正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

𝐀 𝐌𝐀𝐍 𝐖𝐀𝐋𝐊𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐎 𝐀 𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐂𝐈𝐋 𝐌𝐄𝐄𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐋𝐈𝐁𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐇𝐄 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐋𝐎𝐔𝐃 It went viral as an “𝘶𝘯𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘵𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯” Then it clicked. This man must be a satirist (I hope), and he is operating at the very top of his craft. He steps to the... podium and opens with “𝘐𝘯 2015, 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱” From there it is a firehose of every talking point you have ever heard, delivered with a completely straight face. He mourns his “𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘹-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘸” who, he explains, wanted only one thing for his birthday: the COVID vaccine, “𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺” That was the tell. 𝐒𝐢𝐱-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫-𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐲. 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫. 𝐀𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. You cannot write a sharper parody of the worldview than that. Then he builds his case that Trump is worse than Hitler. His reasons: Trump “𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴” and Hitler does not. Hitler at least made people wear masks. And Hitler, he says, had the “𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺” to leave everyone alone. He closes with his hero, 𝐊𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐬 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐰𝐚𝐛, quoting the line back word for word: “𝘣𝘺 2030 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘺” “𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘴𝘩” The best part is the room. The council members keep glancing at each other — is this real? Is this actually happening? 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥. And that is the genius of it. Great satire works because it does not exaggerate. It just repeats the real thing, in order, with a straight face, until the absurdity speaks for itself. He did not invent a single one of these lines. He just stacked them. 𝐈𝐟 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞. 𝐀+.show more

M.A. Rothman

93,698 subscribers

19,134 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

32 条评论

John Dentino 的头像

John Dentino3 个月前

Yes, this is the very funny Cassidy Campbell, a comedian with 1.85 million subscribers on YouTube:

Carrie 的头像

Carrie3 个月前

This is why white liberals are so crazy! A new study from a Harvard Professor. This was hilarious! I laughed all the way through it. I'm bookmarking it and whenever I have a bad day I'll play it to get in a better mood!😂😂😂

jim 的头像

jim3 个月前

Thanks for reposting an Oldie, but Goody. But when parody becomes almost indistinguishable from reality, I think we need to seek new ways to mock the Left.

Simon Grunchy 的头像

Simon Grunchy3 个月前

You just can't make this stuff up. And they vote. I hope he's doing a parody.

Smeagolito Bandito 的头像

Smeagolito Bandito3 个月前

It’s satire. This guy is brilliant. Trolls town hall meetings, school board meetings, etc.

1_RONIN_PATRIOT 的头像

1_RONIN_PATRIOT3 个月前

The guy behind him laughing uncontrollably got me bro. EPIC!

The Chestnut Don 的头像

The Chestnut Don3 个月前

Guys, the dude is a YouTuber. He’s trolling on purpose. He’s a comedian who often does different character impressions.

Dan Brennan 的头像

Dan Brennan3 个月前

If you've ever had the misfortune to sit through public comments at a city council meeting you'd be accustomed to crackpots not so different from this guy's act.

Andrea🔥 的头像

Andrea🔥3 个月前

This guy is a prime example of ignorance and low IQ. All these people do is regurgitate mainstream media lies and propaganda. They don’t even bother to investigate anything on their own. Maybe most of these people can’t read. The truth is available but they refuse to seek it. If he did any research at all he would know that those covid shots are linked to heart problems. We have a serious problem with mental health issues with a lot of these far leftist. We need to make insane asylums great again.

Cox 的头像

Cox3 个月前

This might be the greatest troll in history! I can’t stop laughing! 🤣

Laurie Driesen 的头像

Laurie Driesen3 个月前

That is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time!

Kathryn Wright 的头像

Kathryn Wright3 个月前

He’s hysterical 🤣🤣🤣

Aimee S. 的头像

Aimee S.3 个月前

I am laughing so hard right now. Honestly I think I’ve become desensitized to this hysteria! 😂 shouldn’t I be horrified ?

Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries 的头像

Dan Kleinman @OccupyLibraries3 个月前

School librarians are funny. I mean he sounds like one to me.

So You Was Like Mine 的头像

So You Was Like Mine3 个月前

It’s hilarious that if he would’ve presented this like a normal human being without having a meltdown, he would’ve been escorted out within first minute, but since he pretended to be a crazy liberal, we let him finish the whole thing

Dale Jackson 的头像

Dale Jackson3 个月前

@grok this is satire right?

lynn ross 的头像

lynn ross3 个月前

That was brilliant

Trena 的头像

Trena3 个月前

How does that work out when your six years old and your transgender & gay? So are you a girl dressing as a guy fucking a guy? Or are you a guy dressing as a girl fucking a girl I’m confused. Who let that retard go out on the street without a caregiver?

FTW 🇺🇸 的头像

FTW 🇺🇸3 个月前

The guy behind him trying to hide his laughter.... 😂 This was hilarious! The scary part is how many dotards in this comment thread think it's real. Yes, Liberals are nuts, but come on people, the Hitler thing, the openly hay trans nephew, take a knee for george floyd, etc... he made it so obvious he was trolling liberals. Pretty funny!

James Donahue 的头像

James Donahue3 个月前

Thank you for providing my laugh of the day!

James Denney 的头像

James Denney3 个月前

Omg I can’t help but to laugh at this fucking RETARD! His 6 year old gay transgender nephew wanted his Covid 19 vaccine to support democracy🤯. Died of a heart attack but had nothing to do with the vax…but Trump supporters

K9 Alpha 的头像

K9 Alpha3 个月前

Hysterical

Brett Anderson 的头像

Brett Anderson3 个月前

How does a six year old have a heart attack? Maybe this libtard should quiet his mind for five minutes and listen to Dr. Peter McCullough

Shelli Crowder 的头像

Shelli Crowder3 个月前

Someone needs a tranquilizer if it wasn't satire

Deborah Brougher 的头像

Deborah Brougher3 个月前

This is funnier than Saturday night live!! And just as crazy!!!😂😂😂

John Chronister 的头像

John Chronister3 个月前

Dude never broke character. Great job.

Mark Farris 的头像

Mark Farris3 个月前

It took me more than one attempt to finish this video. I showed it to a coworker and he thought it might be someone pretending to be a crazy liberal. It was so hard to watch I gave up. I can’t imagine someone being that stupid on accident!! This cannot be real!!

Deplorable Andrew🌵🇺🇸 的头像

Deplorable Andrew🌵🇺🇸3 个月前

That’s not a deranged liberal. That is a content creator making stuff up for his audiences.

KedStemperwheel 的头像

KedStemperwheel3 个月前

I will financially support this.

Brian 的头像

Brian3 个月前

@SemperFi0101 I cant even watch this idiot....

Brian 的头像

Brian3 个月前

@SemperFi0101 Turrets Syndrome

Kath 的头像

Kath3 个月前

I recall seeing this video during Covid. There were a few guys doing this in person and at zoom council meetings. It was fun seeing how crazy they could get.

相关视频

This is Greg Gutfeld at his absolute best. Gutfeld just went on a minute-long monologue exposing how the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting shows you can be radicalized by “liberal smugness.” GUTFELD: “I think this is a helpful assassination attempt because it is the first one to show that you can be radicalized by liberal smugness.” “If you read his posts and if you read his manifesto, it sounds like every smarmy sanctimonious, self-satisfied pronouncement from an a**hole like Brandon Johnson, like Walz, like Lieu.” “The people that think they know better than you.” “This guy was not a crank. He was not deranged.” “Don’t buy into that narrative because it lets these pompous asses off.” “He didn’t have voices in his head.” “He was just following orders.” “He was operating on a filter that said Trump was Hitler and therefore it would be immoral if you didn’t take Hitler out.” “So his filter is actually making him logical.” “He’s the SANEST one in the group because he took them at their word.” “When MS NOW says Trump is Hitler, he’s the sensible one.” “He went our after Hitler!” GregGutfeld

This is Greg Gutfeld at his absolute best. Gutfeld just went on a minute-long monologue exposing how the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting shows you can be radicalized by “liberal smugness.” GUTFELD: “I think this is a helpful assassination attempt because it is the first one to show that you can be radicalized by liberal smugness.” “If you read his posts and if you read his manifesto, it sounds like every smarmy sanctimonious, self-satisfied pronouncement from an a**hole like Brandon Johnson, like Walz, like Lieu.” “The people that think they know better than you.” “This guy was not a crank. He was not deranged.” “Don’t buy into that narrative because it lets these pompous asses off.” “He didn’t have voices in his head.” “He was just following orders.” “He was operating on a filter that said Trump was Hitler and therefore it would be immoral if you didn’t take Hitler out.” “So his filter is actually making him logical.” “He’s the SANEST one in the group because he took them at their word.” “When MS NOW says Trump is Hitler, he’s the sensible one.” “He went our after Hitler!” GregGutfeld

Overton

74,209 次观看 • 5 个月前

I can't stop thinking about the scene where Leonidas wishes Ephialtes a long life, and Ephialtes reacts with despair. Viewers often interpret Leonidas's words as an insult. It was not; he meant them genuinely; he was recognizing Ephialtes as a man. What commenters miss is the confusion that briefly flashes on Leonidas's face after he sees Ephialtes's reaction. This creates a completely different interpretation. Leonidas was not insulting Ephialtes. His confusion shows that he thought of Ephialtes's actions as instrumental, for personal gain. But the true cause of Ephialtes's betrayal--his resentment--is something he cannot relate to. It is beyond his comprehension. Ephialtes was offered a role with the Spartan army. Tending to the wounded. Helping with supplies. But because he physically cannot participate as an equal within the Spartan ranks and is therefore refused that role, he rebels. But his rebellion is not against Leonidas. It is a rebellion against reality itself. It is a rebellion against the gods. Ephialtes was demanding a recognition that was physically impossible, given the sort of being that he was. And in response, he decides to betray and destroy everything that is good. Leonidas cannot comprehend that. It is so outside of his moral frame that it is the one thing about the unfolding events that he never understands before his death. It shows the purity of Leonidas's heart, the nobility that he takes with him to his death. This film is mythic. It is deeper than most people appreciate. When it was released, it was widely hated by liberal reviewers. The reasons for this are obvious. They are Ephialtes.

I can't stop thinking about the scene where Leonidas wishes Ephialtes a long life, and Ephialtes reacts with despair. Viewers often interpret Leonidas's words as an insult. It was not; he meant them genuinely; he was recognizing Ephialtes as a man. What commenters miss is the confusion that briefly flashes on Leonidas's face after he sees Ephialtes's reaction. This creates a completely different interpretation. Leonidas was not insulting Ephialtes. His confusion shows that he thought of Ephialtes's actions as instrumental, for personal gain. But the true cause of Ephialtes's betrayal--his resentment--is something he cannot relate to. It is beyond his comprehension. Ephialtes was offered a role with the Spartan army. Tending to the wounded. Helping with supplies. But because he physically cannot participate as an equal within the Spartan ranks and is therefore refused that role, he rebels. But his rebellion is not against Leonidas. It is a rebellion against reality itself. It is a rebellion against the gods. Ephialtes was demanding a recognition that was physically impossible, given the sort of being that he was. And in response, he decides to betray and destroy everything that is good. Leonidas cannot comprehend that. It is so outside of his moral frame that it is the one thing about the unfolding events that he never understands before his death. It shows the purity of Leonidas's heart, the nobility that he takes with him to his death. This film is mythic. It is deeper than most people appreciate. When it was released, it was widely hated by liberal reviewers. The reasons for this are obvious. They are Ephialtes.

Kevin Bass

2,091,375 次观看 • 8 个月前

So Piers Morgan, a journalist I value, interviewed Clavicular for his show. I appreciate the time he gave in the segment to talk about the interview Clavicular gave us on Channel 13 and why he left that interview. Unlike other figures, Morgan acted like a journalist, and tried to understand what the problem was with asking him why he is refusing to apologize - while in Israel - for the Heil Hitler incident. Clavicular said that he was asked about it plenty of times, again didn’t want to answer, and threw back accusations at the interviewer as usual. And the real question is: why is that? Why was it so easy for him to stream to tens of millions of followers - at least four times - a song glorifying Hitler, and why is it so hard for him, just once, to acknowledge this as an insult to millions of Jews? Maybe, just maybe, it all comes down to the fact that he knows anti-Semitic content gets you traffic. Just like he knows humiliating young girls gets you views. He still has anti-Semitic friends like Nick Fuentes and just defended Andrew Tate. This guy didn’t aim to do PR for Israel. He didn’t come here and hold formal meetings with Netanyahu’s advisors - a lie he keeps repeating. He was actually thrown out of a club because the owner heard that he sang the Heil Hitler song. He got hate on every corner he visited. His aim was simply to get clicks. He is not a “kid.” He holds an internet empire with managers and employees. He knows how to talk; he certainly is not stupid. He is a professional provocateur who hopped on the Israeli trend. At least Piers Morgan, unlike others, had the fairness to pull the mask off this guy. Piers Morgan

So Piers Morgan, a journalist I value, interviewed Clavicular for his show. I appreciate the time he gave in the segment to talk about the interview Clavicular gave us on Channel 13 and why he left that interview. Unlike other figures, Morgan acted like a journalist, and tried to understand what the problem was with asking him why he is refusing to apologize - while in Israel - for the Heil Hitler incident. Clavicular said that he was asked about it plenty of times, again didn’t want to answer, and threw back accusations at the interviewer as usual. And the real question is: why is that? Why was it so easy for him to stream to tens of millions of followers - at least four times - a song glorifying Hitler, and why is it so hard for him, just once, to acknowledge this as an insult to millions of Jews? Maybe, just maybe, it all comes down to the fact that he knows anti-Semitic content gets you traffic. Just like he knows humiliating young girls gets you views. He still has anti-Semitic friends like Nick Fuentes and just defended Andrew Tate. This guy didn’t aim to do PR for Israel. He didn’t come here and hold formal meetings with Netanyahu’s advisors - a lie he keeps repeating. He was actually thrown out of a club because the owner heard that he sang the Heil Hitler song. He got hate on every corner he visited. His aim was simply to get clicks. He is not a “kid.” He holds an internet empire with managers and employees. He knows how to talk; he certainly is not stupid. He is a professional provocateur who hopped on the Israeli trend. At least Piers Morgan, unlike others, had the fairness to pull the mask off this guy. Piers Morgan

בר שם-אור Bar Shem-Ur

16,264 次观看 • 2 个月前

Ana Navarro scolds those who are celebrating the death of Senator Lindsey Graham: ANA NAVARRO: First thing I want to say is, I saw a lot of posts online this week kind of celebrating his death and rejoicing. And listen, I know that Trump does that, he did it with Bob Mueller, he did it with John McCain -- SARA HAINES: He did it with Rob Reiner. NAVARRO: He did it with Rob Reiner. But it's inhumane and it's really lacking empathy. And the dead person is dead and can't hear you and can't read your posts, but his family, his sister who he adopted when he was 13 because both of their parents died is alive and is hearing it. And so I think that for the benefit, for humanity, for having, you know, a normal decency towards the family of the dead, that just has to stop. The fact that Donald Trump is indecent doesn't mean the rest of us have to do it.

Ana Navarro scolds those who are celebrating the death of Senator Lindsey Graham: ANA NAVARRO: First thing I want to say is, I saw a lot of posts online this week kind of celebrating his death and rejoicing. And listen, I know that Trump does that, he did it with Bob Mueller, he did it with John McCain -- SARA HAINES: He did it with Rob Reiner. NAVARRO: He did it with Rob Reiner. But it's inhumane and it's really lacking empathy. And the dead person is dead and can't hear you and can't read your posts, but his family, his sister who he adopted when he was 13 because both of their parents died is alive and is hearing it. And so I think that for the benefit, for humanity, for having, you know, a normal decency towards the family of the dead, that just has to stop. The fact that Donald Trump is indecent doesn't mean the rest of us have to do it.

Nicholas Fondacaro

230,432 次观看 • 2 个月前

The prophet who wiped away God’s tears. Moses was not only a liberator. Scripture says he spoke with God face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. But ancient accounts tell that one day he was brought to witness something no other man had ever seen. He was not called to receive commands nor to hear laws. He was taken to the place where heaven watches humanity. He expected judgment. He expected condemnation. But what he found took his breath away. He saw God looking upon the world in a silence heavier than any word. It was not a silence of anger. It was the silence of deep sorrow. Humanity was drifting away, and the divine heart felt it. Then Moses understood something few have ever grasped before. There was a love that suffers. That day, Moses did not see only the power of God. He witnessed his sorrow and became the prophet who, through his faithfulness, wiped away the tears of the creator. That is why he spoke with God as a friend.

The prophet who wiped away God’s tears. Moses was not only a liberator. Scripture says he spoke with God face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. But ancient accounts tell that one day he was brought to witness something no other man had ever seen. He was not called to receive commands nor to hear laws. He was taken to the place where heaven watches humanity. He expected judgment. He expected condemnation. But what he found took his breath away. He saw God looking upon the world in a silence heavier than any word. It was not a silence of anger. It was the silence of deep sorrow. Humanity was drifting away, and the divine heart felt it. Then Moses understood something few have ever grasped before. There was a love that suffers. That day, Moses did not see only the power of God. He witnessed his sorrow and became the prophet who, through his faithfulness, wiped away the tears of the creator. That is why he spoke with God as a friend.

NancyH

44,901 次观看 • 5 个月前

He is not just a liar. He is the MOST DANGEROUS KIND. A CALCULATED liar who told you EXACTLY what he was going to do to you. Who described the damage austerity does to the most vulnerable. Who proved he understood every word of it. Then looked you in the eye. And did it anyway. While STILL DENYING IT. That is not incompetence. That is not a broken promise. That is PREMEDITATED. That is who he is. His cuts to the welfare bill are FOUR TIMES greater than anything the Conservatives proposed. The Health Foundation confirmed it. Four times. The very austerity he called devastating and promised never to repeat. The average family will be £1,400 worse off by 2030. While his biggest donor Lord Alli was given UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to Downing Street. Hosted a party there for other Labour donors. The same Lord Alli whose name appears in the Epstein files. Cutting the most vulnerable people in Britain to the bone. While his donors party in Downing Street. That is not austerity. That is theft. Dressed up in a suit. Delivered with a straight face.

He is not just a liar. He is the MOST DANGEROUS KIND. A CALCULATED liar who told you EXACTLY what he was going to do to you. Who described the damage austerity does to the most vulnerable. Who proved he understood every word of it. Then looked you in the eye. And did it anyway. While STILL DENYING IT. That is not incompetence. That is not a broken promise. That is PREMEDITATED. That is who he is. His cuts to the welfare bill are FOUR TIMES greater than anything the Conservatives proposed. The Health Foundation confirmed it. Four times. The very austerity he called devastating and promised never to repeat. The average family will be £1,400 worse off by 2030. While his biggest donor Lord Alli was given UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to Downing Street. Hosted a party there for other Labour donors. The same Lord Alli whose name appears in the Epstein files. Cutting the most vulnerable people in Britain to the bone. While his donors party in Downing Street. That is not austerity. That is theft. Dressed up in a suit. Delivered with a straight face.

BanksyCat

87,806 次观看 • 3 个月前

Tom Hanks was handed the Oxford Union and 18 minutes. He refused to give a speech. He made the entire room say the same 8 words out loud instead, over and over, until people who had never acted in their lives were visibly doing it wrong in front of him. Is there something I can do for you. That is the whole lesson. And he tells them, standing there, that he has never taken an acting class in his life. He is running an exercise he only ever heard other people describe. The exercise has 1 rule. It is not the rule anybody guesses, and it is the only reason the thing works at all. Then he starts feeding the room circumstances. The first is harmless. By the 4th he is saying something into a microphone at Oxford that no publicist alive would have signed off on, and the room says the line anyway. They get it wrong once. He stops them and fixes it in 6 words. I did not expect the best moment of the night to be a correction. A drama student named NicholasDoucet says he took more out of these 18 minutes than out of his last 6 months of training. 351 people agreed with him. mccloysong caught the thing almost nobody catches the first time: the man is audibly unwell that night, he could have called it off, and he stood there and taught anyway. 568 likes. Around the 16 minute mark he stops the exercise completely, looks into the audience and says a name out loud. Then he asks the room not to go looking for her afterwards. Most people treat sincerity as a feeling that either arrives or does not. He treats it as a procedure, and a procedure can be rehearsed by anyone willing to sound stupid in front of a room for a while. 18 minutes. 8 words. 1 rule nobody guesses.

Tom Hanks was handed the Oxford Union and 18 minutes. He refused to give a speech. He made the entire room say the same 8 words out loud instead, over and over, until people who had never acted in their lives were visibly doing it wrong in front of him. Is there something I can do for you. That is the whole lesson. And he tells them, standing there, that he has never taken an acting class in his life. He is running an exercise he only ever heard other people describe. The exercise has 1 rule. It is not the rule anybody guesses, and it is the only reason the thing works at all. Then he starts feeding the room circumstances. The first is harmless. By the 4th he is saying something into a microphone at Oxford that no publicist alive would have signed off on, and the room says the line anyway. They get it wrong once. He stops them and fixes it in 6 words. I did not expect the best moment of the night to be a correction. A drama student named NicholasDoucet says he took more out of these 18 minutes than out of his last 6 months of training. 351 people agreed with him. mccloysong caught the thing almost nobody catches the first time: the man is audibly unwell that night, he could have called it off, and he stood there and taught anyway. 568 likes. Around the 16 minute mark he stops the exercise completely, looks into the audience and says a name out loud. Then he asks the room not to go looking for her afterwards. Most people treat sincerity as a feeling that either arrives or does not. He treats it as a procedure, and a procedure can be rehearsed by anyone willing to sound stupid in front of a room for a while. 18 minutes. 8 words. 1 rule nobody guesses.

Stefan.

903,022 次观看 • 1 个月前

"The Betrayal at Falkirk" – Mel Gibson does not film a hero confronting betrayal. He films the one thing betrayal cannot take from a man. Many people remember the Battle of Falkirk for the moment William Wallace tears the helmet from a masked knight. Beneath it is Robert the Bruce. The man in whom Wallace had placed his greatest hope. It is the most devastating betrayal in Braveheart. Yet what makes this one of the film's defining moments is not the betrayal itself. It is Wallace's response. He does not strike. He does not condemn. He says nothing. He simply looks at Robert. Then he collapses. That is the true center of the scene. Mel Gibson could have ended this moment with rage. With vengeance. With a hero delivering justice to a traitor. Instead, he strips all of that away. He leaves only two men facing one another. One has betrayed the cause they once shared. The other has watched his greatest hope fall apart before his eyes. At that moment, the most important battle is no longer being fought on the battlefield. It is being fought within the human heart. What brings Wallace to his knees is not a sword. It is the truth. Not simply that he has lost an ally, but that the man he believed could one day carry Scotland's future has chosen another path. Mel Gibson never turns Wallace into a hero who feels no pain. He allows him to be devastated. But he also shows something that never falls. Betrayal may break Wallace's heart. It cannot break his character. It cannot turn him into a man consumed by vengeance. It cannot make him abandon the very principles for which he has fought. Wallace's body collapses. His character does not. That is also the moment Robert the Bruce begins to change. Mel Gibson does not transform him through a speech. Nor simply because Wallace spares his life. Robert changes because, for the first time, he encounters a man whose character cannot be bent by circumstance. All his life, Robert has been taught to measure every decision by power, advantage, and political necessity. Wallace reveals another possibility. That there are people who refuse to let circumstances decide who they are. They let their character decide instead. Wallace does not persuade Robert with words. He forces him to confront a far more difficult question: What kind of man do I want to become? That is why Robert ultimately becomes the man who fulfills the dream Wallace never lives to see. Not because Wallace leaves him a crown. But because he leaves him something far greater. A standard. The example of a man who could lose everything without losing himself. Perhaps that is why Mel Gibson does not end the Falkirk sequence with victory. He ends it with a man brought to his knees. Because sometimes adversity is not there to reveal how strong a person is. It is there to reveal what within them cannot be taken away. And in the end, it is precisely that which cannot be taken away that possesses the power to transform another human being— and, ultimately, to change the course of history. Name movie: Braveheart (1995)

"The Betrayal at Falkirk" – Mel Gibson does not film a hero confronting betrayal. He films the one thing betrayal cannot take from a man. Many people remember the Battle of Falkirk for the moment William Wallace tears the helmet from a masked knight. Beneath it is Robert the Bruce. The man in whom Wallace had placed his greatest hope. It is the most devastating betrayal in Braveheart. Yet what makes this one of the film's defining moments is not the betrayal itself. It is Wallace's response. He does not strike. He does not condemn. He says nothing. He simply looks at Robert. Then he collapses. That is the true center of the scene. Mel Gibson could have ended this moment with rage. With vengeance. With a hero delivering justice to a traitor. Instead, he strips all of that away. He leaves only two men facing one another. One has betrayed the cause they once shared. The other has watched his greatest hope fall apart before his eyes. At that moment, the most important battle is no longer being fought on the battlefield. It is being fought within the human heart. What brings Wallace to his knees is not a sword. It is the truth. Not simply that he has lost an ally, but that the man he believed could one day carry Scotland's future has chosen another path. Mel Gibson never turns Wallace into a hero who feels no pain. He allows him to be devastated. But he also shows something that never falls. Betrayal may break Wallace's heart. It cannot break his character. It cannot turn him into a man consumed by vengeance. It cannot make him abandon the very principles for which he has fought. Wallace's body collapses. His character does not. That is also the moment Robert the Bruce begins to change. Mel Gibson does not transform him through a speech. Nor simply because Wallace spares his life. Robert changes because, for the first time, he encounters a man whose character cannot be bent by circumstance. All his life, Robert has been taught to measure every decision by power, advantage, and political necessity. Wallace reveals another possibility. That there are people who refuse to let circumstances decide who they are. They let their character decide instead. Wallace does not persuade Robert with words. He forces him to confront a far more difficult question: What kind of man do I want to become? That is why Robert ultimately becomes the man who fulfills the dream Wallace never lives to see. Not because Wallace leaves him a crown. But because he leaves him something far greater. A standard. The example of a man who could lose everything without losing himself. Perhaps that is why Mel Gibson does not end the Falkirk sequence with victory. He ends it with a man brought to his knees. Because sometimes adversity is not there to reveal how strong a person is. It is there to reveal what within them cannot be taken away. And in the end, it is precisely that which cannot be taken away that possesses the power to transform another human being— and, ultimately, to change the course of history. Name movie: Braveheart (1995)

Love Classical Music and Movies 🎺🎻💖🎥🎬

71,288 次观看 • 2 个月前

Marc Andreessen on Elon Musk: “Why don't more CEOs operate the way that he does? The top-line thing is just this incredible devotion from the leader of the company to deeply understand what the company does, and to be completely knowledgeable about every aspect of it. To be in the trenches and talking directly to the people who do the work, deeply understanding the issues, and being the key, lead problem solver in the organization. What Elon does is he shows up every week at each of his companies, he identifies the biggest problem that the company's having that week, and he fixes it. He does that every week for 52 weeks in a row. And then each of his companies has solved the 52 biggest problems that year, in that year. He attracts many of the best people in the world to work with him."

Marc Andreessen on Elon Musk: “Why don't more CEOs operate the way that he does? The top-line thing is just this incredible devotion from the leader of the company to deeply understand what the company does, and to be completely knowledgeable about every aspect of it. To be in the trenches and talking directly to the people who do the work, deeply understanding the issues, and being the key, lead problem solver in the organization. What Elon does is he shows up every week at each of his companies, he identifies the biggest problem that the company's having that week, and he fixes it. He does that every week for 52 weeks in a row. And then each of his companies has solved the 52 biggest problems that year, in that year. He attracts many of the best people in the world to work with him."

DogeDesigner

24,515 次观看 • 7 个月前

Tucker Carlson: Remembering Charlie Kirk - A Life of Faith and Courage "Quickly about Charlie, I've known him since he was a teenager, and just an amazing person, but the two things that stick out, he's a Christian man. We talked about that a lot, including, you know, just the other day. There's a lot of pressure on public people, people who run huge, you know, hundred million dollar a year non-profits, and there are a lot of pitfalls and traps." "That's why so many of them are destroyed, and Charlie really did, without, you know, betraying details, like he walked the line for real. It was the topic of many conversations between us, because I've seen so many people destroyed. You know, most people are destroyed by power, and he wasn't, and I just really admire that." "I mean, to his last moments, you know, in order, he cared about God, his wife, and his children, and then his country. So, and that was totally real, completely real. I can affirm that, because I just talked to him about it so much, and I admire that, and he's a model, really." "I mean, he didn't have hate in his heart, and it was funny, and again, it's one of the reasons I couldn't stop looking at these videos last night. People were describing the opposite of what he was. He was filled with hate." "No, and if you talked to him about people who had attacked him, or who were truly his enemies, up to, and I think including the people who assassinated him yesterday, he would never, ever express hate, ever. He would always turn to, no, this person has been led astray. This person is clearly possessed by dark forces." "This person is a perpetrator, but also a victim of evil. I mean, that really was his worldview. That's the Christian worldview, and he expressed that in public, and especially in private, and I think that faith, which was completely real, not the fake faith that you see on display so often, but a real one, that was the root of his courage, and he had real courage." "He loved being with people who disagreed with him, not theoretically with them, but physically with them, you know, like close enough to smell. He would wait right in the middle of everything. I mean, I could tell you a million stories that I saw, but that was absolutely real." "Like, he loved people, even people who hated him, and people he loved, he was the rare person who was willing to tell them what he thought was true. I mean, he really believed, as a political matter, by the way, that, you know, I don't think he had animus toward anybody in no other country, but he really believed in his own country, and the obligation of his government to stand behind his country. He was truly America first in the nicest, most decent, non-ideological, but sincere way." "He was one of the only people, I mean, truly one of the only people to go to the president, whom he loved. He loved Donald Trump, like, personally as well, and I think the president really loved him in a real way, but he was one of the only people to go to the Oval Office and say, sir, I totally understand, and think Iran's really bad, but a war with Iran is not, you know, is something that could really hurt our country. I mean, boy, that was an unpopular position." "He didn't need to express it. Oh, of course, and he did it again. He didn't have some weird agenda. He wasn't mad at anybody. He was for his country, and he was for doing the right and wise and difficult thing, and he said that. He went to the Oval Office to say that." "He took massive, massive abuse from his own donors, which is also something that you don't see. He was one of the very few people, very few people I have met who combined a, like, a love for everyone involved with strong views. So, again, he was not animated by anything creepy or weird." "I mean, you knew him intimately, so you know this is true. If you talked to him off camera, he would say, you know, I really, like, I love whoever I'm talking about, but I think this is wrong. It's immoral." "It's bad for everybody involved, both sides, and he would say that, and he could say that because it was sincere. It was completely sincere, but I cannot overstate the amount of attacks he took privately over this, like, absolutely for real, and having lived in Washington most of my life and seen people run non-profits, I've never met one who was willing, stand up is too strong. He wasn't confrontational, but he would just say, no, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I think this is the right thing." "The people we represent, which is mostly young people, they believe this, and I believe it also. It was brave, but loving at the same time, and I'm not sure he made a lot of headway, by the way. I mean, I think he made real enemies in doing that, but his view didn't change." "Anyway, he's just a wonderfully decent, loving man. That is true."

Tucker Carlson: Remembering Charlie Kirk - A Life of Faith and Courage "Quickly about Charlie, I've known him since he was a teenager, and just an amazing person, but the two things that stick out, he's a Christian man. We talked about that a lot, including, you know, just the other day. There's a lot of pressure on public people, people who run huge, you know, hundred million dollar a year non-profits, and there are a lot of pitfalls and traps." "That's why so many of them are destroyed, and Charlie really did, without, you know, betraying details, like he walked the line for real. It was the topic of many conversations between us, because I've seen so many people destroyed. You know, most people are destroyed by power, and he wasn't, and I just really admire that." "I mean, to his last moments, you know, in order, he cared about God, his wife, and his children, and then his country. So, and that was totally real, completely real. I can affirm that, because I just talked to him about it so much, and I admire that, and he's a model, really." "I mean, he didn't have hate in his heart, and it was funny, and again, it's one of the reasons I couldn't stop looking at these videos last night. People were describing the opposite of what he was. He was filled with hate." "No, and if you talked to him about people who had attacked him, or who were truly his enemies, up to, and I think including the people who assassinated him yesterday, he would never, ever express hate, ever. He would always turn to, no, this person has been led astray. This person is clearly possessed by dark forces." "This person is a perpetrator, but also a victim of evil. I mean, that really was his worldview. That's the Christian worldview, and he expressed that in public, and especially in private, and I think that faith, which was completely real, not the fake faith that you see on display so often, but a real one, that was the root of his courage, and he had real courage." "He loved being with people who disagreed with him, not theoretically with them, but physically with them, you know, like close enough to smell. He would wait right in the middle of everything. I mean, I could tell you a million stories that I saw, but that was absolutely real." "Like, he loved people, even people who hated him, and people he loved, he was the rare person who was willing to tell them what he thought was true. I mean, he really believed, as a political matter, by the way, that, you know, I don't think he had animus toward anybody in no other country, but he really believed in his own country, and the obligation of his government to stand behind his country. He was truly America first in the nicest, most decent, non-ideological, but sincere way." "He was one of the only people, I mean, truly one of the only people to go to the president, whom he loved. He loved Donald Trump, like, personally as well, and I think the president really loved him in a real way, but he was one of the only people to go to the Oval Office and say, sir, I totally understand, and think Iran's really bad, but a war with Iran is not, you know, is something that could really hurt our country. I mean, boy, that was an unpopular position." "He didn't need to express it. Oh, of course, and he did it again. He didn't have some weird agenda. He wasn't mad at anybody. He was for his country, and he was for doing the right and wise and difficult thing, and he said that. He went to the Oval Office to say that." "He took massive, massive abuse from his own donors, which is also something that you don't see. He was one of the very few people, very few people I have met who combined a, like, a love for everyone involved with strong views. So, again, he was not animated by anything creepy or weird." "I mean, you knew him intimately, so you know this is true. If you talked to him off camera, he would say, you know, I really, like, I love whoever I'm talking about, but I think this is wrong. It's immoral." "It's bad for everybody involved, both sides, and he would say that, and he could say that because it was sincere. It was completely sincere, but I cannot overstate the amount of attacks he took privately over this, like, absolutely for real, and having lived in Washington most of my life and seen people run non-profits, I've never met one who was willing, stand up is too strong. He wasn't confrontational, but he would just say, no, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I think this is the right thing." "The people we represent, which is mostly young people, they believe this, and I believe it also. It was brave, but loving at the same time, and I'm not sure he made a lot of headway, by the way. I mean, I think he made real enemies in doing that, but his view didn't change." "Anyway, he's just a wonderfully decent, loving man. That is true."

Camus

41,966 次观看 • 1 年前

The CEO of OpenAI was asked for his hottest take. His answer wasn't a prediction about a product. It was that the whole world is sleeping through the most important thing happening to it. A student asked Altman for his spiciest take. He paused. He admitted he could probably find a spicier one with more time. Then he landed somewhere quiet. AI is just going to keep going. That sounds obvious until you hear how he framed it. He said this is not widely believed yet. And if it were actually believed, there would be far more reverberations through society right now than there are. That is the whole point. He is not saying people doubt AI is useful. He is saying people have not internalized what continuing on this curve actually means. They nod along and then go back to their day. Then he gave the timeframe. It has been three and a half years since ChatGPT. He said if you run another three and a half years on the same trajectory, what society is capable of is completely different. Not improved. Different. The scariest takes are usually loud. This one was Altman calmly saying the biggest change in human history is already underway, and almost nobody is acting like it. (Watch the full talk on YouTube at Stanford Online channel)

The CEO of OpenAI was asked for his hottest take. His answer wasn't a prediction about a product. It was that the whole world is sleeping through the most important thing happening to it. A student asked Altman for his spiciest take. He paused. He admitted he could probably find a spicier one with more time. Then he landed somewhere quiet. AI is just going to keep going. That sounds obvious until you hear how he framed it. He said this is not widely believed yet. And if it were actually believed, there would be far more reverberations through society right now than there are. That is the whole point. He is not saying people doubt AI is useful. He is saying people have not internalized what continuing on this curve actually means. They nod along and then go back to their day. Then he gave the timeframe. It has been three and a half years since ChatGPT. He said if you run another three and a half years on the same trajectory, what society is capable of is completely different. Not improved. Different. The scariest takes are usually loud. This one was Altman calmly saying the biggest change in human history is already underway, and almost nobody is acting like it. (Watch the full talk on YouTube at Stanford Online channel)

Ihtesham Ali

15,796 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨 THIS is the Trump clip everyone should stop and actually listen to. Not just hear it. Understand it. Trump is describing the world stage exactly how it works: a massive chessboard filled with powerful, dangerous, ambitious, and highly intelligent players. “It’s a big chess game at a very high level. It’s very high-level chess, the highest.” He’s not dealing with amateurs. He’s dealing with leaders who are sharp, ruthless, calculated, and sometimes violent. People who did not get to the top by accident. And then Trump drops the perfect contrast: “These are not Jasmine Crockett and her group.” That line says everything. Trump understands the difference between political noise and real power. He doesn’t just react emotionally. He studies the board. He reads the players. He waits for the opening. Then he moves. Every decision is made under pressure, with real global consequences and America’s future on the line. This is the side of Trump that most people still don’t understand. He is one of the most strategic political minds we have ever seen. Every move is calculated, every risk is measured, and somehow he always finds a way to come out with the win. Strong instincts. High-level strategy. America First results. Show the man the respect he deserves. 🇺🇸

🚨 THIS is the Trump clip everyone should stop and actually listen to. Not just hear it. Understand it. Trump is describing the world stage exactly how it works: a massive chessboard filled with powerful, dangerous, ambitious, and highly intelligent players. “It’s a big chess game at a very high level. It’s very high-level chess, the highest.” He’s not dealing with amateurs. He’s dealing with leaders who are sharp, ruthless, calculated, and sometimes violent. People who did not get to the top by accident. And then Trump drops the perfect contrast: “These are not Jasmine Crockett and her group.” That line says everything. Trump understands the difference between political noise and real power. He doesn’t just react emotionally. He studies the board. He reads the players. He waits for the opening. Then he moves. Every decision is made under pressure, with real global consequences and America’s future on the line. This is the side of Trump that most people still don’t understand. He is one of the most strategic political minds we have ever seen. Every move is calculated, every risk is measured, and somehow he always finds a way to come out with the win. Strong instincts. High-level strategy. America First results. Show the man the respect he deserves. 🇺🇸

Charlie’s Voice Rising

336,105 次观看 • 5 个月前

Quentin Taratino said Lawrence Fishburne’s performance in King of New York was so incredible he thought - “he could be the greatest actor of his generation”. He explains: "As great as Christopher Walken is in this movie. To me, it's Larry Fishburne's movie - it was the rock that becomes a diamond aspect of the movie. It's why I could defend this movie against all comers, because to me, Fish's performance in this movie was comparable to a young Brando. It was the most exciting performance by an actor of his generation that I'd seen in a movie of that time. And I thought, well, that's it. There is a new Marlon Brando, and his name is Larry Fishburne - it was amazing, it was mesmerizing… He is the first hip hop gangster in movie history. That character had never been done before this. He invented that character. And he invented it as something to do. It wasn't in the original script. He came up with that himself… The three big Fishburne moments to me, is his opening sequence with…Tito. That's it, with Tito - black glove dude. And his reunion with Frank. And then it's the chicken scene (see below). Those are his three big arias. Not only that though - expressions that I would later hear for the rest of the decade, I actually heard for the first time in that scene. I'd never heard the expression; “I'll slap the black off you” before. That was the first time I heard it when Fish says it to Snipes. I've since heard it many times… And that was actually the first time I ever heard, “fuck you very much”. And I would proceed to hear that for the rest of the 90s. But those were the first times I'd ever heard those expressions… As terrific as he has been in other things - the level of excitement that I had over him when this movie was over, I have never had that excitement again. I thought, with this, he could be the greatest actor of his generation. That was an actual, real fucking thing. He could be the greatest actor of his generation after seeing this." Quote comes from The Rewatchables podcast

Quentin Taratino said Lawrence Fishburne’s performance in King of New York was so incredible he thought - “he could be the greatest actor of his generation”. He explains: "As great as Christopher Walken is in this movie. To me, it's Larry Fishburne's movie - it was the rock that becomes a diamond aspect of the movie. It's why I could defend this movie against all comers, because to me, Fish's performance in this movie was comparable to a young Brando. It was the most exciting performance by an actor of his generation that I'd seen in a movie of that time. And I thought, well, that's it. There is a new Marlon Brando, and his name is Larry Fishburne - it was amazing, it was mesmerizing… He is the first hip hop gangster in movie history. That character had never been done before this. He invented that character. And he invented it as something to do. It wasn't in the original script. He came up with that himself… The three big Fishburne moments to me, is his opening sequence with…Tito. That's it, with Tito - black glove dude. And his reunion with Frank. And then it's the chicken scene (see below). Those are his three big arias. Not only that though - expressions that I would later hear for the rest of the decade, I actually heard for the first time in that scene. I'd never heard the expression; “I'll slap the black off you” before. That was the first time I heard it when Fish says it to Snipes. I've since heard it many times… And that was actually the first time I ever heard, “fuck you very much”. And I would proceed to hear that for the rest of the 90s. But those were the first times I'd ever heard those expressions… As terrific as he has been in other things - the level of excitement that I had over him when this movie was over, I have never had that excitement again. I thought, with this, he could be the greatest actor of his generation. That was an actual, real fucking thing. He could be the greatest actor of his generation after seeing this." Quote comes from The Rewatchables podcast

Gangster Cinema Central

658,892 次观看 • 4 个月前

One of the most remarkable speeches by Pope Benedict XVI, delivered at the German Bundestag. “Yet I would like to underline a point that seems to me to be neglected, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.”—Pope Benedict XVI

One of the most remarkable speeches by Pope Benedict XVI, delivered at the German Bundestag. “Yet I would like to underline a point that seems to me to be neglected, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.”—Pope Benedict XVI

Coworkeroftruth

80,617 次观看 • 9 个月前

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.

Stefan.

210,938 次观看 • 1 个月前

A man who has made 19% a year for forty-five years spent most of them telling people Warren Buffett was just lucky. Then he listened to a podcast and apologised on air. "Wow, this guy is a genius, and I've been the biggest fool all along." That is Paul Tudor Jones. His original argument was never stupid, which is the part worth staying for. Buffett, he thought, was in the right place at the right time, riding the longest bull market in history. Put the same man in Japan starting in 1989 and see how well the genius holds up. It is a real objection. The Nikkei peaked in December 1989 and did not get back there until February 2024. Thirty-four years underwater. Buy and hold would have ruined you. He changed his mind anyway. He now calls Buffett the OG of compound interest, and then he says the line that should stop you. "He understood the power of compound interest at age nine, while I brilliantly avoided it throughout my entire career." That is not a man who failed at anything. So what exactly did he avoid? Selling. Run the same 19% two ways. Hold everything and pay capital gains once at the end, and forty years turns a dollar into 842. Realise your gains every year and pay tax as you go, and the same 19% turns a dollar into 287. Identical returns. Roughly three times the money, purely from not touching it. That is the price of being right often instead of being right once and then waiting. And here is what makes this honest rather than a lecture. Jones knows all of it now and still cannot do it. He says plainly he could not sit through a 50% drawdown, that his own wiring will not permit it. He wondered aloud why he couldn't just believe in America and ride it out. He can't. Fifty years of reflexes do not get argued away by arithmetic. So the lesson is not to go and be Buffett. It is to work out which one you actually are before the market tells you, because the two strategies are not interchangeable and neither are the people who run them. He is 71. He apologised to a man he had doubted for decades, and then admitted he would probably do it the same way again.

A man who has made 19% a year for forty-five years spent most of them telling people Warren Buffett was just lucky. Then he listened to a podcast and apologised on air. "Wow, this guy is a genius, and I've been the biggest fool all along." That is Paul Tudor Jones. His original argument was never stupid, which is the part worth staying for. Buffett, he thought, was in the right place at the right time, riding the longest bull market in history. Put the same man in Japan starting in 1989 and see how well the genius holds up. It is a real objection. The Nikkei peaked in December 1989 and did not get back there until February 2024. Thirty-four years underwater. Buy and hold would have ruined you. He changed his mind anyway. He now calls Buffett the OG of compound interest, and then he says the line that should stop you. "He understood the power of compound interest at age nine, while I brilliantly avoided it throughout my entire career." That is not a man who failed at anything. So what exactly did he avoid? Selling. Run the same 19% two ways. Hold everything and pay capital gains once at the end, and forty years turns a dollar into 842. Realise your gains every year and pay tax as you go, and the same 19% turns a dollar into 287. Identical returns. Roughly three times the money, purely from not touching it. That is the price of being right often instead of being right once and then waiting. And here is what makes this honest rather than a lecture. Jones knows all of it now and still cannot do it. He says plainly he could not sit through a 50% drawdown, that his own wiring will not permit it. He wondered aloud why he couldn't just believe in America and ride it out. He can't. Fifty years of reflexes do not get argued away by arithmetic. So the lesson is not to go and be Buffett. It is to work out which one you actually are before the market tells you, because the two strategies are not interchangeable and neither are the people who run them. He is 71. He apologised to a man he had doubted for decades, and then admitted he would probably do it the same way again.

Veles

48,073 次观看 • 2 个月前

This is where understanding nuance becomes important. Mihawk’s relationship with the government is made very clear. He gains the benefits of being a warlord, and still does exactly what he wants. They did not even expect him to show up to the warlord meeting to begin with, and he makes it clear the only reason he did was because of his own personal interest. This relationship between Mihawks and the government is shown even better in the Live Action. Where Mihawk is kicking his feet up on a table while talking to his supposed “higher up” and the HERO of the Marines. Telling him he didn’t complete his mission. And the reason why? Because he didn’t want to. This entire scene he is literally talking down to Garp in a disrespectful tone. And this is one of the faces of the WG organization itself. Garp even tries to use the government excuse by telling Mihawk he works for them. And Mihawks response perfectly encapsulates his position as a Warlord “I would still do precisely as I want. No more and no less.” He does not have this position out of necessity, he uses it for his own quality of life. He was using the WG for his own benefit and they sat by and let him do it for years.

This is where understanding nuance becomes important. Mihawk’s relationship with the government is made very clear. He gains the benefits of being a warlord, and still does exactly what he wants. They did not even expect him to show up to the warlord meeting to begin with, and he makes it clear the only reason he did was because of his own personal interest. This relationship between Mihawks and the government is shown even better in the Live Action. Where Mihawk is kicking his feet up on a table while talking to his supposed “higher up” and the HERO of the Marines. Telling him he didn’t complete his mission. And the reason why? Because he didn’t want to. This entire scene he is literally talking down to Garp in a disrespectful tone. And this is one of the faces of the WG organization itself. Garp even tries to use the government excuse by telling Mihawk he works for them. And Mihawks response perfectly encapsulates his position as a Warlord “I would still do precisely as I want. No more and no less.” He does not have this position out of necessity, he uses it for his own quality of life. He was using the WG for his own benefit and they sat by and let him do it for years.

Clairvoyant

26,880 次观看 • 1 个月前

Marc Andreessen went on Chris Williamson's podcast and broke down exactly how Elon Musk runs multiple companies at once No other CEO on Earth does this: 1. Every week, Musk shows up at each of his companies, identifies the single biggest problem that company is having that week, and fixes it. Then he does that for 52 weeks in a row. At the end of the year, each company has solved its 52 biggest problems. Meanwhile, most large companies are still having the planning meeting for the pre-planning meeting for the board presentation with the compliance review and the legal review attached. 2. This is not a new operating method. It is actually how the great industrialists of the late 1800s and early 1900s ran their companies. Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Watson, who built IBM. Total devotion from the leader to fully and deeply understand what the company does, be in the trenches, talk directly to the people doing the work, and be the lead problem solver in the organization. Andreessen says he is not aware of another current CEO who operates this way. 3. The framework Musk uses is the bottleneck. In any manufacturing chain, there is always one thing holding everything up. Sometimes it is raw materials at the start. Sometimes it is warehousing at the end. Sometimes it is in the middle. The job is to find it and remove it. Musk has universalized this concept across every company he runs. In any given week, there is one main bottleneck. He micromanages the solution to that one thing and delegates almost everything else. 4. Musk delegates almost everything. Andreessen is clear about this. He is not involved in most of what his companies are doing. He is involved in the one thing that is the biggest problem right now. Once that is fixed, he moves to the next biggest problem. Everything else by definition, is running better than the bottleneck, so it does not need him. 5. When Musk identifies the bottleneck, he goes directly to the engineer who actually understands it. not the VP of engineering, not the director, not the manager. The individual contributor who has the actual technical knowledge. He sits in the room with that person and fixes the problem alongside them. He does not ask for a report to be reviewed in three weeks. he shows up at the keyboard or on the manufacturing line and works through it overnight if necessary. 6. This is why technical people who work for Musk say it was the best experience of their lives. Andreessen's framing: if you are stuck on a problem you cannot solve, Elon Musk is going to show up in his Gulfstream, sit with you in front of the keyboard, and help you figure it out. For an engineer who genuinely cares about the work, that is an almost incomprehensible level of support from the CEO of the company. 7. Business school teaches the opposite of this: management as a generic skill applicable to any industry. Soup company or a rocket company, the management principles are the same. process, balance sheet, meeting schedules, compliance, executive motivation, interpersonal conflict resolution. Andreessen says those skills are useful in many contexts. They just give you nothing; you need to do what Musk does. And Musk pushes as far as he can away from all of that so he can spend all of his time doing the things only he can do.

Marc Andreessen went on Chris Williamson's podcast and broke down exactly how Elon Musk runs multiple companies at once No other CEO on Earth does this: 1. Every week, Musk shows up at each of his companies, identifies the single biggest problem that company is having that week, and fixes it. Then he does that for 52 weeks in a row. At the end of the year, each company has solved its 52 biggest problems. Meanwhile, most large companies are still having the planning meeting for the pre-planning meeting for the board presentation with the compliance review and the legal review attached. 2. This is not a new operating method. It is actually how the great industrialists of the late 1800s and early 1900s ran their companies. Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Watson, who built IBM. Total devotion from the leader to fully and deeply understand what the company does, be in the trenches, talk directly to the people doing the work, and be the lead problem solver in the organization. Andreessen says he is not aware of another current CEO who operates this way. 3. The framework Musk uses is the bottleneck. In any manufacturing chain, there is always one thing holding everything up. Sometimes it is raw materials at the start. Sometimes it is warehousing at the end. Sometimes it is in the middle. The job is to find it and remove it. Musk has universalized this concept across every company he runs. In any given week, there is one main bottleneck. He micromanages the solution to that one thing and delegates almost everything else. 4. Musk delegates almost everything. Andreessen is clear about this. He is not involved in most of what his companies are doing. He is involved in the one thing that is the biggest problem right now. Once that is fixed, he moves to the next biggest problem. Everything else by definition, is running better than the bottleneck, so it does not need him. 5. When Musk identifies the bottleneck, he goes directly to the engineer who actually understands it. not the VP of engineering, not the director, not the manager. The individual contributor who has the actual technical knowledge. He sits in the room with that person and fixes the problem alongside them. He does not ask for a report to be reviewed in three weeks. he shows up at the keyboard or on the manufacturing line and works through it overnight if necessary. 6. This is why technical people who work for Musk say it was the best experience of their lives. Andreessen's framing: if you are stuck on a problem you cannot solve, Elon Musk is going to show up in his Gulfstream, sit with you in front of the keyboard, and help you figure it out. For an engineer who genuinely cares about the work, that is an almost incomprehensible level of support from the CEO of the company. 7. Business school teaches the opposite of this: management as a generic skill applicable to any industry. Soup company or a rocket company, the management principles are the same. process, balance sheet, meeting schedules, compliance, executive motivation, interpersonal conflict resolution. Andreessen says those skills are useful in many contexts. They just give you nothing; you need to do what Musk does. And Musk pushes as far as he can away from all of that so he can spend all of his time doing the things only he can do.

Jaynit

272,265 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨 DONALD TRUMP IS ABOUT TO SURGE TO CHINA "Xi is a GREAT gentleman. An amazing man. And when I say that, the press always says, oh, that's terrible that he called it. He runs 1.4 billion people with a pretty iron fist. He loves his country, I can tell you!" "He and I have gotten along other than with COVID, I was not accepting of what happened with COVID. But other than that, he and I have had a great relationship."

🚨 DONALD TRUMP IS ABOUT TO SURGE TO CHINA "Xi is a GREAT gentleman. An amazing man. And when I say that, the press always says, oh, that's terrible that he called it. He runs 1.4 billion people with a pretty iron fist. He loves his country, I can tell you!" "He and I have gotten along other than with COVID, I was not accepting of what happened with COVID. But other than that, he and I have had a great relationship."

Eric Daugherty

144,880 次观看 • 4 个月前