ๆญฃๅจๅ ่ฝฝ่ง้ข...
่ง้ขๅ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ
๐๐๐: ๐๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ค๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ซ ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ง๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐ก๐๐ญ๐ฌ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ญ๐ก? ๐โฝ The internet is full of claims that E20 will damage engines, slash mileage and make petrol costlier. But what do the facts say? โข ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ ๐? No engineering study says E20 destroys engines. โข ๐ ๐๐% ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ? Misleading โ... show more
32,706 ๆฌก่ง็ โข 1 ๅคฉๅ โขvia X (Twitter)
0 ๆก่ฏ่ฎบ
ๆๆ ่ฏ่ฎบ
ๅๅงๅธๅญ็่ฏ่ฎบๅฐๆพ็คบๅจ่ฟ้
![๐จ๐ธ๐ฝ Alien Craft and Bodies - How Confident? ๐ฝ๐ธ๐จ "Confidence is high. Repeat: confidence is high." ~The Sherminator Grusch/Kelly Part 1 - Video and Transcript "As somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that...the U.S. government has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of non-human crafts and recovering the biologics as well. I take that assessment very seriously" ~Grusch (I'll do my best to finish all three parts tonight) ~ Biggest Takeaway How did Grusch see evidence of alleged non-human craft and bodies and how confident is he that this is legit? Grusch: "I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "Eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio-visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." ~~~ Megyn Kelly: "It's the age-old question that has fascinated humans for centuries and continues to: are we alone in the universe, or even on our own planet? My next guest says, not only are UFOs - or now they're called UAPs - Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. That's hard to remember, but UAPs - real, but the government has allegedly been aware of them for decades and running a disinformation campaign to make you feel like an idiot if you believe reports about them. "David Grusch is a former US Air Force Intelligence Officer and senior intelligence official. He was his agency's co-lead in UAP investigation and quote 'transmedium object analysis' and was reporting to the Pentagon's UAP Task Force as well. In 2023, Grusch filed a whistleblower complaint asserting that the United States has been operating a quote, 'multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program,' meaning we're taking what we find - vehicles - and trying to figure out how they operated. And that Congress has been kept in the dark about large portions of the program. He later testified under oath before the House Oversight Committee, drawing national attention when he made this claim here. Watch." ~Video from the 2023 Oversight Committee Hearing~ Rep. Nancy Mace: "If you believe we have crashed craft, stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?" David Grusch: "As I've stated publicly already in my NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah." Mace: "Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics?" Grusch: "Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program." ~ Kelly: "So, he's alleging that we have crafts and we have non-human biologics from those crafts, and that the American people are being kept in the dark about it. And he is not alone. He is not alone. Now, Pentagon officials have publicly denied that there's any verified evidence of non-human intelligence or secret programs of this kind. They've been denying it for 80 years. But now, a new documentary called 'The Age of Disclosure' is taking center stage. It's extraordinary, examining decades of this alleged secrecy, and they have everyone in this film. "The film features interviews with 34 former and current government officials, including Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who claim the U.S. has long been concealing evidence of non-human intelligence and UAPs. Here's a part of the trailer." Begin Excerpt from "The Age of Disclosure" Tim Gallaudet: "Humanity is not the only intelligence in the Universe." Dr. Eric Davis: "Humanity is not the only intelligent species." Brett Feddersen: "We are absolutely not alone." Karl Nell: "Non-human intelligence exists." Jim Semivan: "UAPs are real ,they're here, and they're not human." Jay Stratton: "I have seen with my own eyes, non-human craft and non-human beings." Senator Mike Rounds: "This is so secret, very, very few people in our entire government have been allowed access to it." Secretary Marco Rubio: "Even presidents have been operating on a need-to-know basis, but that begins to ramp out of control." Kirsten Gillibrand: "It's not acceptable to have secret parts of government that no one ever sees." Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office: "You better be careful about a government that doesn't trust its people, because there's no telling what they'll pull on ya." ~End AoD Excerpt~ Kelly: "It's extraordinary. Let's get into it. David joins me now. David, thank you so much for your service and for being here." Grusch: "Thanks. Mellon. Um, excuse me (laughs). Thanks, Megan. Thank you for having me on." Kelly: "(laughs) No worries. This is like a crazy story and a stunning story and disturbing. And I have to tell you, I've always been sort of open minded to this issue, but more skeptical. And I my skepticism is gone, having watched 'The Age of Disclosure.'" (Until we hear from a firsthand witness who says they worked hands-on what they feel was a non-human craft, in the alleged Legacy crash retrieval and reverse engineering program, I think it's smart to retain some skepticism.) Kelly: "['The Age of Disclosure' is] incredibly well done, and they've got everybody. I mean, all of the like, astrophysicists and extremely-well-educated, and accomplished, scientists - who have been investigating this from the start. Well, not the start, because it was 80 years ago, but in recent decades - on camera, on the record, saying as much as they can. "And the director of the film (Dan Farah) has been making the rounds saying, the only reason he was able to get so many people to participate is because they felt there was safety in numbers and that they couldn't either fire everyone, or worse. Because a lot of these guys, these are distinguished guys, served in the Air Force like yourself, or served at the Pentagon, served all over the armed forces. A lot of these guys are actually worried not just about their careers getting killed, but about them themselves getting killed. I mean, set it up for us on the stakes of the number of people who went on camera and actually started saying as much as they could without violating classified restrictions." Grusch: "Certainly, that's a real fear, and we can certainly get into that. 'Age of Disclosure' was, you know, a project I didn't fully participate in, however, I do applaud the effort in these individuals for at least coming forward and speaking. And like you, I was a very skeptical person. I was certainly open to the topic. I was interested in space and science in a very precocious way, as a child. I ended up studying physics and the Air Force gave me a full-ride scholarship. And I was always, obviously, open to the topic, but I was in positions of high trust in the government at the most extreme levels, having walked the halls of the West Wing, personally handled the presidential daily intelligence brief and had some of the same broad accesses that the President and his cabinet has had over the years, even as a young man across multiple administrations "I figured - when I was eventually brought into this topic, working for the UAP Task Force - oh, I would know this exists. Somebody would have slipped and said something to me. At the time, I was briefed to over 90% out of all black programs in the Department of Defense and also the Intelligence Community, and I had an arrogant opinion of the topic. I was certainly open to the idea, but I figured I haven't seen any evidence and I would have been briefed into those kind of things, because I had a need-to-know at the time. So I came into it very similar to you, but open minded." Kelly: "And then, what specifically were you assigned to where you started to see actual evidence that we've been researching this for 80 years, that we do have crafts recovered, that we have, quote, 'biologics' recovered, which include some sort of other being. And what was your reaction when you started to learn this?" Grusch: "Yeah, I was very skeptical. I was in my military capacity, I had a parallel-civilian-intelligence career as well. But in my military-reserve capacity, I was the backup Intelligence Director for the National Reconnaissance Offices operation center. I briefed the NRO director. That's where I handled the PDB" Kelly: "Presidential Daily Brief." Grusch: "And I handled, essentially, all sensitive activities and all that stuff. And so, the UAP Task Force was looking for a representative from that organization. I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "But eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." Kelly: "Many in our audience may know you, David, you've been kind of really celebrated [by] people for coming out as a whistleblower and calling attention the fact that our government's been hiding this from us. And even when told to disclose what they know to investigators and to the public or to the oversight seers they haven't. There's a deeper program called The Legacy program that has really...seems to have been trying to hide the most shocking pieces of what we know from even the UAP Task Force."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2009110796807360534/amplify_video_thumb/2009074481340534787/img/tP8VqixJms_G8IcI.jpg)
![My cousin, Jonathan Ord asked me to teach the Come Follow Me lesson to his mission yesterday over zoom. This is the video I did and the full text. Hi. I am Brad Smith. I have ALS, which is a really weird disease that kills the motor neurons in my body. That means that I lose the connections between my brain and my muscles. My mind is still running at the normal rate. So, I can understand everything you say to me, but I canโt respond very quickly! I am getting faster, though. Last November I was the 3rd person in the world to receive the Neuralink brain implant. So I am controlling this computer with my brain. This is my old voice, recreated by AI from just two hours of me talking to my phone. I have come to see ALS as a calling, and I am trying to magnify it. I used to talk easily, but now I have to choose my words carefully, because it is hard and slow to type what I want to say. I joke that the Lord gave me ALS to get me to shut up. Those who knew me when I could talk laugh the hardest. President Ord is my first cousin. So we share grandma and grandpa Smith. Our grandma Smith was a character. When she taught at church, she would put a sign up that read: โthus saith the lord:โ so I will try to keep this within what the Lord has actually said, while trying to teach you to look at a basic principle of the gospel in a different way. Ironically, the first verse of Doctrine & Covenants 93 starts with โVerily, thus saith the Lordโ. This is an amazing section of scripture, Jesus Christ telling us to step up and be better! You should study it often. I will start with a story. I asked AI to make a video to dramatically tell the story. During college, I lived in Damascus, Syria, for a semester. It was a fantastic and wonderful experience. I especially loved exploring the Old City of Damascus. The Old City is built around the huge beautiful Umayyad mosque. Within the walls of the old city is a maze of narrow, winding, confusing streets and one really long straight street, as Saul found out in Acts 9:11. One day when a group of us were trying to get through this maze from the mosque to the Christian quarter of the Old City, we asked a man for directions. He thought for a second, then pointed and said, โGo left and then right, and then left and then right, and then left and then right, and then left and right, and youโll be there.โ Arenโt those the most ridiculous directions you have ever heard? We could have ignored him. But, we thought, he did know the city better than we did. So, with some laughter, off we went. Left. Right. Left. Right. And so on until, much to our surprise, we popped out at our destination. Life is a confusing maze. We face difficult choices, unexpected events, surprises, sorrows, opportunities, roadblocks. The Lord has given directions on how to get through to where we want to go. Sometimes the Lordโs directions seem odd, and we may struggle with the decision to follow. The Lord will not force us. It is our choice whether to choose and follow him. Wasnโt that fun? AI is getting crazy! I will be much less entertaining for the rest, but hopefully the spirit will teach you something new. The phrase โkeep the commandmentsโ (or โkeepeth my commandmentsโ) appears at least 4 times in Doctrine and Covenants Section 93, in verses 1, 20, 27, and 28. There are other references, like โkeep my sayingsโ in 52 and โobeyeth my voiceโ in 1. So, commandments are really important in this Revelation. I suggest that making the gospel a more central part of our lives depends largely on how we look at commandments. When you think of commandments, do you think โI canโt. Iโm Mormonโ? (That was a popular T-shirt slogan during my college years.) Although, with the recent guidance from President Nelson, it probably should be โI canโt, Iโm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsโ. Itโs a common reaction: โThou shalt not do Cool Things.โ People LOVE to focus on all the things we CANโT do, as if we are trapped and deserve pity for our beliefs. No pity is needed. Commandments are opportunities, not constraints. Commandments are awesome! Allow me to illustrate. Imagine a spectrum between Good and Evil. Somewhere in the middle is โthe Lineโ that divides Good from Evil. As a teenager, I wanted to know where the Line was, so I could get close to it without going over it. I wanted to be on the โGoodโ side but still be able to do as many โCool Things" with my friends as possible. From my experience, I believe God gives us two types of commandments: 1) Get Back over the Line commandments and 2) Come Further into the Light commandments. Type 1, the Get Back over the Line commandments, could also be called โMisery Avoidanceโ commandments. They are designed to keep us out of misery or, if weโve crossed the Line, to bring us out of misery and back into the Good side. These are generally commandments with a clear and defined point of success, such as โThou shalt not kill.โ You will know, at the end of each day, whether you have successfully followed that commandment. I think all of the Ten Commandments fall into this category. The law of Moses was very black and white. The children of Israel had been in Egypt without a prophet for a long time when Moses received the law, and they needed to work on the basics. So, if you follow the Type 1 commandments, you will refrain from doing things that make you miserable. You will know you are in the Good if you can answer the baptismal interview and temple recommend questions honestly and faithfully. If you can do that, you have taken the basic steps necessary to avoid misery and are on a solid foundation for the next type of commandment. Type 2, the โCome Further into the Lightโ commandments, are the really cool commandments. Once we are out of the misery category, we can really start to pursue joy. So, God commands us to do things that he knows will make us happier and more like Christ. These commandments are the principles of eternal development, such as โLove thy neighborโ (Matthew 22:39). There is no clear end to loving our neighborโit requires positive and eternal progression. We can always love more, and we can always find another neighbor who needs our love. It is an eternal principle taught by Jesus Christ. And if we truly love our neighbor, refraining from killing him becomes pretty easy. It is through these commandments that we find joy in Jesus Christ. Elder Christofferson taught about this spectrum in the October 2018 general conference: โMost of us find ourselves at this moment on a continuum between a socially motivated participation in gospel rituals on the one hand and a fully developed, Christlike commitment to the will of God on the other. Somewhere along that continuum, the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ enters into our heart and takes possession of our soul. It may not happen in an instant, but we should all be moving toward that blessed state.โ Our goal is to go THAT WAY (toward Christ) as much as possible. So first, get back across the line and stop doing things that will make you miserable. Then make every effort to try and be like Jesus, to โlove one another as Jesus loves you.โ The gospel of Jesus Christ is more than just โnot doingโ stuff. It is about coming unto Christ, being perfected in him, and denying ourselves of all ungodliness. Discuss with your companion what commandments and mission rules are for โMisery Avoidanceโ and which are โCome Further into the Lightโ! And, remember, commandments are ALWAYS connected to huge blessings. The Lord promised, โThere is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicatedโand when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicatedโ (Doctrine and Covenants 130:20โ21). Whenever we obey any of Godโs commandments, we will get the blessing associated with that commandment. Elder David A. Bednar said: โThe gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses much more than avoiding, overcoming, and being cleansed from sin and the bad influences in our lives; it also essentially entails doing good, being good, and becoming better. Repenting of our sins and seeking forgiveness are spiritually necessary, and we must always do so. But remission of sin is not the only or even the ultimate purpose of the gospel. To have our hearts changed by the Holy Spirit such that โwe have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continuallyโ (Mosiah 5:2), as did King Benjaminโs people, is the covenant responsibility we have accepted. โThis mighty change is not simply the result of working harder or developing greater individual discipline. Rather, it is the consequence of a fundamental change in our desires, our motives, and our natures made possible through the Atonement of Christ the Lord. Our spiritual purpose is to overcome both sin and the desire to sin, both the taint and the tyranny of sin.โ I LOVE this conceptโand as I have paid attention, I feel like apostles are trying to teach us this all the time. Are we listening? Let me repeat what Elder Bednar said. He said that the commandments help us change what we WANT. Why is that important? Remember my teenage desires? I wanted to be as close to the line as possible so I could still look cool for my friends. That is a good example of the โtyrannyโ of sin. Even though I was not actually sinning (probably because I was afraid of my mother), I still had some small desire to sin. I said, โI canโt. Iโm Mormonโ with many dramatic sighs. Overcoming the tyranny of sin is getting to the point where the sin no longer looks remotely interesting or fun because we are too busy loving our neighbors and trying to be like Jesus. Elder Dallin H. Oaks said: โThe Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil actsโwhat we have done. It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughtsโwhat we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions. The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become.โ This talk was given when I was on a mission, before most of you were born. It completely changed my perspective on the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is called The Challenge to Becomeโ and I recommend that you study it. When the Lord says keep the commandments, he isnโt just telling us to stop sinningโhe wants us to become like Christ and to have joy. Take a moment and think, Where am I on this continuum? Remember that none of us is perfect like the Savior, and we all need to lift one another. That is why we worship together. That is why we have priesthood quorums and the Relief Society, Primary, and youth organizations. The Lord taught us that truth when he said we all have different gifts: โTo some is given one [gift], and to some is given another [gift], that all may be profited thereby. To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithfulโ (Doctrine and Covenants 46:12โ14). The Savior is still WAY over there: a thousand miles away somewhere. That is why we have quorums. We all have a long way to go. Letโs link arms and run together. Let me finish by telling a story from my mission to support my testimony of Jesus. Years ago my mission president said something interesting: โEither the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is truly the kingdom of god on the earth... or it is the greatest fraud ever in history.โ It is audacious to claim to be the true Church of Jesus Christโbut let me explain exactly why I know that to be true. I always BELIEVED that I was raised in the gospel of Jesus Christ. My parents taught me well and I felt good following the commandments and studying the scriptures. That led me to serve a mission in Brazil. My turning point of testimony came when I was 20โat least 2/3rds through my mission. We were invited into a house in the โfundosโ of a propertyโa small structure built behind a larger house. The man was polite and allowed us to share our message. As I had done hundreds of times, I shared the story of Joseph Smith, a boy who sought the truth through prayer. I recited Josephโs own words in response to his prayer: โI saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me... When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherโThis is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" I felt the strongest feeling I had ever experiencedโan undeniable confirmation that what I said was true. It hit me in a way I can never forget! I knew that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet, and therefore the Book of Mormon was the word of god. What about the man we were teaching? How had he responded to my life-affirming spiritual experience? He shrugged and politely thanked us for the message. I was stunned. I felt like the windows of heaven opened on meโand he felt nothing. I learned that receiving answers to our prayers is like tuning a radio: not everyone is on the right frequency. For some reason, the Lord decided to broadcast on my frequency that day. I received the undeniable confirmation that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. I have built on that foundation brick by brick since then. And every time someone has challenged me on Joseph Smith, I go back to that day in Brazil. I know that he was a prophet. My life has been blessed in ridiculously good ways since then. As I have tried to follow Jesus Christ, great things have happened to me. Even my hardest and most frustrating times have turned out to have a purpose. God has upturned my best laid plans over and over. But I look back and realize that I could never have planned any better. With the prophet Nephi I say: โI know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." (1 Nephi 11:17) When I say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, that does not mean we have a monopoly on truth. I know Christians and Muslims who teach me to be betterโand Members of the church who are far from disciples of Christ. We just have more truth: scriptures, living prophets, ordinances, personal revelation, and answers to many of lifeโs biggest questions! That is pretty cool. But we canโt be prideful about the truth we have. You have all probably met people to admire both inside and outside of the church. So, I am all in. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is trueโnot a big fraud. And we are all trying to get closer to Christ. I know that Heavenly Father has a plan for me. Life has not been what I expected, but I trust him! I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of Jesus Christ and that the Book of Mormon is true. This is โintelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one.โ With that knowledge, keep the commandments! In the name of Jesus Christ, amen .](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1961133396144656751/amplify_video_thumb/1961127653798547458/img/nIvUNxNHuUcT9YLP.jpg)
![๐๐๐ '๐๐๐๐๐๐๐' ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐. A new working paper out of UCLA by political psychologist Samuel Pratt has just measured something American conservatives have been claiming for ten years and pretending was anecdotal. It is not anecdotal. It is now data. Pratt and his team built what they call the ๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ซ๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ โ a survey instrument asking respondents how strongly they agree with statements like "๐ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ด๐ค๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ." Three findings. ๐๐ง๐: the belief is stable over time. People who say it this week say it next week. ๐๐ฐ๐จ: the demographic profile of high-scorers is precise. They are ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ , ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐, ๐ง๐จ๐ง-๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ญ๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ. They self-rate as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and โ the key variable โ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฌ. ๐๐ก๐ซ๐๐: they report lower emotional stability, higher anxiety, higher depression, and a stronger tendency to see themselves as ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฌ in everyday conflicts. In one sentence, the psychometric profile of the modern American "empathy advocate" is: ๐๐ง๐ฑ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ, ๐๐๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐, ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ-๐๐จ๐๐๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ-๐๐๐ง๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ. ๐๐จ๐ฐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ Watch California Congresswoman Katie Porter at last week's gubernatorial debate, in real time, demonstrating how the empathy mechanism produces atrocious policy. "๐๐ง ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฎ๐บ ๐ค๐ญ๐ข๐ด๐ด [...] ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฏ๐ช๐ข ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ถ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ." Empathetic. Reassuring. Compassionate. Also flatly false. Per CBS News' 2020 Los Angeles survey, only ๐๐% of homeless individuals had done any work in the calendar quarter they became homeless. A 2017 San Francisco survey found ๐๐% working part-time or full-time. The reason is no mystery โ a substantial majority of street-homeless Americans are managing untreated severe mental illness, active substance abuse, or both. The "empathetic" policy that emerges from Porter's framing is to leave them on the street. The actually humane policy involves involuntary commitment, mandated treatment, and structured housing โ every one of which the empathy-coded liberal reflexively rejects as cruel. Pratt's data and the on-the-ground reality converge on the same uncomfortable conclusion: ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ, ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฌ, because empathy at scale stops asking ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ๐ด and starts asking ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฅ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ How does a fringe view โ communist Twitch streamers, candidates openly excusing full-scale mโrder, congressmen calling themselves democratic socialists โ capture an entire major American political party? Nassim Taleb has the cleanest explanation. He calls it ๐ซ๐๐ง๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. A family of four. One daughter โ ๐๐% of the household โ only eats organic. Mom faces a nightly choice: cook two meals or cook one all-organic meal. The all-organic meal is easier. The household renormalizes to the daughter's preference. The family then attends a barbecue with three other families. The host has the same choice: two menus, or one all-organic. The all-organic menu is easier. ๐๐% renormalizes ๐๐๐% of dinner. Now imagine the daughter's "preference" is not organic food. It is the belief that bank robbery is righteous, that Israel is a colonial regime which must be dismantled, that your health insurance executive should be eliminated by force, and that anyone who objects is a fascist. The mechanism is identical. The intransigent minority creates an asymmetric cost on resistance. The majority renormalizes for convenience. French physicist ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ has modeled the threshold formally. In his work on opinion dynamics, an extreme view captures a population at roughly ๐๐% activated support โ provided the activists do three things consistently. They activate latent prejudices already present in the population. They impose a binary choice: "๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ." And they refuse, ever, to compromise on their core position. Pseudo-moderates then join โ not because they have been persuaded by the full activist position, but because the binary has been imposed and the alternative ("siding with the oppressor") has been made socially intolerable. ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ค๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐๐๐ญ This is the most important paragraph in this post. Read it twice. Hasan Piker โ the Twitch streamer who endorses bank robberies, defends H-m-s, and lives in a $3 million Brentwood mansion โ is ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐. He represents maybe 5-7% of the country. He does not move the needle by himself. The threat is the ๐ฉ๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐๐จ-๐ฆ๐จ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ โ the ๐๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฌ ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ด reporter who profiles him sympathetically, the Democratic congressman who appears on his stream, the Hollywood actor who shares his clips, the Brooklyn schoolteacher who attends his rallies, the empathetic college freshman who decides he is "๐ข ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ, ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ช๐ด ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ซ๐ถ๐ด๐ต." That coalition โ Galam's ๐๐% โ is what flips the country. Hasan is just the visible 5%. This is also why Pratt's UCLA paper matters. The trait that creates the pseudo-moderate flank is the same trait the activists exploit: ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ, ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฌ. That is the recruitable population. That is the lever Hasan and his industry operate. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐
๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ Empathy is not a virtue. It is a ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ. Like physical sensitivity to heat, it can produce wisdom or it can produce hysteria, depending entirely on what is paired with it. What converts empathy into wisdom is ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ โ the willingness to evaluate consequences, to insist on results, to ask whether the policy that "feels compassionate" actually produces outcomes you would call humane in a year, a decade, or a lifetime. What converts empathy into tyranny is the ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ง๐๐ of judgment โ pure feeling, with no constraint, in service of a binary moral choice imposed by an activated 20%. That is the Democratic Party of 2026. The Pratt scale measures it. The Galam threshold predicts it. Katie Porter demonstrates it. Hasan Piker exploits it. ๐
๐ข๐ฑ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2050939575993069948/amplify_video_thumb/2050938608597737472/img/59L68TDVsmWi6NJz.jpg)
![Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News last night that the interview he gave for the new documentary film, โThe Age of Disclosure,โ about unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) or what used to be called UFOs, was โthree or four years ago when I was in the Senate,โ that โI was describing what people had said to me, not things that I have firsthand knowledge of.โ He described the โpretty spectacular claimsโ made by โpeople with high clearances in governmentโ and said, โI just donโt have any independent way to verify everything they said.โ And Rubio said the film engaged in a โLittle bit of selective editing, but itโs okay, because, you know, youโre trying to sell a show there.โ But Rubio also said, โIโm not disavowingโ what he said in the film, and, as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor (NSA), he should have ways to either verify or debunk the spectacular claims made in โThe Age of Disclosure.โ If Rubio feels he lacks the power to verify the claims in the film, then he should explain why. As NSA and Secretary of State, Rubio has unparalleled access to Special Access Program briefings, compartmented intelligence, and interagency assessments comprised of top-secret and classified information. If Rubio cannot determine whether highly cleared officials are telling the truth or lying, that raises questions as troubling as those around UAPs. Many UAPs are, without question, drones and balloons. Rubio said โthe point I was trying to drive atโ in โThe Age of Disclosureโ was preparedness for anomalous threats. โWeโre looking for missiles and fighter jets, and theyโre coming at us with drones and balloons,โ the Secretary of State explained. โI remember when NORAD turned on the radars and started looking for balloons, and all of a sudden, they spotted a bunch of balloons flying overhead, and 90% of them were innocent. A couple of them were Chinese. But we never looked for balloons because our radars arenโt trained for that.โ But the Intelligence Community, the Department of Defense, and Congress have rejected the notion that all UAPs are simply advanced Chinese or Russian drones. โNone of these resolved [UAP] cases substantiated advanced foreign adversarial capabilities or breakthrough aerospace technologies,โ noted the Department of War last year. In โThe Age of Disclosure,โ Rubio, Senator Mike Rounds, Senator Chuck Schumer, and others say the government is hiding UAP information from the public and Congress. Tulsi Gabbard, President Trumpโs Director of National Intelligence, said in August she thought UAPs could represent nonhuman intelligence. โSome of these people were Navy pilots, admirals, generals, whatever,โ Rubio told Hannity last night, โthat would come forward and say that there were programs in the US government that not even presidents were made aware of.โ Pointing this out is not an appeal to authority but rather the recognition that their security clearances and activities give them access to information the public and most lawmakers do not have. Such secrecy must be justified. Whatever UAPs ultimately are, the possibility, raised again by Rubio in his Hannity interview, that Americaโs President, Secretary of State, Senate-confirmed intelligence heads, and Congressional overseers are being kept in the dark, is troubling. Excess UAP secrecy, as displayed by the redacted documents below, not the claims that UAPs represent nonhuman intelligence, is undermining public trust in government, which is essential for democracy and national security. For years, a large share of the American people have believed the government is hiding what it knows about UAP. Earlier this year, a survey found that 44 percent of Americans โbelieve the US Government is hiding information about the existence of UFOs,โ against 28 percent who donโt. Gallup found that 71 and 68 percent of voters believed the government knows โmore about UFOs than it is telling usโ in 1996 and 2019. The public is right to believe that the government is hiding what it knows. Dramatic visual proof of this can be seen in the blackened-out pages of the handful of documents that the federal government has released about UAPs in recent years. A February 2020 US Navy UAP briefing document redacts the entire analysis section. The entire โBackground,โ โObjective,โ and most of the substantive sections of the Charter for the Navyโs UAP Task Force is redacted. Even the guide for how to classify UAPs, โThe UAP Security Classification Guide,โ is heavily redacted. I have, for the last several months, urged President Trump and the leaders of the Intelligence Community to lift the redactions on these documents to no avail. Trump has repeatedly said the government is hiding information. In a summer 2020 interview with his son about an alleged UAP crash in Roswell, New Mexico, Trump said, โI wonโt talk to you about what I know about it, but itโs very interesting.โ In June of 2024, Trump said that the government has information about UAPs that it has not released. โI have access,โ he said, โand I speak to people about it. Iโve had actually meetings on it. And they will tell you thereโs something going on.โ And Trump told Joe Rogan last year that โa lotโ about UAPs has not been revealed. Others in the administration point to secrecy. โFrankly, there are a lot more sightings than have been made public,โ said CIA Director John Ratcliffe in 2021. John Greenewald, who filed the successful FOIA requests for the redacted UAP documents described above, told Public in 2023, โSecrecy is tightening. If we are in a new level of transparency that some UFO believers want us to believe we are in, then why is that the case?โ Whatever the reason for the secrecy, it is time for President Trump to level with the American people about what the government knows about UAPs. The president has significant discretion over what to share with Congress regarding classified national security material. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have expressed frustration with the information they have received regarding UAPs. โI donโt really know what is true on this subject,โ said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) at a UAP hearing in September. โBut I do know when weโre being lied to and we are definitely being lied to, thereโs just no doubt about that.โ Said Chuck Schumer in 2023, โThe American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena. And Rubio said, that same year, โThere is a lot we still donโt know about these UAPs and that is a big problem.โ In 1953, the Office of Scientific Intelligence of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked with a professor at the California Institute of Technology to create a panel of experts to discredit (โdebunkโ) sightings out of fear that the Soviets would use public panic and misinformation to undermine trust in the government or distract from actual threats. โThe โdebunkingโ aim would result in a reduction in public interest in โflying saucersโ which today evokes such a strong psychological reaction,โ wrote the reportโs authors. But the report, declassified in 1975 and made public in 2001, simply asserted these risks and offered no evidence of such threats. In fact, while the report expressed concern that โskillful hostile propaganda could induce hysterical behavior and harmful distrust of duly constituted authority,โ it also noted that โthe general absence of Russian propaganda based on a subject with so many obvious possibilities for exploitation might indicate a possible Russian official policy.โ Despite the โdebunkingโ effort, President Jimmy Carter said, while running for office in 1976, โIf I become president, Iโll make every piece of information this country has about UFO sightings available to the public and the scientists. I am convinced that UFOs exist because Iโve seen one.โ Public distrust of the government is proof that the CIAโs 1950s approach of โdebunkingโ has not worked. And anyone who thinks itโs dangerous for current and former government officials to say that UAPs may represent nonhuman intelligence should advocate for greater transparency and disclosure by the government about what it knows.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the full article, and watch the entire video!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1996315637397016601/amplify_video_thumb/1996314571116888064/img/waEaaB_TVyqEJ6WZ.jpg)
![Operation Odyssey Dawn: The End of Libya and the Destruction of Europe /๐ On February 15th, during the Obama presidency, the US launched a war on Libya through covert means. Using the Soros network and the city of Benghazi, a bridgehead for the destruction of the entire country, the US ran the most intense propaganda and psychological campaign in history. I must mention that this PSYOP was so intense that yours truly initially fell for it, something I will likely not forgive myself for. I honestly thought Ghaddafi had suddenly went insane, mainly because I had a low opinion of his past antics and I thought the fall of the Mubarak regime was favourable to the world. The right wing supported this war, as they wanted to see more Arab nations destroyed in favour of Israel. The left wing? They were the most disgraceful. All of them sold Libya down the rive and aligned with the "rebels". As John McCain would later reveal, they were just a cutout used for US special forces. Many of the people that now fashion themselves as being against Israel were instrumental in the murder of Libya as a nation. They just never talk about it anymore, but I hope the guilt destroys them one day. The propaganda followed a typical Soros formula. It began with "peaceful protestors", then "Ghaddafi is killing his own people", then "rebels and transitional governments" and finally "air support/no fly zone required". It happened so quickly that it was bewildering for a nation that had remained stable for decades and was the richest in the world in terms of being debt free. Libya had the brightest future of all the countries in Africa and in many senses in the entire world including Asia and Europe. It's perhaps for that reason that Libya was betrayed by almost everyone. The Arab League was the first and the most unprecedented in its dastardly action. There was never a unanimous against Libya, Syria and Algeria had vetoed action against Libya. This was a rule in that body of 22 nations, but it was forced through anyway. This became UNSC resolution 1973. Neither Russia nor China vetoed this bill. France under the covertly Jewish president Sarkozy (who had once claimed that all of Europe must become a mixed race, publicly), led the charge, bombing Libya before an agreed upon ceasefire deadline. Even Palestine* voted against Libya. It seemed the entire world was in agreement about Libya over a complete lie created by the United States and Israel. The world thought Ghaddafi was unpopular but nothing could be further from the proof. It was the most bastardly thing the world would do, and in a sense, for what was done to Libya the entire world deserves to be destroyed. China had to move 75 companies out of Libya, and 36,000 Chinese workers, losing North Africa in one single month. The Chinese chickened out and didn't protect Libya, and this eventually led to the downfall of the Hu Jintao technocratic regime. The reports of 10s of thousands dying in Libya were lies, amplified by videos uploaded on YouTube and Twitter. It was a full production of lies where rabid Arab youths would destroy their own nation for some pocket money from Soros. Browns would repeat these lies and cash in on them, pretending to be oppressed while being the oppressors of their own people. In a sense calling it oppression is a moral failing -- it was a murder, of an entire nation. You see, the bombing campaign was not merely counter-force. NATO (which had quickly run out of ammunition days into the war) and the US aimed to kill the nation itself with counter-value attacks. Power stations were destroyed. The worst crime was Libya's water: Ghaddafi's Great Man-Made River, a 2800km artificial river project, was bombed until it was damaged. Then the factories that were repairing it throughout the war were destroyed. NATO still denies this crime but anyone can confirm it. Tripoli was taken before the war was over, but Ghaddafi's forces never stopped fighting. The operation launched on Tripoli was called Mermaid Dawn, or Operation Sirens (according to Pepe Escobar). The reason for the naming will be made clear soon, for now let's continue with the chronology of the war and the crimes to follow. Ghaddafi's hometown of Sirte wasn't merely bombed to dust, it was literally salted with the water of the Mediterranean sea. The reason why Sirte was flooded with salt water and destroyed was because NATO couldn't take it using ground forces. Ghaddafi's sons and their special forces were putting up a perfect defence in this city with its underground facilities filled with enough weapons to fight for an entire decade. But Ghaddafi failed to account for the possibility that he would lose the air and sea, and didn't create a run off system that would allow water to leave the bunkers. Losing in Sirte, Ghaddafi was ready to surrender, but NATO wanted him dead. They wanted even the possibility of Libya rising again to be removed from any person's mind. So they murdered him in the most brutal and disgusting manner. He died a martyr for his nation, yet the brown filth who murdered him didn't deserve a martyr, they deserved annihilation. No crime that could be done, other than the use of nuclear weapons, was done to Libya. If you understood what kind of country was destroyed (watch the attached video it will break your heart) you will see what a crime this was, for a world filled with the filthiest nations and their filthiest people (almost everywhere) to come together to destroy the one country with a chance at a debt free existence... how should the world pay for this crime? As it were, the punishment and the crime came together as a single package within the war. In any case in 2011, it was claimed the war was over, but the war continues today as the nation is split into three. In the remains of the outskirts of Sirte, the "rebels" and "peaceful protestors" would use chemical weapons to kill other tribes. They then transported these weapons to Syria where they were used in a false flag to implicate the Syrian Arab Army and Assad. As the dust settled around Libya, Europe would quickly be haunted by one of Ghaddafi's last warnings: If he falls Europe will become Black. Name of Operations Reveal Intent With Libya destroyed, the remains of the country would quickly become a rampart for economic "refugees" -- African browns, blacks and other unwanted people flooding into Europe to r*pe, pillage and steal its wealth. You would think that this was an unintended consequence of the war, but ... the names of the operation reveal the exact intent of those who planned it, namely Obama and Sarkozy: the target was Europe itself. For this plan to work, there could be no country where Libya was, it had to be destroyed so that no one could control the Mediterranean sea. Libya, and later Syria, were the modern day Troys. Troy protected the Mediterranean civilizations from Asia. It's fall happened almost simultaneously with the rise of the sea peoples. Homer's Odyssey speaks of the ruin the Mycenaeans and other factions of proto-Greek states after their war on Troy. It was a pyrrhic victory and all that remained of rich civilizations destroyed by the sea peoples. Is it any wonder that that the Pentagon chose to call it Operation Odyssey Dawn? They claim it's completely random -- which by the way is a lie -- but then, in the later chapters of Odyssey, sirens aka mermaids would appear. How can they also accidentally call the sacking of Tripoli Operation Mermaid Dawn/Operation Sirens? The intent was clear and the results also. Due to the fall of Libya and now the similarly catastrophic destruction of Syria, more than 5 million Asians and Africans have been flowing into Europe illegally. I would say even more "legally" using this inflow as a disguise. Europe is being destroyed using the most potent chain reaction known to mankind: foreigners multiplying in your own country and eating away at its boundaries and interiors. Today all right wing parties allow uncontrolled mass migration through "legal" means. All left wing parties, in addition to this "legal" migration also disguise their action as charitable through the flow of illegal migration. People all over Europe complain and hate the flow of migrants. I do too -- but let's be honest about something. These inflows wouldn't have been possible with the "original sin" of destroying Libya. Nothing has been done to make amends and atone for what was done to Libya. If anything Libya is being destroyed more and more every day and the fire is spreading. Sudan voted against Ghaddafi. Today the UAE flows masses of weapons from Libya into Chad to be used to destroy Sudan. Hamas lied about Ghaddafi. Now its leadership has been wiped out and Gaza is rubble. China abandoned Ghaddafi. Now its economy is held under a double sided siege with the US (and Israel which it still supports). Russia abandoned Ghaddafi at the drop of the hat. Now Russia's infrastructure is facing countervalue attacks and its military has been facing ruthless counterforce attacks from NATO. The Arabs which conspired against Libya are all going to be destroyed soon as all waterways into their countries are closed by Iran. Iran itself, which lied about Ghaddafi (over his own "original sin" -- the murder and disappearance of Musa Sadr), is hanging on by a thread and is being betrayed by those on its interior. But what will happen next to the US and Europe for what they've done to Libya? It doesn't take a genius to guess, and only the nations that refused to participate are ironically doing fine. Poland, on April 2011, refused to join the coalition against Libya. Today, that nation is the greatest success in Europe and has the lowest problem with unwanted invasive species (migrants). Germany pretended to be against the war as well, but was the main source of weapons and ammunition against Libya. As we face the abyss of societal collapse, it's important to remember our own crimes against peace which destroyed a peaceful and successful nation. The very least we can all do is spread the word, not only about the crime itself, but the victim. The beautiful country, Libya, that was completely destroyed by our participation in a PSYOP and inaction against the criminals who run our nations. On my part, after witnessing how quickly the mass formation psychosis, which I unfortunately participated in at least in words written on BBSes of the old internet, my own choice of atonement was ensuring this kind of war never happens to another country again. It is for that reason I had turned my attention to Syria back in 2011. What will you do? /End [* As an aside, it wasn't just the PLO. Hamas would then condemn Ghaddafi and the Palestinian supporters would join its chorus. Later, seeing the "success" in Libya, Hamas decided to join the war against Syria and didn't just provide words but material and ideological support against the country. I commented at the time (2012) that we will soon see Gaza reduced to rubble as a result of this immoral act.]](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2086018930104266914/amplify_video_thumb/2085960215539970048/img/TJvchAmiJMxM4mdq.jpg)
![Iโm seeing a lot of questions on the launch of Chinaโs Changโe 6 mission yesterday to get samples - for the first time - from the far side of the moon. We donโt know (afaik) why specifically theyโre doing that, but we have a pretty good idea what grand vision China is working towards with their space program. How? From this 2022 video by Chas Freeman (former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Nixon's interpreter during his era-defining 1972 China visit), who imho is undoubtedly one of the most knowledgeable former US officials on China. He says that according to his own discussions with people running Chinaโs space program, theyโre following the vision described in the book "The high frontier" by Gerard K. O'Neill, which Freeman says has "become the bible of the Chinese space program". I read the book. So what vision does it describe? The book was written in 1976 by O'Neill who was a professor of physics at Princeton University. He also founded the Space Studies Institute, an organization devoted to funding research into space manufacturing and colonization. In other words, he knew his stuff. The book makes the very fair point that we have massive resource constraints on earth, especially given the growing population. He estimated in 1976 that we should be "about six and a half billion people in the year 2000", and we were 6.114 billion back then so he was pretty prescient. He estimates that these constraints will progressively give rise to more and more social tensions as the growing earth population competes for our limited resources as well as faces global problems like climate change. In his view, dealing with this will either require "an authoritarian regime capable of mounting the immense task of social reorganization needed to escape catastrophe" or, alternatively, โmankind would [need to adopt] a static society [that would be] forced in self-defense to suppress new ideas". The 3rd alternative is of course the colonization of space. The most interesting aspect of the book is that he claims everything he writes is feasible with knowledge and technology that already existed in the late 70s. In short he calls for the establishment of large human habitats in the Earth-Moon system, located at stable Lagrange points ("parking spots" in space where gravity from different spatial bodies cancel each other out). In particular he developed the concept of what's known today as the "O'Neill cylinder" which he says "could support quite easily a population of ten million people, growing its food in agricultural cylinders near but outside the main habitat". Energy-wise, it'd simply make use of solar energy via a system of mirrors. As he describes it: "the concentration of the unvarying, intense sunlight of space by very lightweight, inexpensive mirrors can provide all the energy that industry will ever need [...] at a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour". He envisages building these habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. Also "the habitats would have artificial gravity similar as that of earth by rotating about twenty-eight times an hourโ, but he also envisages low-gravity areas, especially for recreational activities such as swimming pools or dancing representations. To trade with earth, he develops the idea of beaming solar power back to earth via "microwave from solar power stations in orbit". As he describes it "the microwave beam would arrive at Earth with a beam width of about seven kilometers. Its intensity would be modest, less than half that of sunlight. In contrast to sunlight, though, it would be there all the time, even at night or in clouds or rain, and it would be in a form ready for conversion to DC current with a loss of only 10 percent. The areas receiving these beamsโ output on Earth would be fenced, and outside the fence the intensity of microwave radiation would be no higher than outside a microwave oven with the door closed. He estimates that if "Satellite Solar Power Stations (SSPS) were to become the sole source of electric energy in the United States in the year 2000, the land area necessary for the SSPS antennas would still be only 0.2 percent of that of the continental United States". In short, the establishment of space colonies could lead to the fulfillment of a good share of Earth's energy needs. Last but not least he describes life in space habitats as better than that of earth, largely thanks to the level of control we'd have over the environment (total climate control which would enable an abundance of food and no natural disaster) as well as unlimited cheap energy. To conclude, Chas Freeman typically really knows his stuff when it comes to China and heโs very intellectually honest (a rare trait among US officials) so I have no doubt he tells the truth when he says the Chinese told him that was the vision. And China famously thinks very big and very long term so it would be quite like them to go for something like this. There are also quite a few tangible signs that China is working towards that vision. See for instance this November 2022 news where โChinaโs space station will join a project to collect solar power from space and send it to Earth in a high-energy microwave beamโ: Thatโs exactly OโNeillโs vision! Or check this October 2022 news that says China is developing new "electromagnetic sledges" that can propel a carriage weighing a few tonnes to a record speed, with a key application for this being โaerospaceโ: Remember: OโNeillโs vision is to build his habitats with material from the moon, shot into space via "mass drivers", a form of electromagnetic catapult. So there you goโฆ Or also the fact that the Chinese will build, together with the Russians, a moon base - planned for 2028 - powered by a โspace nuclear reactorโ thatโs already been developed (on Earth) and has passed review by Chinaโs Ministry of Science: The space nuclear reactor can generate 1MW of electricity, enough to power 10 International Space Stations. Enough power, maybe, to undertake mining activity and power an electromagnetic catapultโฆ After visions change, the world changes, so itโs also possible that Chinaโs view on what they want to do has evolved. In any case, Chas Freeman is right that Chinaโs motivation for all its initiatives in space canโt just be to โboldly explore where no-one has been beforeโ, they have to be working towards something. And Freeman is also absolutely right to lament that the U.S. decided to ban any cooperation in space with the Chinese. Those endeavors are something that could have been jointly developed as a multilateral effort to unite us all as a speciesโฆ Instead China is now forced to go at it alone with Russia and we face a future where our petty divisions on Earth will be carried with us to spaceโฆ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1786611294218702934/ext_tw_video_thumb/1786610517114851328/pu/img/OoYUvR3PovMC-WFS.jpg)
!["I have graphs, I've looked at the Google Analytics, the data does not lie. Every single time, starting in April 2024, that Jen McCabe would become the subject of public attention --It happens at specific discrete moments on the timeline-- you see a bump in the attention paid to Lindsey Gaetani." "And there's no doubt in my mind that Brian Tully's MSP unit --when they had Michael Morrissey make that video, when McCabe's friends or family or whatever, when they all got him to make that video, and that didn't work, and when Morrissey had to recuse, when things got so bad that they had no other out, and the TurtleRiders would not pay attention to anyone but those Karen Read and John O'Keefe witnesses-- Tully, Kate Peter and their people said, "all right, we're left with no other option. Lindsey Gaetani looks like a good distraction. Let's release her phone." And then that cycle repeated over and over and over and over again. And Lindsey's not the only one who's been subject to this. You wanna talk about what's going on to Estey? Even what's going on with Deanna? With Meredith?" TRANSCRIPT: And people wonder why I get so passionate about this. This is nothing I haven't talked about before, but you are not gonna tell me, me, of all people --I'm not gonna speak for Lindsey-- but you are not gonna tell me that the release of Lindsey Gaetani's cell phone extraction did not have serious, serious ramifications. Like, I can't even conceptualize what the impact was on Lindsey and her family's life. I don't think my life was ever the same again after April of 2024. As traumatized as I was from that December 2023 court hearing, what happened in April of 2024 was the worst thing that I have ever seen happen to any human being in my entire life. [Speaking to chat] Oh, hi Lindsey, how are you? I've just never seen anything that horrific, the leak of that cell phone extraction, the impact that it had, the fact that no one even understood how severe it was because people were so distracted by the polemics of it. People were so "excited" to be able to smear Lindsey and the distraction was so powerful that no one asked, one, why did this happen? Or two, what was the impact? And that's what really got me so passionate and furious about this. It wasn't an issue of substantive guilt or innocence about anyone. It was that I was seeing the same exact stuff happen in this situation to people without political connections that I saw happen to the staff of the CCC when really powerful men started getting very, very, very close to each other in positions of power and then when they would do bad things to women, they would just talk to each other. One guy would run the HR department, the other guy would run the executive director position, and somebody else would have a connection to the appointing authority. And so any complaint would just be what's called "caught and killed." And I said, there is no way that this is gonna happen again. When it was happening in the CCC, it was an administrative regulatory agency. At least there was some sort of semblance of check and balance. It wasn't egregious because everyone had a lot of influence, even the people who were staffers. This situation, we had state police officers, people who, if you were listening to the just the narrative of the people who were supporting the Justice for John O'Keefe movement, you would think that Michael Proctor's infallible. You would think Brian Tully's infallible. You would think Kate Peter's infallible, which means incapable of fault. That's nonsense. I'm telling you right now, that's nonsense, and that's why it was so easy for this stuff to manifest. And that's why I became so personally concerned. Forget about what developed from April to April of 2024 until now. That's why I was so upset because I watched what happened from December of 2023 through to April of 2024. And that enough was so egregious, so wrong, such an abuse of trust, such an abuse of the justice system that I said, there is no way that I can just stand by and be apathetic about this, no matter what the price, no matter what the obstacles, no matter what the pressures. And I can't tell you how bad it was --it tore families apart, these cases-- if you didn't live through it. It tore communities apart. I don't believe anyone in Massachusetts around this area, 128 or Dedham or whatever, was able to live a life that was not impacted in some way by this case. Okay, these cases, the TurtleBoy case, Karen Read case, et cetera, et cetera. It frustrates me to no end that somehow within that high-profile situation, there were people who started to control the narrative because they had things to hide. And that's why I started this space, because I truly believe that the real secrets lying beneath what was really going on with Michael Proctor and Brian Tully and Kate Peter and the PI, Marty Kraft and Jen McCabe and Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning and Nick Guarino. What I really believe was going on was that they were worried that the attention brought onto that unit by the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case was gonna spill their secrets about Birchmore. And it led them to double down and commit even more egregious acts in the context of some of this other behavior, like leaking Lindsey Gaetani's cell phone extraction. And that's, again, you wanna talk about the timeline from April 2024 until now, we can do that too. But what I'll tell you is the story ends up being the same. I have graphs, I've looked at the Google Analytics, the data does not lie. Every single time starting in April 2024, that Jen McCabe would become the subject of public attention. It happens at specific, specific discrete moments on the timeline. You see a bump in the attention paid to Lindsey. And there's no doubt in my mind that this unit, when they had Michael Morrissey make that video, when McCabe's friends or family or whatever, when they all got him to make that video, and that didn't work. When Morrissey had to recuse, when things got so bad that they had no other out and the TurtleRiders would not pay attention to anyone but those Karen Read and John O'Keefe witnesses, Tully and his people said, "all right, we're left with no other option. Lindsey Gaetani looks like a good distraction. Let's release her phone." And then that cycle repeated over and over and over and over again. And Lindsey's not the only one who's been subject to this. You wanna talk about what's going on to Estey? Even what's going on with Deanna? With Meredith? What's going on with a lot of these people, right? There were PIs and moles in the internet saying that Lindsey was that and separating that. There were PIs, moles and various people in the end, just sort of people who were trying to either support Karen or support a movement that they could believe in or whatever it was, who got exploited, who got ran by various people for intel purposes to feed information back to their various handlers. And when they became expendable, they got burned. You watch, look at these emails sent to all these people's schools, the mass emails. That can't be a coincidence. Whoever it benefits can't be a coincidence, all right? It's a coordinated tactic. It's designed to put public attention on very specific people when otherwise damaging information gets released. And what have we seen over the past, let's say from April 2024 until now, what have we seen? That over and over and over again, all right? Every time something would happen, there'd be a new distraction. And then as we got through the end of the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case, what did we see? Yes, there were some real, real secrets lying beneath in terms of this case. And I mean it, I mean it with every bone and fiber in my towel body. There were secrets about the Birchmore case. There were secrets about that phone extraction. There were secrets about the inside baseball and the communications between Tully and Kate and Tully and Jen McCabe and Michael Morrissey and Kate and Michael Morrissey and Jen McCabe. And as it all started to come out and as it crescendoed folks over the past few months to the point where Michael Proctor's own attorney was basically making misrepresentations to the court about the existence of 12 years of cell phone records. When he had Kate Peter deleting evidence from Google Drives that were submitted as formal records to grand juries in the Kearney proceedings. When you have a special prosecutor statute that is so broken, it allows a DA rather than complying with the court order to appoint a new special prosecutor to just no-cross cases. So that stuff like what we've been talking about doesn't come out. It's indefensible. But what is the karmic justice here? It is that for whatever reason, Michael Proctor's cell phone records which I truly believe were captured and swept up by the feds during their federal probe of either Farwell or Tully's unit or John O'Keefe's death, whatever it was, exposing a lot of this. It's not just the Rule 14 discovery related to Kate Peter and otherwise and Tully that was turned over in the Aidan Kearney case, the 5,000 pages of material. Initially 4,000 pages of it was mysteriously just blank. It's not just that folks. It's also the, hey, Michael Proctor's cell phone until months ago, August of 2025 was hidden from the public. It was hidden from criminal defendants until someone somewhere must have informed Michael Proctor that a full copy of that cell phone already existed so there was no point in him continuing to hide it. What does this speak to? Well, it speaks to why I started this space today because in light of everything I just laid out from memory. I wanted to see if there was a single person who would be willing to stand up here and defend Michael Proctor's state police unit, Ryan Tully, John Fanning, Yuri Bukhenik, any of them or Kate Peter or Jen McCabe. Not because of their actions necessarily in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case but because of everything I just laid out and the silence would let it speak volumes because how are you possibly going to counter any of that? This is what I'm doing from memory sitting here while trying to challenge people to a debate. That is just a part of the historical record. I cannot put into words how much more expansive in scope some of this story is and it's not any one person's story to tell. Let me also go on a rant about this. I'm getting so frustrated with the possessive approach that some people take to some of this coverage. Do you care about what was done to the most vulnerable? I don't care if you think of Karen as vulnerable, Lindsey is vulnerable, Sandra Birchmore is vulnerable, whoever you think of as vulnerable. Do you care about what happened to them? Do you care about righting the wrongs? Do you care about actually talking about the misconduct or are you trying to make a polemical point in furtherance of some specific platform that either you run or you support? What are you trying to accomplish? And I think a lot of us recently have been forced to have some very difficult moral reckoning. Okay, because a lot of us were tricked. I felt absolutely tricked into supporting Michael Proctor. If I knew, I'm not saying about the merits of the John O'Keefe investigation. If I knew then, back in 2023, 2024, what I know now about what's on that phone and about what that unit was willing to do, I never would have supported them. We supported Lindsey, but I never would have supported that unit. I'm sorry. Nope, never would have done it. And that's why I want to talk about people became very possessive about coverage of this case. Reporters are supposed to fade into the background. It's not supposed to be about us. Yes, maybe you have some skills. The reporter, people are interested. You use those skills to get a following so you can tell a story and get the facts out there, but it's not supposed to be about us. If a reporter is the centerpiece of a story, they have failed. Okay, you just blend in the background. We make sure that the people who are the most harmed, their voices are centered. And then we make sure these predatory vultures, like Kate Peter, are unable to manipulate public narratives to protect entrenched systemic power structures. That's what it's all about. So for me, that's why I get so frustrated. That's why I wanted to do this space because I wanted to make a point that when forced to actually debate on merit, all the propaganda mouthpieces will run from the chance. They're happy to get up and shit talk other people when it's a space they control, and they don't have to address the merits. But you put them in a position where they don't control the space and they're forced to debate on merit and they'll run from it. So in some sense, I made my point. But I also think it's an important exercise in telling this story, in explaining where I'm coming from. I think there are a lot of us that are all coming to the same position, which is it doesn't matter what various camp we may have been in or what not. We're not defined by that. We are just individual humans who have a bunch of views on different cases. And at the end of the day, a lot of us, more so, I think than people realize, actually care about systemic reform. We're not in it to protect Kate Peter or Jen McCabe or Brian Tully or anybody. We're here to hold people to equal standards and ask that the justice system do the same. And I think that's a noble goal. That's something that I can believe in. I wish people would be willing to debate it, though. It frustrates me. It really frustrates me. And, you know, maybe that's the nature of it. Maybe it's that making this point requires showing the litany of evidence, showing the sort of timeline, showing the overlapping concentric social circles, talking about these people, talking about what they did, talking about the implications, talking about where this is going. That's what cuts out the propaganda. To me, everyone is capable of fault. I said this the other day. If there are people out there in your orbit who are telling you that they are incapable of fault, they're a threat to the United States. They're the most dangerous, pernicious force we can imagine. Everyone's capable of fault. And we should look to the people who, in spite of their faults, try to leave the world a better place than what they found when they arrived. I think there are those of us. In spite of absolutely inculcating incredible odds who have somehow managed to get to a point where we've centered the voices, we're not there yet, where we're centering the voices who are actually impacted by all this. And if that happens, mark my words, it will not be because of any large media platforms or networks or anything. It will be in spite of them. It will be in spite of their impact inside dealing in spite of the documentary contracts, in spite of the news networks. It will be because a small group of well-meaning people were willing to band together and say, everything else aside, we can stand behind what's right. It may not be a form of right that we all agree on, but starting from that place, instead of from a place of hatred or otherwise, is a good step. I don't know where this is going. I don't know where it's going. I know that no one will stand up here and defend Kate Peter and Brian Tully, at least in a debate with me where I control the playing field. Can you blame them? But I don't know where this is going. You're on my prediction. As someone who's, I think I've not lived this as much as some other people, but I've lived it a lot. It's been a lot. And I'm never gonna understand the impact that this had on the people who had directly impacted, but it's been a lot on a lot of people. The story has impacted many lives. Even myself, with the perspective I have, kind of sitting back here on my veranda, you can call me Thomas Jefferson Towel. I don't have any hemp though, or do I? Sitting on my veranda, kind of looking forward, right here, all right? I got my public records request back today. I know when a public records request denial is like, oh, we want to stonewall this because there's something there. And I'm getting that vibe related to the contacts between the Norfolk DA's office and the Mass AGO's office between September 25th and October 24th of 2025 related to whether the Norfolk DA reached out to appoint a new special prosecutor in the Lindsey Gaetani and Aidan Kearney cases. But as I'm sitting here on my veranda with my eyes closed, I don't have a veranda. I have a desk. I'm a little towel. As I'm sitting here with my eyes closed, I can see the future materializing, okay? There's only certain roads that this can go down. There are only so many pathways left. There's a reckoning coming, folks. Whether it's a reckoning by way of the Sandra Birchmore cover-up, whether it's a reckoning by way of Michael Proctor's attempt to hide a substantial amount of evidence across a substantial number of criminal cases, whether it's related to Kate Peter's involvement in the handling of evidence in the still remaining Aidan Kearney cases. You can sense the anticipation. You can sense the apprehension and anxiety. And you can sense imminent closure. I'm not saying that is gonna be an easy process. I'm not saying it's gonna be a short process. But I'm saying there's something in the air. It's undeniable. There's little left to defend. There's not a single person, troll or otherwise anonymous account or whatever, who would stand up here today right now and with me and try to defend Kate Peter and Brian Tully. I gave you the chance. There's a time, if I had done this space a year ago, oh, people would have been jumping at the bit. No one will do it. No one. Why? Because we're at the end of the road. What Proctor did was indefensible, not in the Read O'Keefe case, although he should never have used those words about Karen. I'd critique him if he was a private citizen, although obviously I'm protective of women, right? But say what you will about that. I wouldn't use those words in private. That man used them in his capacity as a police officer. Right? Not to mention the other defendants' cases that were impacted by whatever Proctor and Sean Goode and whoever else was on that text chain and whatever else is on that phone is gonna lead to. You can sense it. You can sense the reckoning coming. The question is, back to Watergate in the '70s, there was a member of the House of Representatives during the impeachment hearings in '74. We had a very famous phrase. "What did the President know and when did he know?" Folks, the phrase of our era will be, "What did Michael Morrissey know and when did he know it?" This cannot start and end with justice for any single person involved in this. This is not about any one person at this point. This is about a system of justice in Massachusetts that I suppose was not about justice long before any of us realized it was teetering on the brink of collapse. Annie Dookhan was a warning that we all ignored to our peril. I should have seen it when they somehow got Lindsey that same lawyer that Annie Dookhan had. I should have seen it. It's notโI didn't realize until last week that lawyer George was a handler. Dookhan could create a hugeโit could have created huge exposure for some people in the state police. It's incredible. If somebody painted the picture of the power structure that was at play here. Karen Read, when she said she was afraid of these people, I didn'tโwhen she said it in the text or something and somebody leaked it. When I first started covering this case, I would not have got it. I don't know what it had been like. What do you mean? They're a state police unit. Like, yeah, they're paramilitary. Like, if you're a criminal, you should fear them, but they're not scary. Right now, after some of the stuff, and I'm talking about half the stuff I've seen as people pull, they horrifying. I think they're cornered, by the way. I don't think there's much they can do. They're getting a little desperate, burning a lot of their agents and their moles. And that's why I sense some kind of reckoning coming. You don't burn deep cover moles. I think Deanna was a mole for Kate for a while. You don't burn somebody like that unless it's almost over. Same thing with Kristy, the way Kristy's been burning everybody. I don't know who the hell she was working for, but whatever she's doing has got to be close to over because you don't burn everybody down unless it's almost over. So why is it almost over, folks? Why? What's coming? Some combination of all of this stuff. And if you want my fundamental prediction, let me give it to you like this. I don't like that it's coming to this, but it's a political question. It's a question of what the narrative is going to be. You don't just, as everyone now knows, you don't just prosecute people because they do things wrong. There's always a decision tree. So what do the feds want out of this? The people who were involved in the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder, whoever was the father of Sandra's unborn child, you know, it's not that Matt Farwell. Well, and then they obviously want this MSP unit. Okay, Michael Proctor, that cell phone, didn't just get cloned. It was a setup. They let Proctor lie to the judge about all those cases and all the cell phone records. And as soon as his lawyer filed the document, they moved on him. He must be under federal investigation. How did Aidan Kearney get those text messages from Jen McCabe to KF and Allie McCabe? Those were removed from Jen McCabe's extraction. The feds cloned her phone too, just like Aidan told Lindsey in those text messages as part of Exhibit O from November 28, 2023. Why did the feds clone Jen McCabe's phone? To see what Jen would withhold in the Rule 14 process. She didn't get banged up on charges federally, so she must have not done anything that bad. Something, however, is going to happen to Proctor, in turn, legally on the federal level. You can sense it. You can sense it. They're going to indict him. But for what? But then it leaves Tully, which was what this whole stream is about. We have the email from Tully. Forget about whether it's normal procedure for Tully to instruct Proctor to look into all the defense witnesses. We now know that Proctor was not running that case. It was Tully. It was all Brian Tully. What was the meme that I put up today? I really like this one. It says, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm Brian Tully and I'm here to help." Attributed to Ronald Reagan. My point is though, it was Brian Tully. Look at it. Kate was his little, I don't know, what do we want to call, how can we say this nicely? You know, I'm trying to rise above and encourage more reasonable, respectful discourse. So Kate was his little, this is so hard. All right, let me, let me say a prayer here. Come on, now you can do this. Okay. So, there are so many words I want to use. Kate was his little assistant. I know, I know. You were expecting something wonderful. Every single thing that I was going to say there was going to be cruel, so I'm sorry. Kate was his little assistant, his little PI there. And then, I'm going to turn it around, nightmare PI Moms, version 2, Kate Peter, Jen McCabe, let's go down the seaport. Kate Peter was his little PI until he was quarterbacking all this. I think it was Morrissey who was even cut out of the loop a little bit, although I'm not sure he wasn't more involved than I'm willing to say right now. And you can see why it happened. Because when Morrissey recused in October of 2023 from the Aidan Kearney cases, and what became the Aidan Kearney and Karen Read investigations that are still ongoing, he didn't really recuse. He just had Tully and Kate running it. I started to wonder if Jen McCabe was like a PI for a case she was a witness on. I'm really starting to wonder that.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1987503776723320894/amplify_video_thumb/1987502597427662848/img/rCXN6v-5U_9-ODTv.jpg)
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people ๐ฏ Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs ๐ Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR ๐ Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcherโs revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public servicesโeven when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherismโs shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something betterโa better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Governmentโs Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, โIโm more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.โ I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the Houseโon the Opposition BenchesโI get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class peopleโthe public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their placeโat the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curveโthey are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the publicโa model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industryโits excessesโhave cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisationโs inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Governmentโs economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternativeโan alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the publicโ Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapseโthese are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UKโs water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: ยฃ72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this countryโ Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companiesโselling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our waterโare not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009โnot in a boy bandโI experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about itโit is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human rightโa right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problemโit is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, โBut we have just passedโโ Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can nowโfor my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, โBut we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?โ Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered downโ[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one inโit was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Governmentโs Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targetsโjust vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. Noโwe must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our countryโs water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Governmentโs legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the roomโwho owns our waterโhas been ruled out of the Cunliffe commissionโs operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasuryโhe probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the Peopleโs Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Governmentโs Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one exampleโ Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is outโlicence terminated and on its bikeโand those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, โWhere will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?โ I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 yearsโI am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than ยฃ60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than ยฃ7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now ยฃ15.2 billion in debt and countingโwork that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a ยฃ3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownershipโsomething that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Waterโs case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith roseโ Mark Ferguson roseโ Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Waterโthat half a billion pounds in interest paymentsโwill keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should haveโfrom us, the publicโand every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell gamesโjust clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each otherโs backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbertโs novel โDuneโ believed: โA manโs flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribeโ. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)