s problem does not scale as fast, because the crew still needs only minutes on the pad. Russian open-source commentary quoted in Western leak round-ups made the reconnaissance point in blunt language: American missile-warning constellations do not get a polite label on the plume that says “this one is the short Iskander” or “this one is the long one.” The defender has to treat a larger rear as live. Aircraft and air-defence radars that light up to cover that rear advertise themselves. That is not a video-game mechanic. It is the old Soviet preference for forcing the opponent to defend everywhere so he can be strong nowhere. Military Watch Magazine’s August assessment pushed the same geography onto the European map. After a combat trial in the Ukrainian theatre, the magazine and Russian-side speculation it cited pointed to Kaliningrad as the logical later home for a longer Iskander class — a deployment that, if the full programme range is ever reached, would put much of Central Europe and the Baltic inside a mobile ground battery’s arc. Even the more conservative 550-kilometre figure already changes the hunt inside the current war. The thousand-kilometre talk is the next planning problem for NATO, not the round that just flew. THE PROFILE THAT STILL STEALS MINUTES The Iskander family was never a simple lofted ballistic arc. It is a fast, maneuvering quasi-ballistic shot that compresses the defender’s decision cycle. Patriot and similar batteries do not get a leisurely track. They get minutes. Russian analysts have been explicit about that for years. Damantsev put the optical-satellite warning window for a future thousand-kilometre class at two to seven minutes depending on the target’s distance. Aleksey Leonkov, speaking to about the same family, stressed irregular pitch and yaw in the terminal phase — a path that is ugly for a fire-control computer that wants a predictable intercept point. 🇷🇺 None of that required a new nameplate. The upgraded missile, on every serious account, keeps the family flight profile and adds reach. The interception problem is therefore not “a brand-new physics package.” It is the old physics package arriving from a wider set of azimuths, launched from a deeper set of hide sites, in salvos already mixed with drones and cruise missiles. Combined strikes are how Russia has used the Iskander for a long time. Extra range simply lets those salvos be generated from safer ground. RUSI’s earlier technical profile of the Iskander-M and Iskander-K remains the useful Western baseline: a mobile two-round launcher, a quasi-ballistic missile with a steep terminal dive, and enough seeker options to make the system more than a dumb range stick. The 9M723-2, if the Ukrainian and Russian-side descriptions are both even half right, is that baseline with more motor and a bigger tube. The defender who hoped the upgrade would force Russia into a clumsy new missile that factories cannot build is waiting for a gift Moscow declined to give. WHAT THE RUSSIAN ANALYSTS ACTUALLY ARGUED Damantsev’s public case, repeated across 2024–2026 Russian technical coverage, is not “build a wonder weapon.” It is “put medium-range fire on a truck that can hide.” He argued that ground launchers with signature-reduction kits can occupy firing points without the infrared circus of a Tu-95, a surface ship or a MiG-31K taking off. Once the motor lights, satellites will see the plume. The remaining flight is then a handful of minutes. The correct industrial answer, in his view, was to prioritise series production of a longer Iskander class rather than treat it as a boutique test article. That is an argument about factories and basing, not about magic fuel. Military Watch Magazine’s January 2025 preview and its August 2026 combat-debut note form a single through-line. First: a derivative that aims to double the old treaty-era envelope after Washington walked out of the INF Treaty. Second: a first combat use, with Russian sources already talking Kaliningrad as the European follow-on. The magazine also flagged a second industrial effect. A longer domestic ballistic round reduces the need to lean on imported short-range ballistic types of similar reach. Whether one accepts every kilometre in those essays or not, the strategic preference is consistent. Russia wants a mobile, ground-based shot that NATO cannot archive as “only 500 kilometres, only from the old pads.” Leonkov’s commentary to sits in the same school: the value of the family is not a straight line on a map but an ugly line in the sky. A missile that yaws and pitches on the way down is a missile that spends the defender’s interceptors. Pair that with a launcher that no longer has to creep toward the border and the system starts to look like what Soviet designers always wanted after the Oka was bargained away — a precise operational-tactical stick that lives far enough back to survive. None of those voices should be treated as official range tables. They should be treated as the Russian debate that actually happened: stretch the existing missile, keep it mobile, make the West search a larger map, and do not wait for a perfect thousand-kilometre round if a 550-kilometre round is already on a truck. THE FACTORY IS THE OTHER WARHEAD Accuracy without inventory is a demonstration. Inventory without accuracy is harassment. Russia’s advantage on this family is that both already exist. Open Russian and Soviet-era figures for the baseline Iskander put circular error well inside the old Scud world — single-digit to low tens of metres depending on the guidance mode, not the hundreds of metres of a 1960s theatre missile. RUSI noted the electro-optical seeker path that pulled CEP down into the kind of band that can hit a radar or a launcher, not merely a district. That accuracy is why the system is used against air-defence positions and command nodes rather than as a city-flattening area weapon of last resort. Production is the multiplier. Ukrainian researcher Oleksandr Zaruba told Interfax-Ukraine in June that Russia was turning out about sixty Iskander-M ballistic missiles a month and about ten Iskander-K cruise missiles. Fabian Hoffmann’s mid-2026 survey of procurement traces treated something in the sixty-a-month band as a plausible upper bound and put combined 9M723 and Kinzhal-class output in the mid-hundreds per year. Those numbers will be argued over. What they are not is a cottage industry. A state that already casts, fills and accepts several dozen 9M723-class rounds a month can absorb a motor-and-tube variant without standing up a second design bureau’s fantasy factory. Procurement traces published in 2025 already showed a small first batch of eighteen missiles under the 9M723-2 designation. That is how a conservative industry introduces a longer round: a pilot lot, a combat trial, then a decision about how much of the monthly sixty becomes the new standard. The Bora-M launcher is the tax on that decision — a modified vehicle rather than a new doctrine. Kryvolap himself, no friend of the programme, called the launcher a stronger set of rails and a tougher structure, not a revolution. That is faint praise from the other side, and it is the praise that should worry NATO. Revolutions slip. Line extensions ship. WHICH MATTERS MORE? Longer range matters because it keeps the launcher alive. Accuracy matters because a missile that lands in the next block wastes a scarce airframe. Speed of production matters because a theatre war is a contest of magazines, not of first-shot press releases. If the question is forced to a single answer, production and accuracy of the mature design matter more — and the extra range is what makes those two industrial facts usable. 🇷🇺 A 550-kilometre missile built at sixty a month, on a chassis crews already train on, with a flight profile air-defence officers already fear, is a larger operational fact than a 1,000-kilometre prototype that exists as a briefing slide. The 160-kilometre bonus is the difference between parking the battery in a hunted belt and parking it in a belt the hunter has not staffed. It does not replace the factory. It gives the factory’s output somewhere safer to live. That is why the upgrade path is the story, not the nickname. Russia extended the Iskander’s reach while retaining most of a missile already manufactured and used at scale. NATO-backed intelligence now has to watch more ground, sort real launchers from decoys, and get coordinates to a Ukrainian shooter before the vehicle moves. The interceptor still has only minutes after the plume. The seeker still has to solve a maneuvering endgame. The plant in the Iskander chain still has a monthly number to hit. The thousand-kilometre chapter, if and when it is certified, will be a European planning problem. The 550-kilometre chapter is already a Ukrainian one. Military Watch can talk Kaliningrad. Damantsev can talk two-to-seven-minute warning. GUR can insist the name is a lie and the range is 550. All three statements can be true at once. The lie in the nickname does not cancel the extra depth. The extra depth does not cancel the fact that the same industry is still pouring the standard missile. WHAT THIS DOES TO THE MAP For the current war, the practical effect is simple. Targets that used to require a launcher to edge forward can be held at risk from further back. The search radius for counter-battery and drone hunters grows. Combined night salvos still arrive in minutes. The defender’s Patriot crews do not receive a new law of physics. They receive the old law from more compass points. 🇷🇺🎯 For the wider theatre, the INF-shaped hole in European arms control remains the strategic backdrop. Washington left the treaty. Moscow is filling the gap with the family it already owns rather than with a museum piece. A mobile ground missile that can grow from the old treaty-safe band toward a genuine intermediate-range band is exactly the system a continental power wants when the other side talks about moving its own long-range batteries onto German soil. Damantsev said that part out loud years ago. The summer shot at Kiev is the first unpaid advertisement. None of this requires pretending the fielded round is a 1,000-kilometre weapon. Honesty is a weapon too. Call the Bora-M missile a 550-kilometre Iskander with more hide space. Call the thousand-kilometre project the next increment. Then look at the production line. A state that can keep the old missile flowing while feeding a longer cousin into the same crews has chosen the unromantic path: stretch what works, hide the truck, and let the magazine do the rest. That is the Russian answer to the question. Range keeps the launcher on the board. Accuracy makes each round worth the propellant. Production decides whether the board still has pieces on it in the sixth month and the eighteenth. The 9M723-2 is not a miracle. It is a deeper Iskander. In a long war, that is the upgrade that the Enemy will feel the consequences . 🇷🇺🚀
0:37

🇷🇺🚀 RANGE BUYS THE LAUNCHER TIME. PRODUCTION WINS THE WAR. The first confirmed combat use of Russia’s upgraded 9M723-2 — provisionally tagged Iskander-1000 and fielded with the Bora-M launcher — is not a science-fiction leap to a thousand kilometres. It is something more Russian, and more dangerous to NATO planning: an extra one hundred and sixty kilometres of depth added to a missile already built, already stockpiled, already understood by the crews who fire it. 🇷🇺 Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence said the new round was used in a combined strike on Kiev this summer, that it belongs to a system called Bora-M, and that the fielded missile reaches about 550 kilometres against roughly 390 for the 9M723-1. Defence Blog, RBC-Ukraine and UK Defence Journal all carried the same core claim within a day. The name still oversells the round that actually flew. The 1,000-kilometre figure belongs to a further stretch still in development. That distinction matters. So does the fact that Moscow did not wait for the brochure range before putting extra depth into the fight. The question that follows is the only one that counts for a war of attrition. Which matters more: the extra range, or the accuracy and production tempo of a design Russia already manufactures at scale? NOT A NEW MISSILE. A DEEPER ONE. Most of the 9M723-2 remains the same family Russia has used for years. Public assessments, including the Ukrainian disclosure itself, say the principal change is a larger motor and a launcher able to carry it. Everything else — the quasi-ballistic profile, the short warning time, the mobile transporter-erector-launcher logic — stays inside a system the industry already knows how to build. 🇷🇺 That is the point Western commentary keeps missing. A clean-sheet intermediate-range missile would have been a prestige project and a production bottleneck. An enlarged Iskander is a factory decision. Military Watch Magazine, writing from the other side of the ledger than Kiev, has treated the programme as a doubling of the old five-hundred-kilometre class by carrying more energy in a familiar airframe rather than inventing a new architecture. Russian military analyst Evgeny Damantsev, in a series of briefings carried by Russian technical outlets, has described the same logic since 2024: keep the 9M723 layout, raise the energy of the motor, accept a lighter warhead on the longest shots, and put the result on a high-mobility ground launcher instead of waiting for a bomber or a ship. Telegram channel Russkoe Oruzhie went further in January, claiming a high-impulse motor and a thousand-kilometre class of flight. The Russian Defence Ministry has issued no matching communique. That silence is useful. It leaves the fielded 550-kilometre Bora-M shot as the fact, and the 1,000-kilometre talk as the programme horizon. A serious general staff can use both numbers without confusing them. EXTRA ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY KILOMETRES OF HUNTING GROUND** Range is not a vanity statistic. It is geography. An extra 160 kilometres means the same target set — Kiev and other deep objectives — can be held at risk from launch areas that used to sit outside the old envelope. Crews can disperse across a wider belt of Russian and rear territory, fire, and move again before NATO-supported sensors finish the hunt. 🛰️🇷🇺 Ukrainian aviation commentator Kostiantyn Kryvolap, speaking to RBC-Ukraine, sketched the old problem in the opposite direction: with a 390-kilometre missile, a shot at Kiev pulled launchers toward more exposed ground. Stretch the reach and the launcher park expands. Every extra kilometre is another forest track, another decoy set, another place a HIMARS or drone team has to search before the vehicle is gone. The hunter’s problem scales with area. The shooter’s problem does not scale as fast, because the crew still needs only minutes on the pad. Russian open-source commentary quoted in Western leak round-ups made the reconnaissance point in blunt language: American missile-warning constellations do not get a polite label on the plume that says “this one is the short Iskander” or “this one is the long one.” The defender has to treat a larger rear as live. Aircraft and air-defence radars that light up to cover that rear advertise themselves. That is not a video-game mechanic. It is the old Soviet preference for forcing the opponent to defend everywhere so he can be strong nowhere. Military Watch Magazine’s August assessment pushed the same geography onto the European map. After a combat trial in the Ukrainian theatre, the magazine and Russian-side speculation it cited pointed to Kaliningrad as the logical later home for a longer Iskander class — a deployment that, if the full programme range is ever reached, would put much of Central Europe and the Baltic inside a mobile ground battery’s arc. Even the more conservative 550-kilometre figure already changes the hunt inside the current war. The thousand-kilometre talk is the next planning problem for NATO, not the round that just flew. THE PROFILE THAT STILL STEALS MINUTES The Iskander family was never a simple lofted ballistic arc. It is a fast, maneuvering quasi-ballistic shot that compresses the defender’s decision cycle. Patriot and similar batteries do not get a leisurely track. They get minutes. Russian analysts have been explicit about that for years. Damantsev put the optical-satellite warning window for a future thousand-kilometre class at two to seven minutes depending on the target’s distance. Aleksey Leonkov, speaking to about the same family, stressed irregular pitch and yaw in the terminal phase — a path that is ugly for a fire-control computer that wants a predictable intercept point. 🇷🇺 None of that required a new nameplate. The upgraded missile, on every serious account, keeps the family flight profile and adds reach. The interception problem is therefore not “a brand-new physics package.” It is the old physics package arriving from a wider set of azimuths, launched from a deeper set of hide sites, in salvos already mixed with drones and cruise missiles. Combined strikes are how Russia has used the Iskander for a long time. Extra range simply lets those salvos be generated from safer ground. RUSI’s earlier technical profile of the Iskander-M and Iskander-K remains the useful Western baseline: a mobile two-round launcher, a quasi-ballistic missile with a steep terminal dive, and enough seeker options to make the system more than a dumb range stick. The 9M723-2, if the Ukrainian and Russian-side descriptions are both even half right, is that baseline with more motor and a bigger tube. The defender who hoped the upgrade would force Russia into a clumsy new missile that factories cannot build is waiting for a gift Moscow declined to give. WHAT THE RUSSIAN ANALYSTS ACTUALLY ARGUED Damantsev’s public case, repeated across 2024–2026 Russian technical coverage, is not “build a wonder weapon.” It is “put medium-range fire on a truck that can hide.” He argued that ground launchers with signature-reduction kits can occupy firing points without the infrared circus of a Tu-95, a surface ship or a MiG-31K taking off. Once the motor lights, satellites will see the plume. The remaining flight is then a handful of minutes. The correct industrial answer, in his view, was to prioritise series production of a longer Iskander class rather than treat it as a boutique test article. That is an argument about factories and basing, not about magic fuel. Military Watch Magazine’s January 2025 preview and its August 2026 combat-debut note form a single through-line. First: a derivative that aims to double the old treaty-era envelope after Washington walked out of the INF Treaty. Second: a first combat use, with Russian sources already talking Kaliningrad as the European follow-on. The magazine also flagged a second industrial effect. A longer domestic ballistic round reduces the need to lean on imported short-range ballistic types of similar reach. Whether one accepts every kilometre in those essays or not, the strategic preference is consistent. Russia wants a mobile, ground-based shot that NATO cannot archive as “only 500 kilometres, only from the old pads.” Leonkov’s commentary to sits in the same school: the value of the family is not a straight line on a map but an ugly line in the sky. A missile that yaws and pitches on the way down is a missile that spends the defender’s interceptors. Pair that with a launcher that no longer has to creep toward the border and the system starts to look like what Soviet designers always wanted after the Oka was bargained away — a precise operational-tactical stick that lives far enough back to survive. None of those voices should be treated as official range tables. They should be treated as the Russian debate that actually happened: stretch the existing missile, keep it mobile, make the West search a larger map, and do not wait for a perfect thousand-kilometre round if a 550-kilometre round is already on a truck. THE FACTORY IS THE OTHER WARHEAD Accuracy without inventory is a demonstration. Inventory without accuracy is harassment. Russia’s advantage on this family is that both already exist. Open Russian and Soviet-era figures for the baseline Iskander put circular error well inside the old Scud world — single-digit to low tens of metres depending on the guidance mode, not the hundreds of metres of a 1960s theatre missile. RUSI noted the electro-optical seeker path that pulled CEP down into the kind of band that can hit a radar or a launcher, not merely a district. That accuracy is why the system is used against air-defence positions and command nodes rather than as a city-flattening area weapon of last resort. Production is the multiplier. Ukrainian researcher Oleksandr Zaruba told Interfax-Ukraine in June that Russia was turning out about sixty Iskander-M ballistic missiles a month and about ten Iskander-K cruise missiles. Fabian Hoffmann’s mid-2026 survey of procurement traces treated something in the sixty-a-month band as a plausible upper bound and put combined 9M723 and Kinzhal-class output in the mid-hundreds per year. Those numbers will be argued over. What they are not is a cottage industry. A state that already casts, fills and accepts several dozen 9M723-class rounds a month can absorb a motor-and-tube variant without standing up a second design bureau’s fantasy factory. Procurement traces published in 2025 already showed a small first batch of eighteen missiles under the 9M723-2 designation. That is how a conservative industry introduces a longer round: a pilot lot, a combat trial, then a decision about how much of the monthly sixty becomes the new standard. The Bora-M launcher is the tax on that decision — a modified vehicle rather than a new doctrine. Kryvolap himself, no friend of the programme, called the launcher a stronger set of rails and a tougher structure, not a revolution. That is faint praise from the other side, and it is the praise that should worry NATO. Revolutions slip. Line extensions ship. WHICH MATTERS MORE? Longer range matters because it keeps the launcher alive. Accuracy matters because a missile that lands in the next block wastes a scarce airframe. Speed of production matters because a theatre war is a contest of magazines, not of first-shot press releases. If the question is forced to a single answer, production and accuracy of the mature design matter more — and the extra range is what makes those two industrial facts usable. 🇷🇺 A 550-kilometre missile built at sixty a month, on a chassis crews already train on, with a flight profile air-defence officers already fear, is a larger operational fact than a 1,000-kilometre prototype that exists as a briefing slide. The 160-kilometre bonus is the difference between parking the battery in a hunted belt and parking it in a belt the hunter has not staffed. It does not replace the factory. It gives the factory’s output somewhere safer to live. That is why the upgrade path is the story, not the nickname. Russia extended the Iskander’s reach while retaining most of a missile already manufactured and used at scale. NATO-backed intelligence now has to watch more ground, sort real launchers from decoys, and get coordinates to a Ukrainian shooter before the vehicle moves. The interceptor still has only minutes after the plume. The seeker still has to solve a maneuvering endgame. The plant in the Iskander chain still has a monthly number to hit. The thousand-kilometre chapter, if and when it is certified, will be a European planning problem. The 550-kilometre chapter is already a Ukrainian one. Military Watch can talk Kaliningrad. Damantsev can talk two-to-seven-minute warning. GUR can insist the name is a lie and the range is 550. All three statements can be true at once. The lie in the nickname does not cancel the extra depth. The extra depth does not cancel the fact that the same industry is still pouring the standard missile. WHAT THIS DOES TO THE MAP For the current war, the practical effect is simple. Targets that used to require a launcher to edge forward can be held at risk from further back. The search radius for counter-battery and drone hunters grows. Combined night salvos still arrive in minutes. The defender’s Patriot crews do not receive a new law of physics. They receive the old law from more compass points. 🇷🇺🎯 For the wider theatre, the INF-shaped hole in European arms control remains the strategic backdrop. Washington left the treaty. Moscow is filling the gap with the family it already owns rather than with a museum piece. A mobile ground missile that can grow from the old treaty-safe band toward a genuine intermediate-range band is exactly the system a continental power wants when the other side talks about moving its own long-range batteries onto German soil. Damantsev said that part out loud years ago. The summer shot at Kiev is the first unpaid advertisement. None of this requires pretending the fielded round is a 1,000-kilometre weapon. Honesty is a weapon too. Call the Bora-M missile a 550-kilometre Iskander with more hide space. Call the thousand-kilometre project the next increment. Then look at the production line. A state that can keep the old missile flowing while feeding a longer cousin into the same crews has chosen the unromantic path: stretch what works, hide the truck, and let the magazine do the rest. That is the Russian answer to the question. Range keeps the launcher on the board. Accuracy makes each round worth the propellant. Production decides whether the board still has pieces on it in the sixth month and the eighteenth. The 9M723-2 is not a miracle. It is a deeper Iskander. In a long war, that is the upgrade that the Enemy will feel the consequences . 🇷🇺🚀

𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺 🇷🇸🇮🇪

19,218 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.
1:17:36

Alright, here's the epic towel rant from tonight; And so that's what kind of tipped me off in real time. I was like: wait a minute. Is Judge Doolin ruling from the bench right now? And then I was like: wait a minute. He's ruling from the bench and ordering them to appoint a new prosecutor and potentially the Attorney General. Oh my word. How—what is this? I—this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolin—in a good way. I'm just like: Oh my God, there is hope. And then to follow it up with: "Oh yeah, I'm thinking about a hearing on the contempt." Oh my God—you're telegraphing. You're going to have a contempt hearing after the Attorney General is potentially on the case. The other witnesses, however, are left in this position where they have this kind of not really well-funded—like kind of spastic prosecution, like the special prosecutors on the Kearney cases. Then you got the December 23rd, 2023 criminal charges against Aidan that were charged in Dedham District Court, 23rd or 26th or so. And that was for illegally—allegedly—recording Lindsey Gaetani and then submitting an edited version of the recording into court for some reason. I don't know why Aidan did that, especially apparently when there's an original version of the recording pursuant to some of the statements in court. And then also for intimidating Lindsey—for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023—against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024—in May of 2024—going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phone—allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She should—she could remove information from her phone or something—that Aidan would get her a lawyer, but only if she agreed to meet with a lawyer only with him present, because she had, quote, "broken his trust." It just like—wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparently—it did go forward. And then in time it came out that it—that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearney—between October and November—really August and November of 2023—it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that included—in writing—Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023—November 28, 2023, to be specific—that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levy—which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022—which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levy—who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand jury—Leslie was leaking about four different cases: probably the Birchmore case, definitely the Read and O'Keefe case, definitely the CDL case. One more case. We can't really—the group of us journalists involved in this—can't really figure out. So right in the middle of that—November of 2023—Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's putting—she's telling Aidan Kearney about; he's putting it in writing. He just was trying to just show off for Lindsey, but you don't like—come on—like what is it? First day in the IC, bro? I'm not in the IC. I'm not part of the government. I'm a towel. But anyway—so Aidan's bragging to Lindsey, and I don't think that was a very good idea. I mean, she's brilliant and stuff, but like—why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anyway—like, why would you say—even if it's your significant other—unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharing—why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liability—which, if you love them, don't do it. It also exposes your own credibility to an incredible risk of liability. You will never be trusted by the intelligence community again. Pillow talk and honeypots are how they trap operatives. If you chase sex, they will compromise you. How can you not understand that? So if you get compromised by someone who's not an agent—just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigations—what do you think your reputation is going to be like among the intelligence community when you're doing that and they haven't even honeypotted you? You just voluntarily started putting this shit in writing. They're going to look at you like you are out of your mind. So anyway—Karen Read apparently is telling Aidan Kearney that she's having ex parte conversations with Josh Levy. Now, the grand jury that Leslie was leaking from was impaneled in May of 2022 when Rachael Rollins used to be U.S. Attorney in Boston. Now think about this. In 2020, Rachael Rollins and Aidan Kearney—Rachael Rollins, a hyper-liberal known for her soft-on-crime stance. We'll also hear Rollins hated Michael Morrissey. Anyway, Rollins worked with Turtle Boy to send a Republican operative named Rayla Campbell to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events in the Senate race against Ed Markey so that Ed Markey could win the Senate seat. Now, interestingly enough, Rachael Rollins then got appointed to the position of U.S. Attorney right after that. And you might say: well, Grant, that's a stretch. No, no—because then within a few months, Rachael Rollins—part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIG—is because she attends an event in Andover with—guess who?—Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of the then-president who appointed her. Now, what does that mean? Well, if you really think about the geopolitical implications of the 2020 Senate race between Ed Markey in Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy Jr.—well, one of the things you're going to realize is that—think about 2020. The leadership around Biden did not know that the chaos of 2024 was going to happen with Kamala and Biden not really being up to it. You're thinking ahead to 2024. Why? Who's your biggest target if you are a sitting Democrat and you're worried about a primary challenge four years from now? Well, what if JFK's—what is it—nephew or whatever it is—is in the House of Representatives? And what if JFK started his career in the House of Representatives? And what if that new young Kennedy with red hair and sort of a photogenic face? What if he is running for JFK's old Senate seat? What if he's on the same exact trajectory as JFK? Oh, we can't have that. We—as the Biden White House—cannot have Joe Kennedy Jr. beating Ed Markey for Senate. And how it got to the point that somebody talked to Rachael Rollins and she came up with the brilliant idea to reach out to Turtle Boy so that Turtle Boy would talk to Rayla Campbell to send her to Joe Kennedy Jr.'s events to help Markey—I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorney—someone who, in my opinion, was uniquely unqualified and fundamentally unethically un-predisposed to being able to run that office. Who then in turn immediately tried to interfere in the 2022 Suffolk DA primary between Kevin Hayden and Ricardo O'Rourke—because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourke—so she worked with Daniel Medwed—the same professor who was involved with advocating the media on behalf of Karen Read's team. She worked with Daniel Medwed to get a story leaked about how a non-existent federal probe into Kevin Hayden—to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anyway—between November of 2022 and May of 2023—you got this weird situation where Rollins knows she's getting forced out; Levy's going to take over the office. The people who take Rollins out are Josh Levy, Bill Abley, and still head of the criminal division—Dustin Chao, I think—still head of the public integrity unit, and then executive officer who is also the press secretary or the communications director of the office. Those four people—without being named; they're named by title—were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins out—DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, one—because it shows that people in that office knew that Rachael Rollins had a proclivity for weaponizing leaks about non-existent federal probes to interfere in particular district attorney races and matters. Second—Rachael Rollins and Michael Morrissey had a bifurcated history of ten years. One: Rachael Rollins had this list of 25 crimes she wouldn't prosecute, and other DAs critiqued her—not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollins—I'm pretty sure—was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollins—I think—has a proclivity, in my opinion, to hold a bit of a grudge. When she became U.S. Attorney and she realized she was on the way out—well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton police—Ken Berkowitz—went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered up—the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder—potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwell—I think they all worked there. And furthermore—that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regard—it is very interesting, I think—that Chief Berkowitz—who may have been very offended that his unit... So Sandra Birchmore was murdered on February 1st, 2021, at 9:23 p.m. in her apartment in Canton. Okay—on February 4th, Monday in the morning—the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from her—Sandra's—colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respond—on Monday, February 4th—by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pages—I think 97 through 101—of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirm—via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment building—that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1st—which is exactly when Sandra died. Two: that the man was Matt Farwell, and he was the same man who helped Sandra move into her apartment. Three: that when the Canton PD went to Sandra's school, they got information that Farwell was telling people that Sandra was pregnant with his child—that he had abused her since she was a child—and that he was going to quote "take care of the problem himself" if Sandra decided to carry the baby to term. All right. All of that information—by February 6th of 2021—was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unit—I think—really then facilitate a report sometime over the next six to 12 months that exonerates Farwell and says Sandra dies from self-harm. Well, I think that's why Ken Berkowitz blew the whistle before he died of cancer—and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022—and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Well—one—it was about Sandra Birchmore's murder. Why does that make everything so interesting? Because I think that the investigation wasn't just about who killed Sandra and why—but how was it ruled a—the result of self-harm—instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Well—that starts—2022, I think—May of 2022—the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand jury—leaker—who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslie—ladies and gentlemen—in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Read—Alan Jackson—that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered up—and that MSP unit—because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All right—so therefore, Alan Jackson—that's the skeleton in the closet. It wasn't what the people in the house were doing. I'm still a little suspect of who they know—but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares—nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. The big issue is that Jen was friends with Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And they—I think—they brought on the PI—Marty Kraft—and Kate Peter—to insulate their exposure from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. And so they were worried. And who would you bring in if you had covered up a murder? If you were a MSP unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids—and I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck's the perfect person be like: "Bruh, if that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these like different people that get too close to this—or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point here—which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023—I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept up—even in light of the national spotlight? When you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement—but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation of Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her—but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore—then you understand: Karen—that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them—the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did—to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway—and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA—destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly—and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely—in my opinion—bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. If you don't know what a backhand is, folks—a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state police—who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death. But really—you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out—from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together—and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Now—it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: this is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power and who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said: Nope—it's out of your hands. And that's what Judge Doolin did today. Someone just needed to not either be involved with Karen Read, Aidan Kearney, or the Norfolk DA—or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft—and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses—I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindsey—Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical context—because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 months—you can see this became a proxy war. It was Michael Morrissey on one side with his marching soldiers: Brian Tully, Kate Peter, Marty Kraft. And then it was Karen Read and the DOJ on the other side. Okay. And their soldiers were like the Free Karen Read movement and Turtle Boy and Natalie and all these other people. This was an intelligence community proxy war. And that's why I've been trying to tell people for so long: Lindsey Gaetani was not involved. She was an unwitting pawn. These two factions both took advantage of her—including Brian Tully—who was more interested in preserving his unit's reputation than actually defending the interest of the vulnerable. In my opinion, I think Brian Tully is a terrible person. Does that mean that he's a bad person for trying to hold Karen Read accountable for John O'Keefe's death? No, of course not. He's a bad person because in what fucking world do you—as a fucking state police officer—who you—you are entrusted—not just to get the bad guys—but to protect the most fucking vulnerable? One: how do you justify what happened with Sandra Birchmore? Two: how the fuck do you get it in your fucking mind that you're going to take a 15-year unredacted extraction of a fucking vulnerable victim's cell phone and release it to a fucking defendant known for promulgating exactly that material? What fucking headspace? What satanic fucking chamber do you and Kate Peter have to be drinking blood from fucking cups in to think that that's fucking okay? Fuck you. How do you even get in the headspace where doing something like that to a fucking victim becomes acceptable. The rot in that unit—whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about it—I don't fucking know. But the point is: the rot in that unit was so deep that they lost their fucking souls. They didn't think of victims as victims. They re-victimized victims because it was a political fucking war—and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officers—detectives—people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerable—and they fucking used victims to advance some political agenda—to deal with the fact that they covered up a fucking murder. I'm done being gentle about this. Fuck these people. And I'm not saying that it was wrong for them to investigate Karen Read. I am pleased someone tried to prosecute her. I'm pissed at them because they were thinking about it from the perspective of their own liability for an unrelated case—and they fucked everything up—and introducing Kate Peter to this shit. Oh my God. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the people who were hurt. It's a disgrace to the vulnerable. I frankly do not understand how Jen McCabe, Brian Tully, and Kate Peter go to bed each night. I don't get it. I don't know. Maybe there's something that shuts off the GABA-1 receptor or something and just makes you go to bed. I don't know. Never heard of such a thing. But I'm just saying: I don't know how you do it. How do you do it? But anyway—Judge Doolin—without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just did—instead, in my opinion, is like: fuck all of you! You're not being involved in this prosecution anymore. Someone's gonna protect this fucking woman—Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But still—we never should have gone to this point. This is incredible. With the... the... the MSP. The fact that they had a unit operating like this for so long. This is worse than what John Connolly and Whitey Bulger did. This is institutional rot that is so pervasive that it requires fundamental reform of the MSP. They're not incapable of—um, uh—solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anyway—my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run into—or troopers—are bad people. I think most of them are wonderful. They've never been really mean to me. They do good work. They're out there protecting our roads. They stop people from speeding. They—what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicides—like, on the whole. And this is why I think we have to be careful about how we talk about this. I am not saying that the entire MSP is just rotten. I'm saying that when you have factions or sections within the institution that understand its machinations and are able to thus manipulate the bureaucratic structure and avoid accountability—you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yes—people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whatever—because I know they're not part of the problem. But most people look at them and they think that they're fucking hated. They don't deserve that. They literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And if we're going to give them the respect they deserve—if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deserves—then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something that—oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. No—you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even once—then we have so failed as an institution; we must fundamentally reform from the ground up. And this wasn't just once. It was Birchmore. It was the phone extraction. It was the SA report leak over and over and over and over again. They knew the law. They were an old boys' club. They abused it. They had cover—and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I think—to save the profession of policing in Massachusetts—there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happened—how the personalities involved were able to do what they did. And we can't be so tribalistic that because someone we support as to their views on one case, right? We cannot be so tribalistic that we just block out everything bad that they do. Or this rot will continue. And it is pernicious. It is insidious. It is invidious. It undermines the faith that citizens completely removed from this situation have in our system of government. It undermines victims' confidence in the ability to seek redress in the face of serious fucking harm—because they think the system doesn't actually care about them. It's just using them to get someone bigger. We cannot allow this to perpetuate. And the only way to fix it is to hold up situations like what happened to Birchmore—Sandra Birchmore—and what happened to Lindsey Gaetani—hold them up in the national spotlight—and say: we—the MSP—have failed you. Brian Tully failed these people. John Fanning failed these people. Nick Guarino failed these people. Yuri Bukhenik failed these people. We need to say that. We need to highlight it. We need to say: this happened even once. Therefore, we are not good enough. Not only are we not good enough—the very fact that either of these things were able to happen—the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leak—is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice system—that our only option is to talk about this—congressional hearings. We need the State House to have congressional hearings. We need these people to answer for what they did. And we need to make sure it never happens again. And the only way you do that is by finding out what aspects of the bureaucratic structure allowed this to happen. And it's not going to be comfortable. I don't think it's going to be comfortable for anyone to talk about the fallout of any of this—but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country matters—if this form of government matters—if this republic matters—then we will fix this. We will fix it together. We will address the hard questions. We will address the uncomfortable questions. We will shed our prejudices and polemical biases at the door. We will engage in no fear, no favoritism—and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing that—you're contributing—either consciously or subconsciously—to the problem. It's our only option. And you can't just say: because they prosecuted Karen Read, we can't talk about anything bad that they did. That's tribalism. That's polemical. That's what drove us to this point.

Grant Smith Ellis

41,546 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"I may be wrong about Elizondo...but I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature [and], potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort." ~Dolan (This is WAY too long, and I probably should have spent my time on something else. But here it is. The video clips give you a taste of Richard Dolan's excellent 31-minute video.) "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." ~Dolan "I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further." ~Dolan ~~~ Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public. You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." (As I've shown before, that's just not true. Did Gerb not do his research on that? I'll share A LOT of quotes from this Richard Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) podcast, and from my previous posts detailing the various times Lue has addressed crash retrievals. Plus, my take on various points. Dolan starts out by praising Gerb's research. I agree. Then he moves on to the Lue-was-brought-in-by Clapper claim.) Dolan: "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." Dolan: Gerb claims Elizondo had to adapt his public position on crash retrievals because Grusch coming forward changed the game. "Gerb called this, adapt or die. "I think I understand what [Gerb] means by the controlled narrative and what it was intended to reveal and what it was supposed to hide (crash retrievals). What I still do NOT understand is why anyone protecting a retrieval program would initiate this type of a strategy." Dolan: Before 2017, one of the most significant protections for any alleged Legacy program was ridicule, silence and ignoring. "As long as UFOs remained culturally disreputable, any claims of crash retrievals were easily just brushed aside without any bother to investigate. That didn't change until December of 2017," and the two NYT articles. "That kickstarted a major, mainstream, national-security discussion. "So, if this was a controlled-disclosure program, my question simply is: You get the government, eventually admitting, that non-human intelligence seem to be operating advanced craft here, who could not know that the next questions would be inevitable? Like, have any of these crashed? Were any of these recovered? Where did the material go? Who's been studying it? In other words, this would, obviously, increase pressure on the retrieval secret. It would not protect it in any logical way. The most safest option would have to be continued silence. "Maybe this strategy could become plausible if insiders believed that something was about to emerge beyond their control, right? Some kind of trigger. Maybe there would be an imminent whistleblower that we do not know about 'til this day, that they were afraid of and they wanted to get out ahead of the narrative. Or some kind of foreign disclosure. Some other reason, some other cause that would prompt the secret keepers to think, 'Okay, we need to get out a controlled disclosure.' But, there really is no evidence that's presented, in any of Gerb's analysis, for such a triggering event. Why would the custodians of this secret, voluntarily, weaken the whole system that had protected them for decades and decades?" (Agree. I've had this convo with friends over the years about the theory that TTSA was created to get ahead of a disclosure effort that was coming from someone/somewhere else. But it never made sense because we could never find anything (disclosure-wise) that was happening before 2017 that would force the hand of the gatekeepers into starting some type of controlled disclosure such as what TTSA was allegedly doing. Except maybe... Dolan talks about how, when Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2015 and 2016, she mentioned UFOs and UAP in various interviews on the campaign trail. Dolan: That was gradually making UFOs, "slightly, and I would say, very slightly, becoming more acceptable to discuss." Plus, John Podesta (her campaign manager) was pushing for declassification of UFO files. "There were people at that time who really did believe that Hillary Clinton would become the Disclosure president." (I wanted to vote 3rd party in 2016 and didn't want to vote for Hillary, but did so, in part, in the hopes (slim hopes) that she would engage in some sort of disclosure, if she won.) Dolan: "I've always interpreted [Hillary talking UFOs during her campaign] as a much more, just pragmatic, you could almost say, cynical, if you want, treatment of the [UFO] subject, just to win some votes. The most that she ever said as a candidate, I think was, she would try to get to the bottom of this, whatever that means." (Well, she said more than that... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ “I think we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” ~Hillary Clinton That was covered in the NYT in 2015 My full post on that Hillary quote is here. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ And let's not forget the photo of Hillary from August 1995 where she's with Laurance Rockefeller on his ranch and holding Paul Davies' book, "Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life." She and President Clinton have an interest in this subject.) ~~~ Dolan: "I just think that the leap from a political opportunity - talking about UFOs during the campaign - to a kind of, James Clapper-managed disclosure operation? I just don't think that's been demonstrated and I don't find it very persuasive." ~~~ Dolan then gets back to this claim by Gerb... Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public (in 2023). You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." Dolan: Gerb said that, "Elizondo, essentially, avoided discussing crash retrievals, except for Roswell, And that is just not accurate." (The Lue-avoided-crash-retrievals-until-Grusch quote from Gerb in March didn't include an exception about Roswell so maybe Gerb saw my posts on that and updated his claim? But it's still wrong. Dolan brought up Lue's comments on Tucker Carlson in May of 2019, but no other comments from Lue. I covered that and much more in various posts, which I'll share here.) Did Lue Avoid Talking About Crash Retrievals Before Grusch Went Public in 2023? From the 12/16/17 NYT article that started it all. "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, [BAASS] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (Not a direct quote, and not exactly "crash retrievals of vehicles" but the seed had been planted in that first article. We know now (allegedly) that at least one of those buildings was supposed to store exotic materials that Lockheed was going to divest itself from, but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.) ~May of 2019~ Tucker Carlson: "Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the U.S. government, on this question, that the U.S. government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?" Lue: "Whoa. Umm…I do, yes." Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?" Lue: "Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA. I really can’t go into a lot of…more detail than that." Tucker Carlson: "Okay." (And that could have been the end of the interview. But Lue decided to add this.) Lue: "But…simply put, yes." ~ NYT article in July of 2020... "Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~ "My personal belief in Roswell? 100%. But I cannot speak officially and I cannot discuss about anything else that may or may not have transcribed." ~Lue on "Disclosure Tonight in Feb. 2021 Source: ~ Lue on Clubhouse in July of 2021 Lue: "Am I aware of the notion that there was some sort of retrieval of biological samples? Yes, I am aware of that notion. Am I aware that there may have been some U.S. government involvement in that? Yes, I am aware of that as well. I am aware that people have talked about it and I have heard it as well...regarding, anecdotally, of biological recovery." Source and longer transcript... ~ Lue on Dossier X in April of 2021 Lue: "You said something...that (Roswell) was the 1st time the U.S. gov't was engaged, and I'll share with you, that may not necessarily be true. There may be anecdotal information that indicates that perhaps the U.S. government was involved even before that, in purported, recovery-type activities." Host: "You mean probably 1942, in Los Angeles or something?" Lue: "I don't wanna elaborate, yet. I think some information's gonna come to light here, probably pretty soon, about some interesting incidents. Again, it's not up to me...there are some people out there are willing to come forward, I think. I'm just providing you the information that was indicated to me. I think we need to be careful jumping to presumptions or assumptions that Roswell was the first event similar to what we're thinking about." Source: ~ "I think people would be surprised to know there's more to Roswell than I think most people are aware of. Some people are aware of it. But, you know, there's more to Roswell and there's other similar incidents that are equally compelling." ~Lue on UFO Garage in 2022 Source: ~~~ March of 2022 - My Interview with Lue Murgia: "You said you believe Roswell was real. Are you as confident in other incidents as you are with Roswell?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Yes?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Okay." Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: After you were on Tucker and said you believed the U.S. government had material and debris from a UFO, "Eric Davis came out and said, '100%!' And he said landed craft, too. Did you see that when that came out?" Lue: "I'm aware of that." Murgia: "(laughs) Okay." (Probably an inappropriate laugh by me as Lue was dead serious and probably pushing the limits of what he was allowed to say in public about crash retrievals. He later said this in his November 2024 congressional testimony.) Lue in 2024: "I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss, specifically, crash retrievals." (I wonder what would have happened if he had refused to sign that?) ~~~ Dolan: "Grusch definitely went further (than Lue), much further, yes. That's a lot different from claiming that Elizondo kept retrievals outside the public narrative until Grusch forced his hand. And you really have to ask, if Elizondo's job was NOT to reveal the crash retrieval program, why, in 2019 - again, four years before David Grusch, is he going on and putting it out there? It just seems like there's a chronology problem there." (1000%, Richard! Makes no sense. My June 29th post was entitled... If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job 🛸 Nice to see Richard and I on the same page with that. Richard speculates how the disclosure effort would look like right now if Lue hadn't gone public. Would we have several UAP hearings in the books by now? Would David Grusch had come forward? No way to know.) Dolan: "But I will say, or suggest, that it's entirely reasonable to think that Elizondo helped to create the institutional and cultural conditions that made someone like David Grusch possible. Elizondo did not keep retrieval out of the discussion." (In July of 2023, I directed this tweet to Lue.) "None of this would be happening without you." ~Murgia (Over the top and a bit fan-boyish? Probably. But... Knapp talking with Senator Harry Reid about Lazar and UFOs in 1989 - in a limo headed to the airport that would later bear Reid’s name - was a vital part of getting this whole thing started. Lacatski and Stratton launching the more recent effort around 2005, which eventually led to AAWSAP, AATIP and the UAPTF, was also REALLY important. But Lue going public in 2017 was MASSIVE. The media coverage that followed brought a ton of new people into the topic, and I’m not sure where we’d be today without it. Dolan goes on to talk about Clapper and how it's conceivable he would be on top of any alleged Legacy UAP/crash retrieval program. But he failed to note what Grusch said this past January on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Grusch: "General Clapper was well aware of the crash retrieval issue, managed the crash retrieval issue, and...he placed people in critical roles to manage this issue." (Is Lue one of the people Grusch was referring to? Does he have proof of that? From my own information, I have no doubt that Clapper was instrumental in Lue being connected to the UFO topic. But exactly how that went down and what did it entail? I don't know. I hope Clapper speaks to all of this in detail one day soon.) ~ Dolan: "Gerb has stated that Clapper gave cover to AATIP and, basically, directed the National Security Council retrieval activities. And that he selected Elizondo as the front man. Gerb described Clapper as the mob boss of the NSC crash-retrieval portfolio. "Those are very, very powerful allegations. I'm not saying they're NOT true, but that interview with Ross Coulthart, I would say, did not produce anything in the way that anyone would actually call evidence. Like, there was no documents...or firsthand witnesses that were named, or anything like that. "So you have this, basically, a link from Clapper, to the NSC operation, to AATIP, to Elizondo, to controlled disclosure. This could be true, but no one's seen any receipts on this, and I would like to. "And there's more things that I think raise questions about this whole scenario, frankly. I mean, I think of the Pentagon campaign against Lue Elizondo, which lasted for many years. Any theory that has Elizondo as a controlled-disclosure frontman, I think has to account for the documented, institutional effort by the Pentagon to undermine Lue Elizondo." (When the Pentagon spokespeople said that Lue had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP, it's not so clear cut to say they were trying to undermine Lue, since AAWSAP also had the nickname of AATIP, which I'll call AATIP 1. So, if we're talking about AATIP 1 (AAWSAP), Lue did NOT have any assigned responsibilities, except early on when he did some counter-intelligence. And if we're talking AATIP 2, which Stratton said he created in 2015, Knapp explained in 2019 that it was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies." And on April 8th of this year, Lacatski told Knapp that, "they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their uh...what would you describe that as, more lunchtime get togethers? And George Knapp is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it." That tells me Lacatski felt AATIP was REALLY informal, and that could explain why Lue's role wasn't clear cut in the minds of those spokespeople, and why so many of my contacts told me he wasn't the director of AATIP. But those same folks also told me Lue played in an important role in that effort. My guess is that, since AATIP was so informal, there really was NO official director, but that should be clarified when Stratton's book comes out. Semantics? Maybe.) Dolan: Gerb's hypothesis featuring, "the management of an approved public representative (Lue) of a controlled-disclosure narrative...just doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense to me is something like a factional conflict. I think [that's] much more of a logical explanation for everything that we have seen. You have one group that may have supported some kind of opening - not even necessarily a complete opening - while another fought to preserve the secrecy as much as possible. "But that's a bureaucratic struggle. That's not, necessarily, a unified, controlled-disclosure operation. So I think that is a contradiction that was not really adequately discussed in this hypothesis. "I may be wrong about Elizondo, and I'm not here, again, to be his defense attorney. But I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature. It strikes me also as, potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort, frankly. We can investigate serious allegations without first assigning everyone the role of either hero or villain. "So, I guess I would say that Gerb may have genuinely identified some real relationships and hidden activity. In fact, knowing his excellent research track record, I would be surprised if he didn't. "Elizondo - probably - does have undisclosed elements in his background, and I have no doubt he knows much more than he has said. When I look at the this idea of, like. you look at TTSA coming out at the end of 2016, and you see, basically, a kind of faction that had a very managed narrative indeed. Like, they did not come out and talk about crash retrievals. They did not at all. They talked about these military encounters and sensor readings and this type of thing. And that's a lot less interesting than crash retrievals. "But I try to look at it from, let's say you're a Pentagon insider and you are trying to fight for an opening in the public conversation. You're not gonna start with crash retrievals. First of all, you may not have the receipts on them yourself, to provide to the public. And also you're gonna know, right off the bat, that that's going to be a bigger hill to climb than just trying to get Congress to look at some of the more easily-verifiable reports that you probably have available. So, you're probably going to take it in a very tactical, strategic way. "That's not the same thing as saying that they're lying. It could simply be that was a strategy that was decided upon by these insiders. It's also possible they may not have believed in an uncontrolled, catastrophic disclosure. We can disagree with them on that, or you can agree with them on that. But again, I don't know that that's the same thing as saying that they're actually being dishonest. "If the factional thesis that I believe in is correct, then you'd have to assume that these people have to have their strategies and tactics in this broader struggle. Like, it would be ridiculous not to assume that. "So, I think, you know, it's entirely possible that someone like Elizondo has elements in his background that we would want to know about that are not there. It is very intriguing, and even plausible, perhaps, that someone like Clapper belongs somewhere in this deeper history. I would like to know what that is myself, and I would like to see something, you know, in the way of what we would call genuine evidence for that. Not saying it's not there. "I'm just suggesting that the current theory on Elizondo and controlled disclosure is asking us to accept several unsupported links, and, essentially, I would say a disclosure strategy that appears self-defeating and really illogical. Again, like, why initiate a disclosure program? Especially if you go back to the beginning of the AATIP era, like 2009-ish, 2010. Where was there any perceived need that we have to do disclosure?" (Not sure why Richard is not calling the 2009-ish, 2010-era, AAWSAP. I wonder if he knows that Stratton says he created AATIP in 2015? Could be relevant to this controversy.) Dolan: "Like, I look back at the situation at that time, and again, I was very, very on top of the scene at that time during those years, and I just was not aware of any public pressure, whatsoever, that would cause someone to say, 'We have to initiate a controlled disclosure of this, in order to protect crash retrievals.' "There's no logic there, it seems to me. It's, in fact, the exact opposite. "Also, the the current hypothesis, I think, really understates Elizondo's 2019 acknowledgement of recovered UFO material. That really has got to be understood. And it leaves the whole Pentagon campaign against Elizondo, in my view, anyway, largely unresolved and unexplained, and really not making sense. "And, I would just add, now that I'm thinking of it, this current hypothesis about Lue Elizondo, I think, actually reverses the the genuine historical sequence. In other words, I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further. "So, these are just logical questions that I have. You may have different questions. You may have rebuttals to what I have to say here. By all means, put them in a comment, I will read them. And again, I'm not here to defend Lue Elizondo, I am just questioning an account that does not yet, in my view, explain its own logic, or match the full chronology. "It is entirely possible that some of this story is well-known to researchers, including Gerb. I think, however, what has been presented so far does not show how all the pieces actually fit together, and I would like to see that. "And again, I say this with total respect to UAP Gerb and to Ross Coulthart, and in fairness to Lue Elizondo, who I think, if nothing else, this aspect of the history really needs to be understood by the broader community. So that is my statement. "And that doesn't mean that I'm right here, but I do think from time-to-time, it's okay to take a stand on a topic where I can see many people are going to disagree with this, but certain things I think need to be understood on this, and I hope that we can have a reasoned dialogue and discussion about this as we move forward with it, because it is a topic that we do need to understand. "My hypothesis has, pretty much, from the beginning, always been that what we are seeing and what we have been seeing since 2017 is, essentially, the result of a factional battle." (I believe Lue spoke about factions early on when he first went public.) "You go back through the history of this phenomenon, and if you read the old books going back to the 1950s, you see it then, too. You see that there were always factions within the Pentagon who did actually support some level of openness on the UFO subject. "You read the books of Donald Keyhoe, read the book by Edward Ruppelt from 1956: 'Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.' A lot of this is in there. And I think that's really never gone away. And so to somehow assume that there are no more factions in a massive labyrinthian structure as large as the U.S. military industrial complex, I think that's kind of ridiculous. There's always going to be factions. And I think that what we are seeing has always struck me as the result of a factional war that is taking place. "And that doesn't mean, by the way, that, you know, the two sides are just white hats and black hats. Everyone's got their own angle, everyone's got their own motivations. But I, nevertheless, tend to think that that is what we are looking at."
6:08

"I may be wrong about Elizondo...but I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature [and], potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort." ~Dolan (This is WAY too long, and I probably should have spent my time on something else. But here it is. The video clips give you a taste of Richard Dolan's excellent 31-minute video.) "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." ~Dolan "I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further." ~Dolan ~~~ Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public. You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." (As I've shown before, that's just not true. Did Gerb not do his research on that? I'll share A LOT of quotes from this Richard Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) podcast, and from my previous posts detailing the various times Lue has addressed crash retrievals. Plus, my take on various points. Dolan starts out by praising Gerb's research. I agree. Then he moves on to the Lue-was-brought-in-by Clapper claim.) Dolan: "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." Dolan: Gerb claims Elizondo had to adapt his public position on crash retrievals because Grusch coming forward changed the game. "Gerb called this, adapt or die. "I think I understand what [Gerb] means by the controlled narrative and what it was intended to reveal and what it was supposed to hide (crash retrievals). What I still do NOT understand is why anyone protecting a retrieval program would initiate this type of a strategy." Dolan: Before 2017, one of the most significant protections for any alleged Legacy program was ridicule, silence and ignoring. "As long as UFOs remained culturally disreputable, any claims of crash retrievals were easily just brushed aside without any bother to investigate. That didn't change until December of 2017," and the two NYT articles. "That kickstarted a major, mainstream, national-security discussion. "So, if this was a controlled-disclosure program, my question simply is: You get the government, eventually admitting, that non-human intelligence seem to be operating advanced craft here, who could not know that the next questions would be inevitable? Like, have any of these crashed? Were any of these recovered? Where did the material go? Who's been studying it? In other words, this would, obviously, increase pressure on the retrieval secret. It would not protect it in any logical way. The most safest option would have to be continued silence. "Maybe this strategy could become plausible if insiders believed that something was about to emerge beyond their control, right? Some kind of trigger. Maybe there would be an imminent whistleblower that we do not know about 'til this day, that they were afraid of and they wanted to get out ahead of the narrative. Or some kind of foreign disclosure. Some other reason, some other cause that would prompt the secret keepers to think, 'Okay, we need to get out a controlled disclosure.' But, there really is no evidence that's presented, in any of Gerb's analysis, for such a triggering event. Why would the custodians of this secret, voluntarily, weaken the whole system that had protected them for decades and decades?" (Agree. I've had this convo with friends over the years about the theory that TTSA was created to get ahead of a disclosure effort that was coming from someone/somewhere else. But it never made sense because we could never find anything (disclosure-wise) that was happening before 2017 that would force the hand of the gatekeepers into starting some type of controlled disclosure such as what TTSA was allegedly doing. Except maybe... Dolan talks about how, when Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2015 and 2016, she mentioned UFOs and UAP in various interviews on the campaign trail. Dolan: That was gradually making UFOs, "slightly, and I would say, very slightly, becoming more acceptable to discuss." Plus, John Podesta (her campaign manager) was pushing for declassification of UFO files. "There were people at that time who really did believe that Hillary Clinton would become the Disclosure president." (I wanted to vote 3rd party in 2016 and didn't want to vote for Hillary, but did so, in part, in the hopes (slim hopes) that she would engage in some sort of disclosure, if she won.) Dolan: "I've always interpreted [Hillary talking UFOs during her campaign] as a much more, just pragmatic, you could almost say, cynical, if you want, treatment of the [UFO] subject, just to win some votes. The most that she ever said as a candidate, I think was, she would try to get to the bottom of this, whatever that means." (Well, she said more than that... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ “I think we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” ~Hillary Clinton That was covered in the NYT in 2015 My full post on that Hillary quote is here. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ And let's not forget the photo of Hillary from August 1995 where she's with Laurance Rockefeller on his ranch and holding Paul Davies' book, "Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life." She and President Clinton have an interest in this subject.) ~~~ Dolan: "I just think that the leap from a political opportunity - talking about UFOs during the campaign - to a kind of, James Clapper-managed disclosure operation? I just don't think that's been demonstrated and I don't find it very persuasive." ~~~ Dolan then gets back to this claim by Gerb... Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public (in 2023). You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." Dolan: Gerb said that, "Elizondo, essentially, avoided discussing crash retrievals, except for Roswell, And that is just not accurate." (The Lue-avoided-crash-retrievals-until-Grusch quote from Gerb in March didn't include an exception about Roswell so maybe Gerb saw my posts on that and updated his claim? But it's still wrong. Dolan brought up Lue's comments on Tucker Carlson in May of 2019, but no other comments from Lue. I covered that and much more in various posts, which I'll share here.) Did Lue Avoid Talking About Crash Retrievals Before Grusch Went Public in 2023? From the 12/16/17 NYT article that started it all. "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, [BAASS] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (Not a direct quote, and not exactly "crash retrievals of vehicles" but the seed had been planted in that first article. We know now (allegedly) that at least one of those buildings was supposed to store exotic materials that Lockheed was going to divest itself from, but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.) ~May of 2019~ Tucker Carlson: "Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the U.S. government, on this question, that the U.S. government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?" Lue: "Whoa. Umm…I do, yes." Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?" Lue: "Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA. I really can’t go into a lot of…more detail than that." Tucker Carlson: "Okay." (And that could have been the end of the interview. But Lue decided to add this.) Lue: "But…simply put, yes." ~ NYT article in July of 2020... "Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~ "My personal belief in Roswell? 100%. But I cannot speak officially and I cannot discuss about anything else that may or may not have transcribed." ~Lue on "Disclosure Tonight in Feb. 2021 Source: ~ Lue on Clubhouse in July of 2021 Lue: "Am I aware of the notion that there was some sort of retrieval of biological samples? Yes, I am aware of that notion. Am I aware that there may have been some U.S. government involvement in that? Yes, I am aware of that as well. I am aware that people have talked about it and I have heard it as well...regarding, anecdotally, of biological recovery." Source and longer transcript... ~ Lue on Dossier X in April of 2021 Lue: "You said something...that (Roswell) was the 1st time the U.S. gov't was engaged, and I'll share with you, that may not necessarily be true. There may be anecdotal information that indicates that perhaps the U.S. government was involved even before that, in purported, recovery-type activities." Host: "You mean probably 1942, in Los Angeles or something?" Lue: "I don't wanna elaborate, yet. I think some information's gonna come to light here, probably pretty soon, about some interesting incidents. Again, it's not up to me...there are some people out there are willing to come forward, I think. I'm just providing you the information that was indicated to me. I think we need to be careful jumping to presumptions or assumptions that Roswell was the first event similar to what we're thinking about." Source: ~ "I think people would be surprised to know there's more to Roswell than I think most people are aware of. Some people are aware of it. But, you know, there's more to Roswell and there's other similar incidents that are equally compelling." ~Lue on UFO Garage in 2022 Source: ~~~ March of 2022 - My Interview with Lue Murgia: "You said you believe Roswell was real. Are you as confident in other incidents as you are with Roswell?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Yes?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Okay." Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: After you were on Tucker and said you believed the U.S. government had material and debris from a UFO, "Eric Davis came out and said, '100%!' And he said landed craft, too. Did you see that when that came out?" Lue: "I'm aware of that." Murgia: "(laughs) Okay." (Probably an inappropriate laugh by me as Lue was dead serious and probably pushing the limits of what he was allowed to say in public about crash retrievals. He later said this in his November 2024 congressional testimony.) Lue in 2024: "I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss, specifically, crash retrievals." (I wonder what would have happened if he had refused to sign that?) ~~~ Dolan: "Grusch definitely went further (than Lue), much further, yes. That's a lot different from claiming that Elizondo kept retrievals outside the public narrative until Grusch forced his hand. And you really have to ask, if Elizondo's job was NOT to reveal the crash retrieval program, why, in 2019 - again, four years before David Grusch, is he going on and putting it out there? It just seems like there's a chronology problem there." (1000%, Richard! Makes no sense. My June 29th post was entitled... If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job 🛸 Nice to see Richard and I on the same page with that. Richard speculates how the disclosure effort would look like right now if Lue hadn't gone public. Would we have several UAP hearings in the books by now? Would David Grusch had come forward? No way to know.) Dolan: "But I will say, or suggest, that it's entirely reasonable to think that Elizondo helped to create the institutional and cultural conditions that made someone like David Grusch possible. Elizondo did not keep retrieval out of the discussion." (In July of 2023, I directed this tweet to Lue.) "None of this would be happening without you." ~Murgia (Over the top and a bit fan-boyish? Probably. But... Knapp talking with Senator Harry Reid about Lazar and UFOs in 1989 - in a limo headed to the airport that would later bear Reid’s name - was a vital part of getting this whole thing started. Lacatski and Stratton launching the more recent effort around 2005, which eventually led to AAWSAP, AATIP and the UAPTF, was also REALLY important. But Lue going public in 2017 was MASSIVE. The media coverage that followed brought a ton of new people into the topic, and I’m not sure where we’d be today without it. Dolan goes on to talk about Clapper and how it's conceivable he would be on top of any alleged Legacy UAP/crash retrieval program. But he failed to note what Grusch said this past January on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Grusch: "General Clapper was well aware of the crash retrieval issue, managed the crash retrieval issue, and...he placed people in critical roles to manage this issue." (Is Lue one of the people Grusch was referring to? Does he have proof of that? From my own information, I have no doubt that Clapper was instrumental in Lue being connected to the UFO topic. But exactly how that went down and what did it entail? I don't know. I hope Clapper speaks to all of this in detail one day soon.) ~ Dolan: "Gerb has stated that Clapper gave cover to AATIP and, basically, directed the National Security Council retrieval activities. And that he selected Elizondo as the front man. Gerb described Clapper as the mob boss of the NSC crash-retrieval portfolio. "Those are very, very powerful allegations. I'm not saying they're NOT true, but that interview with Ross Coulthart, I would say, did not produce anything in the way that anyone would actually call evidence. Like, there was no documents...or firsthand witnesses that were named, or anything like that. "So you have this, basically, a link from Clapper, to the NSC operation, to AATIP, to Elizondo, to controlled disclosure. This could be true, but no one's seen any receipts on this, and I would like to. "And there's more things that I think raise questions about this whole scenario, frankly. I mean, I think of the Pentagon campaign against Lue Elizondo, which lasted for many years. Any theory that has Elizondo as a controlled-disclosure frontman, I think has to account for the documented, institutional effort by the Pentagon to undermine Lue Elizondo." (When the Pentagon spokespeople said that Lue had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP, it's not so clear cut to say they were trying to undermine Lue, since AAWSAP also had the nickname of AATIP, which I'll call AATIP 1. So, if we're talking about AATIP 1 (AAWSAP), Lue did NOT have any assigned responsibilities, except early on when he did some counter-intelligence. And if we're talking AATIP 2, which Stratton said he created in 2015, Knapp explained in 2019 that it was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies." And on April 8th of this year, Lacatski told Knapp that, "they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their uh...what would you describe that as, more lunchtime get togethers? And George Knapp is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it." That tells me Lacatski felt AATIP was REALLY informal, and that could explain why Lue's role wasn't clear cut in the minds of those spokespeople, and why so many of my contacts told me he wasn't the director of AATIP. But those same folks also told me Lue played in an important role in that effort. My guess is that, since AATIP was so informal, there really was NO official director, but that should be clarified when Stratton's book comes out. Semantics? Maybe.) Dolan: Gerb's hypothesis featuring, "the management of an approved public representative (Lue) of a controlled-disclosure narrative...just doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense to me is something like a factional conflict. I think [that's] much more of a logical explanation for everything that we have seen. You have one group that may have supported some kind of opening - not even necessarily a complete opening - while another fought to preserve the secrecy as much as possible. "But that's a bureaucratic struggle. That's not, necessarily, a unified, controlled-disclosure operation. So I think that is a contradiction that was not really adequately discussed in this hypothesis. "I may be wrong about Elizondo, and I'm not here, again, to be his defense attorney. But I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature. It strikes me also as, potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort, frankly. We can investigate serious allegations without first assigning everyone the role of either hero or villain. "So, I guess I would say that Gerb may have genuinely identified some real relationships and hidden activity. In fact, knowing his excellent research track record, I would be surprised if he didn't. "Elizondo - probably - does have undisclosed elements in his background, and I have no doubt he knows much more than he has said. When I look at the this idea of, like. you look at TTSA coming out at the end of 2016, and you see, basically, a kind of faction that had a very managed narrative indeed. Like, they did not come out and talk about crash retrievals. They did not at all. They talked about these military encounters and sensor readings and this type of thing. And that's a lot less interesting than crash retrievals. "But I try to look at it from, let's say you're a Pentagon insider and you are trying to fight for an opening in the public conversation. You're not gonna start with crash retrievals. First of all, you may not have the receipts on them yourself, to provide to the public. And also you're gonna know, right off the bat, that that's going to be a bigger hill to climb than just trying to get Congress to look at some of the more easily-verifiable reports that you probably have available. So, you're probably going to take it in a very tactical, strategic way. "That's not the same thing as saying that they're lying. It could simply be that was a strategy that was decided upon by these insiders. It's also possible they may not have believed in an uncontrolled, catastrophic disclosure. We can disagree with them on that, or you can agree with them on that. But again, I don't know that that's the same thing as saying that they're actually being dishonest. "If the factional thesis that I believe in is correct, then you'd have to assume that these people have to have their strategies and tactics in this broader struggle. Like, it would be ridiculous not to assume that. "So, I think, you know, it's entirely possible that someone like Elizondo has elements in his background that we would want to know about that are not there. It is very intriguing, and even plausible, perhaps, that someone like Clapper belongs somewhere in this deeper history. I would like to know what that is myself, and I would like to see something, you know, in the way of what we would call genuine evidence for that. Not saying it's not there. "I'm just suggesting that the current theory on Elizondo and controlled disclosure is asking us to accept several unsupported links, and, essentially, I would say a disclosure strategy that appears self-defeating and really illogical. Again, like, why initiate a disclosure program? Especially if you go back to the beginning of the AATIP era, like 2009-ish, 2010. Where was there any perceived need that we have to do disclosure?" (Not sure why Richard is not calling the 2009-ish, 2010-era, AAWSAP. I wonder if he knows that Stratton says he created AATIP in 2015? Could be relevant to this controversy.) Dolan: "Like, I look back at the situation at that time, and again, I was very, very on top of the scene at that time during those years, and I just was not aware of any public pressure, whatsoever, that would cause someone to say, 'We have to initiate a controlled disclosure of this, in order to protect crash retrievals.' "There's no logic there, it seems to me. It's, in fact, the exact opposite. "Also, the the current hypothesis, I think, really understates Elizondo's 2019 acknowledgement of recovered UFO material. That really has got to be understood. And it leaves the whole Pentagon campaign against Elizondo, in my view, anyway, largely unresolved and unexplained, and really not making sense. "And, I would just add, now that I'm thinking of it, this current hypothesis about Lue Elizondo, I think, actually reverses the the genuine historical sequence. In other words, I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further. "So, these are just logical questions that I have. You may have different questions. You may have rebuttals to what I have to say here. By all means, put them in a comment, I will read them. And again, I'm not here to defend Lue Elizondo, I am just questioning an account that does not yet, in my view, explain its own logic, or match the full chronology. "It is entirely possible that some of this story is well-known to researchers, including Gerb. I think, however, what has been presented so far does not show how all the pieces actually fit together, and I would like to see that. "And again, I say this with total respect to UAP Gerb and to Ross Coulthart, and in fairness to Lue Elizondo, who I think, if nothing else, this aspect of the history really needs to be understood by the broader community. So that is my statement. "And that doesn't mean that I'm right here, but I do think from time-to-time, it's okay to take a stand on a topic where I can see many people are going to disagree with this, but certain things I think need to be understood on this, and I hope that we can have a reasoned dialogue and discussion about this as we move forward with it, because it is a topic that we do need to understand. "My hypothesis has, pretty much, from the beginning, always been that what we are seeing and what we have been seeing since 2017 is, essentially, the result of a factional battle." (I believe Lue spoke about factions early on when he first went public.) "You go back through the history of this phenomenon, and if you read the old books going back to the 1950s, you see it then, too. You see that there were always factions within the Pentagon who did actually support some level of openness on the UFO subject. "You read the books of Donald Keyhoe, read the book by Edward Ruppelt from 1956: 'Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.' A lot of this is in there. And I think that's really never gone away. And so to somehow assume that there are no more factions in a massive labyrinthian structure as large as the U.S. military industrial complex, I think that's kind of ridiculous. There's always going to be factions. And I think that what we are seeing has always struck me as the result of a factional war that is taking place. "And that doesn't mean, by the way, that, you know, the two sides are just white hats and black hats. Everyone's got their own angle, everyone's got their own motivations. But I, nevertheless, tend to think that that is what we are looking at."

Joe Murgia

24,710 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

77 Reasons Why I’ve Invested Over $8,000,000+ in MultiversX (EGLD) and Why EGLD Will Crush It in 2025 (My Investment Thesis). I publicly shared my portfolio on X. EGLD is A) Better than BTC B) Everything that ETH wants to be C) The GameStop of Crypto 1. EGLD is verifiably the most scalable (theoretically unlimited) L1 chain in the world, theoretically capable of over 10 million TPS (thanks to adaptive state sharding). 2. e-Gold is digital gold. It has the best tokenomics among all L1s, similarly scarce to BTC, with a maximum supply of 31.4 million coins. Currently, 27.68 million coins are in circulation. 3. EGLD will be the most decentralized cryptocurrency in the world thanks to sharding and minimal hardware requirements for running nodes. It’s already second only to Ethereum with 3,618 validator nodes. 4. EGLD has extremely low fees, around ~$0.002 per transaction. 5. EGLD is extremely secure. No wallet drains like on ETH/SOL; assets are owned natively (not via a smart contract). There is no MEV risk (front-running bots). 6. EGLD is the only chain in the world with an on-chain Guardian (two-phase verification), making it impossible for a hacker to steal your funds—even if they have your private keys (seed phrase). 7. EGLD is carbon-neutral and eco-friendly, not wasting energy like BTC and other PoW chains. It’s exceptionally efficient, scalable, global, and sustainable. 8. EGLD has the best UX in crypto. Download the xPortal wallet—it’s like discovering Apple in Web3. The interface is simple, flawless, and you barely realize you’re using crypto. Instead of addresses, you use HeroTags. The app features all dApps, everything runs smoothly, and the visuals are beautifully designed. The explorer, web wallet, etc. follow the same high-quality user experience. 9. EGLD supports native assets, unlike Ethereum, for example. 10. EGLD is the first chain to fully implement horizontal (theoretically unlimited) sharding without compromising on decentralization—unlike Solana and others that attempt vertical scaling, leading to multiple network downtimes (11+ times) and huge hardware demands for validators, ultimately harming decentralization. 11. EGLD makes setting up a validator agency extremely easy. Even complete IT beginners can do it. The UX and documentation are superb. I personally set up the “EGLDSqueeze” agency in about 30 minutes. Managing it is straightforward via the web wallet, which feels like managing a Facebook page. This simplifies decentralization enormously. 12. EGLD allows literally anyone (even your grandma) to participate in decentralization, since nodes can run on a Raspberry Pi or a relatively affordable phone. Imagine millions of people worldwide securing the network, validating transactions without even knowing it. This can’t be done with BTC, where setting up profitable mining operations is prohibitively expensive. 13. WASM-Based Virtual Machine: You can write smart contracts in your favorite language, compile them, and run them via the fastest VM in the world. 14. EGLD has been tested at an incredible 263,000 TPS using its sharding mechanism and low hardware requirements. Allegedly, by mid-next year (April), they’ll demonstrate 1,000,000 TPS. (For context: Mastercard handles around 5,000 TPS; BTC handles 5–7 TPS.) 15. EGLD is currently the most advanced L1 in terms of scalability, security, decentralization, UX, eco-friendliness, and tokenomics. It’s the only chain that has genuinely solved the Blockchain Trilemma and is ready to onboard 1 billion people into crypto—users who won’t even realize they’re interacting with crypto. 16. EGLD is perfectly positioned for AI projects—AI agents, AI tools, or a so-called “Truth Machine” that monitors other AIs on-chain, documenting what’s true and comparing different AI outputs (some of which may be censored or biased), ensuring people don’t get confused or scammed in an AI-driven world. 17. The EGLD team is the hardest-working team I’ve ever encountered. I had the honor of meeting many of them personally, and can attest that their pace—even during a bear market—is extraordinary. 18. EGLD’s development team is exceptionally active on GitHub, continually improving their network and actively committing code. 19. EGLD plans to introduce an update reducing block time to 600ms (down from ~6 seconds), which would make the chain essentially unrivaled. 20. EGLD is effectively the only usable L1 in Europe, and the team has direct connections within the EU government—extremely bullish for the project. 21. EGLD provides top-tier on-chain governance not only for the MultiversX (EGLD) protocol but also for DeFi projects (e.g., xExchange, MEX). 22. EGLD plans to expand to the US, likely opening offices in Austin, Texas. This could put them in direct contact with Elon Musk (if it hasn’t happened already), as he’s involved with If he’s done his research, he’d discover there’s simply no better L1 worldwide. 23. EGLD solved fully implemented sharding, perfect tokenomics, and top-tier architecture with just $5M, whereas other chains failed to do so even with $100M+. The second-best sharding network, NEAR, needed $100M, has worse tokenomics, and its sharding isn’t fully implemented yet. Its UX also doesn’t compare. Owning NEAR was like comparing a VW Golf R to a Porsche GT3—EGLD is the Porsche GT3. 24. According to Similarweb, EGLD has significantly high traffic relative to other chains with market caps 100x larger. The market cap vs. web traffic discrepancy is huge, which is a strong indicator of EGLD’s potential. 25. EGLD has the most active and dedicated community relative to its user base, with users who believe in the technology, have full faith in the team, and remain loyal despite price volatility—because they use the chain and know there’s nothing better. 26. Check other chains’ active user counts on X (Twitter) and compare it with the followers of EGLD’s founders and main network accounts, versus those with 30x, 50x, or 100x larger market caps. 27. Visit the MultiversX website to observe the futuristic design and presentation, then compare it to other chains that appear nearly a decade behind in design and branding. 28. EGLD hosts the xDay Global event, showcasing updates, new builders, projects in the ecosystem, and major announcements—similar to Apple’s Keynotes—delivered in a highly professional, goosebump-inducing atmosphere. The next event is in Korea, the second-biggest crypto market after the US. Check out their previous xDay after-movie to see why this is extremely bullish. 29. EGLD is moving forward with plans for the first regulated, audited EU stablecoin under MiCa regulation, made possible by acquiring xMoney, which I view as a “Stripe” for crypto/fiat, offering everything from user solutions to merchant services—potentially the future of payments. 30. Greg Siourouni recently joined EGLD, having been an executive director at SUI Foundation. He’s now co-founder of xMoney Global. xMoney (formerly UTrust, with token UTK) is owned and founded by the MultiversX Labs team. A stablecoin might be introduced soon, which would be massively bullish given xMoney’s roadmap. They recently announced integrations with Binance Pay—both ways. 31. EGLD prioritizes user safety, believing it’s the only feasible approach once the network scales to serve a billion people—many of whom are retail users with little to no security awareness. 32. EGLD offers “Sovereign Chains,” letting you effectively clone their chain without heavy development, set up your own validators, and leverage their unlimited scalability. Any blockchain (ETH, BTC, SOL) struggling with scalability, decentralization, or security could run an ultra-fast, scalable, and secure L2 on EGLD’s Sovereign Chain, meeting top enterprise requirements. No one else has really done this. The Sovereign Chain demo achieved astonishing TPS and has an SDK. 33. No downtime since inception. 34. No shard takeover attacks have occurred. 35. Extremely fast—soon 600ms block time will be in place. 36. ESDTs – The best token standard available: fungible, non-fungible, semi-fungible, DeFi assets—everything is native and highly customizable. 37. Top-tier composability of assets and smart contracts. 38. Integrated DNS at protocol level with HeroTags (nicknames) instead of long addresses. 39. Asynchronous calls are supported. 40. Cross-shard transfers, execution, reverts, and calls are seamlessly integrated. 41. The best staking system in the space. Secure Proof of Stake (SPoS) is far more efficient than Proof of Work (PoW). 42. Built-in Delegation and Staking Provider system, with over 125K delegators. 43. Complete support for liquid staked assets, fostering decentralization rather than centralization. 44. TransferRoles for ESDT and other advanced operations. 45. Composable tasks on-chain for more sophisticated DeFi workflows. 46. MultiTransfer and asset execution within one transaction. 47. Re-entrancy protection is built-in by design. 48. Storage for ESDT assets goes beyond a linear approach, optimizing performance. 49. No integer overflows thanks to integrated safeMath operations. 50. Integrated crypto opcodes in the VM, enhancing security and performance. 51. Support for BigFloats, BigInts, and BigDecimals, enabling advanced financial calculations on-chain. 52. No sandwich attacks, plus front-running and MEV protection. 53. Relayed Transactions, simplifying user interactions and fees. 54. Smart Accounts featuring data tries and multiple built-in functions. 55. Generalized Paymaster solutions, enabling flexible fee models. 56. Subscriptions for recurring or automated on-chain payments. 57. Web2-like usability with Web3 functionality, bridging mainstream adoption. 58. StakingV4 for improved decentralization. 59. Enhanced MEV protection rolling out to safeguard users. 60. Parallel execution is coming soon, boosting throughput. 61. 1 million TPS is on the roadmap, targeted for demonstration. 62. 600ms block time is also coming soon. 63. Reduced cross-shard processing is planned to improve efficiency. 64. ZK everywhere (PI²): “prove everything” approach is coming. 65. AsyncV3 is in development for more complex cross-contract interactions. 66. Scalability enhancements for Merkle Tries or a new data model are being explored. 67. Linear storage on the VM is forthcoming. 68. A dynamic language interpreter at the VM is also planned. 69. Rumors suggest that MultiversX (EGLD) is building a “Truth Machine” on their L1—an essential, game-changing tool for AI verification and societal impact. 70. The entire team features individuals with PhDs in mathematics and physics, and many are former engineers at Google, IBM, and similar companies. 71. Over 56% of the network’s supply is staked, showcasing strong community involvement. 72. More than 6,772,347 accounts have been created on the network. 73. A total of 476,627,710 transactions have been processed on-chain without any outages or hacks. 74. EGLD has built a massive ecosystem over time. While not as numerous in project count as Solana, its market cap is ~100x smaller, yet it has far superior tokenomics and technology. The projects that do exist, like Hatom Protocol, are top-tier in UX, security, and advanced features. Hatom will soon introduce USH, a truly high-quality, decentralized stablecoin. 75. On competing chains, automated transactions aren’t easily or cheaply executed, whereas on MultiversX, tools like let you do this for free (with near-zero fees). 76. No other chain combines such a strong team and long-term vision where every product meets extreme security and UX standards like MultiversX does. This is why I see it as the “next Apple” in Web3. 77. MultiversX has a new CMO – Adam Bates, a former CMO at the Cardano Foundation. He was behind the success of Cardano’s huge marketing campaign and has a very good relationship with Charles Hoskinson. Thanks to him, Beniamin Mincu (the founder of MultiversX) was likely introduced, and now they will probably discuss how both blockchains can help each other, as well as any other potential collaborations we don’t yet know about. This is also extremely bullish. #EGLD is undeniably the most Scalable, Advanced, Secure, and User-friendly L1 supercomputer ever created. It’s built to SHAPE THE FUTURE. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 27/6/2024 - EGLDSqueeze - SUMMARY: HERE IS NO 2ND BEST. EGLD IS ONLY ONE BLOCKCHAIN THAT CAN RULE THEM ALL. ✅ UNLIMITED SCALING ✅ SCARCE AS BTC ✅ PROGRAMMABLE AS ETH ✅ NO DOWNTIME AS SOL ✅ UI/UX OF Apple ✅ SHARDING DONE BEFORE NEAR & TON ✅ BEST WALLET xPortal WITH GUARDIAN Price prediction (NFA|DYOR): My reasoning is that the real market cap as of December 23, 2024...if we take into account the value of other cryptocurrencies such as BTC, SOL, ETH, AVAX, NEAR, TON, Cardano, BNB, XRP, and so forth, plus the existence of meme coins with valuations above 20 billion USD, or even games nobody plays anymore that still have valuations above 800 million shows that EGLD’s current market cap of approximately 942 million USD is incredibly low. From a technological standpoint, user experience, and other relevant aspects, compared to SOL, NEAR, TON, AVAX, and other L1 protocols, EGLD’s market cap should realistically be around 100 billion USD. Therefore, my prediction and investment thesis is a minimum of a 100x increase from its current price (+-SOL marketcap). MultiversX is ready to onboard 1 billion people to the blockchain. From a long-term perspective, it could even reach a market cap of 1 trillion USD, which is roughly half of where BTC is right now. That would be approximately a 1060x gain from the current market cap. 1 EGLD (MultiversX) is for $34 (only 31.4M max supply) think about this. Not financial advice. Again. There is no 2nd best L1. Position yourself where the puck is going, then wait at the goal until the goal gets there Apes together, strong. Ape alone, weak. We Don't Worry. We Just Win. Shape The Future
5:34

77 Reasons Why I’ve Invested Over $8,000,000+ in MultiversX (EGLD) and Why EGLD Will Crush It in 2025 (My Investment Thesis). I publicly shared my portfolio on X. EGLD is A) Better than BTC B) Everything that ETH wants to be C) The GameStop of Crypto 1. EGLD is verifiably the most scalable (theoretically unlimited) L1 chain in the world, theoretically capable of over 10 million TPS (thanks to adaptive state sharding). 2. e-Gold is digital gold. It has the best tokenomics among all L1s, similarly scarce to BTC, with a maximum supply of 31.4 million coins. Currently, 27.68 million coins are in circulation. 3. EGLD will be the most decentralized cryptocurrency in the world thanks to sharding and minimal hardware requirements for running nodes. It’s already second only to Ethereum with 3,618 validator nodes. 4. EGLD has extremely low fees, around ~$0.002 per transaction. 5. EGLD is extremely secure. No wallet drains like on ETH/SOL; assets are owned natively (not via a smart contract). There is no MEV risk (front-running bots). 6. EGLD is the only chain in the world with an on-chain Guardian (two-phase verification), making it impossible for a hacker to steal your funds—even if they have your private keys (seed phrase). 7. EGLD is carbon-neutral and eco-friendly, not wasting energy like BTC and other PoW chains. It’s exceptionally efficient, scalable, global, and sustainable. 8. EGLD has the best UX in crypto. Download the xPortal wallet—it’s like discovering Apple in Web3. The interface is simple, flawless, and you barely realize you’re using crypto. Instead of addresses, you use HeroTags. The app features all dApps, everything runs smoothly, and the visuals are beautifully designed. The explorer, web wallet, etc. follow the same high-quality user experience. 9. EGLD supports native assets, unlike Ethereum, for example. 10. EGLD is the first chain to fully implement horizontal (theoretically unlimited) sharding without compromising on decentralization—unlike Solana and others that attempt vertical scaling, leading to multiple network downtimes (11+ times) and huge hardware demands for validators, ultimately harming decentralization. 11. EGLD makes setting up a validator agency extremely easy. Even complete IT beginners can do it. The UX and documentation are superb. I personally set up the “EGLDSqueeze” agency in about 30 minutes. Managing it is straightforward via the web wallet, which feels like managing a Facebook page. This simplifies decentralization enormously. 12. EGLD allows literally anyone (even your grandma) to participate in decentralization, since nodes can run on a Raspberry Pi or a relatively affordable phone. Imagine millions of people worldwide securing the network, validating transactions without even knowing it. This can’t be done with BTC, where setting up profitable mining operations is prohibitively expensive. 13. WASM-Based Virtual Machine: You can write smart contracts in your favorite language, compile them, and run them via the fastest VM in the world. 14. EGLD has been tested at an incredible 263,000 TPS using its sharding mechanism and low hardware requirements. Allegedly, by mid-next year (April), they’ll demonstrate 1,000,000 TPS. (For context: Mastercard handles around 5,000 TPS; BTC handles 5–7 TPS.) 15. EGLD is currently the most advanced L1 in terms of scalability, security, decentralization, UX, eco-friendliness, and tokenomics. It’s the only chain that has genuinely solved the Blockchain Trilemma and is ready to onboard 1 billion people into crypto—users who won’t even realize they’re interacting with crypto. 16. EGLD is perfectly positioned for AI projects—AI agents, AI tools, or a so-called “Truth Machine” that monitors other AIs on-chain, documenting what’s true and comparing different AI outputs (some of which may be censored or biased), ensuring people don’t get confused or scammed in an AI-driven world. 17. The EGLD team is the hardest-working team I’ve ever encountered. I had the honor of meeting many of them personally, and can attest that their pace—even during a bear market—is extraordinary. 18. EGLD’s development team is exceptionally active on GitHub, continually improving their network and actively committing code. 19. EGLD plans to introduce an update reducing block time to 600ms (down from ~6 seconds), which would make the chain essentially unrivaled. 20. EGLD is effectively the only usable L1 in Europe, and the team has direct connections within the EU government—extremely bullish for the project. 21. EGLD provides top-tier on-chain governance not only for the MultiversX (EGLD) protocol but also for DeFi projects (e.g., xExchange, MEX). 22. EGLD plans to expand to the US, likely opening offices in Austin, Texas. This could put them in direct contact with Elon Musk (if it hasn’t happened already), as he’s involved with If he’s done his research, he’d discover there’s simply no better L1 worldwide. 23. EGLD solved fully implemented sharding, perfect tokenomics, and top-tier architecture with just $5M, whereas other chains failed to do so even with $100M+. The second-best sharding network, NEAR, needed $100M, has worse tokenomics, and its sharding isn’t fully implemented yet. Its UX also doesn’t compare. Owning NEAR was like comparing a VW Golf R to a Porsche GT3—EGLD is the Porsche GT3. 24. According to Similarweb, EGLD has significantly high traffic relative to other chains with market caps 100x larger. The market cap vs. web traffic discrepancy is huge, which is a strong indicator of EGLD’s potential. 25. EGLD has the most active and dedicated community relative to its user base, with users who believe in the technology, have full faith in the team, and remain loyal despite price volatility—because they use the chain and know there’s nothing better. 26. Check other chains’ active user counts on X (Twitter) and compare it with the followers of EGLD’s founders and main network accounts, versus those with 30x, 50x, or 100x larger market caps. 27. Visit the MultiversX website to observe the futuristic design and presentation, then compare it to other chains that appear nearly a decade behind in design and branding. 28. EGLD hosts the xDay Global event, showcasing updates, new builders, projects in the ecosystem, and major announcements—similar to Apple’s Keynotes—delivered in a highly professional, goosebump-inducing atmosphere. The next event is in Korea, the second-biggest crypto market after the US. Check out their previous xDay after-movie to see why this is extremely bullish. 29. EGLD is moving forward with plans for the first regulated, audited EU stablecoin under MiCa regulation, made possible by acquiring xMoney, which I view as a “Stripe” for crypto/fiat, offering everything from user solutions to merchant services—potentially the future of payments. 30. Greg Siourouni recently joined EGLD, having been an executive director at SUI Foundation. He’s now co-founder of xMoney Global. xMoney (formerly UTrust, with token UTK) is owned and founded by the MultiversX Labs team. A stablecoin might be introduced soon, which would be massively bullish given xMoney’s roadmap. They recently announced integrations with Binance Pay—both ways. 31. EGLD prioritizes user safety, believing it’s the only feasible approach once the network scales to serve a billion people—many of whom are retail users with little to no security awareness. 32. EGLD offers “Sovereign Chains,” letting you effectively clone their chain without heavy development, set up your own validators, and leverage their unlimited scalability. Any blockchain (ETH, BTC, SOL) struggling with scalability, decentralization, or security could run an ultra-fast, scalable, and secure L2 on EGLD’s Sovereign Chain, meeting top enterprise requirements. No one else has really done this. The Sovereign Chain demo achieved astonishing TPS and has an SDK. 33. No downtime since inception. 34. No shard takeover attacks have occurred. 35. Extremely fast—soon 600ms block time will be in place. 36. ESDTs – The best token standard available: fungible, non-fungible, semi-fungible, DeFi assets—everything is native and highly customizable. 37. Top-tier composability of assets and smart contracts. 38. Integrated DNS at protocol level with HeroTags (nicknames) instead of long addresses. 39. Asynchronous calls are supported. 40. Cross-shard transfers, execution, reverts, and calls are seamlessly integrated. 41. The best staking system in the space. Secure Proof of Stake (SPoS) is far more efficient than Proof of Work (PoW). 42. Built-in Delegation and Staking Provider system, with over 125K delegators. 43. Complete support for liquid staked assets, fostering decentralization rather than centralization. 44. TransferRoles for ESDT and other advanced operations. 45. Composable tasks on-chain for more sophisticated DeFi workflows. 46. MultiTransfer and asset execution within one transaction. 47. Re-entrancy protection is built-in by design. 48. Storage for ESDT assets goes beyond a linear approach, optimizing performance. 49. No integer overflows thanks to integrated safeMath operations. 50. Integrated crypto opcodes in the VM, enhancing security and performance. 51. Support for BigFloats, BigInts, and BigDecimals, enabling advanced financial calculations on-chain. 52. No sandwich attacks, plus front-running and MEV protection. 53. Relayed Transactions, simplifying user interactions and fees. 54. Smart Accounts featuring data tries and multiple built-in functions. 55. Generalized Paymaster solutions, enabling flexible fee models. 56. Subscriptions for recurring or automated on-chain payments. 57. Web2-like usability with Web3 functionality, bridging mainstream adoption. 58. StakingV4 for improved decentralization. 59. Enhanced MEV protection rolling out to safeguard users. 60. Parallel execution is coming soon, boosting throughput. 61. 1 million TPS is on the roadmap, targeted for demonstration. 62. 600ms block time is also coming soon. 63. Reduced cross-shard processing is planned to improve efficiency. 64. ZK everywhere (PI²): “prove everything” approach is coming. 65. AsyncV3 is in development for more complex cross-contract interactions. 66. Scalability enhancements for Merkle Tries or a new data model are being explored. 67. Linear storage on the VM is forthcoming. 68. A dynamic language interpreter at the VM is also planned. 69. Rumors suggest that MultiversX (EGLD) is building a “Truth Machine” on their L1—an essential, game-changing tool for AI verification and societal impact. 70. The entire team features individuals with PhDs in mathematics and physics, and many are former engineers at Google, IBM, and similar companies. 71. Over 56% of the network’s supply is staked, showcasing strong community involvement. 72. More than 6,772,347 accounts have been created on the network. 73. A total of 476,627,710 transactions have been processed on-chain without any outages or hacks. 74. EGLD has built a massive ecosystem over time. While not as numerous in project count as Solana, its market cap is ~100x smaller, yet it has far superior tokenomics and technology. The projects that do exist, like Hatom Protocol, are top-tier in UX, security, and advanced features. Hatom will soon introduce USH, a truly high-quality, decentralized stablecoin. 75. On competing chains, automated transactions aren’t easily or cheaply executed, whereas on MultiversX, tools like let you do this for free (with near-zero fees). 76. No other chain combines such a strong team and long-term vision where every product meets extreme security and UX standards like MultiversX does. This is why I see it as the “next Apple” in Web3. 77. MultiversX has a new CMO – Adam Bates, a former CMO at the Cardano Foundation. He was behind the success of Cardano’s huge marketing campaign and has a very good relationship with Charles Hoskinson. Thanks to him, Beniamin Mincu (the founder of MultiversX) was likely introduced, and now they will probably discuss how both blockchains can help each other, as well as any other potential collaborations we don’t yet know about. This is also extremely bullish. #EGLD is undeniably the most Scalable, Advanced, Secure, and User-friendly L1 supercomputer ever created. It’s built to SHAPE THE FUTURE. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 27/6/2024 - EGLDSqueeze - SUMMARY: HERE IS NO 2ND BEST. EGLD IS ONLY ONE BLOCKCHAIN THAT CAN RULE THEM ALL. ✅ UNLIMITED SCALING ✅ SCARCE AS BTC ✅ PROGRAMMABLE AS ETH ✅ NO DOWNTIME AS SOL ✅ UI/UX OF Apple ✅ SHARDING DONE BEFORE NEAR & TON ✅ BEST WALLET xPortal WITH GUARDIAN Price prediction (NFA|DYOR): My reasoning is that the real market cap as of December 23, 2024...if we take into account the value of other cryptocurrencies such as BTC, SOL, ETH, AVAX, NEAR, TON, Cardano, BNB, XRP, and so forth, plus the existence of meme coins with valuations above 20 billion USD, or even games nobody plays anymore that still have valuations above 800 million shows that EGLD’s current market cap of approximately 942 million USD is incredibly low. From a technological standpoint, user experience, and other relevant aspects, compared to SOL, NEAR, TON, AVAX, and other L1 protocols, EGLD’s market cap should realistically be around 100 billion USD. Therefore, my prediction and investment thesis is a minimum of a 100x increase from its current price (+-SOL marketcap). MultiversX is ready to onboard 1 billion people to the blockchain. From a long-term perspective, it could even reach a market cap of 1 trillion USD, which is roughly half of where BTC is right now. That would be approximately a 1060x gain from the current market cap. 1 EGLD (MultiversX) is for $34 (only 31.4M max supply) think about this. Not financial advice. Again. There is no 2nd best L1. Position yourself where the puck is going, then wait at the goal until the goal gets there Apes together, strong. Ape alone, weak. We Don't Worry. We Just Win. Shape The Future

Daniel Veroc

50,650 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

An interview by VERY DARK AND CORRUPT Wall Street Journal aired today [1] WSJ's terrible "journalists" (and I use that term lightly) made many false statements about Sarepta's worthless, dangerous drug and Vinay Prasad's firing [1,2] I explain how the FDA sausage is made in excruciating detail Buckle up To get readers up to speed -> In June, corrupt pharma company Sarepta Therapeutics paid $40,000 to lobbying group Michael Best Strategies (MBS) to deal with a problem [3] -> MBS had recently hired Chris LaCivita, who had close connections with "MAGA" influencer Laura Loomer [4] -> With stock down 88%, Sarepta needed to sell their very bad, very dangerous drug or the company would go bankrupt [5] -> After several deaths from the drug this year, FDA official Vinay Prasad said "no way" and kicked the drug to the curb [2,6] -> Sarepta panicked and paid MBS (we believe) to deal with Prasad [3,4] -> If this story is right, LaCivita recruited Laura Loomer to take down Prasad [4,7] -> Loomer said she was defending Trump, but she was lying [7] -> She was defending taxpayer-funded payouts to a worthless, corrupt company [7] -> Laura Loomer so brave A history of bad drugs and regulatory failure -> This is one of the worst pharma scandals in American history and corrupt mainstream media isn't covering it -> Sarepta has a very long, troubled history [8] -> For more than a decade, every major Sarepta FDA drug approval has required INTENSE political intervention [8,9] -> Scientists at FDA have been repeatedly overruled [8,9] -> Many scientists have resigned, very publicly, over these POLITICAL decisions, some writing scathing public criticisms of these terrible decisions [10,11] -> The most recent resignation by Vinay Prasad is not something new; it follows in a long tradition [2,10] -> In fact, standards have dramatically deteriorated since the first controversies about the company's drugs in the 2010s [8,9] -> Prasad was trying to hold the line in the face of rapidly deteriorating standards at the agency [2,6] -> For that, pharma launched a coup--a literal coup of a drug regulator [4,6] -> This is unprecedented -> Banana republic sht, unbelievably corrupt 2016: first Sarepta drug approval and the "highly unusual" decision -> The first Sarepta drug approved by FDA was called Exondys 51 [8] -> This drug was for patients with mutations in dystrophin, a muscle protein [8] -> This is a debilitating and fatal disease affecting children [8] -> Exondys 51 increased dystrophin by 0.2% of normal levels [8,12] -> Unsurprisingly, there was no good evidence the drug worked [8,12] -> Why would it? It increases the protein from zero to 1/500th of normal levels -> One reviewer wrote: "I can find no precedent of an accelerated approval for a marketing application where the effect size on the surrogate endpoint is as small as 0.3%." [12] -> The study submitted by the company included no proper control group [12] -> The techniques used were so bad not even a first-year PhD student would do a study that way -> This the level of work you would expect from a mediocre undergraduate with no guidance -> It's almost like it was so bad on purpose -> (Narrator: it was on purpose) -> Nerd time: -> One reviewer wrote: "The Western blots submitted by the applicant for Study 201 were oversaturated, unreliable, and uninterpretable." [12] -> Another wrote: "Because CDER also determined that the conditions under which the original IHC analysis was performed were inadequate, including that the reader was not masked to sequence and time, the Center requested a re-reading of the stored images by three masked pathologists under different conditions. The IHC results from the reread were not nearly as favorable, as compared to the initial IHC results reported by Sarepta." [12] -> "The lack of concordance between the IHC and the Western Blot results is 'striking'" [12] -> "Study 201/202 had fundamental flaws, including baseline biopsies from external controls who could differ in unknown ways from study subjects, Week 180 biopsies from different muscles than baseline, and potential protein degradation in stored baseline samples." [12] -> And on and on. -> FDA commissioner Robert Califf wrote at the time: the submitted study was "characterized by major flaws in the clinical study design" and "Blinded experts assembled by the FDA fundamentally debunked this study, which has yet to be retracted and continues to be cited" [9,12] -> That's right, the FDA commissioner expressed dismay that the study that the company used to gain approval hadn't yet been retracted, it was so bad [9] -> Senior FDA official Janet Woodcock decided to approve before scientific review team had even voted [9,12] -> Woodcock be like: yeah i'm going to decide before you guys can because i know what you're going to say lol -> Despite external intense pressure, FDA scientists voted against Exondys 51's efficacy [9,12] -> They then voted against its accelerated approval [9,12] -> The review team filed an appeal with FDA commissioner after "passionate" disagreement with Woodcock [9,12] -> One reviewer called Woodcock's decision "unprecedented" [12] -> In a 126-page report, FDA commissioner Califf called Woodcock's decision "highly unusual" [9] -> The FDA board wrote: "[Woodcock's] involvement here appears to have upended the typical review and decision-making process. ... Care should be taken to avoid the appearance of interfering with the integrity of scientific reviews at the lower levels of a Center." [9] -> Again, the data were unbelievably bad, literally every technique in the study was inappropriately used [12] -> I would fire an undergraduate student who did science like this, immediately -> FDA's chief scientist accused Sarepta of "serious irresponsibility" for selectively publishing only some of the data [9] -> Even Woodcock, who approved the drug, called the research "seriously deficient" [12] -> Yes, even the person who approved the drug over the heads of FDA's scientists said the research was horrible [12] -> Still, FDA tried to bury their heads in the sand and beg that, basically, Sarepta pretty please do a better job next time -> FDA commissioner: "The utmost attention should be paid to optimizing the methodological rigor of [future] trial[s]" [9] -> FDA also demanded a clinical trial "to verify the benefit" of the drug [8] -> Welp, this was in 2016 [8] -> The trial results are supposed to be available in 2026, maybe [13] -> Or maybe later, depending on how much money needs to be made first -> As an article published in Nature three years later despaired of the decision: "The approval was conditional on the company agreeing to conduct a two-year post-approval trial to show Exondys 51’s efficacy. But by August 2019, the company had yet to begin such a trial and in the meantime had profited from sales of $300 million in 2018." [13] -> If it sounds like Sarepta used political pressure to get its drug approved and then tried to avoid actually publishing the study showing it didn't work, it sounds that way because that's exactly what happened [13] -> FDA commissioner after deferring to Woodcock: "I am confident this unique situation will not set a general precedent for drug approvals under the accelerated approval pathway, as the statute and regulations are clear each situation must be evaluated on its own merits based on the totality of data and information." [9] -> This statement was profoundly naive, and the historical record bears this out [8,14] -> Three FDA scientists resigned, including the lead reviewer of the drug, understanding the grave implications of the collapse of scientific standards and where they would lead [10,11] -> One was John K. Jenkins, M.D. Director, Office of New Drugs Center for Drug Evaluation and Research/FDA [10] -> In a presentation given just before his resignation, he wrote: -> "Path taken by Sarepta NOT a good model for other development programs" [10] -> Crucially: -> "Upholding statutory standards for approval in face of hopes and desires of patients, families, sponsors, and investors is a very difficult job" [10] -> "Personal attacks on FDA reviewers creates an atmosphere of distrust and isolation rather than collaboration" [10] This brings us to WHY Sarepta's drug was approved Facebook FDA -> So why did the drug get approved? -> Basically, Sarepta propagandized extremely desperate patients [9,15] -> They used miraculous snake oil promises and patients believed them -> Remember that this is life or death for patients, and they are extremely vulnerable -> Sarepta also professionally trained some patients to give testimonials to FDA and congress [15] -> The patients then went to congressmen who don't have time to understand the science [15] -> They gave emotional stories to congressmen [15] -> The result: -> Letter from 109 House members [15] -> Letter from 24 Senate members [15] -> And a media circus documented in the New York Times [16] -> Patients screaming at scientists during meetings [9] -> 2,792 emails written to FDA urging approval [12] -> One of them: "Dear Dr. califf: How is it that everyone in and around DMD understands this simple Idea and the science geniuses at FDA don't? You stupid fckers are costing each and every DMD kids days of their lives with your Moronic Dystrophin dance. Time to get a fcking clue" [12] -> Upon approval, a journalist for Reuters wrote: "owing to pressure from patient advocates, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Monday approved a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy even though an outside panel of experts and the agency's own reviewers questioned the drug's efficacy" [17] -> A commentary in Nature Medicine was also published called "Railroading at the FDA" [9] -> Its author wrote: "In the words of one FDA committee member, Exondys lowers the agency's evidentiary standard for drug effectiveness 'to an unprecedented nadir.'" [9] -> A highly critical commentary was also published in Science, titled "Sarepta gets an approval - Unfortunately" [18] -> The article's author pharma veteran Derek Lowe wrote: "The company... called up Duchenne-affected boys and their families to plead with the FDA, and won over Janet Woodcock, and that appears to be enough. Is this going to be the new way to get a drug approved? Run a trial in a dozen people, generate unconvincing data, and then lobby Janet Woodcock? I share the worries that this might open the floodgates, because after all, Sarepta got their drug through." [18] -> One FDA reviewer ended in an equally grim note: ". Approval of this NDA would send the signal that political pressure and even intimidation – not science – guides FDA decisions, with extremely negative consequences. The public is well aware of this development program: the meager size of the study population, the marginal (at best) effect size, the Division’s dim view of the efficacy data, and the robust activism of some members of the DMD community. Many would be amazed at an approval action, because other DMD drugs, recently turned down for approval, appeared to provide stronger evidence of efficacy. ...The ramifications here are profound. The public will perceive that it was their unprecedented lobbying efforts that made the difference and earned eteplirsen its accelerated approval. For the future, this will have the effect of strongly encouraging public activism and intimidation as a substitute for data, which is one of the worst possible consequences for communities with rare diseases. This type of activism is not what was envisioned for patient-focused drug development." [12] -> A new era was born -> Activism had replaced data -> Facebook had fried people's brains -> And now Facebook-fried brains had fried FDA too -> FDA's credibility as a regulatory agency would now be hollowed out -> FDA's Facebook age had begun -> But the worst was yet to come Sarepta approvals: 2016 to present -> Three more drugs were approved from Sarepta on the same shoddy basis, proving Califf's promises that Exondys 51 was an isolated case empty [8,14] -> But things would take a turn for the worse with Sarepta's newest drug Elevidys in 2024 [19] -> At last a rigorous clinical trial looking at actual clinical outcomes was published [19,20] -> All would be put to rest -> At long last the issue could be resolved with HARD CLINICAL DATA -> There was only one problem -> The trial failed to show any benefit according to the primary outcome [19,20] -> The surrogate biomarker of micro-dystrophin meant absolutely nothing; it wasn't actually helping patients [19,20] -> What did FDA scientists do? They voted against approval. Of course [19] -> How could they not? The drug didn't actually work in the clinical trial [19] -> It's the only thing that made sense, since FDA is a scientific agency -> AND THEY WERE OVERRULED AGAIN BY PETER MARKS [19] -> YES THAT'S RIGHT, OVERRULED YET AGAIN -> PHARMA WINS AGAIN -> HAHAHAHAHAHA PHARMA ALWAYS WINS YOU FOOLS -> What happened is that Marks crossed his eyes somewhat, trying to make the words on the page blurry -> He prayed really hard, "my god please give me a sign, something, anything, I need this for my career" -> lzzosolsolzzolzozlslzolosllslozllzlzl -> Marks was trying really hard to see SOMETHING, come on come on, give me SOMETHIGN he said -> And he said: wait, look, there are these secondary, exploratory endpoints and a two of them look pretty good, I'LL APPROVE [19,20] -> AHAHAHHAHAHA YES PHAMRA WINS AGAIN -> And Marks said, "Thank you pharma go- I mean god, not pharma god, why did I just say that, FCK" -> The trial was explicitly designed for what Marks did NOT to happen [20] -> Once the primary endpoint was not met, the secondary endpoints couldn't even be statistically tested [20] -> And the trial explicitly said that they could not be interpreted the way Marks interpreted them [20] -> They were not adjusted for multiplicity and they were, like expression of dystrophin, simply bad endpoints [20] -> These two secondary endpoints were time to rise from lying on the floor and the 10-meter walk/run tests [20] -> Subjects who received the Elevidys performed, on average, about 0.5 seconds better than placebo recipients on these tasks [20] -> However several facts must be borne in mind when interpreting these: -> 1. At the time of testing, patients receiving the drug were receiving more corticosteroids than placebo patients, biasing the results [20] -> 2. Blinding might have been broken because those receiving the drug experienced lots of nausea and vomiting from the drug (~70%) [20] -> 3. These differences were tiny and may be attributable to chance, since the natural course of the disease varies widely [20] -> Marks knows this but who cares? Pharma I mean Facebook needed to be placated Elevidys: the drug -> To understand why this is so messed up, one must understand a few things -> On a Bayesian basis, one must assume that Elevidys is harmful until proven otherwise, for two reasons: -> 1. All drugs are potentially "toxic", but some toxins heal: by default you must assume it is a toxin that does not heal because this is what is actually usually the case; you need evidence that it actually heals -> 2. Elevidys IN PARTICULAR must be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise because of the very nature of the drug -> Let's do a breakdown of the basic science of Elevidys that supports this (Bayesian) hypothesis: -> Gene therapy that permanently integrates into human genome [21] -> Meant to replace dystrophin, the protein that these patients cannot produce themselves [21] -> Preferentially targets muscle but gets expressed everywhere [21] -> Killed three people this year [6,21] -> Costs $3.2 million per injection [21] -> Truncated version of the protein it is supposed to replace [21] -> 3X shorter than the real protein [21] -> Has to be truncated because the technology cannot create the full protein [21] -> Because it's an abnormal protein, it's foreign, so immune system attacks it [21] -> Patients injected with drug are basically given an autoimmune disease [21] -> Patients have to be given anti-inflammatories to fight the disease that the drug causes [21] -> Causes terrible muscle inflammation [21] -> Inflames the heart, heart walls thicken because of the inflammation [21] -> Blows up the liver, causes acute liver injury and death [21] Drug should actually be assumed harmful, not beneficial -> Given all of the above, since the drug failed to meet its primary endpoint, it should actually be considered harmful by default, not beneficial [19,20] -> In other words, what we would actually expect if we added more patients and did an even larger study... -> Is that the drug would do worse than placebo, i.e., patients taking the drug would do worse than those taking placebo -> Why isn't this the default interpretation? -> They are reading the study with an intervention bias -> An intervention bias is natural, which is why "do no harm" is such a central tenet of medicine -> If I may put forward a thesis: most of Vinay Prasad's 500+-paper body of work has been dedicated to demonstrating the "do no harm" principle empirically [22] -> Rose-colored glasses study interpreters are simply not applying this principle properly and are thus failing scientifically in the most fundamental way -> Incomprehensible -> Back in 2016, scientists were adamant that the approval of Sarepta's first drug indicated the profound deterioration of scientific standards [8,9] -> But this latest approval is even worse: actual clinical data is now being overruled -> No standards at all are being enforced anymore; anything can now be approved based on any evidence whatsoever -> What Vinay was trying to do was simply to stop the unrelenting downslide -> And his firing punctuated that downslide for what it was The WSJ segment -> When Elevidys was approved, former FDA chief scientist and one of the original reviewers of Sarepta's first drug Luciana Borio said: -> "I don’t know what to say. Peter Marks makes a mockery of scientific reasoning and approval standards that have served patients well over decades. This type of action also promotes the growing mistrust in scientific institutions like the FDA." [23] -> To return to this video, these two WSJ reporters show an incredible level of ignorance and arrogance -> Finley says that the drug is "clearly" beneficial by misreading the secondary endpoints, just like Marks did -> An FDA memo from last year says about these endpoints: "Under these circumstances, they are misleading and cannot guide any stakeholders—including patients, family members and caregivers, and prescribers—in making informed decisions about the potential benefit of treatment with ELEVIDYS." [20] -> It really doesn't get any clearer than that -> But these two journalists are overruling the actual scientists, just like Marks did -> One of the most incredible comments during this interview was the complaint that "90% of clinical trials fail", as if that's bad thing [1] -> It's actually a good thing; most drugs suck; failing in clinical trial actually allows us to use only the drugs that don't suck -> These people don't understand the most fundamental purpose of the clinical trial -> They think clinical trials failing is a bad thing, as if it means that patients now won't get to use a useful drug -> No, it's a good thing, because it means that patients won't be exposed unnecessarily to a useless drug that might harm them -> The level of ignorance really is unbelievable -> What's worse is that these "journalists" defend their decision -> But what they did is exploit social media hysteria caused by Laura Loomer [1,7] -> Following up on her heels with editorials, using her as pharma attack dog [1,4] -> This is a huge blow to WSJ's credibility, and they know it -> Unbelievably shameful Where do we go from here? -> The Vinay Prasad firing creates a serious crisis of credibility at FDA [2,6] -> Up to this point, we could call these approvals a difference of opinion, but as we've seen, that's a huge stretch -> But any illusion of that is now shattered: the firing shows that drug regulation is explicitly political -> Janet Woodcock: approve, keep job -> Peter Marks: approve, keep job -> Vinay Prasad: block, transparently fired -> Make a decision that is anti-pharma and lose your job: that's the message -> Who can trust any decision at FDA anymore? -> RFK Jr. and Marty Makary both stand behind Vinay Prasad [24] -> Trump went along with lockdowns, he went along with mask mandates, he went along with all of the Covid pseudoscience that he now decries -> He should reverse course and not go along with this -> Trump has created a profound crisis of credibility at FDA and needs to fix it
5:41

An interview by VERY DARK AND CORRUPT Wall Street Journal aired today [1] WSJ's terrible "journalists" (and I use that term lightly) made many false statements about Sarepta's worthless, dangerous drug and Vinay Prasad's firing [1,2] I explain how the FDA sausage is made in excruciating detail Buckle up To get readers up to speed -> In June, corrupt pharma company Sarepta Therapeutics paid $40,000 to lobbying group Michael Best Strategies (MBS) to deal with a problem [3] -> MBS had recently hired Chris LaCivita, who had close connections with "MAGA" influencer Laura Loomer [4] -> With stock down 88%, Sarepta needed to sell their very bad, very dangerous drug or the company would go bankrupt [5] -> After several deaths from the drug this year, FDA official Vinay Prasad said "no way" and kicked the drug to the curb [2,6] -> Sarepta panicked and paid MBS (we believe) to deal with Prasad [3,4] -> If this story is right, LaCivita recruited Laura Loomer to take down Prasad [4,7] -> Loomer said she was defending Trump, but she was lying [7] -> She was defending taxpayer-funded payouts to a worthless, corrupt company [7] -> Laura Loomer so brave A history of bad drugs and regulatory failure -> This is one of the worst pharma scandals in American history and corrupt mainstream media isn't covering it -> Sarepta has a very long, troubled history [8] -> For more than a decade, every major Sarepta FDA drug approval has required INTENSE political intervention [8,9] -> Scientists at FDA have been repeatedly overruled [8,9] -> Many scientists have resigned, very publicly, over these POLITICAL decisions, some writing scathing public criticisms of these terrible decisions [10,11] -> The most recent resignation by Vinay Prasad is not something new; it follows in a long tradition [2,10] -> In fact, standards have dramatically deteriorated since the first controversies about the company's drugs in the 2010s [8,9] -> Prasad was trying to hold the line in the face of rapidly deteriorating standards at the agency [2,6] -> For that, pharma launched a coup--a literal coup of a drug regulator [4,6] -> This is unprecedented -> Banana republic sht, unbelievably corrupt 2016: first Sarepta drug approval and the "highly unusual" decision -> The first Sarepta drug approved by FDA was called Exondys 51 [8] -> This drug was for patients with mutations in dystrophin, a muscle protein [8] -> This is a debilitating and fatal disease affecting children [8] -> Exondys 51 increased dystrophin by 0.2% of normal levels [8,12] -> Unsurprisingly, there was no good evidence the drug worked [8,12] -> Why would it? It increases the protein from zero to 1/500th of normal levels -> One reviewer wrote: "I can find no precedent of an accelerated approval for a marketing application where the effect size on the surrogate endpoint is as small as 0.3%." [12] -> The study submitted by the company included no proper control group [12] -> The techniques used were so bad not even a first-year PhD student would do a study that way -> This the level of work you would expect from a mediocre undergraduate with no guidance -> It's almost like it was so bad on purpose -> (Narrator: it was on purpose) -> Nerd time: -> One reviewer wrote: "The Western blots submitted by the applicant for Study 201 were oversaturated, unreliable, and uninterpretable." [12] -> Another wrote: "Because CDER also determined that the conditions under which the original IHC analysis was performed were inadequate, including that the reader was not masked to sequence and time, the Center requested a re-reading of the stored images by three masked pathologists under different conditions. The IHC results from the reread were not nearly as favorable, as compared to the initial IHC results reported by Sarepta." [12] -> "The lack of concordance between the IHC and the Western Blot results is 'striking'" [12] -> "Study 201/202 had fundamental flaws, including baseline biopsies from external controls who could differ in unknown ways from study subjects, Week 180 biopsies from different muscles than baseline, and potential protein degradation in stored baseline samples." [12] -> And on and on. -> FDA commissioner Robert Califf wrote at the time: the submitted study was "characterized by major flaws in the clinical study design" and "Blinded experts assembled by the FDA fundamentally debunked this study, which has yet to be retracted and continues to be cited" [9,12] -> That's right, the FDA commissioner expressed dismay that the study that the company used to gain approval hadn't yet been retracted, it was so bad [9] -> Senior FDA official Janet Woodcock decided to approve before scientific review team had even voted [9,12] -> Woodcock be like: yeah i'm going to decide before you guys can because i know what you're going to say lol -> Despite external intense pressure, FDA scientists voted against Exondys 51's efficacy [9,12] -> They then voted against its accelerated approval [9,12] -> The review team filed an appeal with FDA commissioner after "passionate" disagreement with Woodcock [9,12] -> One reviewer called Woodcock's decision "unprecedented" [12] -> In a 126-page report, FDA commissioner Califf called Woodcock's decision "highly unusual" [9] -> The FDA board wrote: "[Woodcock's] involvement here appears to have upended the typical review and decision-making process. ... Care should be taken to avoid the appearance of interfering with the integrity of scientific reviews at the lower levels of a Center." [9] -> Again, the data were unbelievably bad, literally every technique in the study was inappropriately used [12] -> I would fire an undergraduate student who did science like this, immediately -> FDA's chief scientist accused Sarepta of "serious irresponsibility" for selectively publishing only some of the data [9] -> Even Woodcock, who approved the drug, called the research "seriously deficient" [12] -> Yes, even the person who approved the drug over the heads of FDA's scientists said the research was horrible [12] -> Still, FDA tried to bury their heads in the sand and beg that, basically, Sarepta pretty please do a better job next time -> FDA commissioner: "The utmost attention should be paid to optimizing the methodological rigor of [future] trial[s]" [9] -> FDA also demanded a clinical trial "to verify the benefit" of the drug [8] -> Welp, this was in 2016 [8] -> The trial results are supposed to be available in 2026, maybe [13] -> Or maybe later, depending on how much money needs to be made first -> As an article published in Nature three years later despaired of the decision: "The approval was conditional on the company agreeing to conduct a two-year post-approval trial to show Exondys 51’s efficacy. But by August 2019, the company had yet to begin such a trial and in the meantime had profited from sales of $300 million in 2018." [13] -> If it sounds like Sarepta used political pressure to get its drug approved and then tried to avoid actually publishing the study showing it didn't work, it sounds that way because that's exactly what happened [13] -> FDA commissioner after deferring to Woodcock: "I am confident this unique situation will not set a general precedent for drug approvals under the accelerated approval pathway, as the statute and regulations are clear each situation must be evaluated on its own merits based on the totality of data and information." [9] -> This statement was profoundly naive, and the historical record bears this out [8,14] -> Three FDA scientists resigned, including the lead reviewer of the drug, understanding the grave implications of the collapse of scientific standards and where they would lead [10,11] -> One was John K. Jenkins, M.D. Director, Office of New Drugs Center for Drug Evaluation and Research/FDA [10] -> In a presentation given just before his resignation, he wrote: -> "Path taken by Sarepta NOT a good model for other development programs" [10] -> Crucially: -> "Upholding statutory standards for approval in face of hopes and desires of patients, families, sponsors, and investors is a very difficult job" [10] -> "Personal attacks on FDA reviewers creates an atmosphere of distrust and isolation rather than collaboration" [10] This brings us to WHY Sarepta's drug was approved Facebook FDA -> So why did the drug get approved? -> Basically, Sarepta propagandized extremely desperate patients [9,15] -> They used miraculous snake oil promises and patients believed them -> Remember that this is life or death for patients, and they are extremely vulnerable -> Sarepta also professionally trained some patients to give testimonials to FDA and congress [15] -> The patients then went to congressmen who don't have time to understand the science [15] -> They gave emotional stories to congressmen [15] -> The result: -> Letter from 109 House members [15] -> Letter from 24 Senate members [15] -> And a media circus documented in the New York Times [16] -> Patients screaming at scientists during meetings [9] -> 2,792 emails written to FDA urging approval [12] -> One of them: "Dear Dr. califf: How is it that everyone in and around DMD understands this simple Idea and the science geniuses at FDA don't? You stupid fckers are costing each and every DMD kids days of their lives with your Moronic Dystrophin dance. Time to get a fcking clue" [12] -> Upon approval, a journalist for Reuters wrote: "owing to pressure from patient advocates, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Monday approved a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy even though an outside panel of experts and the agency's own reviewers questioned the drug's efficacy" [17] -> A commentary in Nature Medicine was also published called "Railroading at the FDA" [9] -> Its author wrote: "In the words of one FDA committee member, Exondys lowers the agency's evidentiary standard for drug effectiveness 'to an unprecedented nadir.'" [9] -> A highly critical commentary was also published in Science, titled "Sarepta gets an approval - Unfortunately" [18] -> The article's author pharma veteran Derek Lowe wrote: "The company... called up Duchenne-affected boys and their families to plead with the FDA, and won over Janet Woodcock, and that appears to be enough. Is this going to be the new way to get a drug approved? Run a trial in a dozen people, generate unconvincing data, and then lobby Janet Woodcock? I share the worries that this might open the floodgates, because after all, Sarepta got their drug through." [18] -> One FDA reviewer ended in an equally grim note: ". Approval of this NDA would send the signal that political pressure and even intimidation – not science – guides FDA decisions, with extremely negative consequences. The public is well aware of this development program: the meager size of the study population, the marginal (at best) effect size, the Division’s dim view of the efficacy data, and the robust activism of some members of the DMD community. Many would be amazed at an approval action, because other DMD drugs, recently turned down for approval, appeared to provide stronger evidence of efficacy. ...The ramifications here are profound. The public will perceive that it was their unprecedented lobbying efforts that made the difference and earned eteplirsen its accelerated approval. For the future, this will have the effect of strongly encouraging public activism and intimidation as a substitute for data, which is one of the worst possible consequences for communities with rare diseases. This type of activism is not what was envisioned for patient-focused drug development." [12] -> A new era was born -> Activism had replaced data -> Facebook had fried people's brains -> And now Facebook-fried brains had fried FDA too -> FDA's credibility as a regulatory agency would now be hollowed out -> FDA's Facebook age had begun -> But the worst was yet to come Sarepta approvals: 2016 to present -> Three more drugs were approved from Sarepta on the same shoddy basis, proving Califf's promises that Exondys 51 was an isolated case empty [8,14] -> But things would take a turn for the worse with Sarepta's newest drug Elevidys in 2024 [19] -> At last a rigorous clinical trial looking at actual clinical outcomes was published [19,20] -> All would be put to rest -> At long last the issue could be resolved with HARD CLINICAL DATA -> There was only one problem -> The trial failed to show any benefit according to the primary outcome [19,20] -> The surrogate biomarker of micro-dystrophin meant absolutely nothing; it wasn't actually helping patients [19,20] -> What did FDA scientists do? They voted against approval. Of course [19] -> How could they not? The drug didn't actually work in the clinical trial [19] -> It's the only thing that made sense, since FDA is a scientific agency -> AND THEY WERE OVERRULED AGAIN BY PETER MARKS [19] -> YES THAT'S RIGHT, OVERRULED YET AGAIN -> PHARMA WINS AGAIN -> HAHAHAHAHAHA PHARMA ALWAYS WINS YOU FOOLS -> What happened is that Marks crossed his eyes somewhat, trying to make the words on the page blurry -> He prayed really hard, "my god please give me a sign, something, anything, I need this for my career" -> lzzosolsolzzolzozlslzolosllslozllzlzl -> Marks was trying really hard to see SOMETHING, come on come on, give me SOMETHIGN he said -> And he said: wait, look, there are these secondary, exploratory endpoints and a two of them look pretty good, I'LL APPROVE [19,20] -> AHAHAHHAHAHA YES PHAMRA WINS AGAIN -> And Marks said, "Thank you pharma go- I mean god, not pharma god, why did I just say that, FCK" -> The trial was explicitly designed for what Marks did NOT to happen [20] -> Once the primary endpoint was not met, the secondary endpoints couldn't even be statistically tested [20] -> And the trial explicitly said that they could not be interpreted the way Marks interpreted them [20] -> They were not adjusted for multiplicity and they were, like expression of dystrophin, simply bad endpoints [20] -> These two secondary endpoints were time to rise from lying on the floor and the 10-meter walk/run tests [20] -> Subjects who received the Elevidys performed, on average, about 0.5 seconds better than placebo recipients on these tasks [20] -> However several facts must be borne in mind when interpreting these: -> 1. At the time of testing, patients receiving the drug were receiving more corticosteroids than placebo patients, biasing the results [20] -> 2. Blinding might have been broken because those receiving the drug experienced lots of nausea and vomiting from the drug (~70%) [20] -> 3. These differences were tiny and may be attributable to chance, since the natural course of the disease varies widely [20] -> Marks knows this but who cares? Pharma I mean Facebook needed to be placated Elevidys: the drug -> To understand why this is so messed up, one must understand a few things -> On a Bayesian basis, one must assume that Elevidys is harmful until proven otherwise, for two reasons: -> 1. All drugs are potentially "toxic", but some toxins heal: by default you must assume it is a toxin that does not heal because this is what is actually usually the case; you need evidence that it actually heals -> 2. Elevidys IN PARTICULAR must be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise because of the very nature of the drug -> Let's do a breakdown of the basic science of Elevidys that supports this (Bayesian) hypothesis: -> Gene therapy that permanently integrates into human genome [21] -> Meant to replace dystrophin, the protein that these patients cannot produce themselves [21] -> Preferentially targets muscle but gets expressed everywhere [21] -> Killed three people this year [6,21] -> Costs $3.2 million per injection [21] -> Truncated version of the protein it is supposed to replace [21] -> 3X shorter than the real protein [21] -> Has to be truncated because the technology cannot create the full protein [21] -> Because it's an abnormal protein, it's foreign, so immune system attacks it [21] -> Patients injected with drug are basically given an autoimmune disease [21] -> Patients have to be given anti-inflammatories to fight the disease that the drug causes [21] -> Causes terrible muscle inflammation [21] -> Inflames the heart, heart walls thicken because of the inflammation [21] -> Blows up the liver, causes acute liver injury and death [21] Drug should actually be assumed harmful, not beneficial -> Given all of the above, since the drug failed to meet its primary endpoint, it should actually be considered harmful by default, not beneficial [19,20] -> In other words, what we would actually expect if we added more patients and did an even larger study... -> Is that the drug would do worse than placebo, i.e., patients taking the drug would do worse than those taking placebo -> Why isn't this the default interpretation? -> They are reading the study with an intervention bias -> An intervention bias is natural, which is why "do no harm" is such a central tenet of medicine -> If I may put forward a thesis: most of Vinay Prasad's 500+-paper body of work has been dedicated to demonstrating the "do no harm" principle empirically [22] -> Rose-colored glasses study interpreters are simply not applying this principle properly and are thus failing scientifically in the most fundamental way -> Incomprehensible -> Back in 2016, scientists were adamant that the approval of Sarepta's first drug indicated the profound deterioration of scientific standards [8,9] -> But this latest approval is even worse: actual clinical data is now being overruled -> No standards at all are being enforced anymore; anything can now be approved based on any evidence whatsoever -> What Vinay was trying to do was simply to stop the unrelenting downslide -> And his firing punctuated that downslide for what it was The WSJ segment -> When Elevidys was approved, former FDA chief scientist and one of the original reviewers of Sarepta's first drug Luciana Borio said: -> "I don’t know what to say. Peter Marks makes a mockery of scientific reasoning and approval standards that have served patients well over decades. This type of action also promotes the growing mistrust in scientific institutions like the FDA." [23] -> To return to this video, these two WSJ reporters show an incredible level of ignorance and arrogance -> Finley says that the drug is "clearly" beneficial by misreading the secondary endpoints, just like Marks did -> An FDA memo from last year says about these endpoints: "Under these circumstances, they are misleading and cannot guide any stakeholders—including patients, family members and caregivers, and prescribers—in making informed decisions about the potential benefit of treatment with ELEVIDYS." [20] -> It really doesn't get any clearer than that -> But these two journalists are overruling the actual scientists, just like Marks did -> One of the most incredible comments during this interview was the complaint that "90% of clinical trials fail", as if that's bad thing [1] -> It's actually a good thing; most drugs suck; failing in clinical trial actually allows us to use only the drugs that don't suck -> These people don't understand the most fundamental purpose of the clinical trial -> They think clinical trials failing is a bad thing, as if it means that patients now won't get to use a useful drug -> No, it's a good thing, because it means that patients won't be exposed unnecessarily to a useless drug that might harm them -> The level of ignorance really is unbelievable -> What's worse is that these "journalists" defend their decision -> But what they did is exploit social media hysteria caused by Laura Loomer [1,7] -> Following up on her heels with editorials, using her as pharma attack dog [1,4] -> This is a huge blow to WSJ's credibility, and they know it -> Unbelievably shameful Where do we go from here? -> The Vinay Prasad firing creates a serious crisis of credibility at FDA [2,6] -> Up to this point, we could call these approvals a difference of opinion, but as we've seen, that's a huge stretch -> But any illusion of that is now shattered: the firing shows that drug regulation is explicitly political -> Janet Woodcock: approve, keep job -> Peter Marks: approve, keep job -> Vinay Prasad: block, transparently fired -> Make a decision that is anti-pharma and lose your job: that's the message -> Who can trust any decision at FDA anymore? -> RFK Jr. and Marty Makary both stand behind Vinay Prasad [24] -> Trump went along with lockdowns, he went along with mask mandates, he went along with all of the Covid pseudoscience that he now decries -> He should reverse course and not go along with this -> Trump has created a profound crisis of credibility at FDA and needs to fix it

Kevin Bass

80,314 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Think your Project 2025 will work? It failed miserably for 1940s world, Germany and it will fail you now. We need to make America grateful again. The American people deserve far better than this convicted felon. If Trump is re-elected, expect a regression not to 1776 but to the 1760s, complete with taxation without representation. Save your money, sharpen your manual labor skills, and prepare to lose healthcare and social security, as society splits by class and with robots, you'll find yourselves competing with AI. Canada and Mexico, consider revising your asylum laws, as many Americans might seek your sanctuary. Under King Trump, expect state sell-offs to Putin. Start learning Russian and get accustomed to cheap vodka. 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓: Project 2025, backed by The Heritage Foundation and endorsed by Donald Trump, is a central Republican strategy for 2024. This comprehensive plan aims to reshape the federal government according to conservative principles, dangerously centralizing executive power and sidelining Congress. Historical parallels, such as Nazi Germany, warn of its authoritarian potential.⁣⁣⁣ ⁣⁣⁣ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫: Vought's plan emphasizes executive power while bypassing Congress, mirroring Hitler's use of the Enabling Act of 1933, which allowed his government to enact laws without the Reichstag's consent. This erodes the constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances.⁣⁣⁣ •𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐨𝐲𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬: Vought aims to staff the government with Trump loyalists, akin to how Nazis replaced civil servants and judges with party members, compromising the impartiality and independence of the civil service and judiciary.⁣⁣⁣ •𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐁𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬: Vought's intention to dismantle the "administrative state" targets essential regulatory agencies, much like the Nazi process of Gleichschaltung, which brought all aspects of German society under their control.⁣⁣⁣ •𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: Vought's team is preparing legal justifications to expand executive power, similar to Nazi legal theorists who advocated for the Nazification of German law, violating constitutional norms.⁣⁣⁣ •𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐓𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬: Vought's plan is influenced by conservative think tanks, just as Nazi policies were shaped by racist and authoritarian ideologies.⁣⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ Russ Vought’s plan fundamentally betrays the principle of putting America first. By seeking to concentrate executive power, bypass Congress, and dismantle essential regulatory agencies, Vought places personal and partisan interests above the nation’s welfare. His agenda undermines the integrity of the federal workforce, politicizes governance, and destroys public trust in democratic institutions. This strategy paves the way for autocratic rule, sacrificing the very foundations of American democracy for authoritarian control. Vought’s vision jeopardizes the nation's stability and prosperity, putting America last and prioritizing power over the people.⁣⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ For anyone who believes his lies about not supporting Project 2025: There are several areas where Donald Trump's policies and campaign speeches align with aspects of Project 2025, despite Trump publicly lying and trying to distance himself from the project. Here are the key alignments: Expanding Executive Power: Trump campaigns on vastly expanding executive authority over the federal government, aligning with Project 2025's goal of consolidating executive power. Restructuring Federal Workforce: Trump proposes implementing the "Jacksonian spoils system" to replace government employees. Similarly, Project 2025 suggests reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees to replace them with loyalists. Immigration Policies: Trump advocates for anti-immigrant policies and a massive deportation operation. This aligns with Project 2025's focus on defending national borders and sovereignty. "America First" Foreign Policy: Trump promotes an isolationist "America First" agenda, in line with Project 2025's emphasis on national sovereignty. Anti-Regulatory Stance: Trump intends to institute anti-regulatory policies, aligning with Project 2025's goal of dismantling the "administrative state." Social and Cultural Issues: Trump leans into nativist and anti-LGBT rhetoric, corresponding with Project 2025's aim to infuse government and society with conservative Christian values. Education Reforms: Trump proposes terminating the Department of Education, while Project 2025 suggests decentralizing its authority. Energy and Environmental Policies: Trump pursues a climate change denial and anti-clean energy platform, aligning with Project 2025's likely stance on energy deregulation. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. American people deserve better than TFG Trump stiffed hardworking contractors, knowing they couldn't afford prolonged legal battles. Republicans did nothing about it. His Trump University misled veterans and everyday people, resulting in millions in fines. Republicans did nothing about it. He used $250 million from your donations as his "defense" fund to cover personal expenses. Republicans did nothing about it. He manipulated elderly supporters by quietly setting up recurring donations, draining their bank accounts. Republicans did nothing about it. I mean who steals money from a children's cancer charity? Republicans did nothing about it. At last, he's facing consequences for trying to undermine U.S. democracy by pulling all stops to snatch an election he knew was lost. He even went to the extent of calling for the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution, which he vowed to defend. Republicans did nothing about it. If you still believe he's innocent, the problem isn't with him; it's you. You are in a cult. Republicans did nothing about this cult-like following. Several of Donald Trump's former Cabinet members and close allies have openly declared they won't support him in future elections, each providing their own reasons for this stance. Here's a quick rundown of their views: Mike Pence: The ex-Vice President isn't endorsing Trump for the 2024 race, pointing to "profound differences" that go beyond their January 6 disagreement, including Trump's views on TikTok, abortion, and national debt management. John Bolton: The former National Security Adviser won't vote for Trump or Biden, planning to choose a conservative Republican instead. He's voiced concerns over Trump's suitability for office and his foreign policy moves. James Mattis: The former Defense Secretary has critiqued Trump for dividing Americans and questioned his leadership and its impact on national unity. Mark Esper: Trump's second Defense Secretary considers him unfit for office, citing Trump's self-interest and lack of integrity. Rex Tillerson: The ex-Secretary of State has been critical of Trump's grasp on global events and history, suggesting he's unprepared and uninformed. John Kelly: Trump's longest-serving Chief of Staff has criticized Trump's personality and leadership style. Mick Mulvaney: The former Chief of Staff prefers someone else as the GOP nominee, doubting Trump's chances against Biden in a general election. Dan Coats: The former Director of National Intelligence is backing Mike Pence in the GOP primary over Trump. Jeff Sessions: Despite supporting Trump's agenda, the former Attorney General has had conflicts with Trump, especially over the Russia investigation and his recusal from it. Olivia Troye: A former Pence advisor, Troye has slammed Trump's COVID-19 response, accusing him of putting reelection before public health. Miles Taylor: Describing his time in the Trump administration as "terrifying," the former DHS chief of staff has endorsed Biden, citing Trump's threat to the country. Elizabeth Neumann: The ex-Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism at DHS has accused Trump of worsening the domestic terrorism threat and declared her vote for Biden. Anthony Scaramucci: The short-lived White House Communications Director supports Biden, critiquing Trump's leadership and policies. These individuals cite various concerns about Trump's leadership, policy decisions, integrity, and the negative effects on the country's unity and security as reasons for withdrawing their support for his future political endeavor! If these individuals, all handpicked by you, refuse to vote for you, then why should anyone believe anything you say? Trump's other 'achievements': -Gave over $1.7 TRILLION (5 times student relief) in tax breaks to the ultrarich. Republicans did nothing about the inequality it exacerbated. $7.8 TRILLION added to the deficit. Nothing but 8 miles of new wall Mexico was supposed to pay. Republicans did nothing about this fiscal irresponsibility. -$150 Million for golf. Republicans did nothing about this misuse of funds. -Had to be praised every 5 minutes. Republicans did nothing about this egoism. -Lied over 30,000 times in 4 years. Republicans did nothing about these falsehoods. -Kissed Putin's behind in Helsinki in front of the world. Republicans did nothing about this display of subservience. -Got impeached twice in one term :). Republicans did nothing to hold him accountable. -Asked for dirt on his opponent, twice. Republicans did nothing about these unethical requests. -Tried everything to steal our election. Republicans did nothing to safeguard our democratic processes. -Taxpayers overpaid for his secret service $1200 per night staying at his properties. Republicans did nothing about this profiteering. -Gave Taliban their leader & 5K soldiers, with no exit plan for May 2021. Republicans did nothing about this strategic blunder. -His campaign chair, NSA chief & others were indicted/pardoned. Republicans did nothing about this corruption. -Called himself THE CHOSEN1! :)). Republicans did nothing about this messianic complex. -Pleaded the 5th 440 times. Republicans did nothing about this evasion of accountability. -Took over $250 million from his supporters when he left office for "Defense Fund" to pay his own personal bills. Republicans did nothing about this exploitation. -Stole our national secrets for who knows why. Many top secret empty folders. Republicans did nothing about this breach of national security. -Met with Putin with no recordings. Republicans did nothing about this lack of transparency. Trump's Taxing Concerns in China: The New York Times unveiled Trump paying over $188,000 in taxes to China between 2013-2015, while maintaining an undisclosed bank account there. He paid more taxes to China than in the U.S. Spot the issue? Republicans did nothing about this financial conflict of interest. Shady Transactions Post White House: His son-in-law, despite failing a White House security clearance, received $3.1 billion from a foreign government right after leaving office. Questions, anyone? Republicans did nothing about these dubious dealings. Allegations of Trump's Criminal Acts: Republicans did nothing about these numerous allegations of criminal misconduct. Trump's Ties to Russia: Republicans did nothing about these troubling connections and implications for national security. 4th Indictment Against Trump: Republicans did nothing about these accusations of election tampering and abuse of power. Third Indictment: Conspiracy to Defraud the US: Accused of unlawfully disrupting the 2020 election by making fraudulent claims and pressuring officials. Republicans did nothing about this blatant disregard for electoral integrity. -Obstructing an Official Proceeding: Accused of hindering Congress's January 6 certification of election results. Republicans did nothing about this direct threat to our democratic process. -Obstruction of Official Proceeding: Alleged to have impeded certification by pressuring Pence and inciting the Capitol riot. Republicans did nothing about this dangerous escalation of political tension. -Conspiracy Against Rights: Accused of intimidating election officials and disenfranchising voters. Republicans did nothing about these serious threats to voter rights. Second Indictment Highlights: -Knowledge and Intent: Accused of withholding subpoenaed documents, suggesting possible illegal intent. Republicans did nothing about this obstruction of justice. -Obstruction of Justice: Allegedly kept unauthorized documents hidden from the National Archives. Republicans did nothing about this breach of protocol. -Evidence Depth: Varied evidence indicates illegal document acquisition and concealment attempts. Republicans did nothing about these potentially criminal actions. Additional Notes: -Document Selection: The 31 indictment documents were likely chosen for relevance. Republicans did nothing to address the significance of these selections. We can and do deserve better than these DO-NOTHING Republicans with their America First slogan. Our diversity is our STRENGTH, not a flaw. Republicans did nothing to embrace or celebrate this diversity, instead often standing in opposition to it.
0:30

Think your Project 2025 will work? It failed miserably for 1940s world, Germany and it will fail you now. We need to make America grateful again. The American people deserve far better than this convicted felon. If Trump is re-elected, expect a regression not to 1776 but to the 1760s, complete with taxation without representation. Save your money, sharpen your manual labor skills, and prepare to lose healthcare and social security, as society splits by class and with robots, you'll find yourselves competing with AI. Canada and Mexico, consider revising your asylum laws, as many Americans might seek your sanctuary. Under King Trump, expect state sell-offs to Putin. Start learning Russian and get accustomed to cheap vodka. 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓: Project 2025, backed by The Heritage Foundation and endorsed by Donald Trump, is a central Republican strategy for 2024. This comprehensive plan aims to reshape the federal government according to conservative principles, dangerously centralizing executive power and sidelining Congress. Historical parallels, such as Nazi Germany, warn of its authoritarian potential.⁣⁣⁣ ⁣⁣⁣ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫: Vought's plan emphasizes executive power while bypassing Congress, mirroring Hitler's use of the Enabling Act of 1933, which allowed his government to enact laws without the Reichstag's consent. This erodes the constitutional separation of powers and checks and balances.⁣⁣⁣ •𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐨𝐲𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬: Vought aims to staff the government with Trump loyalists, akin to how Nazis replaced civil servants and judges with party members, compromising the impartiality and independence of the civil service and judiciary.⁣⁣⁣ •𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐁𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬: Vought's intention to dismantle the "administrative state" targets essential regulatory agencies, much like the Nazi process of Gleichschaltung, which brought all aspects of German society under their control.⁣⁣⁣ •𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: Vought's team is preparing legal justifications to expand executive power, similar to Nazi legal theorists who advocated for the Nazification of German law, violating constitutional norms.⁣⁣⁣ •𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐓𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬: Vought's plan is influenced by conservative think tanks, just as Nazi policies were shaped by racist and authoritarian ideologies.⁣⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ Russ Vought’s plan fundamentally betrays the principle of putting America first. By seeking to concentrate executive power, bypass Congress, and dismantle essential regulatory agencies, Vought places personal and partisan interests above the nation’s welfare. His agenda undermines the integrity of the federal workforce, politicizes governance, and destroys public trust in democratic institutions. This strategy paves the way for autocratic rule, sacrificing the very foundations of American democracy for authoritarian control. Vought’s vision jeopardizes the nation's stability and prosperity, putting America last and prioritizing power over the people.⁣⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ For anyone who believes his lies about not supporting Project 2025: There are several areas where Donald Trump's policies and campaign speeches align with aspects of Project 2025, despite Trump publicly lying and trying to distance himself from the project. Here are the key alignments: Expanding Executive Power: Trump campaigns on vastly expanding executive authority over the federal government, aligning with Project 2025's goal of consolidating executive power. Restructuring Federal Workforce: Trump proposes implementing the "Jacksonian spoils system" to replace government employees. Similarly, Project 2025 suggests reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees to replace them with loyalists. Immigration Policies: Trump advocates for anti-immigrant policies and a massive deportation operation. This aligns with Project 2025's focus on defending national borders and sovereignty. "America First" Foreign Policy: Trump promotes an isolationist "America First" agenda, in line with Project 2025's emphasis on national sovereignty. Anti-Regulatory Stance: Trump intends to institute anti-regulatory policies, aligning with Project 2025's goal of dismantling the "administrative state." Social and Cultural Issues: Trump leans into nativist and anti-LGBT rhetoric, corresponding with Project 2025's aim to infuse government and society with conservative Christian values. Education Reforms: Trump proposes terminating the Department of Education, while Project 2025 suggests decentralizing its authority. Energy and Environmental Policies: Trump pursues a climate change denial and anti-clean energy platform, aligning with Project 2025's likely stance on energy deregulation. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. American people deserve better than TFG Trump stiffed hardworking contractors, knowing they couldn't afford prolonged legal battles. Republicans did nothing about it. His Trump University misled veterans and everyday people, resulting in millions in fines. Republicans did nothing about it. He used $250 million from your donations as his "defense" fund to cover personal expenses. Republicans did nothing about it. He manipulated elderly supporters by quietly setting up recurring donations, draining their bank accounts. Republicans did nothing about it. I mean who steals money from a children's cancer charity? Republicans did nothing about it. At last, he's facing consequences for trying to undermine U.S. democracy by pulling all stops to snatch an election he knew was lost. He even went to the extent of calling for the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution, which he vowed to defend. Republicans did nothing about it. If you still believe he's innocent, the problem isn't with him; it's you. You are in a cult. Republicans did nothing about this cult-like following. Several of Donald Trump's former Cabinet members and close allies have openly declared they won't support him in future elections, each providing their own reasons for this stance. Here's a quick rundown of their views: Mike Pence: The ex-Vice President isn't endorsing Trump for the 2024 race, pointing to "profound differences" that go beyond their January 6 disagreement, including Trump's views on TikTok, abortion, and national debt management. John Bolton: The former National Security Adviser won't vote for Trump or Biden, planning to choose a conservative Republican instead. He's voiced concerns over Trump's suitability for office and his foreign policy moves. James Mattis: The former Defense Secretary has critiqued Trump for dividing Americans and questioned his leadership and its impact on national unity. Mark Esper: Trump's second Defense Secretary considers him unfit for office, citing Trump's self-interest and lack of integrity. Rex Tillerson: The ex-Secretary of State has been critical of Trump's grasp on global events and history, suggesting he's unprepared and uninformed. John Kelly: Trump's longest-serving Chief of Staff has criticized Trump's personality and leadership style. Mick Mulvaney: The former Chief of Staff prefers someone else as the GOP nominee, doubting Trump's chances against Biden in a general election. Dan Coats: The former Director of National Intelligence is backing Mike Pence in the GOP primary over Trump. Jeff Sessions: Despite supporting Trump's agenda, the former Attorney General has had conflicts with Trump, especially over the Russia investigation and his recusal from it. Olivia Troye: A former Pence advisor, Troye has slammed Trump's COVID-19 response, accusing him of putting reelection before public health. Miles Taylor: Describing his time in the Trump administration as "terrifying," the former DHS chief of staff has endorsed Biden, citing Trump's threat to the country. Elizabeth Neumann: The ex-Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism at DHS has accused Trump of worsening the domestic terrorism threat and declared her vote for Biden. Anthony Scaramucci: The short-lived White House Communications Director supports Biden, critiquing Trump's leadership and policies. These individuals cite various concerns about Trump's leadership, policy decisions, integrity, and the negative effects on the country's unity and security as reasons for withdrawing their support for his future political endeavor! If these individuals, all handpicked by you, refuse to vote for you, then why should anyone believe anything you say? Trump's other 'achievements': -Gave over $1.7 TRILLION (5 times student relief) in tax breaks to the ultrarich. Republicans did nothing about the inequality it exacerbated. $7.8 TRILLION added to the deficit. Nothing but 8 miles of new wall Mexico was supposed to pay. Republicans did nothing about this fiscal irresponsibility. -$150 Million for golf. Republicans did nothing about this misuse of funds. -Had to be praised every 5 minutes. Republicans did nothing about this egoism. -Lied over 30,000 times in 4 years. Republicans did nothing about these falsehoods. -Kissed Putin's behind in Helsinki in front of the world. Republicans did nothing about this display of subservience. -Got impeached twice in one term :). Republicans did nothing to hold him accountable. -Asked for dirt on his opponent, twice. Republicans did nothing about these unethical requests. -Tried everything to steal our election. Republicans did nothing to safeguard our democratic processes. -Taxpayers overpaid for his secret service $1200 per night staying at his properties. Republicans did nothing about this profiteering. -Gave Taliban their leader & 5K soldiers, with no exit plan for May 2021. Republicans did nothing about this strategic blunder. -His campaign chair, NSA chief & others were indicted/pardoned. Republicans did nothing about this corruption. -Called himself THE CHOSEN1! :)). Republicans did nothing about this messianic complex. -Pleaded the 5th 440 times. Republicans did nothing about this evasion of accountability. -Took over $250 million from his supporters when he left office for "Defense Fund" to pay his own personal bills. Republicans did nothing about this exploitation. -Stole our national secrets for who knows why. Many top secret empty folders. Republicans did nothing about this breach of national security. -Met with Putin with no recordings. Republicans did nothing about this lack of transparency. Trump's Taxing Concerns in China: The New York Times unveiled Trump paying over $188,000 in taxes to China between 2013-2015, while maintaining an undisclosed bank account there. He paid more taxes to China than in the U.S. Spot the issue? Republicans did nothing about this financial conflict of interest. Shady Transactions Post White House: His son-in-law, despite failing a White House security clearance, received $3.1 billion from a foreign government right after leaving office. Questions, anyone? Republicans did nothing about these dubious dealings. Allegations of Trump's Criminal Acts: Republicans did nothing about these numerous allegations of criminal misconduct. Trump's Ties to Russia: Republicans did nothing about these troubling connections and implications for national security. 4th Indictment Against Trump: Republicans did nothing about these accusations of election tampering and abuse of power. Third Indictment: Conspiracy to Defraud the US: Accused of unlawfully disrupting the 2020 election by making fraudulent claims and pressuring officials. Republicans did nothing about this blatant disregard for electoral integrity. -Obstructing an Official Proceeding: Accused of hindering Congress's January 6 certification of election results. Republicans did nothing about this direct threat to our democratic process. -Obstruction of Official Proceeding: Alleged to have impeded certification by pressuring Pence and inciting the Capitol riot. Republicans did nothing about this dangerous escalation of political tension. -Conspiracy Against Rights: Accused of intimidating election officials and disenfranchising voters. Republicans did nothing about these serious threats to voter rights. Second Indictment Highlights: -Knowledge and Intent: Accused of withholding subpoenaed documents, suggesting possible illegal intent. Republicans did nothing about this obstruction of justice. -Obstruction of Justice: Allegedly kept unauthorized documents hidden from the National Archives. Republicans did nothing about this breach of protocol. -Evidence Depth: Varied evidence indicates illegal document acquisition and concealment attempts. Republicans did nothing about these potentially criminal actions. Additional Notes: -Document Selection: The 31 indictment documents were likely chosen for relevance. Republicans did nothing to address the significance of these selections. We can and do deserve better than these DO-NOTHING Republicans with their America First slogan. Our diversity is our STRENGTH, not a flaw. Republicans did nothing to embrace or celebrate this diversity, instead often standing in opposition to it.

Human☮🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🌊

42,994 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren