ๆญฃๅœจๅŠ ่ฝฝ่ง†้ข‘...

่ง†้ข‘ๅŠ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ

๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿšจ๐๐‘๐„๐€๐Š๐ˆ๐๐†: ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ”-๐˜๐„๐€๐‘-๐Ž๐‹๐ƒ ๐‰๐Ž๐’๐‡๐”๐€ ๐€๐๐„ ๐‰๐”๐’๐“ ๐’๐‚๐Ž๐‘๐„๐ƒ ๐‡๐ˆ๐’ ๐…๐ˆ๐‘๐’๐“ ๐‡๐€๐“-๐“๐‘๐ˆ๐‚๐Š! ๐Ÿด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟโšฝ๏ธ A LF right winger who recently became Youngest Ever Scorer for Liverpool 8G 3A So Far๐Ÿคฏ Attracting Interest From Every Club๐Ÿ‘€

188,669 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 5 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰ โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

0 ๆก่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๆš‚ๆ— ่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๅŽŸๅง‹ๅธ–ๅญ็š„่ฏ„่ฎบๅฐ†ๆ˜พ็คบๅœจ่ฟ™้‡Œ

็›ธๅ…ณ่ง†้ข‘

๐ŸšจOliver Stone: They Always Kill the Socrates ๐ŸšจIt's George Orwell time. ๐ŸšจNew York City could be seen as a rotting carcass of greed and power. An oligarchy of corruption. ๐ŸšจWe call Russia Putin because Putin, for whatever reason, has been personalized. ๐ŸšจThis isn't policy. This is a tragic. ๐ŸšจThis is a tragic substitution of hatred for intelligence. ๐ŸšจI want to emphasize to you students how very close we came to World War III because of the awful leadership weexperienced under Joe Biden and his radical advisors such as Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan. The input would come from people who actively work at controlling the mindset of our population. So it's never done in the public interest. The Socratic concept, of course, just doesn't work because they always kill the Socrates. My contemporary, Bill Clinton, was the great appeaser who tried to make everybody happy. But he ended up painfully selling out, changing the Democrat Party forever. A great appeaser, yet he pushed NATO to the east. He began that process of betraying the promises made by Baker and Bush to Gorbachev. Not one inch to the east. And we went east, right into the heart of Russia, in the form of Ukraine. We started with Clinton. It magnified under George W. Bush, who took us into a war on terror that never ended. It's still going on. George Bush took us into a, onto a road of unnecessary militarism with his wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and ultimately the greatest war of all, the war he declared on terror, which is still going on today as we move, as we move on bombing, bombing, bombing from Yugoslavia in 99 to Sudan and Yemen and the so-called lesser folk who we consider dangerous to our world order. So, we bring a great waste of our resources, and the height of this futility was a war which Mr. Biden recently dedicated to weakening Russia. This was the war in Ukraine, a retrograde war. I've learned, among other things, the propaganda state in the West is an incredible far bigger empire, and stronger than I ever imagined. We are unable to see from the inside of the matrix the lies that have enveloped us, that Russia and China and Iran and so forth are our moral enemies, mortal enemies. This isn't true, but we have succumbed to that because our media, the networks, and the elitist media have told us repeatedly, inventing lies about our enemies. The worst of it was George Orwell. It's George Orwell time. Imbecilic, imbecilic accusations against Mr. Putin and his Russia. In the old days,even in the worst of the Cold War,we never referred to Russia as Khrushchev or Brezhnev. That's what we're doing now.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

29,278 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 6 ๅคฉๅ‰

NEW: ๐Ÿšจ Obamaโ€™s Parting Shot: How a Last-Minute IRS Rule Became the Deep Stateโ€™s Favorite Weapon Against Conservative Landowners and Trump Himself ๐Ÿšจ In one of its final acts of defiance, the Obama administration slipped a poison pill into the tax code on December 23, 2016โ€”just weeks before Donald Trump took the oath of office. With no vote in Congress and no public comment period, the IRS branded virtually all conservation easements as โ€œlisted transactions,โ€ effectively declaring them worthless unless taxpayers begged for mercy in a rigged U.S. Tax Court. The result? A Soviet-style backlog of more than 1,000 cases, almost all involving conservative landowners and charitable donors who dared to use a decades-old, bipartisan tax incentive to preserve open spaces and valuable properties. While the IRS drags its feet, hearing only 10โ€“20 cases a year, American families are buried under seven-figure legal bills, crushing penalties, and endless delays. At the current pace, many of these landowners will die long before they ever see their day in court. This isnโ€™t incompetence, itโ€™s deliberate lawfare. The same Obama-era rule was weaponized by New Yorkโ€™s far-left, anti-Trump Attorney General Letitia James Tish James to grotesquely undervalue Trump National Golf Club Westchester at $30 million for 140 prime acresโ€”one of the most valuable properties in Americaโ€”paving the way for millions of dollars in fines and the attempted banishment of Donald Trump from doing business in his home state of New York. Meanwhile, IRS auditors have been caught red-handed backdating official documents (felonies that would send any ordinary American to prison for decades), yet leftist activist judges simply shrug and look the other way. The targets are no coincidence: conservation easements have long been a favorite charitable tool of red-state landowners, farmers, hunters, and pro-America donors who want to protect the nationโ€™s natural beauty without selling out to developers. Obamaโ€™s IRS turned a patriotic act into a partisan trap, and Bidenโ€™s IRS kept the persecution machine running, even under the Trump administration, thanks to entrenched Lois Lerner-era holdovers and weak-kneed political appointees. Over a thousand American families are being financially destroyed right now, while the corporate media yawns and runs interference for these draconian Obama-era policies at the IRS. President Trump has an historic opportunity to END THIS TODAY by rescinding Obamaโ€™s illegal Notice 2017-10 with the stroke of a pen, firing every last Lois Lerner loyalist, and ending the tax persecution of conservative donors once and for all. If President Trump wants to leave this up to the IRS, which has been in constant flux this year, he can. However, that would then put the burden on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to take action if President Trump doesnโ€™t unilaterally handle it. The litigation backlog can be cleared by the IRS offering a fair settlement to all taxpayers, which would dismantle the two-tier justice system at the IRS, and end the litigation nightmare for taxpayers. The Americans who preserved millions of acres of open land for future generations deserve justice. Itโ€™s time to finally drain the IRS, one of the deepest, swampiest corners of the federal bureaucracy.

Laura Loomer

238,834 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 8 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

๐Ÿšจ In 1983 a foreign intelligence operative walked into an American software company Pretending to be someone he wasn't His real name was Rafi Eitan Head of LAKAM Israel's covert Bureau of Scientific Relations Same unit that ran Jonathan Pollard ๐Ÿ‘€ He wanted one thing A piece of software called PROMIS Built by two Americans Bill and Nancy Hamilton Funded by the US Department of Justice Installed in 94 US Attorney offices nationwide He hired a genius named Michael Riconosciuto to build a hidden backdoor into it Location: Cabazon Indian Reservation Near Indio California Sovereign tribal land Beyond local and state law enforcement jurisdiction ๐Ÿ’€ Then Robert Maxwell Ghislaine's father Known Israeli intelligence asset Sold the backdoored software to 20+ countries ๐Ÿด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ Britain ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ Australia ๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China ๐Ÿ‡ท๐Ÿ‡บ The Soviets +Iraq & Libya and many more... Every single one of them secretly reporting back through a backdoor they never knew existed $500 million in sales by 1989 Maxwell ended up floating dead near the Canary Islands in 1991 His funeral was attended by 6 heads of Israeli intelligence State funeral in all but name The journalist about to expose everything? Danny Casolaro Found dead in a West Virginia hotel room 12 deep deliberate wrist slashes Briefcase gone Notes gone Tape recorder gone Ruled suicide before his family was notified ๐Ÿ˜ค The coder who built the backdoor and signed an affidavit exposing it all? Michael Riconosciuto Arrested by the DEA 8 days later 30+ years in federal prison He says the charges were fabricated to silence him Sound familiar? Fast forward to 2025 ๐Ÿ‘€ The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs contracts 3 companies Through Havas Media Group Germany All registered within 9 days of each other All serving the same foreign principal All with different operational functions ๐Ÿ”ด CLOCK TOWER X LLC FARA #7649 Owner: Brad Parscale = Trump's former campaign manager Charlie Kirk associate for a decade Contract: $6 to 9 million Purpose: Shape what ChatGPT Gemini and Grok return when you query them They seed the AI training data BEFORE you ask the question ๐Ÿ’€ ๐Ÿ”ด BRIDGES PARTNERS LLC FARA #7652 Contract: $900,000 Purpose: The Esther Project 14 to 18 anonymous American influencers Up to $7,000 per post Zero FARA registrations from those influencers Zero disclosure labels on any content Likely in violation of US law right now ๐Ÿ”ด SHOW FAITH BY WORKS FARA #7653 Contract: $4.1 million Purpose: The largest Christian church geofencing campaign in US history 303 megachurches named as targets Straight up in their paperwork Go look at it yourself Same playbook ๐Ÿ‘€ 1983: Robert Maxwell is the intermediary 2025: Havas Media Group Germany is the intermediary 1983: They targeted intelligence agencies and national labs 2025: They are targeting churches 1983: PROMIS was the backdoor 2025: Commercial geofencing combined with AI manipulation IS the backdoor 277,000 devices were tracked at Charlie Kirk's memorial By the same operational network Running the church surveillance campaign Right now ๐Ÿ”ฅ They told us everything In publicly filed federal documents On a government website That fewer than 1% of Americans will ever read That was the bet That nobody would look I looked ๐Ÿ˜ค Every FARA filing is searchable on my website attached to my bio. These are federal registration documents Filed with the US Department of Justice Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 Receipts or it doesn't count I have the receipts ๐Ÿ”ฅ Follow for more breakdowns on TRUTH!

Danks

113,968 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 4 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Driving home from Thanksgiving, I was listening to this with my son & had to pull the car over. It hit that hard. Jocko Willink said that being prior enlisted meant he learned to โ€œspeak E-5.โ€ Then he became an officer and had to learn to โ€œspeak officer.โ€ Later, as an admiralโ€™s aide, he learned to โ€œspeak GOFO.โ€ He became trilingual. Thatโ€™s his unfair advantage. It hit me: thatโ€™s the single greatest factor behind every success Iโ€™ve had in my life. Early in my career I learned this the hard way. The hardest way possible. My father was dying. My grades at USNA werenโ€™t great but above the line. My roommate, a young Black mid with a 0.8 GPA, got summoned to the Admiral. His congressman had prepped him taught him exactly what to say, how to frame his struggle, how to speak โ€œFOGOโ€ He walked out with an emergency summer tutoring plan. A week later it was my turn. The Chaplain told the Superintendent about my dad & he wanted a meeting. โ€œFamily is most important,โ€ he said. โ€œGo home and be with him.โ€ I got angry. I told him the best thing for my dadโ€™s health was me graduating. He didnโ€™t budge. I thought he didnโ€™t care. I didnโ€™t understand the language he was speaking. Years later I learned Adm Larson was quietly pushing certain groups out & keeping others in. But Iโ€™ve never blamed him or DEI or anything but my inability to speak flag officer. I took ownership. The truth was simple: coming from an enlisted family, I could barely speak โ€˜officer,โ€™ never mind โ€˜admiral.โ€™ I got a Presidential nomination & didnโ€™t have a congressman to teach me the FO dialect. Bill Clinton sure as hell wasnโ€™t calling to coach me. So I left for Maritime College, with a much lower reputation but a higher attrition rate & more difficult course load. In the Merchant Marine my career exploded. Captain. Youngest Distinguished Alumnus. Guinness World Records. Bestselling book. Built the most visited maritime website in the world. Now Iโ€™m worth millions and have a life I couldnโ€™t have imagined, a beautiful family, my work makes an impact on the maritime world. Iโ€™m blessed but I still think about that horrible day in the Admirals office every day (which is why my haters always bring it up). I motivates me. My secret? I became a student of languages. All of them Most captains avoid the engine room I practically lived in it. Learned how engineers think & talk. Earned favors. I sat in union halls just to absorb how unions talk. Spent nights in drilling shacks offshore listening to that culture. Took ships with international crews Moved to Silicon Valley to embed myself with early Facebook employees. Embedded with NYT and NPR reportersโ€”NOT enjoyableโ€” because I wanted to learn the language of the people who shape narratives. More recently, Iโ€™ve been in DC learning how the top civilian leaders talk. And now my son is studying aeronautics and space. My advice to him is simple: Join the rocket club. Join the startup club. Sit in on nuclear engineering classes. Hang out at the ATC simulator. You donโ€™t have to be the top 1% in any of these fields. You need to speak just enough of their language to call one of the top 1% and make them want to help you. Thatโ€™s the real secret Communication is a perishable skill. I write long posts and editorials every day because I never want to stand in front of a GOFO again and lose an opportunity to simply be understood. So hereโ€™s the lesson: Be at least trilingual. Learn the enlisted language. Learn the officer language. Learn the executive language. Donโ€™t get trapped inside your comfort zone. People say, โ€œIโ€™ll never be CEO. Iโ€™m not ruthless or connected enough.โ€ Fine. You donโ€™t need the job. You just need to be able to stop the CEO as the elevator doors close & explain, clearly in HIS language, why your idea matters. You do that by volunteering to serve coffee in the board room. Thatโ€™s it. Thatโ€™s all you need. And Jockoโ€™s right the SECNAV does notice. His office called me Tuesday to โ€œdiscussโ€ my frigate post ๐Ÿ˜œ

John ษ… Konrad V

991,381 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 8 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

๐Ÿšจ Oh boyโ€ฆ. Listen very closely to every statement Trump just made! โ€ข Autopens are meant for lettersโ€ฆ not major proclamations. โ€ข Anyone who signs with Autopen โ€” it really means youโ€™re not the President! ๐Ÿ‘€ โ€ข We think we know who operated the Autopen.. more than one person โ€ข โ€œThe electionโ€ฆ itโ€™s been now caughtโ€ AGAIN!โ€ฆ. ๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿ‘‡ Iโ€™m telling you right now, there is a Constitutional Reason why Donald Trump signs everything, BY HAND. Donald Trump has NEVER used an autopen for EOโ€™s or legislation. ๐Ÿ”ด THE CONSTITUTION 1. Article I, Section 7: This outlines the legislative process, stating that a bill becomes law if the president โ€œapprovesโ€ it and that he โ€œshall sign itโ€ if he does, or return it with objections (veto) if he doesnโ€™t. โ€”โ€” The phrase โ€œshall sign itโ€ is the keyโ€ฆ. does this imply a personal, physical act? 2. Article II, Section 1: The presidentโ€™s executive power is vested in him โ€”โ€” this suggests that certain actsโ€”like approving lawsโ€”are his alone to perform, raising questions about delegating that act to a machine. โ€ข The Constitution assumes the presidentโ€™s conscious, individual assent to a law. โ€”โ€” An autopen, even if authorized, is a mechanical proxyโ€”some argue itโ€™s akin to delegating the decision itself, which the president canโ€™t legally do. โ€ข The framers envisioned a hands-on executive role. In 1787, signing meant PEN TO PAPER by the person in question โ€”โ€”no machines existed to complicate this. An autopen might clash with that original understanding. โ€ข Legal Authenticity: A signature traditionally proves intent and identity. โ€”โ€” If a machine replicates it, could someone later challenge the lawโ€™s validity by claiming the president didnโ€™t truly โ€œsignโ€ it? (LIKE TRUMP IS DOING NOW) โ€ข Precedent Concerns: If autopens are okay, whatโ€™s nextโ€”digital signatures, aides signing, or AI approvals? ๐Ÿ”ด I BELIEVE DONALD TRUMP WANTS THIS TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT I Expect Donald Trump to VOID Joe Bidenโ€™s pardons to get smacked down by a corrupt judgeโ€ฆ BUT it will ultimately go to the Supreme Court, and that is exactly where I believe Donald Trump wants it to go. PAY ATTENTION to the rulingโ€™s language of the Supreme Court if and when it comes. The language will determine how far back it applies. Obama was the first US President to ever use the Autopen. He used the autopen to sign the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 while he was on vacation in Hawaii. He also used an autopen to sign a four-year extension of certain provisions of the Patriot Act in 2011, while he was in France. Republican Tom Graves argued the constitutionality of this action, specifically Article I, Section 7 when he signed the NDAAโ€ฆ citing what if the President was hospitalized? โ€”โ€” What would stop a group of radical cabinet members using autopen to push forth a separate agenda? (EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH BIDEN) The DOJ determined it was ok to do at the time.. so OH HELL YEAH, this should definitely go to SCOTUS.

MJTruthUltra

256,321 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

๐Ÿšจ She Canโ€™t Even Tell Congress Her Own Name: ActBlue CEO Pleads the Fifth 22 Times While Eric Holderโ€™s Law Firm Admits โ€œKnowing & Willfulโ€ Foreign Donation Scheme โ˜ ๏ธ Who has the guts to take down ActBlue, Eric Holder, and Covington & Burling (which basically IS the Democrat Party)? ๐Ÿ’ฅ INSIDE BASEBALL: Covington & Burling is indeed the white-shoe DC law firm where Eric Holder has been a senior partner since he left the Obama DOJ. Holder joined Covington in 2015 after his tenure as Obamaโ€™s Attorney General โ€” the same AG who, letโ€™s not forget, was held in contempt of Congress in 2012 over the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. Heโ€™s been deeply embedded in that firmโ€™s political and white-collar defense practice ever since. So the irony is thick: the very law firm that warned ActBlueโ€™s CEO she may have โ€œknowingly and willfullyโ€ misled Congress โ€” the firm whose internal memos are now at the center of this mess โ€” is Holderโ€™s professional home. The Democratic Partyโ€™s small-dollar money machine was getting its legal advice from the former Democratic AGโ€™s firm, and even they couldnโ€™t paper over the compliance gaps. Whether Holder personally touched the ActBlue work is a separate question โ€” (we already know the answer). Covington is massive, with over a thousand lawyers. But the institutional alignment is unmistakable. The same revolving-door class that runs DOJ one decade, defends Democratic fundraising platforms the next, and then discovers those platforms have a โ€œsubstantial riskโ€ of criminal exposure. The club protects the club โ€” until the memos leak, and someone has to plead the Fifth on whether Jones is actually her last name. She canโ€™t confirm her surname to Congress. But she wants you to trust her with $19 billion in dark money. ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones just stonewalled the House Administration Committee โ€” 22 invocations of the Fifth Amendment. Not on hard questions. On everything. Even โ€œIs it Ms. Jones or Ms. Wallace-Jones?โ€ Let that sink in. The CEO of the Democratic Partyโ€™s primary fundraising engine wonโ€™t state her own name under oath. Thatโ€™s not a legal strategy. Thatโ€™s the terror of what comes next. Hereโ€™s what sheโ€™s hiding from: ๐Ÿ”ด ActBlue didnโ€™t require CVV codes on credit card donations until August 2024 โ€” after Rep. Bryan Steil exposed the gaping hole. For years, anyone with a stolen card number could pump unlimited cash into Democratic coffers. No name. No billing address. No trace. ๐Ÿ”ด The House joint interim staff report โ€” Administration, Judiciary, and Oversight Committees โ€” found ActBlue loosened its fraud-prevention rules TWICE in 2024. During a presidential election year. While processing $615 million for Kamala Harris in a single month. ๐Ÿ”ด Donations poured in from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Colombia, China, Russia, and beyond โ€” through a platform whose CEO swore in a 2023 letter to Congress that โ€œmulti-layered screeningsโ€ and U.S. passport requirements blocked foreign cash. That letter was a lie. Eric Holderโ€™s own firm, Covington & Burling, told her so in internal memos. ๐Ÿ”ด Covington warned Wallace-Jones that ActBlueโ€™s violations could be deemed โ€œknowing and willfulโ€ โ€” the legal standard that triggers DOJ criminal jurisdiction, elevated FEC penalties, and maximum sentences of 5 years and $250,000 per count. ๐Ÿ”ด Texas AG Ken Paxton made a criminal referral to DOJ after uncovering massive straw donor schemes on ActBlue โ€” fake identities, untraceable payment methods, contributions made in other peopleโ€™s names at an industrial scale. Paxton sued ActBlue directly. The FEC petition details how ActBlue actively opposed rules that would have closed these loopholes. ๐Ÿ”ด The mass exodus tells you everything. By March 2025, every single member of ActBlueโ€™s legal and compliance team had resigned, been fired, or gone on extended leave. General Counsel. Director of compliance. VP of customer service. Entire fraud-prevention leadership. Gone. The committeeโ€™s report title says it plainly: โ€œIllicit Foreign Donations and a Cover-Up Spur Mass Resignations and Firings.โ€ ๐Ÿ”ด Five former ActBlue officials have now pleaded the Fifth a combined 168 times โ€” 146 in closed-door depositions, plus Wallace-Jonesโ€™s 22 public refusals. Thatโ€™s not cooperation. Thatโ€™s a coordinated silence operation. ๐Ÿ”ด The Biden Treasury Department withheld thousands upon thousands of suspicious activity reports from Congress. Read that again. The financial intelligence that would have exposed the money trail was actively suppressed by the administration, whose candidates were the beneficiaries. And again, the coup de grรขce: Covington & Burling โ€” the firm that wrote the memos exposing all of this โ€” is Eric Holderโ€™s professional home. The former AG who ran the DOJ while Fast and Furious guns walked to cartels. The same revolving-door class that lectures America about โ€œelection integrityโ€ while its own law firm discovers its biggest client was running a foreign money laundering operation. Wallace-Jones wrote a Washington Post op-ed calling her silence โ€œa bedrock American right.โ€ Sheโ€™s not wrong about the Fifth Amendment. But you donโ€™t plead it 22 times โ€” including on your own hyphenation โ€” when youโ€™ve got nothing to hide. You do it when the truth is worse than the contempt charge. $19 billion processed since 2004. No CVV required until caught. Fraud rules loosened during the election year. Foreign donations from hostile nations. The entire compliance team fled. Holderโ€™s firm flagged criminal exposure. DOJ criminal referral is active and moving forward. And the CEO refuses to even say her name. This isnโ€™t a fundraising platform. Itโ€™s a money-laundering operation that got caught โ€” and now everyoneโ€™s lawyering up while the party that runs on โ€œdefending democracyโ€ looks the other way. #ActBlueLaundromat #PleadTheFifthOnMyOwnName #KnowinglyAndWillfully #FollowTheForeignMoney #WhereDidTheComplianceTeamGo #WallaceJonesCantAnswer #HolderKnew #19BillionUnvetted #SHIELDActNow #StrawDonorIndustrialComplex

Tony Seruga

30,699 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

๐Ÿšจ๐ŸšจDr Mike Yeadon's Address to Northern Ireland Parliament ----------------------------------- Hello, my name is Dr. Mike Yeadon, and in the next 15 minutes or so, I would like to address those of you who've been vaccine injured or bereaved, and also those of you who are involved in the political process in Northern Ireland, as well as anywhere else in the world who might hear me. At the end of this process, I hope you will believe what I'm going to tell you, which, shockingly, is that the materials masquerading as vaccines were designed intentionally to harm the people who received them. I'm probably the most qualified former pharmaceutical company research executive in the world speaking out on this matter, and since I spent my entire career in the business of working with teams designing molecules to be new potential medicines, I think I am qualified to comment on it, and that is my shocking judgement that has been only reinforced over the last almost four years since I first said it. I'll also have some suggestions for what we can do together to fight against the global crime which is ongoing. So, just a little bit about me so you can decide whether or not to believe me. So, I'm a career-long research scientist. I've worked all of my life in the pharmaceutical industry and in biotech. My first degree included a training in toxicology, so that's an understanding of how materials can injure human beings at a molecular level, and what the relationship is between the structure of them and the toxicity. In my second degree, a PhD, I did research in respiratory pharmacology, control of breathing and control of respiratory reflexes. So, and then after that, I joined the pharmaceutical industry in 1988, and I worked until very recently on new medicines for allergic and respiratory diseases. In my corporate career, I was for a long time responsible at Pfizer, then the biggest research-based drug company in the world, for everything to do with allergic and respiratory diseases in the research field. So, that was my responsibility. And in the last 10 years, after leaving in 2011, I was an independent and I became the founder and CEO of a biotech company, which was eventually acquired by Novartis, which was then the biggest drug company in the world. So, I have had a good career, and I was well regarded in the industry for my scientific acumen and judgments, until, of course, I started speaking out against the nonsense, the COVID pandemic, and especially the so-called vaccines. I've become persona non grata. It was my former colleagues after that. So, I'm well qualified to comment on the toxicological principles, properties of molecules, and the kind of effects you might see from certain structures. So, just very briefly, before I talk about the so-called vaccines, what happened in 2020? It's taken me a long time to get there, and I haven't made everybody happy with the decision I've reached, but there was not a pandemic or a public health emergency. I don't think there was anything at all, apart from lies, propaganda, fear-based information, fake diagnostic tests called PCR, and then, as it were, misattribution of real illnesses that people did have, which were called COVID when there was no such thing. But what happened, shockingly, was that after the World Health Organisation's chairman called a pandemic, which was not true. There's never been a pandemic. There won't be pandemics. They're immunologically impossible. But after he called them, many countries in the world changed radically their medical management practises for people in hospitals, also in care homes, and in the community. And very briefly, in hospitals, many people were sedated, had a plastic tube put down their airway, and unconscious, put on mechanical ventilators. I can assure you that is not ever an appropriate treatment for someone with an influenza-like illness, whatever you might think COVID was. But that would not be something you would do, and if applied to frail and elderly people, they will die in large numbers, which they did. So that was the first crime. It's not a mistake. There are no mistakes here. Mistakes were not made. They were told to do this by figures at supranational level. We don't know exactly who, but we know this because these mad procedures changed in many countries all at the same time. So that's hospitals, in care homes, assisted living, old-age people's homes, and so on. Many people were given drugs like Midazolam, which is an injectable form of a drug like Valium, a sedative. But they were also given injections of pain-relieving drugs like morphine, even if they weren't in pain. My PhD was in the field of understanding what opiate drugs like morphine do to the respiratory reflux, and I can assure you it suppresses and suppresses it and depresses it. So if you give an elderly person on their own an injection of Midazolam, they will become sedated and sleepy, and if you give them an injection of morphine, their breathing will slow. I can tell you, it's absolutely forbidden to give a person those two drugs together, those two drug classes together, unless they are under intense ongoing medical monitoring. And the reason is they're likely to fall asleep and stop breathing. That, of course, is what happened. So that's hospitals and care homes. Your relatives were killed by the medical procedures that were imposed. Now, it's quite possible early on that not everybody involved knew what was happening, but I'm afraid after a few days, you'd have to be a blockhead not to realise that it was what you were doing to your charges, your patients, that was resulting in their deaths. So I've completely lost any trust in the medical profession because virtually no one has spoken up four and a half years later. This happens to lots of people. If you listen to the recordings, heartbreaking recordings given to the Scottish COVID Enquiry, I think that's probably the only place where there's been an official taking of evidence from people. And what I just described is exactly what happens to lots of people's relatives and no doubt happens to some people in Northern Ireland as well. It certainly happens in England. There were worse things as well. People in the community were deprived of medical care that would have saved their lives. And there's plenty of evidence to say that not being given antibiotics when they had incipient bronchial pneumonia also killed thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people. And there, ladies and gentlemen, was your pandemic. All of those deaths were attributed to COVID and you were told this is this terrible pandemic, you need to lock down, wear masks, do what you're told. Nothing was happening at all apart from medical murder and propaganda from the television and the newspaper, politicians and many public, well-known public figures who are doing what they were told. So of course one conclusion I'm going to come to later is stop listening to liars. The people who've lied to you shouldn't listen to them ever again. Stop listening to them today. But for me, I think the worst thing, because it comes out of my industry and because it's so deliberate, it requires such a lot of forethought, are the so-called vaccines. Now we were told there was this new infectious disease, so far so good ladies and gentlemen, but then they said don't worry we'll rustle up a vaccine and they did so at least in about 10 months, something like that. I can tell you after spending a career in this industry, you can no more make a baby in one month with nine women than you can make a complicated biological product in 10 months. It cannot be done. It was not done. They did something else. They created materials which were essentially injected poisons. They were not vaccines. There was never anything to vaccinate against. And when you've listened to what I've just told you, you know that must be true because you can't do something in 10 months that normally takes 6 to 12 years. Medicines are not put together randomly. They are built. And they're built by people who are discussing with colleagues, work out what kind of materials, what kind of structures, what kind of formulations, what kind of doses you would need to add in order to hit a particular molecular target to have a chance of a particular therapeutic goal being reached without unacceptable side effects. That's called rational design. And that is my whole career, ladies and gentlemen, from my undergraduate days to today. So when I look at the design of the medicine, whatever kind it is, and look at the design on paper and its composition structures and so on, it is as if I'm looking over the shoulder of the designer, someone like me, someone with my qualifications designed these things. So when I look at them, I'm looking over the shoulder of the designer and I can discern something of what their objectives were, what were they trying to do? And I came quickly to the conclusion that they wanted to bring about toxicity that would injure, kill and reduce fertility. There aren't any other alternatives. And remember, there was no public health emergency. So I'll just give you three examples. I'm not going to be too scientific, but three things so you can check them. The objective of these so-called gene-based vaccines was to inject you with a genetic sequence for something called spike protein. Now, it doesn't really matter what spike protein is, if it's real, where it came from. The point is, it's a genetic sequence for a protein that doesn't belong in your body. It's non-self, it's foreign. Your immune system is a wonderful work of God and nature. It distinguishes self, things that are meant to be inside you and are fine from anything else, foreign, non-self. If you inject a person with a genetic sequence that instructs your body to become a factory for some protein that doesn't belong in you, your immune system will detect that and it will attack every cell that's done that instruction and kill it. Now, these materials, when injected in your arm, didn't stay in your arm, they travelled around your heart, your lungs, your kidneys, your brain, your ovaries. And in every place it landed, if it was taken up and expressed, your body registered that as foreign invasion and it attacks and kills every cell doing it. There is no other possible consequence from doing that. So that's step one and no one can argue that's not what they did. That is the design of them. It also picks a particular protein. I'm not really sure where spike protein came from, if it's really real, but proteins like the one they claim was encoded in these gene-based materials are known to be toxic. There are loads of experiments, lots of published experiments, showing that proteins like that one cause blood coagulation, damaged nerves, damaged heart tissue. So they injected you with something that would make your body make a protein that doesn't belong there, knowing axiomatically, automatically, unavoidably, your immune system would attack that. It would be like rejecting an organ transplant. Your body would say, that's foreign, got to go, uses your immune system to kill it. And then they also inject you with something that's inherently toxic. So if it got out into your body or wherever it was made, it would harm you. And I've got a third one that cannot be argued with. At least the mRNA products from Pfizer and Moderna were encapsulated in something called lipid nanoparticles. It's really a blob of fat, complicated, technical blob of fat, that's what it is after all. And what that material did is allowed your injection to glide all around your body across all biological barriers and get everywhere in your body. So of course, it's not what you would want, is it? For something that they told you was inhaled into your nose and lungs. But no, it went all around your body, into your brain, blood vessels. But in particular, I need to tell you, there were publications that are now more than 10 years old in peer-reviewed journal articles. I'm sceptical about whether they're always very honest, but there were peer-reviewed journal articles showing that lipid nanoparticles were recognised over a decade ago of having a particular property, which you're not going to like to hear, which shocked me when I learned it. They tend to deposit their payload into the ovaries. That is exactly what happened with these injected materials. There was at least one study performed with the Pfizer agents, with the Japanese regulatory authorities. Lo and behold, the material accumulated in the ovaries of the test animals. That is what's happened, ladies and gentlemen, every woman and girl injected with these materials. Remember what I said about designing molecules to do things deliberately with objectives in mind? They picked lipid nanoparticles, knowing they accumulate the payload in ovaries. It's not an accident. Mistakes were not made. So I tell you, as a professional who spent his whole honest scientific career in an industry I did not realise was corrupt, trying to make experimental medicines for respiratory and allergy diseases, that my experience tells me that there are multiple independent, unnecessary and obvious mechanisms of toxicity built into these so-called vaccines. And then by sheer luck, all four companies, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, all chose basically the same formula for their so-called vaccines. That would never happen if it was real. For a start, I would call my opposite numbers and say, we should do different things because if something goes wrong, if we're wrong in an assumption, all of the so-called vaccines will fail for the same reason. We should do different things. It's called diversification. But no, they all did the same things because they're just lying. They were making intentionally dangerous material, passing them off as vaccines to having you and your children. And that's what they did. Of course, I didn't get injected and neither did my children and most of my relatives. Some of them didn't believe me. I'm afraid they've been injected too. So big picture, what happens, I think from the research I've done, and of course, I'm an expert in research and development, not in politics, but I believe that very wealthy people, the kind of people who run foundations with names, have planned, as have their antecedents for a couple of generations, to take over the world, to remove the freedoms of ordinary people like us that they regard as useless eaters. They don't want us around anymore. And their intention is to strip us of our freedoms by persuading us that there are very frightening events occurring in the world, and we need them to lead us to safety. There are documents you can find from a group called the Club of Rome, who in the late 1960s were commissioned by some of these people who run the nameless global foundations that have hundreds of billions of pounds of worth. They were asked to come up with scenarios that would produce challenges for countries that couldn't be solved by countries on their own, so they would have to look outwards and upwards to supranational solutions. Now guess what? The two things they came up with, pandemics of infectious diseases, which I know as an immunologist are not possible and have never happened. The other thing they said to account for or plan for were climate change crises. I've done enough research now, ladies and gentlemen, I've spoken to people who have spent as long in climate atmospheric research as I have in pharmaceutical R&D, and they have explained to me, and I understand very well, that there's all of this nonsense about carbon dioxide, global boiling, net zero. It's all a complete scam from the same people who bought you the Covid scam and the dangerous injections. It's the same people. They want one world government, they want to be deprived of your liberty, and then I'm afraid I think they will kill us using these injections because they're going to do it again. All over the world, factories to make mRNA-based materials are being thrown up, billions of doses are being made, and if we let them they will sicken in our arms and people will sicken and die. So those of you who have been injured or bereaved, in my mind no blame whatsoever attaches to you. How could you know that people you trusted and thought you could trust were lying to you? Well, you didn't know, but if you let them inject you again, you have no sympathy for me because they have lied to you, you've been injured or killed, and I've explained to you that they're liars and they have attacked us. So if you go along with it, you cannot be saved. All we need to do is enough of us continue to speak out about this and say we're not having it anymore, get lost, don't listen to liars anymore. People who've lied to you forfeit their trust forever, in my view, and so anyone who's in the political process, for example in Northern Ireland looking at this so-called public health bill, which if you pass it would allow these supranational criminals to take you from your house, to inject you by force if necessary, they are aiding and abetting a global crime. And I saw someone online say recently that if you pass that legislation, I don't think it'd be unreasonable to interpret that as an act of war. It's as serious as that. So politicians, you may well be under pressure from shadowy figures, but if you go along with it and hope for like an easier time of it, you will have unlocked the doors of hell and pushed everybody in it and you as long with it as well. So this is your time to do what I'm doing, which is to speak out no matter the consequences. I say to you if you're frightened about what happens, if you speak out, you should be absolutely terrified about what's going to happen if you don't. So really that's all I've got to say. I do think these criminals are going to do it again, they're continuing to threaten us with pandemics like bird flu, monkey pox and so on. It is all nonsense. Stop listening to liars right now. Put things right between you, the people you love, and between you and God if you haven't already. And for goodness sake, be one of the people who speaks out no matter what the consequences, because if you don't, we'll lose our freedom and then our lives. Thank you.

aussie17

36,247 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

Farage and the suckers I used to regularly socialise with a group, one of whose number was a financial lawyer. He used to tell us about something that was surprisingly common in his line of work. He would be called in to give advice because someone wanted to spend their life savings on a scheme that was an obvious scam. He said that 99% of the time they could not be talked out of it. Nothing and nobody could persuade them not to do it, because they were convinced that a fortune was there to be made, and they were desperate to pour as much money as they could into the scheme. They would get really angry with anyone (like a spouse, or other family, or friends) who tried to stop them. Why are you stopping me from making a fortune, they would say. โ€œYou're ruining my chance of living the life of my dreams,โ€ was their view. This was meant to happen. This was the life they deserved, which had been so cruelly denied to them for so long. Finally reality was going to turn around and favour them for a change. It was the โ€œShut up and take my moneyโ€ meme in real life. It wasnโ€™t that they didn't understand about scams. Yes, scams happen, they knew that, but they donโ€™t happen to me. (That, at least, was my friendโ€™s summation of their thinking based on talking to them.) They could barely take seriously the idea that they were a gullible fool who was being tricked. When obvious problems and flaws with the scheme were pointed out, they would come up with far-fetched and implausible explanations to wave the problems away. Any explanation would do, as long as it meant they didnโ€™t have to wake up from the dream. In almost every case the person concerned decided to put their money into the scheme. Hardly anyone decided not to. In every single case they lost all the money. In every one of these cases the mark was completely shocked and stunned when it happened. They never saw it coming, despite so many people around them telling them it was a con. I bring this up because the situation with Nigel Farage is similar. People are desperate to believe that he is going to save the country. I don't blame them for being desperate. The situation *is* desperate. But that means that many people will cling onto anything which is presented to them as the solution. Farage, they are told by the media, is the big, bad anti-immigration, anti-green, anti-PC man. Great, they think. If the media doesn't like him, then heโ€™s the man for me. I'm also against those things. So they buy into him, big time, without a proper examination. Look, they say, he was Mr Anti-EU for decades. Heโ€™s Mr Brexit. He released that poster during the Brexit campaign depicting a long line of foreigners trying to get into Britain. The hated MSM attacks him for being anti-immigration, etc. So how can you lose if you trust him? Life will become good again if we all just support Nigel. Sink your emotional life-savings into him, and watch the results pour in once he gets power. So when you tell them to read Farageโ€™s fine-print, like the Reform manifesto (digging into what slogans like โ€œNet Zero immigrationโ€ actually mean), or particular things he has publicly said over the years, and what many people who have worked with him say about him, they act exactly like those people who are advised not to invest their life savings into a get-rich-quick scheme. They get angry and offended. Why are you trying to take away my dream of a better life for me, and a better Britain for all of us? Why are you undermining the only man who stands any chance of transforming the country for us, and preventing my life from getting worse and worse? Youโ€™re just trying to ruin everything. Youโ€™re just a negative Nelly, who is too afraid to take a risk. Maybe you even support Labour, really. And so on. When asked to explain why it is that Farageโ€™s actual positions, and his track record, indicate that he is not remotely the hard-liner they think he is, they act like the wannabe investors who will come up with any excuse, no matter how implausible, to preserve the dream. I know, I've seen many of them in my comments doing this. โ€œHe has to pretend to be more mainstream and mild than he really is in order that he doesnโ€™t get bad MSM headlinesโ€ is the gist of it. โ€œThe BBC would tear him apart and his support would vanish overnight if he said anything stronger at this stage,โ€ they say. In other words, โ€œhe has to get his party into a stronger position before he can say anything that might seem radical.โ€ Apparently being neck-and-neck with Labour and the Conservatives in the polls, having MPs in Parliament, facing rival parties that are collapsing in unprecedented fashion for their adherence to the established ways, having the media hang on your every word, and facing a country crying out for a change in your supposed direction, isnโ€™t a strong enough position for you to lay out your real agenda. Youโ€™ve still got to be timid and pretend to differ only slightly from the Conservative Party, lest the British people say, โ€œReducing mass immigration back to the levels they were in 2000 frightens me, who will cook our kebabs? Iโ€™m going to go back to the Tories/Labour/LibDems.โ€ So itโ€™s quite reasonable, apparently, for Farage to delay saying what he really thinks until 2034. Or 2039. Until then, weโ€™ll just twiddle our thumbs and trust him with our support. It never occurs to them as a serious possibility that maybe Farage isnโ€™t โ€œhiding his real power levels,โ€ but just isnโ€™t very radical. In fact, his whole history indicates that not only does he have no interest in supporting robust anti-immigrationism, he is actively opposed to it. He left UKIP because he thought UKIP people were too concerned with Islamic immigration. When he was in charge of UKIP it worked with the intelligence services to weed out anyone who didnโ€™t want Britain being filled up with foreigners. All his public statements going back thirty years indicate that he is a liberal, supply-side Thatcherite, who repudiates nationalism, unless itโ€™s anodyne, flag-waving, Union-Jack-biscuit-tin civic nationalism, where anyone who can vaguely adopt some British cliches (cricket, tea, old Jags, etc.) gets a passport. If heโ€™s playing a game to fool the media, itโ€™s a game that goes back a long, long way. Where is the actual evidence, then, that shows that he is in any way a nativist? What reason is there to believe that he is really is a blood-and-soil nationalist who will suddenly reveal, once in power, his determination to remigrate millions of foreigners, when heโ€™s spent his whole life urging against this? There is no reason to believe this at all, other than peopleโ€™s desperation to search for a Messiah figure, and the fact that the media (and various hysterical left-wingers) give people the impression that this is Farageโ€™s plan. But they have no evidence for this either, and anyway, why would the media give airtime to someone who genuinely thought this? Wouldn't that devious and tricksy olโ€™ MSM be more likely to give airtime to someone who was actually rather liberal when it comes down to it, but who can be made to seem like an attractive, anti-establishment rebel, while simultaneously sidelining the real rebels? It's like when the people who want to give away their life savings are shown the long history of bankruptcies that their Svengali has left behind, and they excuse it by saying something like, โ€œOh, thatโ€™s because he never had enough financial support from people. But thanks to me, I can finally give him the money he needs to succeed.โ€ Or whatever excuse they kid themselves with. When asked, โ€œBut what evidence is there that he can make you money?โ€, they reply, โ€œHeโ€™s told me his plan, and swears it will work, and it sounds good to me. Look, the rate of return is amazing, I can't pass that chance up, donโ€™t look a gift horse in the mouth,โ€ and so on. Farage also has a glib, charismatic manner, and is very good at talking in general-enough language that people can read into it what they like. โ€œPeople on the streets have been talking to me, and they've had enough,โ€ he kept saying during the summer 2024 election campaign, but he was rather vague about what exactly they were fed up with, and even vaguer about what he proposed to do about it, which allowed the sucker, er, supporter to decide that Farage was talking about just the very things the supporter thinks are important, and had in mind the same solutions. The media will admit, though, when it thinks the average Joe isnโ€™t listening, that Farage isnโ€™t anywhere near as bad as they normally make him out to be. This is whatโ€™s going on in this video clip of Michael Crick, which was from Times Radio, which the average Joe doesnโ€™t listen to. The point of Crick admitting this is to calm down any naive liberals or leftists who are starting to froth at the mouth at the prospect of Farage getting anywhere. (โ€œLook, we don't like him, but we can live with him, he's tamer than you think, better him than some genuine nationalist party.โ€) I haven't even talked about the idiocy of thinking that Reformโ€™s support would plummet overnight instead of rising (or at least staying roughly the same) if they started talking tougher. (The Telegraphโ€™s pet hamster Tim Stanley hysterically claimed recently that if Reform decided to do this they would lose 10,000 votes for every โ€œfar-Rightโ€ voter they courted.) I havenโ€™t said anything about how an anti-establishment party must of necessity drive changes in stateable public opinion, rather than accept the status quo. Nor have I talked about the foolishness of trusting a party that you think is cowardly and constantly lying. Or the problem of how rational it is to believe that a timid party, that said for years that it definitely won't do X, Y and Z, will be capable of doing X, Y and Z when it gets power, especially seeing as it will face the real wrath of the establishment at that point. These are all legitimate topics for discussion, but in this article I have been mainly concerned with the parallels with the self-deluding life-savings investor. The conman doesnโ€™t need that many suckers to be a success. He just needs a few. Similarly, Farage doesnโ€™t need that many people to fall for his shtick. With the other big partiesโ€™ support in free fall, he can set Reform up as the rebel outsider party for years on the back of a minority of votes, without ever having to make any hard choices, or commit to any positions which will genuinely set the establishment against him. He also has an advantage over the traditional conman, who operates on the margins and in the shadows, of having the media there to endorse him as the โ€œofficialโ€ rebel. Their every warning makes him seem more attractive to the dissatisfied: โ€œDonโ€™t vote for that Farage, donโ€™t you know heโ€™s anti-immigration and anti-Net Zero? Heโ€™s a maverick who doesnโ€™t do what heโ€™s told.โ€ No wonder Reformโ€™s membership numbers are going through the roof. When one person loses their head to a charismatic phony itโ€™s a private tragedy. When enough voters lose their heads to a political phony, whoโ€™s taking away the oxygen that a real opposition needs, itโ€™s a public tragedy. So I say, keep your political life savings in a box under your bed for now. And if you must spend some or all of it on Farage, be demanding. Keep all your receipts, note what he says and doesnโ€™t say, and demand that he clearly articulates the feelings of the people he claims to represent. Donโ€™t let him fob you off with vague and airy platitudes. Heโ€™s not Barack Obama. Heโ€™s your rebel, so make him speak for you, and if he wonโ€™t, find someone else who will.

Hector Drummond

34,408 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

๐Ÿฆ˜๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บMy take on Ange Postecoglou. If you disagree, that's fine. Freedom of speech, your opinion might be listened to or not. Mine is, I know by who. That's what I care about. ๐ŸŒPostecoglou has coached every age group at national / international level on 3 continents. That's inspirational and commands respect, if he was to be found out, as he said, he'd have been a long time ago like these former pros who cry because they get a U19 team relegated (ask me the names). ๐Ÿค“From a footballing standpoint, he's not making up theoretical shit like all these nerds jumping up on the Pro License barely coaching a team; and scrambling to figure out the reality of the sport/people in Phase 2, 3 doing the polar opposite to what they told everyone they'd do. ๐Ÿง The football Postecoglou sets up has room for decision making within a structure which is an extraordinary achievement from a coaching standpoint, and what every coach in the world should aspire to do. Ajax or Netherlands 1974, Nantes 1995, Rijkaard's Barcelona, Wenger's Arsenal. If you like "good football" , this is good football. If you want to win, pay more and get the best players. The correlation is right there. ๐Ÿ”There's rotations everywhere (think triangles who tilt, carrier and two options short/long), and players have 2-3 options everytime. The right balance between combinations into feet and third man runs (third man runs are vital - and often forgotten when nerds coach teams and have a control kink) ๐ŸซกFor that, you need a club culture of empowered players caring about the common good ; and also good enough to act selflessly to what the game demands (and actually execute it). โš–๏ธThe challenge is that bang average off the mill pros do what they're told, can't do most things. And ones who can't do play the solo card - football is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. ๐Ÿ‘€I can confidently second guess that the hesitation in collective movement suggest they're thinking in real time and not going "by the book" (which is microwave coaching). ๐Ÿ‘ฅHow often Postecoglou talks about culture, turning up together for a meal before games. Old school, but actually grounded. This isn't a startup or UberEats. ๐Ÿง˜โ€โ™‚๏ธThere's a handful of adults coaching Premier League teams. Slot maybe, Howe, Emery, Frank, Glasner, Moyes, McKenna who value the holistic composition of performance: squad chemistry, work ethic, managing people and treating them as adults. Coincidence or not, I rate all of them. Coincidence, they all overperfom with the resources they have. ๐ŸšฉDefensively, the idea to hold a high line can make sense on the occasion. Most of you don't work in football. People who do know the biggest paradox in the modern age is that lot of players are outstanding to think smart and execute fast in high pressure situations; yet are out of their depth when they have time and space to think. ๐ŸซฃChelsea 11v9 took half an hour to break down 9 fuckers on halfway line, and people know how badly it reflected on one of the worst assemblage of players ever seen pound for pound. And that's not Postecoglou's team. Then again, listen to who you want. I've done it too. 9v11 winning 5-2 from 2-1 down at National level whilst the other team was spamming diagonals out of play. ๐Ÿš‘The injury crisis is worrying, but it's also a vicious circle. Majority of clubs nowadays sign players to replace injured players. If you get one or two key players injured by the extreme random demands of the game (facing a Haaland, Jackson etc... stretches your CBs to the limit - Van de Ven got muscular in game injury like Rodri got injured like Fofana got injured). ๐Ÿš๐Ÿ’ฐI don't think the training methods are in question; not should they be questioned more than Pep or Maresca's who can actually afford to get replacement brought in (and still get injuries) - and never get questioned. Spurs play Gray at CB. Chelsea can afford to call Chaloback, or City sign another 40 million a piece CB. ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธSpurs lost Kane and finished 5th, like nothing happened. That's outstanding. ๐Ÿ“ผโ›ณ๏ธTraining clip: possession box to create the moment to change gear and find a striker dropping off the front. What happens then is a "wave" 3v2, with decision making. Drive diagonally, straight pass for diagonal runs. Affordances (what players perceive they can play) and match realism. See the cut off corners to guarantee runs going towards goal. Can't be more modern, evidence based, empowering, enjoyable and football realistic. ๐ŸŸ๏ธ๐ŸŽž๏ธGame footage: look how they're using each pass as a timeline to allow a third man popping up in space. Good reaction on turnover. See another triangle being created, with players selflessly filling in the tips of the triangle even rotating. Matar Sarr gets sucked into the space, puts an outstanding goalmouth delivery with presence and bodies in the box - especially at the far post. Brennan who everyone called a flop. Tremendous, organic (= player led) output. What you can do = the team's outlook. โšฝ๏ธI'm talking football there, not theory, not pattern playbook, not fiscal optimisation. ๐Ÿ“ŠSpurs are working on relative budget. Don't budget CL football. Spend 40% turnover on wages, when Chelsea's etc... are 70% or Leicester 120%. ๐Ÿ‡๐Ÿ’‰It's like the only clean horse in a race when others are stuffed with red bull, cocaine and creatine. And some of you Peaky Blinders are looking everywhere - even if you saw the episode where they stuff the horse to make it win.

S.

228,505 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

๐ŸšจNEW: Whitney Webb describes how Leslie Wexner has turned New Albany, OH into "Wexnerville" with his own publicโ€“private government. "Over 120 [data centers are] in New Albany" "It's an insane amount of taxpayer subsidies" "A lot of these people are... linked to... JD Vance" "[These] particular guys are part of this crowd of, if you want to call them, accelerationists or, you know, fans of the quoteโ€“unquote Dark Enlightenment. They're interested in privatizing government entirely, and then having it be ruled by a CEO dictator, which is basically the model proffered by Curtis Yarvin, who is cozy with all of these people." This clip of Webb (Whitney Webb), author of One Nation Under Blackmail and contributing editor of unlimitedhangout(.)com, is taken from an interview with Jimmy Dore (Jimmy Dore) posted to Rumble on March 26, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "So, essentially, over time, New Albany became a publicโ€“private partnership, where the New Albany Company is in a publicโ€“private governing partnership, with the local government, the city of New Albany. And later, he got theโ€” Wexner lobbied to get the law changed even more. "So it could be a de facto private government that's independent within Ohio, can tax citizens, issue bonds, controls it, in a way that the local, you know, regional government cannot, which is kind of crazy, in and of itself. "But beyond that, the New Albany company has become one of the main drivers of, in attracting data centers to Ohio. So the state is currently fourth in the country for most data centers. It has, I think, 193. But over 120 of those are, like, in New Albany, in the New Albany area, where that real estate is sold, to those companies that are courted, to that area, you know, by the New Albany company that Wexner controls. "So he's been making bank off of all of this. And the way that these companies are courted are through these other public private partnerships, the model of which Wexner created initially in Columbus, but now it's spread to every region of the state, where taxpayer money is used to create these large incentive packages, to court these companies over there, even though 75% of them would have relocated anyway. "But it's an insane amount of taxpayer subsidies that's being funneled to these people through this network that, you know, Wexner created. And as I note in the article, I mean, we can get into some of the specifics, but the corruption is absolutely off the charts. I mean, it's, it's very crazy. "It's like Banana Republic kind of stuff, going in, in Ohio, and you have these, you know, venture capitalists and other people, you know, coming in and basically buying, you know, buying politicians and using it to privatize major aspects of Ohio regional and state governments. And, you know, a lot of these people are directly linked to people like the current vice president, JD Vance, who was an Ohio senator, or, you know, the guy who's currently running for governor of Ohio, of Vivek Ramaswamy. "And those particular guys are part of this crowd of, if you want to call them, accelerationists or, you know, fans of the quoteโ€“unquote dark enlightenment. They're interested in privatizing government entirely, and then having it be ruled by a CEO dictator, which is basically the model proffered by Curtis Yarvin, who, you know, is, is cozy with all of these people. "So that effort to basically privatize government in Ohio, it was started by Wexner and Epstein. And as far as the Epstein connection, you know, when Ghislaine Maxwell was interviewed by Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, she said that Epstein ran New Albany. And as I note in the article, Epstein is all over New Albany. And his billionaire investment company had a branch operating there. "And it seems to be the same entity that was actually the Wexner Investment Company, or the New Albany Property company, which the Wexner Foundation admitted was a Wexner-related role that Epstein was involved in. Which in itself, you know, just flies in the face of the whole narrative that's been put forth for how Wexner doesn't really have any. Anything to do with any, anything bad Epstein ever did. "But, you know, I mean, Wexner just runs Ohio. He had members and probably, you know, has a lot of influence over the national governance as well. You know, he was redacted in the Epstein files at first as an alleged co-conspirator. He had members of Congress come to his house to depose him. I mean, none of that is, is normal."

Sense Receptor

60,568 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 4 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Like seemingly everyone on this app I have plenty of opinions about Twitter > X and figure now is a good time to open up a bit about my experience at the company. I tweeted for years into the void for the love of it like many of you, but after selling my startup to Twitter in 2020 I finally got to see it from the inside. Up close it was both amazing and terrible, like so many other companies and things in life. As someone with a maniacal sense of urgency built into me, Twitter often felt siloed and bureaucratic. Dumb power plays, reorgs and team name changes for the sake of someoneโ€™s ego were distractions that occurred too regularly. You couldnโ€™t just be a builder โ€” you also needed to be a politician. I was shocked by how old and bespoke the infrastructure was, but there was little will to think beyond quarterly earnings calls because we were all beholden to the masters of mDAU and revenue growth as a public company. It often felt like things were held together with duct tape and glue, and that many people had just accepted that a small product change could take months or quarters to build. Management had become bloated to accommodate career growth and the company culture felt too soft and entitled for my own taste. Healthy debate and criticism was replaced by a default refrain of โ€œno, that canโ€™t be doneโ€ or โ€œanother team owns that so donโ€™t touch itโ€. Teams could spend months building a feature and then some last-minute kerfuffle meant itโ€™d get killed for being too risky. Just talking directly to customers could turn into a turf war and create deadlocks between functions. I recall one such episode where a teammate spent a month trying to get clearance to reach out to some creators. He went through 3 layers of management and 6 different functional teams. In the end 4 executives were involved in the approval. It was insanity, and unfortunately I saw several top performers get burnt out and demoralized after exhausting experiences like that. Most people were good at their jobs but it was nearly impossible to fire poor performers โ€” instead they got shuffled around to other teams because few managers had the will or resources to figure out how to get them out. A high performance culture pulls everyone up, but the opposite weighs everyone down. Twitter often felt like a place that kept squandering its own potential, which was sad and frustrating to see. The person who was best at cutting through the BS and inspiring a vision during my tenure was Kayvon Beykpour, but he wasnโ€™t fully empowered to run the company since he wasnโ€™t the CEO. Despite those real issues, I was lucky enough to work with some of the most talented people in the business at Twitter in product, design, engineering, research, legal, BD, trust & safety, marketing, PR and more. Often it was a small cross-functional team of intrinsically motivated people who made the biggest impact by challenging some core assumption. Those teams were very fun to be on but they felt like the exception rather than the rule. The months of waiting for the deal to close in 2022 were particularly slow and painful; it felt like leadership hid behind lawyers and legal language as all answers about the companyโ€™s future notoriously included the phrase โ€œfiduciary dutyโ€. Colleagues openly talked about how Twitter was being sold because leadership didnโ€™t have conviction in their own plan or ability to fix longstanding problems. Although I didnโ€™t know much about Elon I was cautiously optimistic โ€“ I saw him as the guy who built incredible and enduring companies like Tesla and SpaceX, so perhaps his private ownership could shake things up and breathe new life into the company. My take on whatโ€™s happened since then is full of lived nuance. When people ask why I stayed itโ€™s easy to answer: optimism, curiosity, personal growth and money. From the beginning I saw that some changes Elon was going to make were smart and others were stupid, but when Iโ€™m on a team I uphold the philosophy of โ€œpraise in public and criticize in privateโ€. I was far from a silent wallflower. I shared my opinions openly and pushed back often, both before and after the acquisition. I made peace with the fact that I didnโ€™t have psychological safety at Twitter 2.0 and that meant I could be fired at any moment, and for no reason at all. I watched it happen repeatedly and saw how negatively it impacted team morale. Although I couldnโ€™t change the situation I did my best to shine a light on folks who were doing important work while being an emotionally supportive leader for those who were struggling to adapt to the more brutalist and hardcore culture. In person Elon is oddly charming and heโ€™s genuinely funny. He also has personality quirks like telling the same stories and jokes over and over. The challenge is his personality and demeanor can turn on a dime going from excited to angry. Since it was hard to read what mood he might be in and what his reaction would be to any given thing, people quickly became afraid of being called into meetings or having to share negative news with him. At times it felt like the inner circle was too zealous and fanatical in their unwavering support of everything he said. When individuals encouraged me to be careful about what I said I politely thanked them and said I would not be taking their advice. I had no interest in adding to a culture of fear or walking on eggshells around Elon. Either he would respect me for being real or he could fire me. Either outcome was okay. I quickly learned that product and business decisions were nearly always the result of him following his gut instinct, and he didnโ€™t seem compelled to seek out or rely on a lot of data or expertise to inform it. That was particularly frustrating for me since I believed I had useful institutional knowledge that could help him make better decisions. Instead he'd poll Twitter, ask a friend, or even ask his biographer for product advice. At times it seemed he trusted random feedback more than the people in the room who spent their lives dedicated to tackling the problem at hand. I never figured out why and remain puzzled by it. I donโ€™t think things had to be as difficult or dramatic as they turned out to be but I canโ€™t say Iโ€™d bet against Elon or count him out. Heโ€™s smart and has enough money to make a lot of mistakes and then course correct when things go awry. As the largest shareholder he can tank the value in the short-term, but eventually heโ€™ll need things to turn around. His focus on speed is incredible and heโ€™s obviously not afraid of blowing things up, but now the real measure will be how it get reconstructed and if enough people want the new everything app he is building. I learned a ton from watching Elon up close โ€“ the good, the bad and the ugly. His boldness, passion and storytelling is inspiring, but his lack of process and empathy is painful. Elon has an exceptional talent for tackling hard physics-based problems but products that facilitate human connection and communication require a different type of social-emotional intelligence. Social networks are hard to kill but theyโ€™re not immune from death spirals. Only time will tell what the outcome will be but I hope X finds its footing because competition is good for consumers. In the meantime, I have a lot of empathy for the employees who are working tirelessly behind the scenes, the advertisers who want a stable platform to sell their stuff on, and the customers who are experiencing chaotic updates. Itโ€™s been a madhouse. Twitter moved at the speed of molasses and suffered from bureaucracy but now X is run by a mercurial leader whose instinct is driven by the unique and undoubtedly weird experience of being the biggest voice on the platform. Many of you know me from the sleeping bag incident where I slept on a conference room floor, so I figure, letโ€™s talk about that too. Going viral was an odd and interesting experience. I was attacked by people on the left and called a billionaire bootlicker, while simultaneously being attacked by people on the right for being a working mom who was demonized as an example of a woman choosing her career over her family. Thankfully I can laugh at myself and I donโ€™t take armchair keyboard ideologues too seriously. Being the main character on the timeline, even for a few minutes, requires a thick skin and a strong sense of self. The real story is pretty simple. I was given a nearly impossible deadline for his first project and as the product lead I would never ask anyone to do anything I wasnโ€™t willing to do myself. So I worked round the clock alongside an amazing team spanning many timezones, and we delivered it on schedule โ€“ truly against the odds. It was intense but also fun. Those first few months were wildly crazy but I wanted to be there and I have no regrets. Showing up and giving it your all should, in most cases, be celebrated. Obviously you canโ€™t work at that pace forever but there are moments where bursts are mission critical. Iโ€™ve pulled many all-nighters in my career and also when I was a student for something that mattered to me. I donโ€™t regret putting in long hours or being ambitious, and feel proud of how far Iโ€™ve come from where I started thanks in part to that type of work ethic. I think of life as a game, and being at Twitter after the acquisition was like playing life at Level 10 on Hard Mode. Since I like taking on difficult challenges I found it interesting and rewarding because I was growing and learning so rapidly. I realize our society today trends toward polarization but when it comes to this app, its owner, and its future, I am neither a fangirl nor a hater โ€” Iโ€™m an optimistic pragmatist. This may really irritate the internet but you cannot pigeonhole me into some radical position of either loving or hating every change thatโ€™s occurred. I escaped my fundamentalist upbringing and am a free thinker these days. Everyone can be seen as both a hero or a villain, depending on who is telling what angle of the story. Elon doesnโ€™t deserve to be venerated or vilified. Heโ€™s a complicated person with an unfathomable amount of financial and geopolitical power which is why humanity needs him to err on the side of goodness, rather than political divisiveness and pettiness. I disagree with many of his decisions and am surprised by his willingness to burn so much down, but with enough money and time, something new & innovative may emerge. I hope it does. Sometimes I get asked about how I felt when I got laid off, and the truth is it was the best gift Iโ€™ve ever received. Sure the headlines and punchlines wrote themselves but I was battle hardened by then. I knew that Iโ€™d worked in a way where I could walk out with my head held high. I have no bitterness about the Product Management team being dismantled, and it made sense for me to exit as nearly all of the remaining PMs were let go. Going on a sabbatical afterward has been exactly what I needed to decompress and Iโ€™m finally feeling rested and relaxed. Iโ€™m a creative and a builder, so sooner than later Iโ€™ll jump back into a high intensity company but Iโ€™m grateful for this season of thinking, reading, traveling and being with people I love. After having time to reflect I believe more than ever that the very best outcomes flow from great leadership that combines the head and the heart. Iโ€™d be remiss if I didnโ€™t note that in all of this there is also a cautionary tale for anyone who succeeds at something โ€” which is that the higher you climb, the smaller your world becomes. Itโ€™s a strange paradox but the richest and most powerful people are also some of the most isolated. I found myself frequently looking at Elon and seeing a person who seemed quite alone because his time and energy was so purely devoted to work, which is not the model of a life I want to live. Money and fame can create psychological prisons which may worsen mental health conditions. Weโ€™ve all seen high profile cases of celebrities who end up with some combination of depression, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, mania and/or erratic behavior. Living in an echo chamber is dangerous and being at the top makes a person even more susceptible to being surrounded by yes people when nearly everyone around you is on the payroll and somehow stands to benefit from being in your orbit. Figuring out how to keep โ€œbetter angelsโ€ around in the form of family, friends, and teammates is critical to staying on the rails and enduring intense ups and downs. Everyone needs to hear hard truths sometimes and if you fire all the people who speak up then the reality distortion field may just turn into a vortex. I was drawn to Twitter because Iโ€™m obsessed with the problem of loneliness and connection between people. I find it fascinating & troubling that humans are getting lonelier as we simultaneously create a world thatโ€™s both safer and wealthier. I donโ€™t believe that trade-off has to exist, which is why I keep returning to that theme in my personal and professional life. I realize this is too long of a tweet but Twitter was a weird and special place on the internet, and Iโ€™m grateful to have played a teeny tiny role in its story and evolution. Iโ€™m here for whatever comes next โ€” on this app and in new places. Consumer social is very much alive and at a fascinating juncture, so Iโ€™ll be watching and participating and sharing hot takes because I donโ€™t want to, and probably canโ€™t, turn that part of me off. Perhaps X becomes a resounding success. Or it fails epically. Either way, I expect it will continue to be a very entertaining ride. ๐Ÿซก

Esther Crawford โœจ

5,496,748 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 3 ๅนดๅ‰

A Love Letter to Ferdinand Martin Romualdez | by Franco Mabanta Martin Romualdez, this episode is for you. And for every Filipino who believes that accountability should never depend on wealth, influence or power. For years, the powerful have operated under the assumption that the truth can be bullied, that free speech can be intimidated, that justice can be bought, and that public attention eventually fades. PGMN rejects that idea entirely. Today, PGMN CEO and founder Franco Cruz Mabanta makes his debut appearance on the Anchor Chair, in front of the camera owned by the company he built, for the most consequential statement of his life. In this deeply personal address, he touches the illegal extortion plot against him, the legal battle surrounding PGMN, the principles upon which the network was built, the multitude of untrue accusations, and the corruption issue that PGMN believes remains the single defining challenge facing the Philippines today. More than a response to recent events, it is a reflection on power, abuse, honesty, free speech, faith, and the future of a country still searching for justice from he who plundered what was not his. But before you watch, understand one thing. Do not judge this episode by the reactions of the bots. Do not judge it by the comment section swarmed by accounts created last week. Do not judge it by the trolls, the propaganda, the coordinated attacks, or the noise that inevitably surrounds any serious discussion about plunder, or the kind of greed that directly affects an entire generation, or WHY the Philippines cannot seem to rise above so many of its problems. Judge it by the facts. Judge it by the histories of those involved. Judge it by the actual recorded sequence of events. Judge it by the most logical motives presented. Judge by who you think are the more honest persons speaking. Judge it by the evidence. Judge it by your own investigation. Because when the stakes are this high, we all know that the wealthiest voices are not always the most truthful ones. What follows is far bigger than PGMN. It is bigger than politics. It is bigger than any one person. At its core, this is about whether public officialsโ€”especially those instinctively capable of real evilโ€”can still be held accountable when the questions become difficult, the scrutiny becomes dangerous, and the consequences become life-or-death. It is about whether facts still matter in an environment flooded with false and malicious narratives, and whether ordinary Filipinos like us still have the right to demand answers from those we entrusted with power. To Martin Romualdez, we are making PGMN's position crystal clear. We are not backing down. We are not looking away. We are not changing course. You can hope all you want, Martin, for the collective national attention to somehow focus entirely on the senate wars or the energy crisis or the impeachment proceedingsโ€”praying to your daily demons that the people of this country turn our heads away from your superabundance of heinous crimesโ€”but the facts remain clear: The Office of the Ombudsman has already referenced you as the โ€œMaster Plundererโ€; the Sandiganbayan has already said on record that you are the โ€œPurported Mastermindโ€ of Philippine corruption; Boying Remulla has already denied any and all desperate requests from you to flee the country; the government of US President Donald J. Trump has already eviscerated your diplomatic and tourist visas; Mayor Leni Robredo and the Pinks are adamantly insisting on TRUE accountability; Vice President Sara Duterte and the DDS will never EVER forgive you for what you did to her and to them; and President Bongbong Marcosโ€™ powerful/moral decisionโ€”not just to cut all ties with youโ€”but to strictly forbid anyone at the Palace from speaking to you anymore, and in any capacity, has completed the metaphorical corruption kill-shot that the entire nation has long, long, long been waiting for. And now 120 million-strong demand to know, with the full weight of everything we are, what you did with OUR MONEY. Distract us all you want, but the questions remain clear. The public interest remains loud. And our commitment to pursuing justice remains explicit. PGMN was founded on the belief that no politician, no billionaire, no dynasty, and no public official should ever become so powerful that they are beyond scrutiny. That belief did not disappear when the pressure arrived. It did not disappear when the controversy intensified. And it will not disappear simply because the stakes are now at their highest. If anything, moments like these are the reason PGMN exists. It is the reason why the Peanut Gallery was built on the backs of real fighters. What follows is a story about accountability, government drama, insider secrets, censorship of the media, prison time, a renewed faith in Christ, resilience that became necessary, sincerity that hopefully cuts through the noise, and what it actually means to go to war for a beautiful idea called freedom of speechโ€”all rolled up into one of the wildest David vs Goliath stories in modern Philippine politics, viewed from the lens of the most radical young media company that exists today. Above all, it is about the critical belief that the Filipino people deserve real justiceโ€”regardless of where the truth leads, regardless of who it makes uncomfortable, and regardless of whether or not the subject of that truth is a deeply powerful, historically treacherous man that goes by the name of Ferdinand Martin Romualdez. Watch until the end. Because not only is the conversation not overโ€ฆ The war between PGMN and the single most corrupt Flipino politician of the 21st century has only just begun.

Peanut Gallery Media Network

17,555 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

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. Howโ€”what is this? Iโ€”this wasn't on my bingo card. Even now I'm just like: Oh my God, I can't believe he did that. Judge Doolinโ€”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 Godโ€”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-fundedโ€”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 illegallyโ€”allegedlyโ€”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 Lindseyโ€”for allegedly going over there on December 23rd, 2023โ€”against Karen Read's advice and against his lawyers' advice, apparently, according to a leaked group chat message from Facebook in 2024โ€”in May of 2024โ€”going over to Lindsey's apartment. And then according to the affidavit from the search warrant for Karen Read's cell phoneโ€”allegedly telling Lindsey that she shouldn't cooperate with the grand jury. She shouldโ€”she could remove information from her phone or somethingโ€”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 likeโ€”wild stuff. And that new grand jury, by the way, was apparentlyโ€”it did go forward. And then in time it came out that itโ€”that was about Karen and Aidan and witness intimidation and conspiracy, because Aidan Kearneyโ€”between October and Novemberโ€”really August and November of 2023โ€”it started telling Lindsey Gaetani about his communications with Karen Read that includedโ€”in writingโ€”Exhibit O to Karen Read search warrant affidavit, which says that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that in November of 2023โ€”November 28, 2023, to be specificโ€”that Karen Read told Aidan Kearney that Karen Read and her team at ex parte conversations with former U.S. Attorney Josh Levyโ€”which was right in the window of time that Jessica Leslie, the grand juror leaker, was leaking information. Leslie started leaking in August of 2022โ€”which is the same month that Alan Jackson joined Karen Read's legal team. And Josh Levyโ€”who was one of the U.S. Attorneys in charge of that grand juryโ€”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 reallyโ€”the group of us journalists involved in thisโ€”can't really figure out. So right in the middle of thatโ€”November of 2023โ€”Josh Levy is leaking ex parte grand jury information to Karen Read, which she's puttingโ€”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 likeโ€”come onโ€”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 anywayโ€”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 likeโ€”why would you ever say that to her? Don't say that stuff. But anywayโ€”like, why would you sayโ€”even if it's your significant otherโ€”unless they are read-in on the intel that you are sharingโ€”why would you ever, ever, ever share that with someone? It exposes them to an incredible liabilityโ€”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 agentโ€”just someone who's your partner and you're just telling them stuff about protected federal investigationsโ€”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 anywayโ€”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 Kearneyโ€”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, noโ€”because then within a few months, Rachael Rollinsโ€”part of the reason she gets thrown out of office by the DOJ OIGโ€”is because she attends an event in Andover withโ€”guess who?โ€”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.โ€”well, one of the things you're going to realize is thatโ€”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'sโ€”what is itโ€”nephew or whatever it isโ€”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. Weโ€”as the Biden White Houseโ€”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 Markeyโ€”I don't know. But that's why I think Rachael Rollins became U.S. Attorneyโ€”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'Rourkeโ€”because Rollins wanted to see her progressive vision continue through O'Rourkeโ€”so she worked with Daniel Medwedโ€”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 Haydenโ€”to increase Ricardo O'Rourke's chances in the Suffolk DA primary. Sound familiar? Oh, hell yeah. So anywayโ€”between November of 2022 and May of 2023โ€”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 divisionโ€”Dustin Chao, I thinkโ€”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 peopleโ€”without being named; they're named by titleโ€”were the people who cooperated with the DOJ to take Rollins outโ€”DOJ-OIG to take Rollins out. Now, why is that interesting? Well, oneโ€”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. Secondโ€”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 herโ€”not just Michael Morrissey but others. Rollinsโ€”I'm pretty sureโ€”was the one who first called Morrissey a "meatball," in fact, because of his criticism of Rollins over that issue. Rachael Rollinsโ€”I thinkโ€”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 outโ€”well, maybe the Sandra Birchmore probe started back in May of 2022 because former chief of the Canton policeโ€”Ken Berkowitzโ€”went to the FBI and told them that the FBI covered upโ€”the MSP unit detailed to the Norfolk DA covered up Sandra Birchmore's murderโ€”potentially because Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning used to work in Stoughton with Matt Farwell and Robert Devine and Billy Farwellโ€”I think they all worked there. And furthermoreโ€”that Brian Tully, the unit commander, was partners with John Fanning for 20 years. All right, and in that regardโ€”it is very interesting, I thinkโ€”that Chief Berkowitzโ€”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. Okayโ€”on February 4th, Monday in the morningโ€”the Canton police do a wellness check after they get a call from herโ€”Sandra'sโ€”colleagues at the school where she worked as an administrative assistant. Now the Canton police respondโ€”on Monday, February 4thโ€”by Wednesday, February 6th. The Canton police have collected the following evidence in order. And if you don't believe me, you can read pagesโ€”I think 97 through 101โ€”of the Canton Police Department audit report released in April of 2025. Point by point. Number one: the Canton police confirmโ€”via a witness who was the maintenance worker at Sandra's apartment buildingโ€”that Matt Farwell was the man on camera outside Sandra's apartment in the elevator at 9:23 p.m. on February 1stโ€”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 childโ€”that he had abused her since she was a childโ€”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 informationโ€”by February 6th of 2021โ€”was passed over to the MSP. John Fanning and this whole unitโ€”I thinkโ€”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 cancerโ€”and that's why there was a grand jury impaneled in May of 2022โ€”and it was really about the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. Wellโ€”oneโ€”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 whyโ€”but how was it ruled aโ€”the result of self-harmโ€”instead of the very obvious murder that it was. Wellโ€”that startsโ€”2022, I thinkโ€”May of 2022โ€”the grand jury. Jessica Leslie was on the grand juryโ€”leakerโ€”who's going to be sentenced on October 4th of 2025. I think Jessica Leslieโ€”ladies and gentlemenโ€”in August of 2022 somehow leaked to Karen Readโ€”Alan Jacksonโ€”that the Norfolk DA was dirty because they covered upโ€”and that MSP unitโ€”because they covered up Sandra Birchmore's murder. All rightโ€”so therefore, Alan Jacksonโ€”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 knowโ€”but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody caresโ€”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 theyโ€”I thinkโ€”they brought on the PIโ€”Marty Kraftโ€”and Kate Peterโ€”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 unitโ€”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 kidsโ€”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 thisโ€”or we're going to be exposed for Birchmore." But let me bring it back to the point hereโ€”which is in 2022, the feds clearly were starting to poke around. And come 2023โ€”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 upโ€”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 movementโ€”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 Readโ€”maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get herโ€”but if you think about it in the context of: Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmoreโ€”then you understand: Karenโ€”that's why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knewโ€”everyone around Tully, his friends, all of themโ€”the unitโ€”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 didโ€”to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anywayโ€”and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DAโ€”destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearlyโ€”and she's a tactical fucking genius. I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the prosecution of Aidan Kearneyโ€”not to get a genuinelyโ€”in my opinionโ€”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, folksโ€”a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface because you're dealing with a very high-level operation like the state policeโ€”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 reallyโ€”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 outโ€”from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it togetherโ€”and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got indicted. Nowโ€”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 nonsenseโ€”who came into this and said: Nopeโ€”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 DAโ€”or Kate Peter or Marty Kraftโ€”and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnessesโ€”I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there. But at least for Lindseyโ€”Judge Doolin was like: enough of this nonsense. And that's why today was such a big deal in light of that historical contextโ€”because just tracing that very insidious pattern of events over the past 18 monthsโ€”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 herโ€”including Brian Tullyโ€”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 youโ€”as a fucking state police officerโ€”who youโ€”you are entrustedโ€”not just to get the bad guysโ€”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 unitโ€”whether enabled by Morrissey or whether he didn't know about itโ€”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 warโ€”and these people are so hardened, I guess, that they don't understand what it means to be vulnerable. And these were police officersโ€”detectivesโ€”people entrusted to uphold and protect the dignity of the most vulnerableโ€”and they fucking used victims to advance some political agendaโ€”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 caseโ€”and they fucked everything upโ€”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 anywayโ€”Judge Doolinโ€”without giving a... extemporaneous, uh, bloviating cuss-based rant like I just didโ€”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 womanโ€”Lindsey Gaetani. I'm making you appoint someone! I love that man. Good for Judge Doolin. But stillโ€”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 ofโ€”um, uhโ€”solving crimes. I'm sure most of the MSP are wonderful. Anywayโ€”my point is: I don't think the state police officers that I generally run intoโ€”or troopersโ€”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. Theyโ€”what else do they do? They go after commercial truck violations. They investigate homicidesโ€”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 accountabilityโ€”you lose the confidence of everyone. And how do you think some of those good troopers feel when they have to go out there? Yesโ€”people like me are going to smile at them and bless them and whateverโ€”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 deserveโ€”if we're going to make the profession have the respect that it deservesโ€”then this kind of institutional rot can't be looked at as just an embarrassment. And it can't be looked at as something thatโ€”oh, we just wish didn't happen. Maybe some guys are going to go away. Noโ€”you point at it. You scream it from the rooftops and you say: if this happens even onceโ€”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 coverโ€”and it was systemically enabled. And that's why I thinkโ€”to save the profession of policing in Massachusettsโ€”there needs to be a full-on unbridled discussion about how this happenedโ€”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 harmโ€”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 Birchmoreโ€”Sandra Birchmoreโ€”and what happened to Lindsey Gaetaniโ€”hold them up in the national spotlightโ€”and say: weโ€”the MSPโ€”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 enoughโ€”the very fact that either of these things were able to happenโ€”the Birchmore cover-up, the phone extraction leakโ€”is such a pervasive, systemic degradation of the faith that victims and the public have in the justice systemโ€”that our only option is to talk about thisโ€”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 thisโ€”but that's exactly what happened at the CCC on a smaller scale. And if this country mattersโ€”if this form of government mattersโ€”if this republic mattersโ€”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 favoritismโ€”and we will look only for the truth and nothing but it. And if you are incapable of doing thatโ€”you're contributingโ€”either consciously or subconsciouslyโ€”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

36,552 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 10 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

A video-text summary of my argument that we now live in the age of TECHNOFEUDALISM (in 16', 2000 words): Wherever we turn, we witness the triumph of capital. Capital has prevailed everywhere: in warehouses, factories, offices, universities, public hospitals, the media โ€“ in space but also in the microcosm of genetic engineering. So, how do I dare claim that capitalism has been killed? By whom? The deliciously ironic answer is that capitalism was killed by its own handโ€ฆ by capital! If I am right, the issue is not what AI will do to us in the future but what has already happened: Capital became so dominant that it mutated into a variant so toxic that, like a stupid virus, it killed off its host, capitalism, replacing it with something far, far worse. This new mutant capital, that killed capitalism, lives in the proverbial cloud โ€“ so, let us call it cloud capital. What is cloud capital? What makes it so different? Cloud capital, of course, does not really live up in the cloud. It lives down on Earth, comprising networked machines, server farms, cell towers, software, AI-driven algorithms โ€“ and of course it lives on our oceansโ€™ floors where untold miles of optic fibre cables rest. Unlike traditional capital, from fishing rods to the steam-engines of the Industrial Revolution to todayโ€™s modern industrial robots that are produced means of production, cloud capital does not produce anything โ€“ it comprises machines manufactured so as to modify human behaviour. Thatโ€™s what Amazonโ€™s Alexa or Googleโ€™s Assistant or Appleโ€™s Siri is: It is a produced means of behavioural modification. It is a machine, a piece of capital, which we train to train us to train it to determine that which we want. And, once we want it, the same networked machine sells it to us, directly, bypassing markets. As if that were not enough, the same machinery succeeds in making us sustain the enormous behavioural modification machine network to which it belongs with our free voluntary labour. We are sustaining it as we post reviews, rate products, upload videos, rants, photos - we help reproduce cloud capital without getting a penny for our labour. In essence, it has turned us into its cloud serfs! Meanwhile, in the factories and the warehouses, where waged proletarians work under increasingly precarious conditions, the same algorithms that modify our behaviour and sell products to us directly โ€“ those algorithms are deployed, usually by digital devices tied to the workersโ€™ wrists, to make proletarians, workers in the warehouses, in the factories work faster, to direct and to monitor them in real time. I started by saying that wherever we turn, we stumble on the triumph of capital. But it is cloud capital that is the real winner. It is amazing how it performs, at once, five roles that used to be beyond capitalโ€™s capacities: Cloud capital grabs our attention. It manufactures our desires. It sells to us, directly, outside any traditional markets, that which is going to satiate the desires it made us have. It drives proletarian labour inside the workplaces. And it elicits massive free labour from us, its cloud-serfs. Is it surprising that the owners of this cloud capital โ€“ letโ€™s call them cloudalists โ€“ have a hitherto undreamt power to extract? To extract gargantuan surplus value from proletarians; untold quantities of free labour from almost everyone; and mind-numbing cloud rents from vassal capitalists โ€“ from sellers? Is it a wonder that they are vastly more powerful than Henry Ford or Rupert Murdoch could ever be? โ€œHang onโ€, I hear you say. โ€œIs Jeff Bezos really different to Henry Ford? Arenโ€™t they all a species of monopoly capitalists? Monopolists?โ€ No, is not a monopolistic capitalist enterprise. The moment you enter you have exited capitalism altogether! Sure enough, the place is teaming with buyers and sellers. So, yes, it is an enormous trading platform but, no, a market it certainly is not! One man called Jeff owns everything. But he is much, much more than a mere monopolist. Jeff doesnโ€™t own the factories that produce the stuff sold on his platform by traditional capitalists who have to use it to ply their trade. What he does own is more important: Jeff owns the algorithm that decides which products you see and which you donโ€™t โ€“ the very algorithm that you have trained to know you perfectly so that it matches youwith a seller, whom it also knows perfectly well, with a view to maximising the probability that every such match, transaction, will generate, for Jeff, the highest rent that Jeff can charge the seller for what you buy: up to 40% of what you pay is pocketed by Jeff, the cloudalist! The mind rebels at the enormity but also the radical novelty of this kind of exploitation: The same algorithm that we help train in real time to know us inside out - that same algorithm both modifies our preferences and administers the selection and delivery of commodities that will satisfy these preferences. If you and I were to type โ€œelectric bicyclesโ€ or โ€œbinocularsโ€ while in you and I would get totally different recommendations. In a traditional market or shopping mall it would be as if you and I were walking next to each other, our eyes trained in the same direction, the same shop window, but we were to see different things depending on what Jeffโ€™s algorithm wants each one of us to see. Everyone navigating around โ€“ except Jeff Bezos of course โ€“ everyone in is wandering around in algorithmically constructed isolation as if in a Panopticon where, unable to see each other, we only see Jeffโ€™s all-seeing algorithm or, more accurately, only what his algorithm allows us to see with a view to maximising his cloud rent โ€“ which is, of course, todayโ€™s version of the ground rent that the feudal lords used to extract from their vassals and their peasants. This is not capitalism. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to technofeudalism! How did cloud capital kill capitalism? How did it rise up? Who paid for it? Capitalism, lest we forget, had two pillars: markets and profit. Of course, markets and profit remain ubiquitous. Nevertheless, cloud capital has evicted both markets and profit from the centre of our socioeconomic system, pushing them out to its margins, and replacing them: Markets, the medium of capitalism, have been replaced by cloud fiefs โ€“ digital trading platforms like or Alibaba which, as we saw, look like, but are not, markets. And Profit? The fuel of capitalism? Well, that has been replaced by its feudal predecessor: rent. But, specifically, a new form of rent, a cloud rent that must be paid for access to those cloud fiefs or digital platforms. But how did cloud capital emerge?It began life in the late 1990s when the original Internet, which was a Commons โ€“ it functioned as a capitalism-free-zone โ€“ that original Internet, Internet 1.0 if you want, was privatised by the emergent Big Tech. Who paid for the trillions it cost to manufacture and to accumulate cloud capital so quickly in the hands of so very few cloudalists? The startling answer is: The G7 countriesโ€™ central banks, mostly! How did that happen? Well, by accident, or โ€“ to be more precise โ€“ byโ€ฆ crisis! After the financial sector collapse of 2008, our central bankers printed up to $35 trillion to bail out the bankers at a time when the governments were subjecting our peoples to harsh austerity. Capitalists were clever enough to foresee that the many would be too impecunious to buy their stuff. So, instead of investing, they took the central bank money to the stock exchange and the bond markets, where they bought shares, bonds โ€“ along with yachts, art, bitcoin, NFTs any โ€˜assetโ€™ they could lay their hands on. The only capitalists who actually invested in capital were Big Tech owners. For example, 9 out of every 10 dollars that went into creating Facebook came from these central bank monies! Thatโ€™s how cloud capital was financed and how the cloudalists became our new ruling class. As a result, real power today resides not with the owners of machinery, buildings, railway and phone networks, industrial robots. These old-fashioned, terrestrial capitalists continue to extract surplus value from waged labour, but they are no longer in charge, as they used to be. They have become vassals in relation to the owners of cloud capital, of the cloudalists. As for the rest of us, we have returned to our former status as serfs, contributing to the wealth and power of the new ruling class with our unpaid labour โ€” in addition to the waged labour we perform, when we get the chance to do it. But surely, someone will say, this is still capitalism, isnโ€™t it? So, you are still unconvinced? I know, it is hard to part with the term, with the word, capitalism. It is not just liberals who think of capitalism like fish think of the water they swim in โ€“ as natural. Socialists too need to feel that our purpose in life, the reason we landed on this Earth, is to overthrow capitalism. The news that I bring that capital beat us to it, and now we have something worse in capitalismโ€™s place, that news is hard to accept. Indeed, it is mostly my fellow-travelling leftist friends who try to dissuade me โ€“ to convince me that, yes, cloud capital may be important but โ€œthis is still capitalism mateโ€. Letโ€™s call it rentier capitalism or monopoly capitalism, they suggest. But that simply will not do! Cloud rent is not like ground rent, because it requires massive investment in new tech. And it is not monopoly rent either, because Bezos and Zuckerberg, instead of monopolising markets to sell their manufactures (like Ford and Eddison did), Bezos and Zuckerberg have replaced markets and have no interest in manufacturing anything (unlike Henry Ford and Thomas Eddison). How about surveillance capitalism? Again, no, it wonโ€™t do. Cloudalists do not simply use algorithms to brain wash us on behalf of advertisers in an otherwise capitalist setting. No, cloud capital reproduces itself through our free-labour, it directly exploits waged labour, and it squeezes cloud rents from vassal capitalists in trading platforms that are not markets. This is not capitalism folks! Any kind of capitalism. But what about the observation that technofeudalism is parasitic on the capitalist sector within it? Yes, it is true. Were the conventional capitalists to die out, cloudalists would perish, unable to skim off cloud rents from the manufacturers. So what? After capitalism overthrew feudalism, capitalists were also parasitic on landowners, in the sense that, without private land producing food, capitalism would wither. Similarly, now: While the traditional capitalist sector feeds technofeudalism, it is cloud capital and cloud rent that dominate. Does it matter whether we call it technofeudalism or some form of capitalism? At this point, it is important to recall Marxโ€™s maxim that the point is not to interpret but to change the world. So, does it matter if this is still capitalism or whether we call it technofeudalism? I think it does. Recognising that our world has become technofeudal helps us grasp the enormity of what it will take to organise the victims of exorbitant power, the exploited who, now, include not only waged labourers but also the hordes of cloud serfs who are reproducing the very cloud capital that keeps them in a state of deepening precarity. The concept of technofeudalism drives home the point that organising auto-workers and nurses, while still essential, is insufficient. It elucidates what it will take to organise the movements against the fossil fuel cartel when our means of communication are run on cloud capital primed to poison public opinion. It explains how the shift to electric cars caused German deindustrialisation, as profits due to precision mechanical engineering are being replaced by rents extracted by owners of the cloud capital keeping tabs on the driversโ€™ routes and in-cabin habits. Elon Muskโ€™s decision to buy Twitter suddenly makes a lot more sense. Twitter for Musk is an interface between his mechanical capital stock at Tesla and SpaceX and cloud capital. The New Cold War between the USA and China, especially after the war in Ukraine, is explained as the repercussion of an underlying clash between two technofeudalisms, one whose cloud rents are denominated in dollars the other in yuan. Isnโ€™t it mindboggling? It took mind-bending scientific breakthroughs, fantastical neural networks, and imagination-defying AI programs to accomplish what? To create a world where, while privatisation and private equity asset-strip all physical wealth around us, cloud capital goes about the business of asset-stripping our brains. To own our minds individually, we must own cloud capital collectively. Once we have reclaimed our minds, we can put them collectively to work out a way to create a new cloud capital commons. It will be damned hard. But itโ€™s the only way we can turn our cloud-based artefacts from a produced means of behaviour modification to a produced means of human collaboration and emancipation. Cloud serfs, cloud proles and cloud vassals of the world, unite! We have nothing to lose but our mind-cloud chains! US Edition: UK Edition: Greek Edition:

Yanis Varoufakis

1,816,621 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ๅนดๅ‰

War Diary Day 1,391 Blaise Metreweli, the Chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, sticks it to the Killer in The Kremlin. And all his creepy helpers. I agree with every fucking word. VPDFO! (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered) ๐Ÿ“ท Welcome inside MI6. This iconic building, familiar to movie fans everywhere, is the home of Britainโ€™s foreign intelligence agency. But whilst hundreds of my team pass through the entry pods each day, the truth is that most of our work happens many miles away from this place - out of sight, hidden from the world, undercover, recruiting and running agents who choose to place their trust in us, sharing secrets to make the UK and the world safer. You might pass one of our officers on the street or sit next to them on a plane when youโ€™re about to set off on an adventure of your own, or in a foreign city taking selfies by the sights. Whether itโ€™s in seemingly everyday places, or on the front line embedded with our military, MI6 is there. In my first few weeks, Iโ€™ve heard repeatedly that MI6 is trusted and respected globally, two things that we never take for granted. We are seen as a source of hard power, soft influence and rapid innovation. Iโ€™ve also heard that people want to believe in MI6. Itโ€™s my job to make sure they can. Today, I want to talk about human agency. We all have choices to make about how we deal with the undercurrents shaping our world. About how, in our new, faster, more dangerous and technology-mediated world, it will be our rediscovery of our shared humanity, our ability to listen, and our courage that will determine how our future unfolds. Conflict is not inevitable. Understanding human nature is in my bones. From a family shaped by devastating conflict, I grew up with a deep sense of gratitude for the UKโ€™s precious democracy and freedom. I spent much of my childhood overseas, which is where my passion for travel and adventure began. I studied anthropology, and later psychology and AI, exploring how we make sense of the world and each other. Itโ€™s why I was drawn to MI6: it offers strong purpose, a chance to serve and a belief in the positive power of human connection. Like the Service, Iโ€™m operational to my very core. Over nearly three decades, my career has involved recruiting and running agents in hostile territory; and leading operations in warzones to defuse threats and support peace. Always in teams, always learning from others. Over the years, Iโ€™ve worked with hundreds of brilliant partners โ€“ and indeed occasionally those weโ€™d label as adversaries โ€“ across dozens of countries, tackling weapons proliferation and terrorism. During my time at MI5, I saw close up what it takes to defend Britain from being targeted by hostile states. Youโ€™ll find many like me in my organisation: powerfully motivated to protect our precious country; curious about how our world is changing, joining dots and taking action, across domains. But it was in my last role as โ€˜Qโ€™, where it was my job to turn emerging technologies from threats to opportunities that I could most see the world changing. As I dug deep into data and extraordinary innovation, I could see how technology was rapidly reshaping not just our capabilities but also conflict and trust, truth and global power. Let me lay out how I see the global issues MI6 must tackle. Because the greatest danger we face is to misunderstand the nature of the problem. Letโ€™s be in no doubt. Our world is more dangerous and contested now than it has been for decades. Conflict is evolving and trust eroding, just as new technologies spur both competition and dependence. We are being contested from sea to space, from the battlefield to the boardroom. And even our brains, as disinformation manipulates our understanding of each other and ourselves. Across the globe, we are now confronting not one single danger, but an interlocking web of security challenges โ€“ military, technological, social, ethical even โ€“ each shaping the other in complex ways. We are now operating in a space between peace and war. This is not a temporary state or a gradual, inevitable evolution. Our world is being actively remade, with profound implications for national and international security. Institutions which were designed in the ashes of the Second World War are being challenged. New blocs and identities forming and alliances reshaping. Multipolar competition in tension with multilateral cooperation. But thereโ€™s something distinctive that will make this change unlike any other: the impact of advanced technologies, which will accelerate the pace and scale of every threat and opportunity, and increasingly, individualise them too. Advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing are not only revolutionising economies but rewriting the reality of conflict, as they โ€˜convergeโ€™ to create science-fiction-like tools. Thereโ€™s incredible promise in all this for all of us, from green technologies to hyper-personalised medicine. But also peril. AI-powered robots and drones are brilliant for scaled manufacturing but devastating on the battlefield. Discoveries that cure disease can also create new weapons. And as states race for tech supremacy, or as some algorithms become as powerful as states, those hyper-personalised tools could become a new vector for conflict and control. Power itself is becoming more diffuse, more unpredictable as control over these technologies is shifting from states to corporations, and sometimes to individuals. And at the same time, the foundations of trust in our societies are eroding. Information, once a unifying force, is increasingly weaponised. Falsehood spreads faster than fact, dividing communities and distorting reality. We live in an age of hyper-connection yet profound isolation. The algorithms flatter our biases and fracture our public squares. And as trust collapses, so does our shared sense of truth โ€“ one of the greatest losses a society can suffer. The defining challenge of the twenty-first century is not simply who wields the most powerful technologies, but who guides them with the greatest wisdom. Our security, our prosperity, and our humanity depend on it. Our world is being remade. And for the first time, we are all at the heart of it. My Service must now operate in this new context too: not just expert on hostile states, terrorism, proliferation and more, but also fluent in technology, able to anticipate the second and third order effects of advances that reshape the world in minutes not months. And as China will be a central part of the global transformation taking place this century, it is essential that we, as MI6, continue to inform the governmentโ€™s understanding of Chinaโ€™s rise and the implications for UK national security. Iโ€™m going to break with tradition and wonโ€™t give you a global threat tour, but will focus here on Putinโ€™s Russia. We all continue to face the menace of an aggressive, expansionist and revisionist Russia, seeking to subjugate Ukraine and harass NATO. I find it harrowing that hundreds of thousands have died, with the toll mounting every day, because of Putinโ€™s historical distortions and his compromised desire for respect. He is dragging out negotiations and shifting the cost of war onto his own population. But Putin should be in no doubt, our support is enduring. The pressure we apply on Ukraineโ€™s behalf will be sustained. Because it is fundamental not just to European sovereignty and security but to global stability. Alongside the grinding war, Russia is testing us in the grey zone with tactics that are just below the threshold of war. Itโ€™s important to understand their attempts to bully, fearmonger and manipulate, because it affects us all. I am talking about: Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Drones buzzing airports and bases. Aggressive activity in our seas, above and below the waves. State-sponsored arson and sabotage. Propaganda and influence operations that crack open and exploit fractures within societies. Countering this activity is the work of intelligence and security services across Europe and the globe. And as the Foreign Secretary made clear in a speech last week, the UK is defending itself against this Russian information warfare โ€“ sanctioning Russian media outlets pushing Kremlin narratives. The export of chaos is a feature not a bug in this Russian approach to international engagement; and we should be ready for this to continue until Putin is forced to change his calculus. So, how should we respond? Itโ€™s not enough now just to understand the world. We must shape it too. MI6 is well-positioned to respond to these threats and wider global instability. And we will continue to evolve, just as we have throughout our long history. The UK government has invested in our intelligence agencies and we are all using our unique powers to keep the British people safe. Our โ€˜open and connectedโ€™ partnerships across the UK Intelligence Community, with HMGCC, NSSIF and the wider tech ecosystem in the UK will become even more important โ€“ because in the digital battleground, no single organisation can prevail alone. As a global agency, MI6โ€™s inbuilt strength is our partners and our people. The risks I have set out require us to work ever more closely with our colleagues in MI5, GCHQ and in defence and diplomacy. But also with our Five Eyes partners, with the E3, the EU, NATO, those across the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and beyond. And with many valued partners whose identity needs to remain secret. Together, we integrate our diverse talent, data and tools to meet the threat. AI is a domain in which we will excel, using the technology to augment, not replace, our human skills. Every digital trace, every byte of data, every algorithmic decision has implications for the safety of the lives of the courageous people who work with us as officers and agents, and for the UKโ€™s strategic advantage. Mastery of technology will infuse everything we do. Not just in our labs, but in the field, in our tradecraft, and even more importantly, in the mindset of every officer. We will become as comfortable with lines of code as we are with human sources, as fluent in Python as we are in multiple other languages. Under my leadership, MI6 will continue to attract Britainโ€™s best and most creative minds: linguists and data scientists, case officers and engineers, behavioural experts and technologists. We need people who walk in the shoes and get in the heads of our adversaries. We need people who think differently, challenge assumptions, and act decisively. All can thrive and make a difference at MI6. At an operational level, we will sharpen our edge and impact with audacity, tapping into โ€“ if you like โ€“ our historical SOE instincts. Weโ€™re at our best when weโ€™re hustling to make things happen, because our intelligence is most valuable when it changes reality on the ground. We will take calculated risks, where the prize is significant and the national interest clear. We will never stoop to the tactics of our opponents. But we must seek to outplay them. In every domain. In every way. So intelligence must drive action. Action must deliver advantage. And advantage must serve Britainโ€™s security and prosperity. But at the core, our deeper contribution is also our simplest โ€“ how we unlock human agency. Our fast-paced, tech and threat-infused world now generates more heat than light. As nations retrench and rearm, we are losing opportunities to listen to whatโ€™s really going on. Iโ€™ve seen time and again throughout my career, that this is where MI6 matters most: we listen and we hear. We understand, because we take time to learn languages and cultures, complex technical and historical detail, immerse ourselves in whatโ€™s really driving the situation. Across the globe, right now, our officers are finding people with the courage to step forward, and they are taking time to sit and listen to break these tightening cycles of violence. They listen for nuance, for connection, for opportunity. Over the years, Iโ€™ve listened to terrorists who have told us how to defuse the bomb because they know that more violence wonโ€™t help. To proliferators and smugglers whoโ€™ve told us where to find the dangerous material, motivated to protect their childrenโ€™s future. To people trapped in authoritarian regimes who know, deep down, that their humanity is being chipped away โ€“ and that telling us whatโ€™s really going on is an important release, allowing us all to find better ways to navigate our changing world. So, we will work with our agents. And we will continue to engage directly, and with respect, with states and organisation currently working against us. Away from the glare of the media, we will use MI6โ€™s convening power wherever we can to make a material difference, bringing parties together to defuse tensions. But the response to the increasing risks we face wonโ€™t be delivered by the UK intelligence community alone. Wider society has a role to play too. That includes work taking place in schools across the country so our children donโ€™t get duped by information manipulation. Letโ€™s all check sources, consider evidence, and be alive to those algorithms that trigger intense reactions, like fear. It also means everyone in society really understanding the world we are in โ€“ a world where terrorists plot against us, where our enemies fearmonger, bully and manipulate, and the front line is everywhere. Online, on our streets, in our supply chains, in the minds and on the screens of our citizens. We must all stand together against this. As we do today with our friends in Australia after the shocking antisemitic terrorist attack this weekend. My thoughts -and those of my whole organisation โ€“ are with the family, friends and loved ones of the victims. Light will always win over darkness. In rising to meet these challenges we, in MI6, will remain anchored to our values: courage, creativity, respect and integrity. And to our principles: accountability and trust are not constraints on our work; they are the foundations of our legitimacy with the British public. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting and thanking a foreign agent who has worked with us for decades, taking extraordinary risks to help keep the UK safe. I asked why. They said simply, โ€˜Your values. Your integrity and respect. None of us have a future without themโ€™. This moment reinforced to me that we must remain a very human agency. And so, to sustain that trust, MI6 will continue to be more open. Not for the sake of visibility, but because it matters โ€“ and as my MI5 counterpart Sir Ken McCallum said recently - because it is a strength. We will continue the practice of speaking publicly, broaden our channels of engagement, and sustain our focus on attracting the most diverse talent to join our Service. Transparency does not mean revealing what must remain secret. It means showing the British people who we are, what we stand for, and why our work matters. We need your trust and support for the difficult and often dangerous work our agents pursue, every day of the year. In an age of uncertainty, one constant remains: the choices made by human beings still determine the shape of the world. Yes, technology can illuminate possibilities: but information requires judgement; complexity demands clarity; and only people can decide which path to follow. The United Kingdomโ€™s global voice has never rested solely on strength โ€“ it has rested on trust, principle, and the ability to understand others as well as ourselves. That is also the essence of intelligence: not simply knowing the world, but interpreting it through a uniquely human lens. Ours is the quiet service, the hidden service. It is one rooted in a profound belief that when human beings act with purpose and integrity, they can steady a faltering world. When the Berlin Wall fell, it was our shared belief in freedom that carried Europe forward. When acts of terror targeted open societies, it was intelligence, cooperation and resolve that preserved them. And when adversaries blur fact and falsehood, our task is to defend the space where truth can still stand. As we step into the future, the tools at our disposal will evolve. But what will always matter most is the human element โ€“ the person who stands in the shadows and says: this is right, and that is wrong. That choice โ€“ the exercise of human agency โ€“ has shaped our world before, and it will shape it again. Because in the end, it is not what we can do that defines us, but what we choose to do. Thank you. Published 15 December 2025

John Sweeney

42,257 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 7 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

.Christian Rivera (el que dijo que KOI era un equipo de mierda y se dedicaba a acosar a los jugadores) me llama nena en su stream, me dice que no tengo idea de lol y que soy un cagรณn. Obviando la fantasmada histรณrica, vamos a hablar un poco de mรญ y de este estafador: ๐Ÿ‘‡ Lo voy a hacer en inglรฉs para que puedan salir todos sus fanboys (tres o cuatro) y para que no tenga la excusa de la traducciรณn. Yo no necesito esconderme. Le dais al translate y pillรกis rรกpidamente el flow. As for the question of who am I, I think it is the mark of a moron to expect your name to carry your takes. Anyone can and will make plenty of mistakes when talking about complicated and opinionated subjects such as League. I feel context is necessary if you are coming late to what is quickly becoming a shouting match. My beef with Dom is based on me accusing him of basically being a grifter. Someone pretending to understand competitive League at a high level to sell gambling content to unaware kids after, in one of his many desperate attempts to claw his way back into pseudo-relevance, he declared KOI players to be "shit" and made this a running joke within his fandom. These alleged "shit players" in a "shit team" made finals on their first split and worlds on their first year. After upgrading their midlane to Jojopyun, have just now won LEC and made MSI. 2/5 finals, 2/4 internationals and a 3-1 LEC split finals against Cap's G2. Seems to me that, after combining defamatory language with such an ill-informed professional blunder (I don't consider him a analyst but he does, so it is a professional blunder from his pretended pov), it would fall on Dominate to give a proper public explanation. Instead, he hides on his stream while accusing others of cowardice. Let's put a pin on that and come back to the subject of what have I ever done (a weak whataboutism that barely qualifies as an excuse for running a harassment campaign against rookie players). I started taking League seriously and joined the scene as a writer in 2017. By the end of that year I managed to join Mad Lions, a team that would find great success without me during 2018, being that I left within the span of two weeks. After an argument with then coach Araneae, I became disillusioned with the competitive side of League. In this argument my head coach, a veteran player and unarguably successful coach before and since, was adamant about the idea that lane matchups decide strongside. I argued that it is actually jungle windows of play that determine who should get to push the wave. Today, we all know it's a bit of a mixed bag, and winning matchups have evolved much beyond who gets to crash any given wave. We agreed that both of us were people that have a hard time letting go of our opinions and parted ways amicably. To me, what makes League a worthwhile pursuit is exploring the interesting ideas that can be built through it, not necessarily the drive to win. I left the team wanting to use content as a means to an end, as after that argument, I became obsessed with understanding the competitive jungle. It took me a year and a half, and you can call it luck, but I'm actually quite proud of the narratives I was able to push building around that knowledge. By MSI 2019, attended by at the time world champion "Ning" and mechanical prodigy "Clid", I pushed Jankos as the clear best jungler of the tournament. I understand the English speaking community has no way of knowing this, but I faced significant backlash for putting a western player above these two greats. His cover style of jungle allowed G2 to greedily succeed in getting the most of their flex-heavy drafts that often landed them on the winning side of matchups, and coasted them into a midgame where they found no match. G2 took that tournament and set a record for the quickest international finals. By the time EU legend Jankos arrived at worlds, many had them as the key player/mvp that made 2019 G2 work. This time, even though most experts had Clid as clear top 1 jungler and I had just found success (maybe luck?) through Jankos, I actually pushed Tian as the top 1. Admittedly, this one is kind of murky, since it was Doinb's understanding of midlane windows that actually had Tian play the peak of his career. Still, the fact remains that FPX brought the best jungle/river play system and ended up taking the tournament. Finally, after a clear-cut exceptional Canyon that dominated 2020 and pushed the limits of what jungle efficiency is (hard to argue against his inherent quality nor was I ever inclined to do so), I had Wei as my top jungler for 2021's MSI. This time, professional junglers (with whom I had an amicable relationship, this was not in bad faith) wrote to me privately, joking about how they were expecting for the tournament to end and Canyon to stomp Wei so they could laugh at me publically and quote-RT my tierlist. I was committing the sacrilege of putting some chinese guy above the best jungler to ever play the game, in the tournament following his peak performance. Sadly, their time never came. Wei's mastery of damage limits and unique skill with the Rumble pick (which was disgustingly broken, even if only one guy could actually play it, never mind what Phreak's winrate analysis told you) made Canyon's Morgana spam look disappointing to say the least. Bear in mind that Canyon is still in my mind the best jungler to ever play the game, he just wasn't in his best form at that particular MSI. Call it luck if you want, but bringing three dark horse takes in a row and have them all pay you back is no easy feat. Ask Dom how his KOI take is doing, I don't think he's too happy with it. I can't sit here with you and spend all day exploring every bullseye I've ever gotten (there isn't enough room in a tweet), but I can tell you a few more. Had Fnatic becoming a dysfunctional team over Razorkยดs transition from selfish jungler into adc lapdog, recently confirmed by Vladi in chat (I think he is a bit better than Dom at the game). Had "Nisqy will never make an international tournament ever again" after he parted ways with Elyoya, while other content creators were pushing the opposite. We had to sit for years and pretend he was enabling Elyoya to look good and not the other way around. Nisqy seems like a fun guy, I'm actually low-key a fan of his, but I don't build my takes on whose dick I can suck deep enough so that they might show up on my stream and give me credibility by association (unlike other people). I had 2023 T1 beating JDG when the narrative was JDG's royal road. How? Because since MSI 2022 I've been pushing every team to study T1's early vision system. Like, I literally said over and over again, whoever is not studying this team's early vision system is hard trolling. Recorded several videos on it. This is before Faker ever made world finals against DRX. Back when I was saying T1 had revolutionized competitive League of Legends, accusations were that T1 were washed and chokers (remember which side of that narrative jungle soloq genius IWD was on?). After they made three World's finals in a row and won two of them, it seems like I was onto something, wasn't I? I also made a very controversial video in 2022 that titles "The Second Korean Age", speaking about how T1's advancement in vision systems would push Korea ahead for years to come. It was pretty controversial back then, in 2022, when China had won 3/5 of the last world championships. Now Korea has won three years in a row, not so controversial anymore. Lucky again. However, my proudest work is not something that seems that impressive at first glance. It's called "Pyramids towards 13.19". It's a work that explores the evolution of season 13's World's metagame, drawing a paralellism between understanding a patch and the religions in the lost city of Teotihuacรกn, wherein they'd build towards the sky in order to get a bit closer to the gods without any possible end to that process. Just as a side note, I also have a video about how laning between turrets is sleeper op and Riot will have to nerf it eventually. T1 and some Chinese teams were toying with it last summer, but everyone focused on swaps instead (as they were easier to build and had a more solid body of working examples). I recorded my theory in 2023 MSI and watched the best teams in the world converge on it a year later. There is more stuff like this, but again, I can't list it all. Not bad for a nobody, I wonder how that compares to knowing what item is op on Volibear in terms of respectable and interesting knowledge of the game. I often get professional coaching offers, including at the LEC level, despite only having two weeks of experience on the job. I've made a habit of declining them in order to keep working on what I consider to be interesting. Other than that, I've built quite a successful private media platform centered around analytical pro League discussion (that thing everyone tells you no one actually cares for) in a dwindling ecosystem where no one understands what people care about enough to pay for. I'd say that's pretty impressive in and of itself. As far as I can see, your numbers keep going down, so maybe I can help you with that too. So at this point I wonder, at which point am I allowed to ask what has Dominate ever done? Other than harassing players, a pattern older than his beef with KOI. I remember he used to gloat and act like an absolute turd, reacting to Rekkles' tears for YouTube views back when he had that string of public breakdowns. Is this a moral standard on which he gets to call me out on the crime of (and I wish I was kidding), posting a screenshot without context and then defending the Kcorp player "Vladi" in it to my Spanish-speaking fans? What a fucking ass I am. I wish I could harass kids online, sell gambling to minors, and bully people having public breakdowns so I could have the legitimacy of a real, tried-and-true voice of the community. The absolute gall to call me a pussy while you hide behind reaction content disguised as insight, a parasite of the co-streaming era of content, while I put my best foot forward building interesting stories that no one is talking about and get proven right; over and over. How is that KOI take aging mate, are you proud of that one? Where are your deep explanations? The actual content, where is it? Other than ragebaiting I mean. I'd really love to check it out, since you are sooo good at clicking with Udyr on the NA server. I want to remind everyone, as this can't be stressed enough, that this whole beef is about a guy making a shit (joke intended) take. Posing as a respectable professional to sell gambling while completely uninformed, driving a harassment campaing against players he knows nothing about, and then being butthurt that some Spanish guy calls him out on his pattern of abuse. You see, my mistake was that he can get Challenger on Dr. Mundo or whatever the fuck he plays, which somehow turns this into a debate and not someone being called out for acting like an absolute asshole. Then it invalidates my whole career, as I don't speak 3rd grade English natively and am unwilling to leave behind my people who supported me from the beginning. All I know about you, Dom, is that you are a bully who seems to enjoy it. Believe it or not, I'm not eager to get into a screaming match while I teach you league for free, all while joining your stream that averages similar numbers (while having streaming rights for years) as mine does broadcasting a stopwatch whenever I feel like streaming once in a blue moon. I don't think it takes courage to do that. It takes pity, of which I don't have enough for you, or perhaps a morbid curiosity for whatever might you say when actually confronted by a human. But I don't have that either, since I already know what you are going to say, the same thing you always say. "One time, ten years ago, I almost was"

Manu ๐“ƒต๐“ƒถ

1,163,184 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰